a large number of individuals withinnthe organization, and in symmetricalnfeshion it exacts an equivalent obediencenoutside. The modern corporationnexpects and receives a high levelnof conformity from the many in itsnmanagement. And its property resourcesnaccord it an extensive commandnover the many it employs. Fromnthis flows an extensive submission bynthe citizenry and the state. As in thencase of the military, the purposes ofnthe great business enterprise, thenideas that sustain it are largely, thoughnnot quite completely, above debate.nOfSocUilisni ami SeutimettUilttyn”Socialism.” wrote Dosioi-vsky in Hx’nI’DSsessL’cl. “spreads among iis chieflynbecause ofsentiinenialiu.” lie was. ofncourse, writing aboul upper-iiiiddleclass.nI yth-ci-nlur Russian society, but anri-MmiH)l”l’n>iihlc(lJi>ur}uy:J’nitnPentinHarhnr In Roiiciltl Ki’H}>(in ( Hill andnVt ang; i-w i>vk) by l-redcrick Siigi-1nsuggests that the rise of the Americannev LelUliiringthe l’)(i()’s was;I1M)madenpossible by the spread of rootless sentiinenl;Uilynduring ihi- ^O’v Amongi onsi-rvalives.nthe ^l)S are often uncriticalbnlauded as a time of social stabilitv whennIdlism was lgoroiisly opposed both atnhome and abroad, lint, howevi-r braveUthenMarines may have touglil at Inchon,nand however zealously the House 111-n.merican .Xcliv ities (iommillee may havenpressed its case in lUillywood. middlenAmerica in the SOs was in the prtKessofnsurrendering ils religious convictions,nthe most important slay against thenseniimenlalily that preceiles leftistninnovation.nThough long deepU divideil overnquestions of religions doctrine, .Xmericansnhave fi)r most of their history beenntirmly uniteil in |v)nderingsuch i|U(.’siionsnwitli iiiisentiinenial moral seriousness. Innthe iyTl). Dr. Siegel shows, tliatnchanged, as doctrinal religion melted inton20MMHHHHHHHnChronicles of CulturenL he point of Galbraith’s argument isnclear: military and corporate powernmust be undercut, and the power ofnthose elements in society opposed tonthem must be enhanced. This meansnlimits on corporations, more power fornunions and consumer groups, a shift ofngovernment resources from military tonnonmilitary programs, and an overallngrowth in state power. In short, Galbraithnuses the concept of power tondevelop a philosophical brief for thenliberal agenda, one that shares the samenK otablesn”a syrupy religion of good feelings” innwhich the pursuit of personal and familiiilnhappiness was guided by an outlookn”relaxed, unadvi-niurous, comfortahbsatisfiednwith … life ;ind blandly optimisticnabout the future.” Fafling to perceiventhe absence of religious rigor signaled byntiiis complacence. John F. Kennedy, whon”wore his religion lightly,” offered annentertainment-seeking nation the enthusiasmnof his own elitist sentimen-ntalism. . vibrant governmi-ni orhen)esnand technocrats, a “guerrilla administration”nof “the best and the brightest.”nwould mi )vi- .America out i)!the doldrumsnwith high-sounding rhetoric, technicalnexpertise, and a few (ireen IJerets. 1-ed bthenspectacle of Cainelot. national sentimentalismnwas een more pronounced,nwidespread, and insatiable at Kennedy’sndeath. Vf’hcn the gallantry of the Gri-ennIJerets did not secure the quick andnnnsorts of biases, presuppositions, andninterpretations as Leuchtenburg’sntreatise. Galbraith provides the rationalenfor employing the Presidency as thenengine of liberalism: the sources ofnpower opposed to corporate and militarynpower must be concentrated, and itnis through state action that such concentrationnshould occur. As Roosevelt’sntenure demonstrates, the Presidency is anwonderful vehicle for accomplishingnthis growth in state power and thenimplementation of the liberal agenda.nThat is why all Presidents must benimpressive ictory in ‘ielnani of whichnKennedv’ was conliilent, then the elitism.niheatricalit. and activism which he hadnemployeil in initiating it became thentrademarks of the upper-middle-classncounterciiliiire w ho oppo,seil it. I lence. itnwas.ll-K. Siegel argues, who hail set tinlonenfi>r “radical chic.”nMeanwhile, true to Dostoevsky’snmaxim. I.ISJ rode the tide of liberalnsenlimentalism lowaril socialism withnthe dreat Society programs that inas-n.sively expanded .America’s welfare-stalenapparatus. “The idi-a of the (ireal Societv.”nSiegel notes.”… was a subsiiiiile lor thenolder set of political and moral iilealsnwhich had been displaced’ iluring then5()”s and i-arly ()()”s. ‘llie momenloiisnessnolthis shift is (•>eriepli’el’ explained hnSiegel: “The private virtiii’s essential lornthe public life of a democracy, nowni-roded. were to be supplied b’ the stale,nan eMraop.linan ileixirturc- in .Americannpolitical thought. (Shortly the New Leftnwould mimic the moral claims of then(ireat Society by offering itself as anreplaicmenl for those.sime lo.sl virtues. )••nI’hough Siegefs own fondness fornsecular lefl-liberalism weakens hisnargument at key points, his study wellnilluminates how .seniimental religiousnlaxity among the many has producednfri-netic activism in anil out of governmentnami )ng the tew.n