which the cardinal helped prepare.nAnd they, both see capital punishment,nabortion, and euthanasia as part of thendangerous and growing “ethic ofndeath.”nHentoff is impressed with the cardinal’snpersonal strength of character, hisnsensitivity toward others, and his openness,nwhich, to Hentoff, symbolizes thengreatest aspect of the post-Vatican IInChurch. Still, Hentoff devotes the firstnand last chapters to agitating for furthernliberalization. Every problem in thenAmerican church — the decliningnnumbers of priests, the lack of adherencento the church’s moral teachings,netc. — can be solved, Hentoff says, bynfurther abandonment of orthodoxy.nHe doesn’t consider that the church’sn20-year crisis is correlated not with thenascent of orthodoxy, but with the descentnfrom traditional ecclesiastical andnliturgical teachings.nYet while the author’s bias flaws thenbook, it. does not spoil its strongestntheme: how and why has the politicalnideology of the American CatholicnChurch come to cut across the bound-‘naries of conventional partisanship?nO’Connor is not alone among the USnbishops in favoring positions of bothnthe right (Christian morality, pro-life)nand the left (welfarism, nuclear disarmament).nAnd given the hierarchy’sncommitment to social activism, thisnCatholic version of fusionism will continuento have influence, for better andnworse.nJeffrey Tucker is a fellow of thenLudwig von Mises Institute in Fairfax,nVirginia.nThe Way We Do Itnby Leo RaditsanArmageddon in the Classroom: AnnExamination of Nuclear Educationnby Herbert I. LondonnLanham, MD: University Pressnof AmericanThis book gathers important informationnon the politicization of thenschools, even the elementary schools, atnthe cost of facts — and flight from thenworld. The means of politicization:n”nuclear education” is widespread, ac­ncording to London’s rudimentary evidence.nHe contacted over 300 majornschool districts, and 16 of the 162ndistricts that answered had formal nuclearneducation programs either at thenprimary or secondary level, a figure thatnled him to extrapolate between 12 andn15 percent throughout the country.nBut formal curricula do not tell thenwhole story: every one of the 162ndistricts reported a “unit” on nuclearnweapons somewhere between first andntwelfth grade. Of the 16 schools withnformal curricula that answered, sixnfound nuclear materials “balanced.”nThe rest found them biased but justifiedntheir use with the excuse “that nothingnelse is available to teach the subject.”nAsked whether the subject should bentaught at all, they replied that “this is anlife or death issue that we mustnconfront” — in the schools.nThe teachers who had to live withnthe consequences of the administrators’nreadiness to yield to pressure were morenblunt, the bluntness that comes of livingnin contradictions: “I don’t want to indoctrinatenmy students, but I am in antrap. The board wants me to teachnabout nuclear weapons, but the onlynguides available to me are written bynone side.”nNinety percent of schools with formalnprograms use seven manuals writtennnot by scholars and scientists, but bynactivist groups whose revealing pedigreesnLondon does not mention. Forninstance, the Union of Concerned Scientists,nresponsible for one of the manualsnmost used. Choices: A Unit onnConflict and Nuclear War, numbersnfew scientist members: a random pollnin 1982 of 7,741 scientists, turned upnonly one member, a result that led tonthe extrapolation of less than 200nmembers from the 130,000 scientistsnlisted in American Men and Women ofnScience. Or take International Physiciansnfor the Prevention of NuclearnWar, which won the Nobel Prize inn1985, whose copresident, with Dr.nBernard Lown of Harvard, is Dr.nEugene Chazov, Soviet deputy ministernof health, and which divides itsnmembership between members of thenSoviet Academy of Medical Sciencesnand American doctors, “a loony symmetry,”nan American journalist callednit. “Never forget the appeal that thenidea of disarmament has in the outsidenworld. All you have to do is say, Tm innnnfavor of it,’ and that pays big dividends,”nKhrushchev in Septembern1960 told Arkady Shevchenko, whonworried that the sudden Soviet offer ofncomplete disarmament would undonserious, much more limited, negotiationsnto control armaments.nBesides their luminous pedigrees, thenorganizations that design these curriculanhave cash, a good deal of it from foundations.nIn 1985 the MacArthur Foundationngave 25 million dollars, overnthree years, for nuclear education programs—nmost of it for universities andn”think-tanks” but some also fornschools,-with Ruth Adams (former editornof the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists)nas director. In 1987 the Ford Foundationnspent four million dollars fornpeace studies programs, the CarnegienCorporation five to seven million dollars,nspecifically for “risk reduction centers”nin Moscow and Washington tonfoster contacts between Soviet andnArperican scientists and scholars. ThenRockefeller Brothers Fund also givesnmoney to “scholars” in search of ways tonprevent a nuclear crisis. Because most ofnthis work does not study the events leadingnup to our present situation, becausenit never thinks of learning fromnthe past, it can only provide academicnendorsement for political activism.nThe manuals and school curriculanpretend to openness, but it is an opennessnthat brooks no opposition: “Nonparticular political view other than thendesire to end the arms race is embraced,”nis one of the peace organizations’nself-descriptions. They rarelynmention deterrence, because mentioningndeterrence would mean recognizingnactual danger, recognizing thatnthere may be good reasons for nuclearnweapons, reasons other than adult irresponsibility.nThe “all or nothing” psychology ofnthese groups makes discussion withnthem next to impossible: “The peacenadvocates argue that if all Americansnwere only sensitive to the destructivenefforts of nuclear war, we can put thengenie back in the botfle.” They want ton”sensitize” those who disagree, andnassume their opponents want nuclearnwar, not to prevent it through firmness.n”Sensitizing” means exciting fear: “Inam very scared — very, very scared.nBecause with a nuclear war, .you don’tnhave a chance to survive,” the HarvardnEducational Review quoted a studentnMAY 1989/39n