It is salutary to note just how indulgent the American press can be of Communist totalitarianism, in a way that it never would be of extremism on the opposite flank. Clearly McCarthyism has had a disastrous effect on American public life, but not in the way that what Lionel Trilling termed the 'adversary culture' has ever understood. Breindel saw this, and reminded his readers that the tawdry history of Communist espionage in America, as revealed in the Venona decrypts, demonstrated that Communism really was a threat to the democracies and that opposing it was axiomatic to democratic politics.

Breindel's passionate commitment to the defence of Israel was, likewise, a function of his commitment to democratic values. When slippery evasions and idle prejudices make their way into so much commentary about Israel, it is heartening to read an intelligent and robust assertion of the essential truth that Israel's defence is as much a liberal cause as the overthrow of apartheid.

This book is an example of fine style and intellectual substance, eloquently expressed; it is well worth reading.

Breindel died two years ago, 42 and way too young.

In many ways he might have been a contemporary of mine - his worldview of the former Soviet Union and of those stupid Americans who spied for "Uncle Joe" based upon his impeccable research was the same as mine; his unbridled contempt of Racists whatever their skin color mirrored my own feelings; as well as his blunt perspectives on the refusal of the Democratic Party to ferret out Left Fascists.

And while I might not be a son of Holocaust survivors as the author was, I too share the views on Israel and on Nazi collaborators and terrorists expressed by the author in the chapter entitled: "Fate of the Jews".

This small book which only scratched the surface of Breindel's powerful writings, is one that should be a part of every thoughtful American's home library whatever your race, religion, or creed might be. For Eric Breindel was a decent, true patriotic Jewish American whose writings reflected his deep love of Country and Religion, and who sadly passed on much too early.

Senator Moynihan applies his intellect and his strong academic and historical bent to examine the U.S. experience with secrecy, beginning with its early distrust of ethnic minorities. He applies his social science frames of reference to discuss secrecy as a form of regulation and secrecy as a form of ritual, both ultimately resulting in a deepening of the inherent tendency of bureaucracy to create and keep secrets-secrecy as the cultural norm. His historical overview, current right up to 1998, is replete with documented examples of how secrecy may have facilitated selected national security decisions in the short-run, but in the long run these decisions were not only found to have been wrong for lack of accurate open information that was dismissed for being open, but also harmful to the democratic fabric, in that they tended to lead to conspiracy theories and other forms of public distancing from the federal government. He concludes: "The central fact is that we live today in an Information Age. Open sources give us the vast majority of what we need to know in order to make intelligent decisions. Decisions made by people at ease with disagreement and ambiguity and tentativeness. Decisions made by those who understand how to exploit the wealth and diversity of publicly available information, who no longer simply assume that clandestine collection-that is, 'stealing secrets'-equals greater intelligence. Analysis, far more than secrecy, is the key to security....Secrecy is for losers."

Having said all this, this book is a true resevoir of wisdom. In tackling issues from moral decline to welfare reform to the drug war to "Reaganism," Moynihan both parts ways with contemporary liberalism while offering sharp critiques of past and current policies. Ever the social scientist, Moynihan is quick to demonstrate how "conventional wisdom" can be utterly wrong while at the same time dismissing those who would sieze on simplistice generalizations of scientific research in furtherance of radical agendas.

A difficult read but well worth it.

It's an argument for a different role for the social sciences in policy making. First, it's an argument by repeated example of the predictive power of the social sciences. And, second, it's a call for social scientists and the government to start doing work seriously on the issues of the day.

So, first. He's telling us that we can do social science that tells us things about the world that we live in. Like what? One, government supervision of the economy from WWII to the present day. Two, his observation in the 70s that the Soviet Union was already in the early stages of collapse. Three, his argument that the illegitimacy rates where (1) going to skyrocket and (2) that it would be a problem. He tells us that these were not mysterious phenomena and that had the data not been ignored, public policy could have addressed them appropriately. This is important, partly to remind us of it, but also to challenge some writers on the right, such as Thomas Sowell, who argues, essentially, the opposite.

Second, this book argues that both the social scientists and the politicians need to take social science seriously. And, furthermore, part of the problem is the liberal professionalization of "Do Gooders". Why wasn't illegitimacy attacked in the 60s and 70s? Because some of the people on the left really are as morally squishy as the people on the right say they are! They were afraid to push a family structure, especially a "traditional" one. However, the people on the right were too moralizing to achieve anything. Furthermore, he argues, that this phenomenon had been described by Durkheim in the Rules of Sociological Method.

This book is, in the end, a call for a scientifically-informed moderate social policy. A social policy that is not afraid to speak of "values" and, indeed, "family values", but is also not vindictive or punitive. Furthermore, it's proof-by-example that it is achievable.

However, as a history of the five ethnic groups it sets out to profile, Beyond the Melting Pot is excellent. It outlines the differing values each group had, plus the niches each group filled. Beyond the Melting pot also avoids misrepresentation by not reducing everything to economics, and admitting that certain groups/cultures really can value (and excel at)different things, something probably offensive to pc'ers.

It is obvious that Hodgson really likes his subject and strives mightily to shore him up, very often without success. An appropriate title for this book could very well have been "Forrest Gump Goes to the Senate." Moynihan turns up at every critical juncture in the history of American social policy....to what purpose, it is never clear. In fact, his entire career leaves one with the feeling, why was he here? This book does nothing to lay these questions to rest and does much to raise them over and over again. Since Jefferson, other men of thought have entered public life to build coalitions and accomplish great things. In this book, Moynihan's first impulse always seems to be to drape himself in a toga and write a monograph. Rather than building alliances with others, he builds moats around himself with gratuitously acerbic commentary.

By all means read the book. However, we can only hope that Hodgson will find a worthier subject for his next book.

Nonetheless, anyone interested in American or New York politics--or contemporary American history--is bound to find this an absorbing volume. After all, Moynihan's friends and associates have ranged from Averell Harriman to Henry Kissinger, from Arthur Goldberg to Richard Nixon, from Lyndon Johnson to Irving Kristol. He has exercised power in locales as varied as Albany, the U.S. Labor Department, the Nixon White House, the United Nations, New Delhi, and the U.S. Senate. Perhaps more than most political biographies, this is not just the story of one man but a political and intellectual history of the period in which his career flourished.

Yet the author's biases are apparent. He strives mightily to reconcile and explain Moynihan's political inconsistencies, styling him at one point an "orthodox centrist liberal"--whatever that means. (It strikes me as an oxymoron.) He tries to find consistent strains in what seems to me to have been a political career characterized most of all by opportunism, if not outright caprice. He tries to explain away Moynihan's alcohol problem, while reporting that his staff employs the euphemism that the Senator is "with the Mexican ambassador" to explain that he is enjoying Tio Pepe, his favorite dry sherry. He justifies the Senator's long-standing feud with the liberal wing of his party in light of some early slights at the hands of liberal New Yorkers, referring at one point to "the authoritarian left," an interesting turn of phrase in the wake of Gingrich and Co.

There are a number of obvious errors in the book. The author notes that in 1953, the Democrats had been out of power in New York State for 20 years, ignoring the fact that Democrat Herbert Lehman served as Governor through 1943, following FDR and Al Smith. He refers to the Comptroller General of the U.S. as a "Treasury official," although the C.G. is in charge of the U.S. General Accounting Office, a Congressional agency, not part of the Treasury Department. He suggests that President Clinton pledged that he would "vote for" the welfare reform legislation he eventually signed, missing the fact that America is not a parliamentary democracy.

Despite the weaknesses, this is a beguiling biography, which is for the most part well written, and sure to captivate anyone with more than a passing interest in U.S. politics. I do not regret for a minute the time I spent reading it.

Unlike another reviewer, I do not think that History will remember Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in the same thoughts as the great American senators, alongside L.B.J. or Daniel Webster. As noted, Moynihan is not known as one of the Senate's great legislators. Critics regularly pointed to the fact that he was never (at least, in a leadership role) associated with any sweeping legislation, and his lofty presence made accommodation and the give and take of the Senate was difficult for him.

This is a wonderful biography, which (except for the occasional errors pointed out by other reviewers) remains well written and an engrossing story. Biographer Godfrey Hodgson is admittedly a long-observing and apparently close friend of his subject. Some assert that this the major strength and major of this work while others assert that this is the major weakness of the biography. However, I remain unconvinced that for such an intimate portrait, complete (or even relative) objectivity is impossible to attain. It is hard to imagine a subject letting someone get close enough to do a thorough job who is not a friend. And as we too often see, without the at least tacit blessing of the subject, many people who can offer good insights will not cooperate.

Moynihan was seldom predictable from an ideological perspective. Who else could work for both Kennedy and Nixon, and end up vilified by both liberals and conservatives? Yet, he was consistently respected by Senate colleagues in both parties. Few seriously question the fact that he had a massive intellect. This makes even more interesting the fact that Moynihan so assiduously sought verification and validation of positions which he had taken years before (evidenced by the satisfaction he took as seeing the NAACP - endorsed writings with regard to his decades-earlier call to alarm with regard to the state of the Black family). While many on the left decried some of his positions (the author seems to infer that the occasional, but continued reference to his comment re "benign neglect" was more painful that the stenosis which afflicted his spine), he remained a champion of those whom society left behind.

All of those who are interested in American or New York politics will enjoy this read. However, I do not find it to be (nor do I think it tries to be) as much an in-depth tome on contemporary American history as another reviewer has suggested. For anyone looking for a study (and an attempted explanation) of an incredibly complex figure in 20th century American history, this is a fine addition to the mosaic.

The book concludes with Moynihan's musings regarding what now means to be a liberal, and the role (and ability) of government vis a vis social problems. This is thought provoking and a challenge to many readers (including myself). What else can we expect from a biography?

What I found was some very interesting, but short arguments against certain Reagan era policies mainly focused on the deficit and missile programs. The arguments were not knew if you have read some on the Reagan years and the predictions are proving to be on the money as the years go by. It was interesting, given the author's history and position, his view of the 80's and some of his arguments were not what I would have expected from a Democrat. Given these few positives I finished the book but ended thinking that I gained very little from reading it. If you are a huge fan of the Senator or just want a starter book on the arguments against some of the Reagan positions then you might enjoy the book, if you have read a number of books on the topic then you will be disappointed.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan shows that there was mature dissent during the Reagan years. Mature in that he took on the Reaganites on there own terms and avoided the simplistic ranting of those who saw no problem with the explosion of government during the 1970's.

Moreover, this collection serves as an encyclopedia of political wit (see the Gridiron Club address), prophecy (i.e. triple digit deficits and the fall of the Soviet Union), and the function of government.

Highly recommended for those seeking sophisticated agruments to demonstrate that Reagan and "Reaganism" did not have a positive influence on this country.