The Kennedy Neurosis, by Nancy Gager Clinch (Smeared Inkblots)

The Kennedy Neurosis By Nancy Gager Clinch Grosset & Dunlap, 433 pp., $10 If anything could ever make me like the Kennedys, it would have to be a book like The Kennedy Neurosis. Were it not for her liberal use of psychological jargon and the subtitle “a psychological portrait of an American dynasty,” Ms. Clinch’s new book on the offending tribe would be little more than another catty, unpleasant examination of a rather unlovely group of people. However, after clipping, filing, and deploying all of the fact, gossip, and opinion available from secondary sources, Ms. Clinch has invoked the name of a new science: Psychohistory. She would have us take this pile of un-selective biographical detail—nearly all from previously published sources—as a serious work.

For conservatives overjoyed at seeing the Kennedy bubble burst after all those years of Camelot worship, the temptation to applaud is great. But should any responsible person encourage this particularly distasteful offshoot of the new journalism that pretends to science and attempts to explain politics, diplomacy, and Lord knows what else on the basis of the emotional quirks of the participants? I think not. Even more strongly, I think that once the trend toward psychohistory steps up, our side is going to bear the brunt of it far more than the Left—and far more savagely.

AB

About the Author

Aram Bakshian Jr.

Featured Tags

The Kennedy Neurosis By Nancy Gager Clinch Grosset & Dunlap, 433 pp., $10 If anything could ever make me like the Kennedys, it would have to be a book like The Kennedy Neurosis. Were it not for her liberal use of psychological jargon and the subtitle “a psychological portrait of an American dynasty,” Ms. Clinch’s new book on the offending tribe would be little more than another catty, unpleasant examination of a rather unlovely group of people. However, after clipping, filing, and deploying all of the fact, gossip, and opinion available from secondary sources, Ms. Clinch has invoked the name of a new science: Psychohistory. She would have us take this pile of un-selective biographical detail—nearly all from previously published sources—as a serious work.

For conservatives overjoyed at seeing the Kennedy bubble burst after all those years of Camelot worship, the temptation to applaud is great. But should any responsible person encourage this particularly distasteful offshoot of the new journalism that pretends to science and attempts to explain politics, diplomacy, and Lord knows what else on the basis of the emotional quirks of the participants? I think not. Even more strongly, I think that once the trend toward psychohistory steps up, our side is going to bear the brunt of it far more than the Left—and far more savagely.