Books in Brief

Revolution in Cuba, by Herbert L. Matthews (Scribner’s, 468 pp., illus., $15). “A new look at Castro’s Cuba by America’s foremost authority,” the dustjacket of Mr. Matthews’ new book trumpets. Foremost authority on what? For those with sound memories, Mr. Matthews, a veteran correspondent for the New York Times, will be recalled as the man who has been wrongest longest about Cuba, Castro, and the criminal nature of his hero’s Banana Marxism. That Communism is not the complete explanation for the motives of a rum lot of bright misfits like Castro and company is undoubtedly true. Squalid, corrupt old-line regimes and the personal inadequacies that drive rebels as a type to violent adventure deserve considerable credit. When Matthews suggests, for example, that El Jefe survived a number of early scrapes through luck, one of Fidel’s acolytes angrily retorted, “Not luck, balls!” Considering the morose, hypochondriacal Che Guevara, the androgynous, shrill-voiced Raul Castro and his posturing Latin Hemingway of an older brother, one wonders whether much of their fervor for guns, blood, and power was not based on a desire to reassure themselves of their own rather dubious manliness. But, whatever the cause, the result is an essentially Marxist totalitarian state with just enough colorful local garnish to throw off gullible enthusiasts. “In Cuba today all children are educated and all education is free. The government furnishes free clothes, lunches, and in many cases, board and lodging,” we read in one gushing photo caption that neglects to mention the free censorship and free indoctrination that complete the package. Mr. Matthews, who delights in recoiling from the comparatively limited atrocities of the Batista regime against Castro’s terrorists, seems to shrug off the extensive murders and imprisonments ordered by his hero. After all, he tells us, Fidel is “groping for a form of government and society that respects human dignity and self-development.” Only, of course, for those it doesn’t kill, jail, degrade, or drive into exile first. One can’t help wishing that Mr. Matthews, who did so much to build Castro’s popular Robin Hood image during his days in the Sierra Maestra, had been as frank then as he is now in labeling Castro’s movement the “Marxist-Leninist Cuban Revolution,” and in openly admitting that he finds “more than enough” in it to “consider it praiseworthy.” ARAM BAKSHIAN JR.

Amoral America, by George C. S. Benson and Thomas S. Engeman (Hoover Institution Press, 294 pp., $8.95). Plato was probably right. A quality society is best achieved by a deliberate program of isolated indoctrination. Otherwise you are likely to wind up with the logical extension of egalitarianism wherein ethics, values, and morality are subject to constant referendum. Professors Benson and Engeman suggest this and more. With scholarly precision these political scientists impale the “imperative” of social ethics that denies individual responsibility in favor of corporate guilt. Moreover, they score the intellectuals who, by leading us toward national masochism, have produced a moral vacuum. The authors assert that the cure for this dry rot is a concentrated program of individual ethical instruction from kindergarten onward. They reason that with reinforcement from church and family it may yet be possible to wrest the initiative from the “if it feels good, do it” school of situation ethics. The linchpin of their argument is the assumption that the schools are equal to this ambitious undertaking. There is considerable room for doubt. Yet one is reminded of the admonition that civilization is a race between education and disaster. Benson and Engeman offer a convincing case that if we continue to lurch toward moral ambivalence, the race is over.

Featured Tags

Revolution in Cuba, by Herbert L. Matthews (Scribner’s, 468 pp., illus., $15). “A new look at Castro’s Cuba by America’s foremost authority,” the dustjacket of Mr. Matthews’ new book trumpets. Foremost authority on what? For those with sound memories, Mr. Matthews, a veteran correspondent for the New York Times, will be recalled as the man who has been wrongest longest about Cuba, Castro, and the criminal nature of his hero’s Banana Marxism. That Communism is not the complete explanation for the motives of a rum lot of bright misfits like Castro and company is undoubtedly true. Squalid, corrupt old-line regimes and the personal inadequacies that drive rebels as a type to violent adventure deserve considerable credit. When Matthews suggests, for example, that El Jefe survived a number of early scrapes through luck, one of Fidel’s acolytes angrily retorted, “Not luck, balls!” Considering the morose, hypochondriacal Che Guevara, the androgynous, shrill-voiced Raul Castro and his posturing Latin Hemingway of an older brother, one wonders whether much of their fervor for guns, blood, and power was not based on a desire to reassure themselves of their own rather dubious manliness. But, whatever the cause, the result is an essentially Marxist totalitarian state with just enough colorful local garnish to throw off gullible enthusiasts. “In Cuba today all children are educated and all education is free. The government furnishes free clothes, lunches, and in many cases, board and lodging,” we read in one gushing photo caption that neglects to mention the free censorship and free indoctrination that complete the package. Mr. Matthews, who delights in recoiling from the comparatively limited atrocities of the Batista regime against Castro’s terrorists, seems to shrug off the extensive murders and imprisonments ordered by his hero. After all, he tells us, Fidel is “groping for a form of government and society that respects human dignity and self-development.” Only, of course, for those it doesn’t kill, jail, degrade, or drive into exile first. One can’t help wishing that Mr. Matthews, who did so much to build Castro’s popular Robin Hood image during his days in the Sierra Maestra, had been as frank then as he is now in labeling Castro’s movement the “Marxist-Leninist Cuban Revolution,” and in openly admitting that he finds “more than enough” in it to “consider it praiseworthy.” ARAM BAKSHIAN JR.

Amoral America, by George C. S. Benson and Thomas S. Engeman (Hoover Institution Press, 294 pp., $8.95). Plato was probably right. A quality society is best achieved by a deliberate program of isolated indoctrination. Otherwise you are likely to wind up with the logical extension of egalitarianism wherein ethics, values, and morality are subject to constant referendum. Professors Benson and Engeman suggest this and more. With scholarly precision these political scientists impale the “imperative” of social ethics that denies individual responsibility in favor of corporate guilt. Moreover, they score the intellectuals who, by leading us toward national masochism, have produced a moral vacuum. The authors assert that the cure for this dry rot is a concentrated program of individual ethical instruction from kindergarten onward. They reason that with reinforcement from church and family it may yet be possible to wrest the initiative from the “if it feels good, do it” school of situation ethics. The linchpin of their argument is the assumption that the schools are equal to this ambitious undertaking. There is considerable room for doubt. Yet one is reminded of the admonition that civilization is a race between education and disaster. Benson and Engeman offer a convincing case that if we continue to lurch toward moral ambivalence, the race is over.