Having watched Martin Anderson's participation in the Republican national "spin doctoring" campaign that followed the Bentsen-Quayle TV debate, I now find it extraordinarily difficult to take at face value anything Anderson says on the subject of American politics. Perhaps I am being overly critical, but I strongly detected in Anderson's review of C. Menges' "Inside the National Security Council" a clear plug for George Bush as foreign policy maker and all-around take-charge guy.
Academic specialists gain credibility as a result of their professional analytical detachment. Sadly, Anderson seems to have lost sight of this truth. For him to subtly plug Bush in a book review--after disingenuously declaring on national television that Dan Quayle was a "clear winner" in his debate with Lloyd Bentsen--is nothing short of outrageous. Sadly, it serves to reveal the growing partisan debasement of the currency of political analysis in this country.