Here - Nixon Tapes

Armamen| the obsequiousness andself-promotion of Edward Elson; andso on.But there is a larger point her€.The main purpose of my book is notto pronounce judgment on winnersand losers, but to explore from theAmerican side why the conflict wasfought and why it was fought theway it was. This does not mean that Ido not have opinions-as a historian,as an American, as a human beingaboutthe moral and geopoliticaloutcomes of the Cold War. But I donot regard those opinions as theprinlary domain of this book. Yet atthe same time, some moral iudgmentsare inescapable particularly insofaras they touch on questions of thehistorical record. On this count,one passage in Zietsma's review isespecially puzzling and problematic.He begins with an indignantrecounting of the 1947 arrest by localpolice of a fortune-telling ministerin los Angeles as an example ofreligious persecution in the UnitedStates. A few pages later, he lamentsthat "lnboden seemsimply to acceptas true pervasive claims that theSoviet Union threatened rcligiousfaith." and he follows that with arather clumsy attempt at "gotcha"by citing alleged examples frommy book about pockets of rcligiousresilience within the USSR. DoesZietsma really mean to make therisible claim that the Soviet Union didnot in fact execute or imDrison tensof thousands (at least) oi religiousbelievers? Unfortunately, he seemsto have fallen into the posture ofassuming that, iust because onefervently disagrees with Ame canforeign policy, it is somehowinappropriate to acknowledge Sovietbarbarism. But this is of course afalse choice. One does not have toapplaud or even agree with U.S.Cold War forcign policy to rccognizeSoviet Communism's record of brutaloppression and of particular hostilityto religious belief.Finally, a brief comment onZietsma's complainthat thecover of my book "portentously"displays "four white males." Indeed,Eisenhoweq, Trumaru Niebufu, andGraham are all white males. Butduring the immediate postwar years,Passryrt Aprilz0@they were also four of the mostinfluential political and religiousfigures in American life. Identifyingthem only by their race and genderwith no regard for their politicalor theological importance andthe differences among them maybe, ironically enough, an effectivedemonstration of the analyticallimitations of the us€ of race andgender categories alone.l9William Inboden is Scnior Vice-Prcsident of the Legatnn lnstitute forGlobal Deuelopment.Notes:l. Wifliam Inboden, Rrlitiott dli At],cricirrForcign Policy 1 5.1960: Thc Sorl ofCoxr.rir,[.,rt (New York 2m8), 3,2. Inboden, Rrl{giox, 67.3. Inboderr Raligio,r, 5.4. Seth Jacobt Ar,'ric.r's Mimch Md itlVid nu: Ngo Ditlt Dict , Rclighn, Rdce, atdU.S. ht,cr,'c tioni Sot hcost Asid,1950-1957(Durham, NC, 2004), 5.5. Andrcw Preston, "Bridging the Gap betweenthe Sacred and the Secular in the Historyof American Foreign Relationt" Dr'plornticHisfory 30 (Novembcr 20n61,7 ,W.6. Also worth noting is how the developmentof individualistic Christianity in the UnitedStates likely innuences the acadcmicp€Fpective on religion that almost allAmerican scholars have r€gadless of faithafffliation. Walter Mead's observation isrelevant in this regard: "Christianity in theAmerican contert is less and less a matterof family orethnic identity, more and morea matter of personal choi