Bill Fulbright has suffered for some time from a Cassandra complex," said a senatorial colleague of the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. With reason enough, for Fulbright has spent more than a decade warning of the dangers that come from the arrogance of power. In 1961 he advised John Kennedy against the Bay of Pigs invasion. Throughout 1965 and 1966 he warned Lyndon Johnson not to escalate the Vietnam war— and was rewarded with whispered rumors about his mental balance.

But on one occasion, although Fulbright's advice was good, his prophecy was wrong. One pleasant spring afternoon in 1969 he went to the White House for an amiable two-hour discussion with Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger.

Spanish counterrevolutionary thought was born in the eighteenth century as a reaction against the Rationalism of the Enlightenment which, advancing from France, threatened the ideological apparatus of absolutism. It represented the intellectual aspect of the struggle between the class interests of the rising bourgeoisie and the two partners of traditional monarchic power, the nobility and the clergy. The intelligentsia of the regime based their ideological defense on the traditional myths, opposing that "Reason" which represented in their judgment the spirit of Evil itself.

My comments on ethnic Americans stem from a particular and specific frame of reference. First, I am a Catholic priest. Indeed, as another sociologist remarked (not intending a compliment): "He's nothing but a loudmouthed Irish priest." (May it be etched on my tombstonel) Still, these are my views, not the or even a "Catholic position." I very much doubt that there is a Catholic position on anything at this stage of the disorganization of the Roman Church. Secondly, I assay a tentative model, subject to empirical testing sometime in the future, about the "civil religion" of the Catholic ethnic. (I take it, by the way, that "ethnic" is merely a euphemism for "Catholic" when most people use it. Such does seem to me unfair to Scandinavians, German Protestants and even Anglo-Saxons, who, if The Christian Century is to be believed, are now ethnics too.)

Half a decade after the Six-Day War the Israeli government has made no decision about the future of the West Bank. The elections held in the West Bank's towns in early 1972, but under Jordanian law, were one example of the Jerusalem cabinet's inability to come to any decision and its determination to postpone decision for as long as possible. This determination reflects the complexity of the problem per se and the deep divisions within the Israeli polity on this subject. We will focus on the internal Israeli aspect.

In 1834 the French priest Félicité de Larnmenais wrote Paroles dun Croyant, in which he asserted that it would not be a nation or a Icing or a church that would bear the future destiny of mankind but "the people." Lammenais and the L'Avenir group in Paris had appealed in 1831 to Pope Gregory XVI, advocating that the Catholic Church abandon its traditional alliance with the thrones of Europe to align itself with and become the champion of the freedom of the people; In the encyclical Mirari Vos Gregory XVI repudiated Lammenais's appeal and reaffirmed the mutually reinforcing relationship between the true religion and established political power as the one guarantee against "an ever-approaching resolution-abyss of bottomless miseries."

As Moscow and Washington move toward a second round of SALT, analysts in both capitals raise serious questions—not only about the accords concluded in 1972, but, with still greater concern, about the agreements that will be considered in the years ahead. Communists may well ask: If revolution is the stepchild of war, should we welcome conditions that make international stability more likely? Western skeptics, for their part, ask whether Soviet leaders will not exploit a nuclear stalemate to advance the Communist cause through subnuclear diplomacy or nonmilitary means in which the West is generally at a disadvantage. Some U.S. strategists, for example, contend that there is a basic asymmetry which turns the SALT agreements to Moscow's favor. Since Moscow's objectives are unlimited, they contend, they may be effectively pursued as long as the USSR enjoys at least rough equality with the United States. For America to deter Soviet probes, overwhelming superiority is needed, both in strategic and other arms.