The Democratic Digest was born "to combat the one-party press." At first this seems silly, since it consists mostly of reprints of pro-Democratic articles from newspapers. But a closer look shows that the bulk of the reprints come from but a handful of papers: the St. Louis Post Dispatch, Sacramento Bee, Washington Post, New York Post, etc. So, the Digest's real purpose is to circulate the Word in areas Democratic newspapers don't reach.

Since the Digest is the official publication of the Democratic National Committee, it is of necessity propaganda. But well-written propaganda, presented with a slick ness of style occasionally reminiscent of the New Yorker, even imitating it, such as in short quips and jibes under "Talk of the Nation." There are parodies each month. In November's issue, the man in the Hathaway shirt peered through his one good eye and said, "It takes me twice as long to read the Digest, but it's worth the time." A column, "Inside," scoffed at Newsweek's periscope ("Fewer erasers are being used by the State Department under Dulles than under Acheson. Employees, fiercely loyal to the new Administration, have cut down on mistakes.")

On the more serious side of politics, the Digest focuses on the Administration's inconsistencies with a column called "Pledges and Hedges." In it, Republicans are shown through speeches and statements denying their platform plank by plank. But perhaps the most valuable pieces in the Digest are those not swiped, but written by the staff. An exposure of the Committee for Constitutional Government was the most recent.

The Digest as it is will not win many votes for the Democratic party. Besides its sophistication, which automatically limits its audience, its content is just too slanted. Reading it is like sitting through a three-hour campaign rally. I have a suspicion almost all its readers are Democrats to start with. But as a monthly dose of propaganda, it will keep the faithful happy, their barrels fully loaded for any Republican who happens within earshot.