A book review in today's New York Times considers the question of why the Soviet Union collapsed. Several possible answers are raised, from "the regime's propaganda was a lie" to "structural contradictions in the economy and the one-party state" to "human agency -- or more specifically Gorbachev." The review calls Mikhail Gorbachev "a hero of our times." It also describes Yuri Andropov as a "reformist," which would no doubt come as surprising news to the tens of thousands of political prisoners who were rotting in the gulag during his tenure as the Soviet dictator. Natan Sharansky writes in his memoir of his time as a Soviet prisoner, "When the news came of Andropov's death, I was writing my next letter. As with Brezhnev's death, shouts of joy rang out in the cells, and prison officers and soldiers with German shepherds began making the rounds."
To read the Times review, one would think that Mr. Gorbachev voluntarily dismantled the Soviet Communist regime. In fact, he was under pressure as a result of "human agency" of another sort -- more specifically from human agents named Ronald Reagan, Lane Kirkland and Lech Walesa, not to mention Mr. Sharansky. None of their names appear in the page-long discussion in the Times about the Soviet "collapse."
Flip-Flop: A dispatch from Washington in the January 12, 2002, New York Times reported on Democratic strategy for dealing with the collapse of Enron: "Several party leaders said their strategy was to not appear crassly political by attacking the White House. Instead, they intend to sit back quietly, expressing sympathy for workers and investors hurt by Enron's collapse as Republicans face a cascade of questions. 'The strategy is going to be to let the investigation take its course and not to dial it up politically,' said one Democratic Party official. 'If your enemy is shooting themselves in the foot, you let them.' Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic Party chairman, followed just that course in an interview, saying, 'This issue does not need any fuel from Terry McAuliffe. It has enough on its own. So I'm going to stay right out of it.'"
An example of Mr. McAuliffe sitting back "quietly" and staying "right out of it" may be seen in today's New York Times, which reports on a meeting of the Democratic National Committee. The Times reports: "On display throughout the morning were signs of how the party planned to use the collapse of the energy trading company Enron to try to put Republicans on the defensive on issues including campaign finance, energy policy, Social Security and the re-emergence of federal deficits and to portray their opponents as the party of special interests. 'How about that Enron story?' Mr. McAuliffe said. 'Folks, it's simply outrageous, and my heart goes out to the employees and shareholders who were victimized by a web of greed and deceit.' He said, 'I do want to be fair though; there's no evidence yet that anyone in the Bush administration did anything improper in this case.' But Mr. McAuliffe went on to draw what he called 'interesting parallels between Enron and the administration it so generously supported.' 'Think about it,' he said, 'risky investments, mountains of debt, accounting shenanigans and a little fuzzy math, then the folks at the top cash in while innocent working people are left holding the bag.'"
The Times today doesn't make any mention of the contradiction between Mr. McAuliffe's vow "to stay right out of it" and his comment eight days later, "How about that Enron story? Folks, it's simply outrageous."
Late Again: The Sunday Styles section of today's New York Times carries articles about a new bar called Happy Ending and a new restaurant called Theo. They are both old news to readers of the Daily Candy web site or email. Daily Candy reported about Happy Ending on Friday, January 18, and about Theo on Friday, January 11. The Times waddles in later, without mentioning the earlier reports.