The Clear and Present DangernPrior to his dcarh one week beforenBrezhnev’s, left-wing historian E.H.nCarr warned his feJlow Westernersnagainst whar he perceived as a perilousntendency in our attitude towards thenSoviet Union:nThe danjrcr is not thai wc shall dniw an”caution” upon the U.S. governmentnwithout any shred of possibility of evennasking the Soviet Union for the samenamounts to simple political swindle.nBut, as we have mentioned, Mr. Moyersnand his friends at CBS news are demiintellectualsnin search of untrammelednpower over minds, thus any fundamentalnfairness of thinking, the conditio sinenqua non of intellectual decency, is beyondnthe scope of their comprehension.nWord MincingnIn maintaining that the profreezenmovement in America is manipulated bynforeign interests’ advocates, Mr. Reagannminces words. Anyone in America whonactively supports what the Soviets findnconducive to their interests is, to ournmind, an objective tool of Soviet globalnpolicies. This statement requires no empiricalnevidence (secret agents, clandestinenpayments, illicit visits of profreezenactivists through the back doors of Sovietnconsulates, etc.). All that is needed is ournznChronicles of CulturenLIBERAL CULTURE Hnveil over the enormous blots on thenrecord of the [Soviet] Revolution, overnits cost in human suffering, over thencrimes committed in its name. Thendanger is that we shall be tempted tonforget altogether, and to pass over innsilence, its immense achievementsnI am thinking of the transformationnsince 1917 in the lives of ordinarynpeople. . . . Soviet society is stillnadvancing.nMr. Carr addressed the wrong audience.nThose most lacking in appreciation fornSoviet accomplishments are not WesternnEuropeans and Americans but rathernmillions of Hungarians, Czechs, Poles,nUkranians, Russian Jews, Afghans, andnSoutheast Asians. Mr. Carr’s tender hopenthat Soviet society is “still advancing”nmeans panic in Warsaw, Kabul, andnPrague. Dnpower to reason logically, to employ thensame sort of thinking used in algebraic orngeometric exercises. The freeze postulatenis part of a comprehensive Soviet geopoliticalnstrategy: it gives the Soviets anlegally negotiated halt to the Americannarmament process, fully verifiable innAmerica because of the nature of ournsociety (freedom of inquiry, competitignpolitical organisms, informative medianunbounded by any restraining mechanismnor principle), and quite a»verifiablenin the Soviet Union because of the naturenof their society (no need to explain why).nThe prospective limitation is thus perfectlynenforceable in America and totallynunenforceable in Russia. The conse­nnnquences of such a deal, taking into accountnthe record of Soviet lies, abuses,ndeceptions, and violations of anynmutually concluded treaty with anyonenthroughout history, are understandableneven to a mind untrained in politicalnfinesse.nIf the Poles take to the streets and demandnfreedom they are, to Americans,noppressed slaves crying out for independence.nBut to an orthodox Soviet patriotnthey are CIA agents, or hit men who arenperforming dirty work for American imperialists.nAnd he is right, in somenrespects, for the Poles’ eventual prevalencenwould mean the diminishment ofnthe communist yoke that is, to the Sovietnmind, a blessing to anyone on whom it isninflicted. The same principle applies tonthe naive, misinformed, overemotionalndemonstrator in New York or Washingtonnhonestly concerned about the horrorsnof an atomic war. By turning against hisnown government, he helps the adversaryngovernment—whatever his motivation,nimpulse, or the purity of his instincts. Henis a tool. There are many pro-Soviet ideologuesnin America who have never seen anKGB agent but who firmly believe thatnonly by supporting the Soviet might willnthe American might be prevented fromninflicting evil upon the world at large—nand those people take fiill advantage ofnan American’s ignorant innocence. Ofncourse, not every dissension within a democracynbenefits its foes, but a discord ofnwhich a foe can take advantage shouldnalways be considered from exactly thisnangle. We may disagree to our hearts’ncontent on school prayers and busing,nbut we must stand united against thosenwho wish us ill as a society. To control,ncriticize, demand are sacred prerogativesnof a free society; to impair our own freelynelected government in its attempts to putntogether a defense of our very existence asna free society is either foolish or malevolent.nDivided we will fall, as many nationsnhave done throughout history—nwhich wouldn’t be considered an ultimatencatastrophe by many leaders of thenprofreeze movement, to judge by theirnutterances in word and print. Dn