GLASNOST IN CHILE? Pinochetnis getting no credit for it. Yet at thensame time General Secretary (and nownalso President) Gorbachev’s policiesnare being hailed as major breakthroughs,ndepartures from the previousn(Brezhnev) era. They are deemed tonhold out great promise for the peoplenof the Soviet Union, if only they cannsucceed. Glasnost (openness) andnperestroika (reconstruction) are widelynpraised by commentators as majornmoves to advance the Soviet Unionntoward a better society. There arensome skeptics, of course — DavidnSatter (in The New Republic) doubtsnthat glasnost. can work. But on thenwhole, writers in The Nation, ThenNew Yorker, and other prominent publicationsnexpress basic respect fornMikhail Gorbachev’s intentions andnefforts.nIn contrast, there is no one who likesnGeneral Pinochet. The question is,nwhy? While he has been a ruthlessnopponent of political freedom in Chilenfor almost as long as he has been innpower, in 1980 he helped forge a newnconstitution for that country that pavesnthe way to full-scale political democracy.nWe have just witnessed one majornresult of this constitutional reform^nan initial election in Chile decidingnwhether Pinochet may serve for anothernfull term or whether he has to stepndown within a year after his termnexpires. It looks like the general intendsnto abide by the outcome, and in Marchn1990 elections will be held to decidenwho will govern Chile. Pinochet hasnalso established the kind of economy innChile that has led to greater prosperitynthere than in any other Central andnLatin American country. While Chilenhas pockets of poverty, nevertheless thencountry has had lower inflation andnhigher employment than its neighbors.nWe do riot know what Pinochet willnor will not do. He is still in power, andnthe constitution that gives him thatnpower is far from expressing the will ofneven the majority of the people, muchnless protecting the rights of a minority.nPinochet is a military dictator, there isn6/CHRONlCLESnCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSnno doubt about that.nWhat do we know about Gorbachev?nHe has proposed no change innthe Soviet constitution, a documentnthat explicitly prohibits anyone in thenSoviet Union from criticizing the Sovietngovernment. The law may not alwaysnbe enforced, but it is crucial thatnthere is no legal obstacle to invoking it.nHas Gorbachev advocated changingnthe nature of Soviet society? No; hensimply regards some earlier policies asnfollowing from “distortions of socialism.”nHe has no desire, judging by hisnown words, to abandon Lenin’s “genuinensocialism.” The means of productionnin the Soviet Union will continuento be collectively owned and thus exposednto government regimentation.nPerestroika may lead the state to relaxnits regime, but certainly not to abdicatenits role as ultimate sovereign. If onenrecalls that in Marxist socialist theorynthe major means of production is humannlabor, Gorbachev is unambiguouslyncommitted to treating Soviet citizensnas mere cells in the body of thenstate. Nor should we lose sight of thenfact that Gorbachev was an enthusiasticnfollower of Brezhnev. His role innthe’KGB cannot be ignored, either.nOf course, Pinochet’s partial embracingnof capitalism — via his recentlynresigned University of Chicago-trainednfinance minister Hernan Buchi — doesnnot mean that Chile enjoys a freenmarketplace, with everyone’s privatenproperty rights fully acknowledged andnrespected. Yet at least Pinochet seemsnto be bent on heading toward that kindnof a system, one that sees the individualnas sovereign, not the state.nWhy then are American intellectualsnso contemptuous of Pinochet, butnnot critical, indeed quite welcoming ofnGorbachev? Why would Gore Vidal,nfor example, praise the Soviet leader sonhighly — calling one of his speechesnthe most profound political talk he hasnever encountered (and Vidal is thenauthor of the novel Lincolnl)? Is it thatnfor much of the American intelligentsianthere are no enemies to the left?n— Tibor R. MachannnnACADEMIC THOUGHT policenhave struck again, this time at thenCatholic University of America, wherenofficials have snatched away a full professorshipnthey had earlier offered tonoccasional Chronicles contributor PaulnGottfried. As of March, Dr. Gottfriednhad every reason to expect the job wasnforthcoming. The department of politicsnfaculty had overwhelmingly votednin his favor, including Chairman JamesnO’Leary, previous Chairman ClaesnRyn, and incoming Chairman DavidnWalsh. He had received the enthusiasticnsupport of the dean of the college ofnarts and sciences, Antanas Suziedelis.nHis credentials were outstanding: henhad published five books and over 70narticles in academic journals, and thendepartment’s thorough search foundnhim particulariy skilled in classical politicalntheory, the field in which theynwere seeking a teacher. The universitynhad assigned him classes and agreednupon a salary. It was, to all appearances,na done deal.nThen the accusations started. Gottfriednwas said to have made “anti-nZionist statements,” according to onenhistory professor. There was no recordnof such statements by Gottfried—whonis Jewish — nor was it clear what Zionismnhad to do with qualifications tonexpound ancient political texts. Butnthat was just the beginning. Soon professorsnfrom outside Catholic University,nsuch as Harvey Mansfield at Harvardnand Thomas Pangle at Toronto,nwere campaigning against Gottfried bynphone. His offense, according tonMansfield, was to be a “controversialist.”n(Gottfried has on occasion criticizednMansfield and Pangle, amongnother Straussians, arguing that they arenguilty of projecting the preoccupationsnof modern intellectuals onto the thinkingnof the ancients.) Dean Suziedelis’snsupport rapidly evaporated; a committeenhe had appointed voted against thenoffer to Gottfried in a meeting innwhich his credentials were not evennmentioned, let alone debated. (Askednto comment on the event, the deanntook refuge in “confidentiality,” not-n