6/CHRONICLESnFresh from his masterful coup de sabotagenin Amerika, Kris KristofFerson betooknhimself to the USSR, to be beratednby comrade Gennadi I. Gerasimovnfor his anti-Sovietism. Either Gerasimovnhad not seen the series in hisnclosed-circuit sessions, or he was wilyneven by Soviet standards. In any case,nKristofFerson defended the productionnas an inside job, to gain credibilitynwith the American public. Previously,nKristofFerson told the U.S. TV Guidenthat someone had to do the show, sonwhy not the good guys? Whether comradenGerasimov belongs to this group,nwhich includes Yoko Ono, ClaudianGardinale, Marcello Mastroianni, ArmandnHammer, Gore Vidal, et al. isnuncertain. What is certain is that thenimbecilic Amerika prompted TomnWicker, Flora Lewis, et al. to comenswinging against conservative “hardliners.”nAs Anthony Lewis sniveled,n”Why do we have this hysterical strainnin us about Communism?”nMaybe Dr. Anatoly Koryagin, recentlynreleased by Gorbachev in hisncampaign against unjust political imprisonment,ncould enlighten Mr.nLewis. The Soviet opinion on freenspeech was pronounced by the campncommandant who told Koryagin,n”You have caused so much harm tonthe Soviet Government that it wouldnhave been better if you had gone andnshot 10 people.” Indeed, in the USSRnand its allies, the crime of exposure isnthe only one existing, unless committednby the head of state himself, as an”tactical” move. (Among other Sovietn”tactical” moves it is good to recallnLenin’s NEP, or Stalin’s attempt tonwoo the Orthodox during the lastnWorld War.) For those unacquaintednwith Soviet terminology of “tacticalnconcessions” to gain “strategic goals,”nGorbachev’s glasnost may indeednseem almost miraculous.nBut, as “poet” Yevgeny Yevtushenkondemonstrated in his two-page articlenCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSnon Feb. 9 in the Times, the only thingnmiraculous may be the gullibility ofnpeacemongers in the West. In thengreat many-ringed circus of the Agitprop,ncomrade Yevtushenko is onlynone performer among others, but glasnostnhas afforded him an opportunitynto tell us that his country is reachingn”political maturity.”nThere is something awesome in seeingnformer Administration oiiicialsnsuch as David Aaron coming backnfrom the media ball set up in Moscownand ridiculing the whole Soviet initiative,nin the New York Times of allnplaces. What was it that prevented Mr.nAaron from thinking clearly when henwas Jimmy Carter’s Deputy NationalnSecurity Adviser? To those who, like anHarvard Nobel Peace Prize winner,nsay, “When I think of peace, I think ofnGorbachev,” or, like Graham Greene,nsee Roman Catholicism as allied withnCommunism, one can only offer ansmile. But, what is one to offer the ArknCommunications Institute of Lafayette,nCalifornia, which has placed an1/4-page ad in NYT stating that “Anhousewife from Texas wins the trust ofnSoviet women, A string quartet fromnNew York meets Soviet musicians.n. . . American and Soviet young peoplenclimb a mountain together . . . “?nThere are photographs, for thosenwho care to recall, of G.I.’s posingnwith Soviet soldiers on the Elbe inn1945, and the Texas housewife touringnUSSR may have met some womennwho were not KGB operatives, yet ArknCommunications’ call for citizen diplomacy,nif not Citizen Summitry, is andangerous exercise in wishful thinking.nMaybe, after all, Afghans don’tnmatter—much less Ethiopians, Cubans,nand Nicaraguans — but wenmight recall that in some Slavic languages,nglasnost means “loudness,” orn”braggadocio.” Among Gorbachev’snmany talents, besides those oF a PRnman, one shouldn’t discount those of annnlinguist. If we can believe Yevtushenkonand his many American friends whonlike to visit the USSR, Americans andnRussians are kith and kin. Anyonenwho thinks otherwise is “differentiynmentally abled” and deserves to benlocked away in an institution (preFerablynnot the Ark Communications).nLetting out losiF Begun, and at thensame time keeping Vaclav Havel, PetrnUhl, Jiri Dienstbier, and others undernthreat oF imprisonment, banishment,nsubtle or not-so-subtle harassment,nshould mean something, even to thosenin the West to whom their own livesnand well-being constitute the universe.nAs the Soviets like to put it, “eta nyetnsluchayna” (“it is by no accident”),nand if Amerika or the Discovery Channel’sn60 proposed hours oF live TVnFrom USSR weekly or Deputy SecretarynoF State John C. Whitehead’sntrips to Eastern Europe don’t tipnthe balance, something else will,neventually.nAmerika, Amerika . . . “Sometimesnit seems like nothing ever happensnhere,” whined Cindy Pickett to RobertnUrich on the first episode oF the ABCnminiseries. The writers were obviouslyntrying to tell us something. IF thenUnited States can’t come up with betterntelevision than this, it deserves tonbe taken over by the Soviets.nConservatives are made oF strongnstuff, though, and many pretended tonlike Amerika. On the show’s last nightnwe ran into a Washington columnistnwho explained that, sure, the series leftna lot to be desired, but it raised thenunthinkable question. By that analysis.nReds was a conservative film. Plotnand character are the center of allndramatic art, and since Amerika isnentirely without plot, let’s look at thencharacters. The hero, played by KrisnKristofferson, is a turncoat politiciannfrom the Plains. Why did a Nebraskann