the KGB. One of the first Americans to visit the USSR afternthe Revolution was the journalist Lincoln Steffens, who,nafter a brief formal tour, felt confident enough to declare, “Inhave seen the future, and it works.” Steffens was no morengullible than the hundreds of journalists and travelers whonreturn with heartwarming stories about their experiences.nDuring Stalin’s purge trials, when protest from the Westnmight have halted the massacres, or later on, when the USnand Great Britain were sending back thousands of Russiansnand East Europeans to certain death in Operation Keelhaul,nfriends of the Soviets were reassuring Americans about thenjustice of the Soviet system and the good intentions ofnJoseph Stalin.nConsider this more recent example of American gullibility.nIn April of 1984 former Presidents Gerald Ford andnJimmy Carter held a two-day consultation on very sensitiventopics in foreign affairs, including arms control. The sponsorsnincluded Ford Motor, Coca-Cola, Delta Airlines, andnthe Southern Armand Hammer, Ted Turner. Among thosenpresent were Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin, EvgenynVelikov (the leading Soviet ABM expert), Lt. GeneralnKonstantin Mikhailov, and Sergei Tarasenko, deputy chiefnof the USA Department in the Foreign Affairs Ministry. AsnRichard Staar reported in Chronicles, on point after crucialnpoint, the former US Presidents sided with the Soviets innblaming the Reagan administration for blocking progress innarms control. When Navy Secretary John Lehman attemptednto present the record of Soviet violations, both Carter andnFord rebuked him. Now, while we can appreciate thenpathetic need of former Presidents to recapture the limelight,nsuch public shenanigans are hardly a service to thensecurity of the American people.nThe Constitution is very clear in assigning foreign policynresponsibilities to the executive and legislative branches ofnthe national government. So far as I know, those powersnIn the forthcoming issue of Chronicles:nAmerica: As Others See Usn”The American character is a complicated one. Contrarynto the generally accepted assumption (especially innEurope), Americans are not a simple people. Nor arenAmerican manners simple. One of the problems is thenAmerican confusion of publicity and privacy. It is becausenof the invasion of the former into the domains of thenlatter that in many places and in many ways celebrity hasnreplaced society in America; it is therefore also one of thenremnant habits of the old American upper class tonobserve and respect privacy.”n101 CHRONICLESn— from “American Manners” by John Lukacsnnnwere only openly challenged once in our history, during thenHartford Convention of 1814. Even before the War ofn1812, prominent New England politicians had been disloyallynintriguing with the British, and during the war disgruntlednfederalists like Timothy Pickering were in favor ofnmaking an immediate separate peace with the British. Thenleaders of the convention were more cautious and contentednthemselves with sketching out a New England Confederationnin which the states could withhold troops and suppliesnin the case of war and demanding the right to control thenfederal taxes collected within their states. Not all NewnEnglanders were disloyal in 1814, and in the MassachusettsnSenate John Holmes of Maine made his reputation in anspeech attacking the convention. Fortunately, these deliberationsnwere interrupted by the news of General Jackson’snvictory at the Battle of New Orleans and the signing of thentreaty of Ghent. Even the Civil War, which threatened thenexistence of the Union, did not challenge the nationalngovernment’s exclusive right to conduct foreign policy.nThe past 100 years have witnessed a growing confusionnover the roles of the citizen and the various governments tonwhich he is subject. For a number of reasons, we have seennfit to whittle away at the powers of the states, counties, andncity governments to regulate their own affairs. At the samentime individuals, organizations, and local governments havenincreasingly begun to arrogate unto themselves the powersnof the federal government in matters of foreign policy andndefense.nA few examples: Our neighboring state of Wisconsin, thenbest socialist state this side of Sweden, decided a few yearsnago to adopt Nicaragua as a “sister state” (the capitol,nMadison, is also a “sister city” of Managua). You cannimagine what sort of fools the leftist governor and his staffnmade of themselves as they consulted on matters of tradenand foreign policy with the Sandinistas. As you drive intonMadison, you can breathe a sigh of relief, because it is annuclear-free zone. (So is Chicago, by the way, the home ofnnuclear weapons research.) I hope the Soviets know aboutnMadison, because what Edward Rozek says of Boulder,nColorado is true of most university towns: the Russiansnwould not want to destroy a place with so many of theirnfriends on the faculty. In Madison, you also don’t have tonworry about the rules of the Immigration and NaturaHzationnService, because a number of churches have declarednthemselves sanctuary churches for any illegal alien who isnwilling to brave the cold winters.nAn even more interesting challenge to the INS and to thenCongress was mounted by the State of New York recently,nwhen the state sued for an extension of the amnestyndeadline for registration. I stand second to no one in mynadvocacy of the rights of state and local governments in areasnthat concern them, but it is hard to justify the actions ofncities and states that claim the right to interfere in affairs ofnstate and national defense by encouraging the violation ofnour immigration laws and by threatening to prevent thentransportation of weapons and materials vital to the protectionnof the United States. If I were the President, I’d forgetnabout the threat in the Persian Gulf and concentrate on thennuclear-free cities in the United States. Who knows whatngood might be done by sending the troops into Madison andnCambridge?n