who can spell “Leibniz”?rnIn 1960, 13 percent of staphylococcusrninfections were resistant to penicillin.rnn 1988, two years after the Obserrcrrnarticle, the figure was 91 percent.rnIf ininiunologists had stopped updatingrntheir research in I960, it is quite likelyrnthat bv 1993 medicine would be backrnwhere it was before Fleming. But thernsocial, political, and cultural immunologistsrnof the West did stop all such researchrnlong ago. Oh, sure, one can pointrnto loners like I’ito Perlini, one can quoternfrom Husserl’s Krisis der europdischenrnWissenschaften, one can object that freethinkersrnare still being born. ThernVoltaires of todav, however, have no socialrneminences to which they can risernoutside the established hierarchies of thernbureaucracy, the media, the university,rnthe corporation—the very structures, inrnother words, whose effect on “democracv”rnand the individual they are expectedrnto examine, study, or modify.rnNo less than the average denizen ofrnmodern society. East or West, they arernsimplv inaudible constituents of the uniformrncell structure of mankind.rnThe result is that Russia’s “ActingrnPrime Minister” may now free reportersrnfrom Krasnaia zvezda, as he did last October,rnthat in 1993 the military budgetrnwill again increase considerably—confidentrnthat no Western newspaperrnwould print the news because its editorsrnand readers alike can no longer understandrnhow such a thing is possible orrnwhere it would fit if it were. Why, Russia’srn”Acting Prime Minister” can probablyrneven recite Patrick Henry’s addressrnto the Virginia convention.rnThe result? Well, the one result thatrnhappens to matter more than who thernPresident of the United States is or whatrnDouglas Hurd thinks of “Europeanrnunion” is that the greatest natural resourcernof the West, its antibiotic heritagernof democracy, has finally beenrnsquandered. As to whether the totalitarianrnbug that now becomes dominantrnis of the Moscow, the Peking, the Baghdad,rnor the Maastricht strain, this canrnonK be established by a postmortem examinationrn—a gruesome procedure forrnwhich, to add insult to injury, the Westrnis unlikelv to have either the requisiternskills or the specialist knowledge.rnAndrei Navrozov writes from Londonrnand is the ciuthor of The ComingrnOrder: Reflections on Sovietology andrnthe Media (Claridge Press).rnLoose Riggingrnby Steven SchwalmrnScandal and the 102ndrnCongressrnEarly last February, RepresentativernJohn Lewis took the House floorrnand demanded, “How can our constituentsrnexpect Congress to address thernnation’s economic ills when tens ofrnthousands may have been embezzledrnand stolen right here in the Capitol?rnHow can they expect Congress to dealrnwith a drug epidemic if cocaine is inrnfact being sold right here in our ownrnworkplace?” Always publicity-hungry.rnCongress has lately been making the papersrnin most unflattering ways. On tliernheels of the resignation of a HousernSpeaker and Majority Whip due to financialrncorruption, the spectacle of sexrnoffenses involving teenage pages, andrnthe discovery of a brothel run out of arncongressman’s apartment, the 102ndrnCongress brought us the Keating Fiverncontroversy, the circus cum nominationrnproceedings for the most recentrnSupreme Court Justice, the ignominy ofrncongressmen stiffing their own restaurant,rnand the House bank and post officernscandals. The scope of congressionalrnmalfeasance no longer allows for thernpossibility that these are isolated incidents.rnThese recurring scandals have not on-rnK damaged people’s faith in our goernment,rnbut fouled the government itself.rnArguing unsuccessfully against a furtherrnincrease in spending for congressionalrnstaff in 1991, Senator Jesse Helmsrnwarned, “If we cannot be faithful in littlernthings, we are not going to be faithhilrnin big things. More importantly thanrnthat, we will further diminish any remainingrnfaith the American people havernin the ability of this institution, the U. S.rnSenate, the Congress of the UnitedrnStates, to undertake the kind of spendingrncuts necessary to put America’s financialrnhouse in order.” The disgracesrnof the 102nd Congress have pointed sornclearly to a need for reform that evenrnCongress itself has acknowledged it. Inrnfact, during the recent election seasonrncongressmen themselves were amongrnthe loudest crusaders to have climbedrnaboard the reform bandwagon.rnUnfortunately, the 102nd Congressrnconcluded business last October withoutrnimplementing most of the correctionsrnannounced in the wake of thernabuses. The Keating Fi’e scandal seemsrnalmost a faint memory. Few recall thatrnit was just over a year ago, as the bankrnscandal was breaking, that SenatorrnCranston, the man most firmly rebukedrnby the Senate’s investigation, stood unrepentantlyrnin front of his colleagues,rncharging that “Here but for the grace ofrnCod stand you.” The Senate’s inabilityrnto deal with its own ethics problemsrnduring the first session of the 102ndrnCongress was manifested by the Housernduring the second session. On July 31,rn1991, Senator David Boren stated,rn”Congress is in trouble as an institution.rnNo one doubts it. In poll after poll,rnAmericans describe Congress as inefficient,rnwasteful, and compromised by thernway it finances campaigns.” Ironically,rnSenator Boren delivered these wordsrnmonths before the scandals in thernI louse bank and post office rocked CapitolrnHill. Since that time, public regardrnfor Congress has hit an all-time low,rnwith many polls showing an approval ratingrnlower than 20 percent.rnSenator Boren had been introducing arnbipartisan proposal to establish a committeernon congressional reform. Thisrnproposal was finally passed after a fullrnyear of delay, long enough to put off actionrnon the law bv this Congress. Thernsame pattern of promise and delayrnplagues the other reforms Congress hasrnclaimed. During an August 1992 interviewrnwith Sam Donaldson on This WeekrnWith David Brinkley, Speaker of thernHouse Tom Foley claimed, “We’ve takenrncare of those problems that did exist.”rnWhen the Speaker closed the membersonlyrnHouse bank last April, he also declaredrnthe whole matter closed. As morerninformation becomes available, however,rnit appears that this quick action wasrnmerely an attempt to seal the lid on arnlarge can of worms.rnEvidence indicates that, among otherrnthings. House bank accounts may havernbeen used to cover gambling debts andrnto finance reelection campaigns. Morernsignificantly, it appears that House leadershiprnknew of the abuses at the bankrnwell before the scandal broke and attemptedrnto sweep them under the rug.rnAn April 3, 1991, draft report on thernHouse bank by the Ccneral AccountingrnOffice mentions “a continuing patternrnof cashing checks when there are insufficientrnfunds” and that “account holdersrnFEBRUARY 1 993/49rnrnrn