HOME / the breakfast table: An e-mail conversation about the news of the day.

Katha Pollitt and Andrew Sullivan

the breakfast table:
entries

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90

Cold War and Coffee

By Andrew Sullivan
Posted Friday, May 1, 1998, at 4:58 PM ET

Dear Katha,

RSS

No, I don't think Russia is heading for elysium, or that the free market solves every problem (it just bypasses some of the more avoidable ones). But nor do I think some wrenching social and economic difficulties in a still-nascent constitutional democracy are comparable to forced starvations, reigns of terror, and the Gulag. They're a necessary evil, like a de-tox tremor, not like an arbitrary jack-boot in the head.

Nor do I think there is or was any faint comparison between the evils the U.S. sponsored during the Cold War (and the U.S. undoubtedly sponsored some) and what the Soviets did. Sorry, but what the West imposed on Western Europe was nothing compared to what the Soviets did in Eastern Europe or the entire Eurasian continent. I thought, given what we now know, that this was uncontroversial. I'm interested to see you still don't think so.

As to my win-win situation, I don't get your point. My view is that Thatcherism largely worked and was therefore all but coopted by New Labour. Yes, the Tories had been in power too long and got kicked out for sleaze and exhaustion. But the difference between what another Major government would have done, and what Blair has done is, I think, infinitesimal. So I'm disappointed the Tories didn't go on for ever, but hardly worried. And so far, Blair has been terrific on most of the important issues.

Maybe I should apologize for my distemper this morning. I didn't mean to re-fight the Cold War over coffee. Something just came over me. I certainly think the Right has plenty of post-ideological problems of its own (and Safire is as cranky about Russia as many on the Left.) But I think the Left has some even more thorough accounting to perform than the Right. It seems to me that in France and Britain, that process is underway. But in America, it still lags. Meanwhile, nihilist Clintonism rules, and populist Gingrichism yaps. Could it be that the Left's refusal to pore over its often shameful and mistaken past has something to do with this political impasse?

Andrew

the breakfast table:
entries