i
Page 2AThe BattalionATuesday, February 16, 1988
lUUWHU
Opinion
Mikhail Gorbachev’s beauty is only skin deep
Mikhail Gorba
chev’s vibrant
leadership has cre
ated a sensation in
the West. Western
leaders, who had
become accus
tomed to dealing
with doddering
old men, are scur
rying to find re
sponses to his new
policies. Through
his initiative and charm,
Brian
Frederick
Gorbachev is
quickly transforming the world’s per
ception of Soviet leadership.
Last week over 190 delegates and ex
perts from around the world gathered
at Texas A&M for a conference devoted
to discussing the changes Gorbachev is
bringing to the Kremlin. The delegates
did not gather at this 33rd MSG
SCONA conference to find solutions to
the problems the Soviet Union poses.
They came to discuss and come to a bet
ter understanding of Gorbachev’s poli
cies and what they portend for the West.
In the three years since Gorbachev
became General Secretary, the Russian
words “glasnost” and “perestroika” have
become buzzwords in the American me
dia. Like the words “democracy” and “f-
reedom” in a politician’s mouth, these.
terms vaguely connote something good,
though we are often unsure exactly
what they mean. Our media gives us the
impression that the Soviet state is be
coming our moral equal through Gorba
chev’s reforms. Through the speakers
and discussion at the SCONA confer
ence, the delegates were able to cut
through media hype and Gorbachev’s
brilliant public relations efforts to gain a
clearer picture of “glasnost” and “peres
troika.”
“Perestroika”, or restructuring, is
Gorbachev’s plan for rebuilding the So
viet economy and making it more pro
ductive. The Soviet economy has always
been extremely sluggish. It still fails to
produce sufficient amounts of the most
basic consumer goods, and the quality of
goods actually produced is poor.
“Perestroika” seeks to stimulate the
Soviet economy. It will wean factories
from government subsidies, forcing
them to produce profitably or go out of
business. It will place more responsibil
ity and opportunity to exercise initiative
on factory managers and workers. It
seeks to reduce the centralized control
of the economy and introduce it to some
control by market forces. It is supposed
to enable communism to deliver the bet
ter life promised to Soviet citizens for
decades.
We are the reporters,
we have taken control
My, how embar
rassing for George
Bush. It was bad
enough to get
creamed in Iowa
by his arch-rival,
Bob Dole, but to
finish behind Pat
Roberston! The
vice president of
the United States
— envoy to China,
director of the
Donald
Kaul
CIA, ambassador to the United Nations,
Lion of Rather conquerer — losing to a
Bible salesman who talks to hurricanes
and changes the course of God. Wait, I
think I’ve got ^tiajt backward, but you get
, the idea.
Can you imagine him walking into a
debutante party this week and having
an acquaintance greet him with:
“I say, old man, why so glum? Don’t
tell me you didn’t win those Iowa cuc-
coons, or whatever they call them.”
“Caucuses. No, Bob Dole won them.”
“Well what did you expect? They’re a
rough bunch out there; farms and all
that. Dole is one of them. Second place
isn’t bad.”
“Didn’t finish second either. Pat Rob
ertson did.”
“What! Robertson? The fellow who
talks to hurricanes?”
“Moves hurricanes. Talks to God.”
“Oh dear, that is too bad. Have you
thought of going back into the oil busi
ness?”
Things aren’t that bad yet but unless
George starts kicking a little pussycat in
New Hamphire — or whatever it is that
he kicks — they will be soon.
All the bad things they said about the
Iowa caucuses seem to have come true.
Dick Gephardt’s live-in campaign tri
umphed on the Democratic side, and
Pat Robertson humbled the vice presi
dent, even though Robertson didn’t
have as many people on his side. What
he had, as it turned out, were people
who showed up for the war. It’s hard to
beat fanatic dedication with genteel
commitment.
The press did its usual expectations
number on Iowa. Gephardt was consid
ered a winner because he won, Sen. Paul
Simon was considered a loser because
he finished second, and Gov. Michael
Dukakis was considered a winner be
cause he finished third. On the Republi
can side, both Dole and Robertson were
big winners with their first and second-
place finishes, but Bush was a big loser
in third. Go figui'e it. The press is very
hard on candidates who let them down.
As a card-carrying member of the
news profession it pains me to admit it,
but the press has all but taken over our
presidential nominating process and is
running it into the ground. We have al
most arrived at that Alice-in-Wonder-
land state where things mean exactly
what we say they mean and nothing else.
You can finish first, second oy third in a
race, but you won’t know whether
you’ve won or lost until we tell you.
There is no really rational reason
Vice President Bush, given his close as
sociation with the President, should feel
mortally wounded at his miserable
showing in Iowa where the Reagan
years have been hard. The Robertson
thing wa^embafi^issing, true, but not
that unexpected given the susceptibility
of the caucus system to a candidate like
the Reverend. In short, the sitting vice
president of the United States should be
able to absorb a loss in Iowa — and one
in New Hampshire for that matter —
without getting knocked out of the race.
Those are small states. Let’s hear what
California, New York, Texas and Flor
ida have to say before we go writing off
vice presidents.
But the word has come down that
Bush must win New Hampshire to re
main a viable candidate; so he must.
I think it’s just a matter of time before
we get rid of the voters altogether. We’ll
just tell the people who they would have
chosen had they the chance.
The fact is that political reporting in
this country has fallen victim to Super
Bowl journalism. Rather than report on
an event directly and honestly, with a
sense of proportion, we descend on it in
droves and let hysteria take its course.
The Iowa caucuses are perhaps the
purest example of this. More than 3,000
out-of-state news personnel were in Des
Moines on the night to the caucuses, al
most enough to interview each and ev
ery caucus attendee. In the week before
the caucuses, Paul Simon spoke to a lun
cheon meeting of 31 business people.
There were 103 news people there.
There’s something basically screwy
about that. It would be different if
things were turning out well in spite of
it, but they’re not. Our presidents over
the past 20 years have been a sorry lot.
Not since the era immediately preced
ing the Civil War have we seen such a
collection of mediocrities and eight-balls
lurch through the White House.
And if it keeps up, you’ll be listening
to a State of the Union address deliv
ered in tongues. By a faith healer.
There’s got to be a better way.
Copyright 1987, Tribune Media Services, Inc.
The Battalion
(USPS 045 360)
Member of
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Conference
The Battalion Editorial Board
Sue Krenek, Editor
Daniel A. LaIJry, Managing Editor
Mark Nair, Opinion Page Editor
Amy Couvillon, City Editor
Robbyn L. Lister and
Becky Weisenfels,
News Editors
Loyd Brumfield, Sports Editor
Sam B. Myers, Photo Editor
Editorial Policy
The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspa
per operated as a community service to Texas A&M and
Bryan-College Station.
Opinions expressed in The Battalion are. those of the
editorial board or the author, and do not necessarily rep
resent the opinions of Texas A&M administrators, fac
ulty or the Board of Regents.
The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newspaper
for students in reporting, editing and photography
classes within the Department of Journalism.
The Battalion is published Monday through Friday
during Texas A&M regular semesters, except for holiday
and examination periods.
Mail subscriptions are $17.44 per semester, $34.62
per school year and $36.44 per full year. Advertising
rates furnished on request.
Our address: The Battalion, 230 Reed McDonald,
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-11 11.
Second class postage paid at College Station, TX
77843.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Battal
ion, 216 Reed McDonald, Texas A&M University, Col
lege Station TX 77843-4 111.
Yet “perestroika” can not be attained
merely by decree. The Soviet economy
is plagued with corruption, absente
eism, alcoholism and incompetence.
Gorbachev has initiated “glasnost” or
openness to make these problems public
and root them out. No longer will they
be glossed over and ignored as in the
past. Now they are to be ruthlessly ex
posed.
“Glasnost” attacks corrupt high offi
cials who were winked at in the past.
Pravda has recently run stories on the
corruption of high party officials in
Moldavia and the Central Asian repub
lic of Uzbekistan. In both cases, Gorba
chev had a numberof high level officials
shot or imprisoned for corruption.
“Glasnost”, then, entails an openness
about internal Soviet problems, prob
lems which hinder the economy. It
brings them into the light where they
can be addressed. This self-criticism is
an essential part of “perestroika”, the
rebuilding of the Soviet economy.
Last week’s conference also clarified
what Gorbachev’s policies are not in
tended to accomplish. Gorbachev is an
orthodox communist. As he himself
says, “glasnost” protects only that ex
pression that serves communism’s pur
poses. It does not permit criticism of
communism, and it is not about to bring
Soviet citizens freedom of the press or
any other freedom as we know it in the
West.
Gorbachevas policies af fect only inter
nal Soviet affairs. He has not changed
the ultimate aims of Soviet foreign pol
icy, though he has refined his rhetoric
and methods. Capitalism remains com
munism’s mortal enemy. Soviet rhetoric
declares that we must peacefully coexist,
but as one speaker at the conference put
it, communists perceive peace as “war
continued by other means.” Gorbachev
has not made the Soviet Bear a domesti
cated pet with which we may safely
dwell.
Gorbachev is younger, better edu
cated that his predecessors. He is a mas
ter of public relations. His charm is win-
ning, so much so that Margaret
Thatcher has called him “a man she can
work with”, while Europeans and Amer
icans alike fall under his spell. Yet this
makes him more dangerous than for
mer Soviet leaders. He is subtle. Krush
chev boasted “we will bury you.” Gorba
chev wins our hearts with smiles while
pursuing policies that may eventually
prove his predecessor right.
Just because Gorbachev has loosened
some of the state’s controls, posthu
mously rehabilitated some purged lead
ers and signed a missile treaty with the
United States does not makeln ^ ^
moral equal and does not mat ^ f!
worthy of our trust, decontrol;
pressive state where police po»f
main undiminished. And hectu
did not get to the top of his parti
ing a gentleman.
We should not put our hofs
peace in Gorbachev or in miss!
ties. I listory gives us no basis!
ing that scraps of paper on
kind leaders sufficientlygi
peace. Living in the nuclear
frighten us, but it should not dept
of our reason. Signing treadesaili
ing hands with the smilingGeners
retarv may advance the careers^
Perf
rgely
hristr
arts
ance
um lu
Spot
Icrfori
lore t
his :
igto 1
Park
larily
politicians, but it does not proii ^
sound basis f or our nationalseoiri !
Ultimately, we are responsible!
continued freedom and sen
Strength and resolve, nottrustaa
cessions, are the only means by
we can preserve what weholddea
smiling, dynamic leader mayg
hope for substantial change inom
rival. But we do well to rememl*
underneath the charm, humans
remains the same.
Brian Frederick is a senior hister
Russian major and a columnistk
Battalion.
GOSH, you Boys WtW'T SEE Hty
COMMUNISTS WCK there , W VAT
M JUST Sffl* SOME
IMIH AMEWCm COUNTRIES MtOHT
BE mn communists
iroqi
hiding
Pr
sa;
vie
entering’
UNITED
STATES
■<x
V
-5<<< n
Mail Call
Our faculty deserves a club
EDITOR:
granting of tenure to coach Jackie Sherrill, The sen)
whine that the “Board of Regents apparently doesn’t)
stand or doesn’t respect faculty rank.”
As of late, there have been several individuals from fra
ternities and sororities passing petitions around requesting
signatures in an attempt to halt completion of the faculty
club. I ask that you, as good Aggies, do not sign this petition.
There is not a more deserving faculty at any university in
this great nation. Our faculty does not have a place where
they can meet as a group to discuss topics of interest, bring
honored guests, entertain prospective faculty, et cetera.
They do need such a place.
If these frat boys a sorority girls could put forth such a
centralized effort for a respectable cause, there is no telling
what good things they could do for our community.
Daniel W. Martillotti ’90
1 find it hard to sympathize with a group that:,,
doesn’t understand or doesn’t respect the rankofs
burdening myself and fellow' zips with final exams in o*|
semester.
Dr. David R. Anderson should wisely follow thee*
of his peers, who tabled his resolution. Since a si
President Vandiver has yet to be named, I would assiutf 1
Professor Sherrill is still in the running. That could^
quick disbandment of the Faculty Senate.
Jackie, let’s do beers
I congratulate Professor Sherrill on his recent;
ment and would like to do so in person. Contact me
and we’ll go out for a drink. Maybe you can get mein 1 !
new faculty club.
Shaun M. Morrison ’88
EDITOR:
I would like to take this opportunity to “criticize and con
demn” the Faculty Senate. An article in the Feb. 9 Battalion
describes a lengthy debate over a resolution condemning the
Letters to the editor should not exceed 300 words in length. The editorialT j
the right to edit letters for style and length, but will make every effort to»
author’s intent. Each letter must be signed and must include thedassifunVA
and telephone number of the writer.
BLOOM COUNTY
by Berke Bread
ouvez TVLP MB. THEY
Hm mreLUTEs that
CAN see U5. ANYTim.
PO/NG THINGS
INPRIVnm. THINGS?
pwme
THING5 /
YOU KNOW/
LIKE
lA/HKrr
0H, YOU KNOW... THOSE UGLY
UTTLE MINOR THINGS COE ALL
PO... EiTTNOT IN FRONT OF
EACH OTHER... GF056 THINGS
tWE NEVER IMAGINE
CHRISTIE
BRINKLEY
PO/NG HUT
THAT SHE
'PROBABLY
TAPES.
P
OH,
you 77$u
KNOW...
\
Mm