316
embodiment of ajust and good soci–
ety continued to compel the alle–
giance of some of the best witnesses
to the Russian hecatomb-think of
Isaac Babel , of Victor Serge, of
Emma Goldman, of Panait Istrati.
These are false hopes. Com–
munism, often noble whilst in oppo–
sition, often promising during the
early moments of revolutionary
rule, turns invariably into an impla–
cable tyranny. But Wieseltier is
unable to understand why this is a
cause for sorrow and for solemnity.
His quarrel with Sontag is based on
his having no understanding of
what it means to have harbored
such hopes; he can't see what all the
fuss and scruple are about. In a way,
of course, he is lucky : his indifTer–
ence to the promise of revolution
has saved him from much pain .
Wieseltier is apparently unable to
sympathize with or understand any
intellectual struggles not congruent
with his own.
Certainly, such sympathy is not
much in evidence in Wieseltier's
discussion of practical politics. "A
really serious anticommunism," he
writes, chiding Sontag for her
admission that the Left hesitated in
condemning communism because
anticommunism was for so long the
mot d'ordre
of the Right, "might be a
little less worried about being mis–
taken for ' reactionary forces .' "
Later, in the same vein, Wieseltier
jocosely dismisses Sontag's alleged
uneasiness about having the same
view of Poland as Caspar
Weinberger. But politics is not
about formulating atomized opin–
ions-in which case the question of
who shares one' s opinions is of no
consequence. Politicians represent
views that are interconnected with
one another.
Thus what is necessary is the
very thing that Wieseltier wants so
PARTISAN REVIEW
much to avoid (for if anyone is apo–
litical in the strict sense it is he , not
Sontag) : a political analysis broader
and more comprehensive and, per–
haps, somewhat more principled
than the kind of shifting alliances
that Wieseltier recommends to us in
the name of honor. Caspar
Weinberger, for example, has few
qualms about the United States '
maintaining and even developing
ties with the torturers who govern
half the countries in the American
sphere of influence .
But Wieseltier is now more
concerned with the bilateral strug–
gle between the United States and
the Soviet Union. " Russia," he
asserts, "is a greater threat to the
idea of democracy than the Repub–
lican Party," and this is absolutely
true as long as we restrict ourselves
to comparing America and West–
ern Europe to Russia and Eastern
Europe. However, the world is
overwhelmingly populated by the
peoples who live neither in Europe,
nor in Russia, nor in America.
Must Wiesel tier really be
reminded of the existence of Ameri–
can imperialism? The Caspar
Weinbergers and Ronald Reagans
side and will continue to side with
the Trujillos, the Somozas , the
Pahlavis , the Marcoses, and the
Galtieris. They justify these "dis–
tasteful" alliances because, they say,
otherwise these countries will go
communist and an anticommunist
Argentina, Philippines, or wherever
is vital to the projection of Ameri–
can power in its bilateral contest
with the Soviet Union. (This may
be true but I am appalled by the
equanimity with which Wieseltier
accepts these calculations.) One
judges politicians by their actions,
not by their speeches. The Ameri–
can government is not anticom–
munist; rather it absolutely accepts
