STEPHEN MILLER
8 1
eyeva. She accused the Russian Service of airing programs that were
hostile to pluralism and democracy.
Soon after this debate erupted, I was asked by Buckley to see what to
make of it. I had to become an instant expert on Russian nationalism. I
told him that scholars were deeply divided about the nature of Russian
nationalism, but the controversial scripts were few in number, and the
overwhelming majority of scripts aired by the Russian Service were not
tainted with nationalism of any kind. The scripts in question, moreover,
were about relatively obscure historical issues that did not lend them–
selves to easy clarification. Undoubtedly, the scripts were too strident,
tendentious, chauvinistic, and excessively critical of the democratic
West. RL's management, I said, should have a better vetting process so
that similar unprofessional scripts would not be aired.
I also said that the scripts were not anti-Semitic, but some Russian
Jews on the RL staff told me I didn't understand code words that Russ–
ian-speakers knew referred to Jews. One thing was clear.
It
was absurd
for anyone to suggest that Bailey condoned Russian ultra-nationalism.
For one thing, his wife was Jewish. Secondly, he was a great admirer of
Andrei Sakharov, whom Russian nationalists often attacked because of
Sakharov's "internationalist" views. After Bailey left the Radios he
wrote a book about Sakharov,
Calileo 's Children: Science, Sakharov,
and the Power of the State.
Bailey may have been a lax administrator,
but he was a decent man without any prejudices.
At first I found the controversy over Russian nationalism interesting,
because it enabled me to learn more about Russian history and culture.
But after a year of handling questions from congressional staffers and
the press I became irritated by the debate's staying power and by the
way it was blown out of proportion . After I was misquoted by a Jewish
weekly, I became shy about talking to the press. And though I came to
the conclusion that Solzhenitsyn was not anti-Semitic, I still harbored
doubts about the RL staffers who had written the offending scripts.
I was also less enthusiastic about being part of the Reagan team.
Though still a Reaganite in my foreign policy views, I felt that some of
the leading team members were hurting the effort to reform the Radios.
Urban was too high-handed, and Bailey was too lax. But it was Shake–
speare's approach to reform that bothered me the most. A decent and
well-meaning man, Shakespeare was-how shall I put it?-too gung-ho.
Twice, I think, he descended upon Munich and required all staffers to
assemble in the cafeteria so that he could lecture them about where the
Radios should be going. His speeches made my job more difficult, for
he seemed to be say ing-though it may not have been his intention-
