4
OPINION
Page 4
Thursday, January 12, 1984
The Michigan Daily
Oscars for 'Kissinger Commission'
By Ben Davis
x "The Kissinger Commission on Cen-
tral America" marks a new artistic
triumph for Ronald Reagan as he for-
sakes the security of Hollywood
situation comedy and ventures into
foreign policy's turbulent theater of the
absurd. Rarely in his career as a direc-
tor has Reagan assembled such an
improbably cast, such elaborate (and
well-financed) stage machinery, and
such a credulous audience. Those of you
who thought "The Scowcroft Com-
mission to Sell the MX" (excuse me,
the Peacekeeper) was a brilliant bit of
bamboozle will truly appreciate
Reagan's latest offering.
"The Kissinger Commission" has the
ingredients to become the top political
thriller of 1984: communist villains, an
American hero who radiates the Right
Stuff, and a political crisis created
when the Democrats try to lose El
Salvador, just because of a few death
squads. The most remarkable perfor-
mance is by Henry Kissinger, the
mayvin of political comedy whom
Reagan cajoled out of retirement for
one last fling on the international stage.
If you remember his performances in
"Peace With Honor: The Vietnam
Story" and "Democracy In Chile" (who
could forget a line like "I don't see why
we need to stand by and watch a coun-
try go communist due to the irrespon-
AP P sibility of its own people"), you'll agree
"The Kissinger Commission of Central America," Ronald Reagan's latest directoral effort, is a classic. Starring Henry that Kissinger lives up to his reputation
Kissinger (pictured on the left next to Reagan), the film may be the top political epic of the year. Co-stars Lane
Kirkland and William Clements are pictured to the right of Reagan.
as the king of macho diplomacy, riding
herd on the noisy liberals as he single-
handedly exposes the Soviet-Cuban plot
-to take over Central America.
HENRY DOESN'T pull any punches.
"It is time we stopped arguing about
how much democracy there is in El
Salvador and begin to understand that
there are American strategic interests
at stake," he proclaims, steadfastly
refusing to go soft on communism by
making aid to the Salvadoran generals
conditional on land reform, control of
the death squads, or anything else that
might keep them from killing another
40,000 of their own people in the next
four years. "Conditionality must take a
form that does not prove self-
defeating," the chairman says, and he
means it.
It's not surprising that the other
Republicans in the cast have trouble
keeping up with Kissinger, but they at
least make a credible chorus. The real
kudos, however, go to Robert Strauss,
Lane Kirkland, Henry Cisneros, Carlos
Diaz-Alejandro, and Michael Barnes,
who put in outstanding performances
as a flock of confused liberals who don't
understand why the Salvadoran
generals can't be nice to their peasants
- like Somoza was in Nicaragua.
Strauss and Kirkland have played
this kind of role before, of course, but
all five are in top form as they offer
timid objections to Kissinger's rhetoric,
then collapse magnificently under his
hard-bitten onslaught. Barnes's
metamorphosis from vocal opponent of
military aid to champion of "bipartisan
consensus" is particularly poignant
this aspiring young actor should be
watched closely.
Consistency of plot has never been
one of Reagan's strong points, and
there are a few places in "The
Kissinger Commission" where
sticklers for logic may get upset '
when the Commission votes to continue"
arming the Contras fighting against
Nicaragua in order to assure the
Nicaraguans of our commitment to
peace and democracy, for example, or
when they propose an $8 billion
economic aid package that no one who's :
ever heard the word "deficits" (or of
the Alliance for Progress) could take
seriously.
But such picky critics miss the
human drama of politics which Reagan
portrays so effectively - the com-
munist menace, Kissinger's struggle so
dispel the fog of liberalism enshrouding
the myopic democrats, their eleventh-
hour realization of the awful truth, and
the heart-warming climax as Congress:/
votes another $400 million in helicopters
and napalm to the grateful Salvadoran
generals. "The Kissinger Commission"
should silence those petulant critics-
who claimed after "The Day After,"
that Reagan objected to mixing art with
politics. As Ron would say, you just
have to do it right.
Davis is a graduate student in an-
thropology and a member of the
Latin American Solidarily Commit-?/
tee.
LaBan/
Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan
t
Vol. XCIV-No. 84
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
4
Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board
A way to break the ice
N THIS PERIOD of non-existent
communication between the United
States and the Soviet Union just about
any signal of a willingness to talk about
anything shouldn't be dismissed
quickly. When either side proposes any
kind of weapons talks the invitation
should not be rejected without a
careful study of the offer.
The Soviet Union, as the leader of the
Warsaw Pact, made such an offer to
the United States and NATO concer-
ning chemical Weapons. NATO
representatives should accept the
chance to sit down at the same table
with the leaders of the Warsaw Pact.
The Soviets, pointing to current un-
stable international conditions and the
resulting threat of chemical warfare,
proposed talks aimed at banning the
weapons in Europe. The United States
traditionally has supported broadening
the restrictions on chemical arms
outlines in the Geneva Protocol of 1925,
which banned the first use of such,
weapons. Any progress in this arena
would be a welcome sign of decreasing
tensions between the two sides.
Western diplomats are expressing
skepticism concerning the possible
success of such talks. They argue that
the Soviets have been reluctant to ac-
cept verification conditions in the past.
This reluctance has impeded progress
at the comprehensive chemical
weapons talks in Geneva. In the new
proposal the Soviets attempt to answer
these fears by stating that the states
involved could "coordinate mutually
acceptable, adequate forms of
verification, which would insure the ef-
fective fulfillment by all parties of
their assumed obligations." This may
be pure rhetoric, but then it might not
be.
The proposal, coming shortly before
the Stockholm conference on security
in Europe, is an attempt by the Soviets
to project at least an image of concern.
Even if it is nothing more than political
posturing, it merits action. If it is but
empty rhetoric, the best way to expose
such insincerity is to negotiate - the
United States losses nothing by
agreeing to talk.
If the Soviets are ready to deal in
good faith, the U.S. leaders should be
ready to do likewise. This new promise
of talks could lead to a.bit of a thaw in
U.S.-Soviet relations, which, in turn,
could lead to a renewal of nuclear ar-
ms reduction talks.
Talk, as the saying goes, is cheap.
But at this stage of U.S.-Soviet
relations there is precious little of that
commodity being exchanged.
4
I
Education in a new system
By Franz Schurman
I
I
Just about all the reports on the
sad state of education in the
United States come down to the
stunned recognition that
American children are not lear-
ning the tools required to function
in our highly complex system.
But that bottom line implies a
new view of education at varian-
ce with the older philosophy
around which the current struc-
ture of education in this country
was built.
The older view held that
education's main function was
"socialization," imparting to
youngsters the values and norms
that allowed them to become
properly functioning members of
society. The newer view, tacitly
dropping socialization, argues
that the proper function of
education is to provide and train
students in the use of tools needed
for operating in the modern
world.
This little-noted shift in
educational philosophies is har-
dly the result of new intellectual
fads in schools of education. It
mirrors basic changes going on it
The ultimate aim of education
was seen as the creation of an
American society with common
language and culture.
There are only a few calls in the
current debates for a "re-
Americanization" in education.
The loudest calls are for ex-
cellence and basics. The im-
plication is that we must produce
cadres of professionals rather
than a society of citizens.
THAT BRINGS us to the
question: Do Americans any
longer constitute the single
homogenous society that was the
ideal of the older view?
It is hard to argue in this day
and age that Americans do. We
have a bewildering array of dif-
ferent lifestyles, race continues
to separate us, and
multilingualism is becoming
more and more widespread.
On the other hand, we also live
within an over-arching system of
technologically intricate and
economically effective in-
stitutions. System, in fact, has
become a common word
RLOOM COUNTY
replacing society. We now speak
of "working within the system,"
as earlier we admonished young
people to work hard and take
their place in society.
A CENTURY AGO, the
educational reformers en-
visioned an America held
together by a unified society
brought into being through
educational socialization. Today
it is the system, not society, that
forms the bonds holding the coun-
try together.
But if we are a system rather
than a society, then we clearly
need modes of education that fit
the new condition. Public-
education has no choice but to
concentrate less on socializing
youngsters and more on equip-
ping them with the tools they will
need - as many proponents of
back to basics argue.
The shift from society to
system means, in short, that
much of the ' American
educational structure will have to
be renovated. It will require
devising a system that works in
tandem with the real system out
there and is not a prisoner of its
own past.
But going to the other extreme
of filling the current school day
with a back-to-basics curriculum
would backfire. Socialization has
been one of the primary functions
of education since ancient times
and remains so now. Indeed, at
the core of virtually every debate
over education is the fundamen-
tal issue of what kind of people we
are and want to be.
The key challenge is not only to
create a new common curriculm
based on the basics, but to
fashion a total educational por-
tfolio from among the many
public; private and specialized
educational options available to 4
American youngsters today.
Schurmann is a professor of
history and sociology at the
University of California,
Berkeley. He wrote this article
for the Pacific News Service.
by Berke Breathed