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