shared history. Though Lasch was willingrnto accept variations on this model,rngiven the present shattered condition ofrnthe real article, he rejected academic redefinitionsrnof what community is about.rnLeast of all did he view it as a collectionrnof itinerant yuppies and sexual deviantsrnlooking for an idol to replace the godrnthat failed.rnA certifiable Brahmin, he nonethelessrnappealed to those uncorrupted by wealthrnor academic pretension. Both his celebrationrnof the lower middle class and hisrnyearning for a localist, family-based socialismrnshow the unseasonable nature ofrnhis antiliberal radicalism. More distributistrnthan leftist and more traditionalistrnthan would be tolerable to our officialrnright, Lasch defies simplisticrnlabeling. He also continues to be arnsource of inspiration to those on the truernright, those of us whose conservatismrnhas nothing to do with the defense ofrnmultinational consumerism.rn—Paul GottfriedrnSOLZHENITSYN has finally returnedrnto Mother Russia after 18 years in thernUnited States. Given that he did morernthan any other individual to help bringrndown communism, it is strange that sornmany Americans are still puzzled by thisrnman and unfamiliar with his work. Thisrnis partly due to Solzhenitsyn’s decision tornlive a reclusive life deep in the woods ofrnVermont. When leaving, he thankedrnhis fellow Vermonters for respecting hisrnseclusion. For a state so respectful of individualrnliberties and privacy, that wasrnnot such a hard thing to do. But for arnman who helped bring down the SovietrnEmpire, why does his name remain arnmystery to some, and an enigma to others?rnThe answer, as it so often does, liesrnin the lower depths of politics.rnSolzhenitsyn was a Soviet soldier duringrnWorld War II when he was arrestedrnfor expressing frustrations about the warrnin private letters. The fact that he wasrnarrested was not unusual, for millions ofrnhis fellow countrymen were also cartedrnoff to the Gulag. What distinguishedrnSolzhenitsyn was the fact that he livedrnto tell his tale about Stalin’s purges andrnthe Soviet reign of terror. His wordsrnshook the foundations of history’s mostrnbrutal regime. One Day in the Life ofrnIvan Denisovich was a fictional accountrnof what the average day was like for someonernin a Soviet concentration camp.rnAs chilling as that story was, nothingrnwas so terrifying and monumental as hisrnmasterful work, The Gulag Archipelago.rnChronicling the purges of the 1920’srnthrough the 1950’s, Solzhenitsyn tracesrnthe root of the Soviet disease back tornLenin and the communist Utopian idealrnof a “new society” and a new “SovietrnMan.” That social experiment led tornthe extermination of over 40 millionrnpeople. The numbers are almost toornstaggering to comprehend. The GulagrnArchipelago, although virtually ignoredrnin America, destroyed the Europeanrnleft’s faith in the Soviet model. Therndream of a new society was dead, itsrnfoundations, built on the bones of millions,rnwere crumbling.rnBut what about America? The left, alwaysrnsympathetic to the Soviet Union,rnhad long apologized for the murders,rnforced famines, and purges. Leftistsrnviewed Solzhenitsyn as a traitor, and oftenrndismissed him as a lunatic. When Irnwas in college in the 1980’s, a professorrntold me in response to a question aboutrnSolzhenitsyn, “He has his merits as arnwriter of fiction, but as a historian of thernSoviet Union he has no credibility.”rn(This professor is still hailed on ChicagornTV as a Russian “expert.”)rnBut it was not only the left that shiedrnaway from Solzhenitsyn. During five administrationsrnhe was never invited to thernWhite House. Even Ronald Reagan, ofrn”Evil Empire” fame, refused to inviternSolzhenitsyn. It was thought to be toornrisky; it might upset the Soviet leadership.rnGod forbid.rnIf the left viewed Solzhenitsyn as arntraitor, many on the right were suspiciousrnof his leanings toward a Russiarnruled by a divine monarch—a Romanovrnrestoration. Solzhenitsyn was very criticalrnof the West and its slavish devotion tornmaterialism. He feared that a societyrnthat turns away from God, in pursuit ofrninstant gratification, will lead to decadencernand despair. And considering thernsocial and cultural problems plaguingrnthe Godless West, can anyone deny thatrnit is less safe, more uncivil, and yes, morerndecadent today?rnSolzhenitsyn is a man caught out ofrnhis time. He barkens back to 19th-centuryrnImperial Russia, the land of Tolstoyrnand Dostoyevsky. But his warnings tornthe West remain relevant and should atrnleast be understood, if not heeded. Hisrnhope for divine intervention for hisrnhomeland—and for ours—should bernprayed for by all.rn—Michael FinchrnO B I T E R DICTA: The John RandolphrnClub meeting held in Arlington,rnVirginia, last fall dealt with America’srnchanging national character. A host ofrnconservative and libertarian luminariesrndiscussed various aspects of “the Americanrnidentity”—its origins, its evolution,rnand its current predicament. In thernopening address on Friday night,rneconomist Murray Rothbard, one of twornrecipients of the 1994 Ingersoll Prizes,rncriticized the Libertarian movement forrnabandoning its commitment to individualrnliberty. On Saturday, LlewellynrnRockwell, Sam Francis, Peter Brimelow,rnChris Kopff, and other noted conservativernthinkers addressed topics as diversern(pardon the term) as “America’s ClassicalrnHeritage,” “American Balkanization,”rn”Exporting Democracy,” “ThernBricker Amendment,” and “CulturelessrnMulticulturalism.” After dinner, sixrnguests engaged in a lively (not to sayrnheated) debate on the proposition thatrnthe federal government has a duty tornprotect individual liberties. Concurringrnwith this view were columnist DougrnBandow, economics professor WalterrnBlock, and Justin Raimondo, a mediarnfellow with the Ludwig von Mises Institute.rnArguing against the propositionrnwere David Gordon, a senior fellow atrnthe Ludwig von Mises Institute, Chroniclesrneditor Thomas Fleming, and MurrayrnRothbard.rnIn contrast to many dull (and notrninexpensive) academic gatherings inrnWashington, this event left all guestsrnfeeling that they had got more than theyrnhad paid for. Even a neoconservativernguest admitted that although he had notrnalways agreed with the speakers, the contentrnand delivery of their material werernuniformly excellent. Perhaps the highrnpoint of the weekend was the “Songfest,”rnconsisting of recitals of such classicsrnas Gilbert and Sullivan’s “I’ve Got a LittlernList,” as well as new versions of oldrnchestnuts: “The Ballad of the BluernBerets” and “Over There” (we won’t gornover!).rnChronicles is now available at the followingrnBoston area stores: Borders BookrnShop, 85 Worcester Rd., Framingham;rnBarnes & Noble Superstore, 325 HarvardrnSt., Brookline; The Corner Store,rn1752 Massachusetts Ave., Lexington;rnHudson News, 2 South Station, Suite 6,rnBoston; Eastern Lobby Shops, 100rnHuntington Ave., Boston.rnJANUARY 1995/7rnrnrn