turn to new thoughts on a royahstnrestoration. Whether such a thingnwould be an improvement or not, it isnhard to say. In Spain, a nondescriptnking at least prevents chaos. The worldnwitnessed the burial of Hirohito, thenemperor surrounded with venerationnand sacred symbols. The Brazilianncongress just decided that four yearsnhence a popular referendum wouldnchoose a new regime: republican, presidential,nor imperial. The Prince andnPrincess of Wales are immensely popularnin France. And the old Count ofnParis, pretender to the throne of LouisnXVI, has chosen his grandson. PrincenJean, as his successor. Real history isnunpredictable; it plays havoc with thensevere mold in which revolutions wantnto enshrine it.nSignificant in all this is the change ofnpublic climate from the old, generallyn(except for royalists) positive judgmentnon the revolution, to the new evaluation,nwhich goes from indifference tonrejection. Intellectuals, professors, andnwriters live in France in a greaterncloseness with large segments of thenpopulation than in any other countrynexcept perhaps Russia. Thus there isnsome cause-and-effect relationship betweennthe men and the books herenmentioned and the overall climate. It isnimpossible precisely to scrutinize thenchemistry of such changes in mentality,nsentiment, and semipublic discourse.nThree reasons may, however,nbe tentatively suggested.nThe first ‘is the memory of thenminirevolution to which the Frenchnrefer as “May 1968,” and which wasnperhaps the last gasp of irresponsiblenintellectuals, symbolized by Sartre andnhis colleagues. There are enough repulsivenreminiscences of those eventsnto have depoliticized large segments ofnthe population for a long time. Thenlesson is clear: if revolutions are notnstopped in time — as Louis XVI couldnhave done and de Gaulle half-did inn1968 — they will go on chopping offnheads.nThe second reason is the genuinenrepugnance people feel before thengame of democratic parties and pressurengroups, now presented — this isnstill new for the French — on television.nCorruption, pious promises, andnincompetence have spared no membernof the political class. People have begunnrefusing to vote, the “myth” is inn50/CHRONICLESnshreds, the “system” is despised. Thenvote for Le Pen could easily climb ton20 percent, not because people favornhim, but as a manifestation of protest.nThe last reason is simply the erosionnof ideals that overcomes modernnliberal-welfare industrial democracies.nWhen only material fulfillment andnobsession with rights are spoken aboutnby institutions and the media, the citizennnot only turns selfish, he wallowsnin the self-centered “lifestyle” and isnno longer embarrassed to display hisnpreference. France, too, has arrived atnthis stage. On a popular level it maynnot be a “rethinking of the revolution,”nonly a rejection of the transparent liesnuttered and pictured 24 hours a day.nSeventeen eighty-nine seems, inncomparison, like a year of enthusiasmnand civic fervor. Nineteen eighty-ninenis, despite the fanfare and the confetti,na bored gesticulation.nThomas Molnar is the author ofnTwin Powers: Politics and the Sacred.nLAWnDr. Koop on Life,nLiberty, and an’Smoke-Free’nAmericanby Tibor R. MachannRecently the Tobacco Institute, anlobbying outfit pleading the casenfor the tobacco industry, has been placingnads in numerous publications complainingnabout the harshness with whichnnnthe government is fighting cigarettensmoking. Surgeon General C. EverettnKoop has been a vigilant soldier in thengovernment’s fight. But it is very probablenthat he has gone way beyond the callnof duty in what he is willing to say andndo about many Americans’ choice tonsmoke cigarettes.nDr. Koop is a good case in point as tonwhy, despite the very attractive rhetoricnof President Ronald Reagan, that kindnof conservative administration is farnfrom a true friend of individual freedom.nPresident Reagan’s employmentnof Dr. Koop is clear evidence that thenactual policies endorsed by the Reagannadministration toward people whonchoose to live their lives differendy fromnDr. Koop are quite dangerous to thenvery ideals Ronald Reagan claims tonhave been championing.nConsider that Dr. Koop is the personnwho said he “wants a smoke-free Americanby 1990.” This sounds like annout-and-out threat to the liberty of angreat many people who might notnchoose to quit smoking in the next yearnand a half It is clearly an utterance withndictatorial overtones.nBut perhaps Dr. Koop allowed himselfnsome hyperbole. He may simplynhave meant that this is what he wishesnwould happen by 1990 — that peoplenwould have quit smoking cigarettes.nNo such luck. Dr. Koop does notnonly sound like a dictator, he seems tonbe thinking like one as well. Some timenago Dr. Koop commented on the TobacconInstitute’s ads that lament all thenharshness against smokers. He took thenopportunity to respond to the industry’snclaim that the plan to bari cigarette adsnis an unconstitutional attempt at ceiisorship.nHe said that on the contrary, it wasnindeed the tobacco industry that engagednin censorship. As evidence hennoted that many papers that carry cigarettenadvertisements refuse to run reportsnon the hazards of smoking.nNote Dr. Koop’s claim. The tobacconindustry’s refijsal to run ads in papersnthat carry reports it does not like nowncounts as censorship. This is akin tonwhat I have heard defenders of thenSoviet Union’s government press saynabout the Western press. They claimnthat since in the West publishers canninfluence the editorial content of theirnpapers, they are just as much involvednin censorship as is the Soviet govemment.n