321 CHRONICLESnLaqueur therefore sees a politicalnsituation bearing significant signs ofnstability. In fact, the West Germansnhave done far better, over four decades,nthan anyone had a right to expect.nThis latter point is illuminating,nimportant, and encouraging. Nevertheless,nGermany Today consistentlyndelineates what may be deep structuralnchanges in German politics, society,nand (especially) intellectual culture—ndangerous changes, with possible verynnegative long-range impact. We can’tnknow for certain (it’s difficult to discernnwhen the hypochondriac is really ill),nbut while reading this book I sometimesnhad a sense of apres Kohl lendeluge.nDespite Walter Laqueur’s optimishcnprognosis for German political, social,nand cultural health, any sense of forebodingnabout developments in thenFederal Republic will only be increasednby reading Giinter Grass’s latestncollechon of essays: On Writingnand Politics, 1967-1983.nGiinter Grass is one of the twonwriters who has dominated thenGerman intellectual scene since then1960’s (the other colossus is the NobelnPrize winning Heinrich B5ll). Grass’snprominence gives his utterances annenormous impact on the Germannpolitical-cultural scene. Grass’s mostncelebrated work is the anti-Nazi novelnThe Tin Drum, and he has been anleader among German intellectuals innfully accepting the guilt for the Nazinpast (“I was 17 in 1945, too young tonparticipate in the crimes, innocentnthrough no fault of my own”). By then1960’s, Grass had also emerged as anleading, truly democratic socialistnthinker. Though as a participant in thenintellectual culture he was naturallynalienated from the prosperous bourgeoisnGermany of the Wirtschaftswundern(“banal and empty”), he wasnalso scaldingly hoshle to Communistntotalitarianism and contemptuous asnwell of the apocalyptic, amateur radicalismnof the Generation of 1968.nInstead of radicalism, Grass espousednsober and gradual reform by means ofnhard work within the system — thendemocratic system of the Federal Republic,nthe Social Democratic Party ofnWilly Brandt.nThe single best essay in the currentncollection comes from this period. Inn”Erfurt 1891 and 1970,” Grass proud­nly accepts the title “revisionist.” Henpoints out that the bitter epithet “revisionist”nwas first used by Marxist revolutionariesnto attack the reformmindednsocialist thinker EduardnBernstein. The basis of Bernstein’sn”Erfurt Program” was the realizationnthat capitalism was compatible withndemocratic change and that it wasnadaptable to workers’ demands: violentnrevolution was therefore unnecessary.nThe Erfurt Program thus marked annepochal split in the European left betweennviolent revolutionaries andndemocratic reformers, a split that hasnendured down to our own day. “Erfurtn1891 and 1970” is a hymn of praise tonBernstein — a man who, as Grassnpointedly remarks, was also one of thenearliest and most perceptive critics ofnLeninist atrocities.nThis vigorous and thoughtful essay,nand others like it, were written undernthe combined impact of the Sovietninvasion of Gzechoslovakia (1968) andnthe electoral triumph of the SocialnDemocrats in Germany (1969). Yetneven here, it is striking that Grassnnever even tries to deal with the basicnself-contradiction that even a “democratic”nsocialist regime implies a hugenincrease in the power of the state overnsociety and the individual, which isnsomething that Grass clearly opposes.nHis socialist vision therefore remains anmere romantic blur.nWhat is disturbing about On Writingnand Politics is to see how thisnretreat into romanticism and awaynfrom sober practical polities acceleratesnover time. During the 1970’s, Grassnseems to have lost his earlier appreciationnof and patience with the democraticnprocess of the Federal Republic;nhe became instead an increasingly hystericalnapocalyptist (pollution, technology,ntechnocracy, above all, thenBomb). Laqueur suggests that at leastnone reason for Grass’s change of heartnwas the replacement of Willy Brandtnby Helmut Schmidt as head of thenSocial Democrats: Brandt respectednthe intellectuals, sought their advice,nand even occasionally followed it;nSchmidt did not.nWhatever the cause of Grass’s radicalization,nthe effect is all too obviousnin these essays. During the 1970’snGrass became one of the leading WestnGerman proponents of moral equivalence.nAt first. Grass held this positionnnnon the grounds that the West, fornreasons of “security,” sometimes supportsnunsavory, undemocratic regimes.nIn a 1973 essay. Grass equatesnthe Greece of the Colonels and FranconSpain with the Czechoslovakia of GustavnHusak. But as we all know, Greecenand Spain both reverted to democracynin the mid-1970’s, while the Czechnregime has not loosened its totalitarianngrip.nYet such developments did not disturbnGrass’s belief in “moralnequivalence”—they just meant thatnhis grounds for that belief had to shiftnsomewhat. The shift: Grass now begannto devalue the reality and importancenof “formal democracy” itself Thus inna 1983 essay. Grass holds that Westnand East are morally equivalent becausenthe potential “dictatorship” of ancomputerized Western society equalsnthe actual police-state totalitarianismneast of the Elbe. Again, Grass equatesnthe 1983 electoral victory of HelmutnKohl’s conservatives with the comingnof the society of Orwell’s NineteennEighty-Four to the Federal Republic.nBut such essays are worse than childish.nWhen a great writer chooses then10th anniversary of the Soviet invasionnof Czechoslovakia to say that “the twontechnocracies” are the morally equalnexecutors of the vision of Franz Kafka,nwe are dealing with a man who has lostnhis moral compass.nThe moral and intellectual degenerationnis most glaringly apparent innGrass’s discussion of Nicaragua, whichncloses On Writing and Politics. Writtennin 1982—immediately after thencrushing of Solidarity by the PolishnCommunist government—this essaynactually equates Solidarity with thenSandinista regime: both, you see, arenbasically peaceful Catholic socialistnmovements. Similarly, Grass equatesnAmerican support of anti-Sandinistanforces with the Communist suppressionnof Solidarnosc. Like GeraldinenFerraro in her 1984 TV debate withnGeorge Bush, Grass believes that allnthe Sandinistas need is help towards andemocracy they fervently desire butnare inexplicably blundering awaynfrom. He fails to see that what thenCommunists did to Solidarity is whatnthe Sandinistas themselves are tryingnto do to the independent Nicaraguannlabor movement, a movement whichnwas an integral part of the originaln