in for seating. As The Economist describednthe effect, it was “more a gi^enthan a gig.” This travesty of Balanchine’snchoreography was part of a celebrationnof the Italian Communist Party’s/estondeH’unitanIt’s too bad Balanchine couldn’t havenbeen there to see it. Before his defectionnin 1924, he had danced in performancesngiven for the party leadership in thenSoviet Union. Waiting in the wings, henwould hear snatches of fervent debates.nTo the end of his days, he used to entertainnfriends with his imitations ofnTrotsky. The aesthetic commissars of thenU.S.S.R. were not ready for Balanchine’sninnovations in dance. Even in 1959 thenchief choreographer of the BolshoinIn my opinion, the winners of then1984 presidential election were:nPresident Reagannliberalismnandnthe conservative eggheads, withndiom the Republican politiciansnare so ostentatiously impatient.nFaced with such judgment, a wisenrabbi woiikl caress his beard and sa>’:n”llowiDnicMiilulisparaUM-vcniiniitheiical.nelcnu-nis could all win at (hcnsame lime anil place?” .nd tluiiS angooil (.|ui-sii()n. wiiicli makes politicsnin toilay”.s Xnierii’a.siichaconlusing. ifnnot disturbing, spectacle.nI’resiilcnl Keaganci-rtainb wnnonniiis i-C( ird. i>iit part ofliis recorii is thenasset of his smile: an enileariiigh ;ili-n.nierican smile llial coiies an impressionnof foriiiLide and conviction,nriiere were otiiers befori’ Mr. Reagannwho went alongwa i>n their smiles;n{hrk {iahle managed .o turn his grinninto a naiionalefiiiilem. Tile press liasnairead laggeil this unprecedenteilniciiirv ;ts ;i triumph (if ptipularitx.nSS^M^MHM^HnChronicles of Culturenarrogantly informed Balanchine that hisnwork would be condemned back homenas “mere formalism.”nBalanchine loved his American home.nThe State Department had to work hardnto convince him that it was his patrioticnduty as an American citizen to take thencompany to the Soviet Union in 1962.nThe emigre’s hostility to communismnand to the Soviet regime was unbending.nThroughout his successM tour, whenevernhe was hailed as a great Russian, henalways responded—^in pre-1917 Russiann—with a denial. No, he was only annAmerican. In his native city of St.nPetersburg (now Leningrad) he wasnhailed as a conquering hero, a hometownnboy who made good. He acceptednAnd the Winners Are.nThat is not exactly the case. Reagannwon because, next to his substantialneconomic accomplishments, he eftectivelynsymbolized certain ideals, ;mdnlongings, and emotions. Some ofnthem were superficially articulatednbut at the same time were as hot as anbranding iron pressed against thennation’s flesh.nSo the question is why did Reagan’sncoattails stretch no further thannGeorge Bush?nWhen America woke up onnNovember 7th, the election, its seennby extreme partisans on both sides,ncould have been reduced to thendefeat of the party of Sister Booni-nBootn by the party of Brother Falw ell.nllie entire nation—down to the stratumnof the IS-year-olds—seemednpermeated \ilh a desire l()r a societynprolbimdly iliflerent from wiiat weninherited from the ‘-)W and “O’s.nObviously, the nation in its massnoted against mindless liberationismnwhose consec|uence has lieen thenmural and existential emptiness innthe iivi-s of. at least, one generation.nMr. Mondale somehow representednnnthe tribute—^not for himself, he said, butnon behalf of the United States and NewnYork City.nBalanchine was a great American, andeeply religious man, and a militantnanticommunist. The New York CitynBallet’s clowning for the Italian communistsnis worse than bad taste. The aimsnof the Italian Party are no different fromnthose of their Russian brethren whondrove and are still driving so manynartists, musicians, writers, and dancersninto exile. In putting itself at the servicenof the Party, the NYCB demonstratesnonce again the connection betweennartistic integrity and moral conscience:nbad faith makes bad art. DnSan Ifanci.sco and .Mr. keagan l.nchburg.nirginia. Hut the clarity ofnpeople’s decision becomes blurreil. ifnwe try to pit tiie liberalism of thenDemocrats against the conseratismnof the Kepuiilicans. .Massachusettsnreelected an unrepentant homo.sexiialncongri-ssman who seduced ancongressional page, while tiie xoiersnof Illinois turneil against a congres.sniannguilty of a similar hut moren”normal” transgression, di-spiteall hisntears of re]ienlance. Small things,nperhaps, but they speak olumes ainHilnsome vectors of our soi’icty that seemnto be bei)nd the understaniling ofnRepublican eonser atiw.s.nSo win does a nation whose instinctsnare behind Ronald Ueag;iii allnthe wa displa. at the .same time, suchnindilierence to his catechism ofnfuntlameiital. down-to-earih valiii’s?nWhy does ideological liberalismnri-main the iiig winner by tiiwariingnall tile efforts to initiate a (liffvn’iilnsocielN? W hy is liberalism still sonpoll-lit as to lie able to give thenmoribund Democratic Party agai-nani/ing.shot and s;ive it from iu-ingn