digm provide examples of ideological distortionrnlegitimized by a value system immunernto critical scrutiny. That Kissingerrnis probably unaware of the hierarchy ofrnnormative control that determines hisrnown thinking does not mean he is off thernhook. A “self-revising” analyst—a boldrnthinker unbound by institutional loyaltiesrnand personal ambition —would deliberatelyrnseek the distinction betweenrnvalues and norms. Critically examiningrnnorms —in this case, the continued utilitvrnof NATO as an institution —shouldrnnot be mistaken for attacking core valuesrn—American nahonal interests —andrnthus proposing a new hierarchy of control.rnKissinger’s advocacy of a missile-defenserns’stem is an example of his ideologicalrnthinking. “With all respect for the views ofrnallies and other important countries, thernUnited States cannot condemn its populationrnto permanent vulnerability,” saysrnKissinger, a little pompously, before proceedingrnto list arguments against missilerndefense in order to refute them. He doesrnnot list—and, tlierefore, does not answer—rnthe right ones: the terrorist threats that, afterrnSeptember 11, may well be biologicalrnrather than nuclear and that the method ofrndelivery will be a smuggled suitcase ratherrnthan a ballistic missile. More importantly,rnKissinger does not see—or, anyway, doesrnnot say—that the missile-defense “philosophy”rnassumes the desirability of globalrnhegemony as the basis of U.S. foreign policv.rnShort of a radical change in that policy,rna working nuclear shield above Americarnwould be the equivalent of giving a sniperrna bulletiaroof suit.rnIntellectually and technically, Kissinger’srntreatment of the “politics of globalization”rnis the least satisfying part of hisrnbook. “Globalization has diffused economicrnand technological power, histantaneousrncommunications make the decisionsrnin one region hostage to those inrnother parts of the globe. Globalizationrnhas produced unprecedented prosperity,rnalbeit not evenly.” Missing the impact ofrnglobalization on national identities andrncultures, Kissinger exudes what seems anrnunwarranted confidence that the behaviorrnof nations will remain determined inrnthe coming century by continuities ofrnhistory and geography, thus implying thatrnnations are here to stay as recognizable,rnand more or less constant, entities.rnKissinger ends by noting that greatrnstatesmen are distinguished not by theirrndetailed knowledge but by “their instinctiverngrasp of historical currents, by anrnability to discern amidst the myriad of impressionsrnthat impiirge on consciousnessrnthose most likely to shape the future.” Itrngoes without saying that he believes himselfrnendowed with that grasp. He is mistaken.rnHaving spent most of his workingrnlife within the institutional and intellectualrnconfines of Washington, D.C., Dr.rnHenry Kissinger is finally constrained byrnthe limits those impose on his ability torndiscern what needs to be done now andrnwhat is in store for us all tomorrow. Thernresult is a distortion of reality—impelledrnby habit or interest—that purports to explainrnto others what the author himselfrncannot understand. In the coming century,rnthe world will be a much darker andrnunhappier place than Henry Kissingerrnimagines, and his recommendations arernwoefully inadecjuate to prepare Americarnfor the coming ordeal, at home orrnabroad.rnSrdja Trifkovic is Chronicles’ foreignaffairsrneditor.rnClark’s Talernby Derek TurnerrnDiaries: Into Politicsrnby Alan ClarkrnLondon: Weidenfeld & Nicolson;rn389 pp., £20rnAlan Clark, who died in 1999 at thernage of 71, was one of the ConservativernParty’s most iconoclastic, amusing,rnand controversial—yet thoughtful — figures.rnIn a party top-heavy with temporizersrnand economic reductionists, in an agernfull of angst, his cheerful disregard forrndelicate seirsibilities was a joy to behold,rneven when you did not agree with whatrnhe was saying or doing. Everything herndid was fundamentally interesting, howeverrnideologically indefensible or morallyrnreprehensible.rnHis penchant for fast cars and adventurerngot him into the gossip columns,rnwhile his adultery was legendary—at onerntime, he was carrying on simultaneousrnaffairs with a judge’s wife and her tworndaughters. In the bars at Tory conferences,rnyou can still hear delegates reminiscingrnfondly of Clark’s gallant defensernof English football hooligans and his arrestrnfor demonstrating against live animal-rnexports, while his euphemism for lyingrn—”being economical with the actualffe”rn—has passed into common parlance.rnDespite — or because of—his fame,rnClark never attained particularly high politicalrnoffice, rising only as far as ministerrnof state at the Department of Defence.rnHis 1978 “certainty that I would be calledrnupon to lead” must have rung hollow tornhim as he grappled with his fatal disease.rnWe can only hope that the comment ofrnDennis Skinner (the leftwing MP whornsaid to him, “You’ll end up in despairlikernme”) was misplaced.rnThere are several other reasons forrnAlan Clark’s lack of political success.rnFirst of all, as the Daily Telegraph put it,rn”his honesty, sense of humour and contemptrnfor stupidity disqualified him fromrnhigh office.” Second, his upper-classrnbackground worked against him: His fatherrnwas Lord (Kenneth) Clark, a distirrguishedrnart historian and the youngest directorrnof the National Gallery. Forrndecades, the Tories have been movingrnresolutely down-market, as the serriedrnranks of Heath, Thatcher, Major, andrnHague testify, in an attempt to “broadenrntheir appeal”—although to this day, Toryrnpoliticians are still often thought of asrn”posh,” whatever their origins {ergo “outrnof touch”), while the privately educated,rnupper-middle-class Tony Blair (descendedrnfrom the Plantagenets on one side ofrnhis family, and from Simon de Montfortrnon the other) is an honorary “man of thernpeople.”rnAlan Clark had a greater interest inrnpersonal enjoyment than in serious politics:rnHe often thought more about thernintricacies of political plotting than its actualrnends. He relished Westminster intrigues,rnsaying in 1980:rnThe Machiavellian undercurrents,rnthe need to be permanentiy onrnone’s guard, to know how to readrnthe codes and smoke signals; howrnto assess people’s real motives, andrndiscount their superficial courtesiesrnand protestations — is what makesrnthe game here so fascinating.rnFinally, Clark’s unruffled surface maskedrna personality full of distracting doubts —rnabout money, mortality, health, andrnsexual potency. As he asked of himselfrnin August 1974: “Am I a Renaissancernprince, a philosopher, or a big ageingrndud?” Yet he attained greater influencernand fame as an historian and, above all.rnDECEMBER 2001/31rnrnrn