Free Beyond Peace by Richard Nixon Page B

President. His early popularity was due to the fact that he attacked the obscene perks of the communist nomenklatura. He must be careful not to indulge in some of the same luxuries that he once criticized.
    I have often described Gorbachev as being an excellent politician. Yeltsin is a better one. Both exude charisma. But Gorbachev seems more contrived; Yeltsin seems more genuine. Gorbachev is more sophisticated; Yeltsin is more down-to-earth. Gorbachev is better in drawing rooms; Yeltsin is better in family rooms. Gorbachev seems to speak more from the head than the heart; Yeltsin seems to be talking more from the heart than from the head.
    When confronted with a crisis, Gorbachev frequently appeared at a loss and resorted to pathetic half-measures; Yeltsin, on the contrary, draws strength from crisis. His authority has come not from established political structures but from a special chemistry with the people.
    The difference between Gorbachev and Yeltsin that matters most is that they stand for different values. Czech President Václav Havel told me, “Gorbachev is still a captive of communism. Yeltsin has liberated himself.”
    Unlike Gorbachev, Yeltsin both preaches and practices democracy. He is the only elected Russian head of state in a thousand years. Gorbachev refused to risk his power in a free election. Unlike Gorbachev, Yeltsin has repudiated both socialism and communism. Most important, Yeltsin has adopted a nonaggressive foreign policy and has made massive cuts in Russia’s nuclear and other weapons.
    American commentators from both ends of the political spectrum deplored Yeltsin’s recent actions. While liberals were outraged that he dissolved the Congress and used force, conservativesfear the new Russian foreign policy assertiveness, which they view as a sign of neoimperialism. While both groups of critics are right in part, both miss the point.
    Yeltsin is a tough and sometimes ruthless Russian patriot. Otherwise he would never have been able to come to power and withstand the numerous challenges to his rule. Gorbachev started reforms without understanding their likely consequences and then backed down when the dangers became apparent, exposing himself—as one former senior Soviet official described him to me—as a “brutal wimp.” It should be remembered that Gorbachev had appointed the reactionaries who led the attempted coup against him in 1991. In contrast, Yeltsin acts preemptively and decisively. This is the key to the continuing support he has among the Russian people, despite all the pain associated with his country’s transition to democratic capitalism.
    Pushkin wrote in the nineteenth century that rebellions in Russia tend to be “bloody and senseless.” It is a political miracle that the unprecedented transition from dictatorship to democracy and from a command economy to a free-market economy is being accomplished relatively peacefully. The remarkable aspect of the October 1993 rebellion by hard-line reactionaries is that so few lives were lost, owing in great part to the fact that after some hesitation the armed forces stood by the democratic government.
    Many observers have expressed concern about Yeltsin’s personal weaknesses. Some say he has a drinking problem. Heavy drinking has been a characteristic of most Russian leaders throughout history, and of some American leaders as well. After Grant’s victory at Vicksburg in 1863, as Lincoln was considering appointing him commander of all Union forces, one of his advisers urged him not to do so because Grant drank. Lincoln reportedly responded, “Get me the name of his brand of whiskey so that I can give some to my other generals.” Yeltsin’s personal habits matter only if they affect his conduct in office.
    Yeltsin sometimes becomes depressed after winning a battle against those who oppose him. This is not an uncommon characteristic of leaders. What matters most is that Yeltsin so