AN APOLOGY

SEVERAL PASSAGES in David Satter's "Russia Incorporated" (December 17) were taken without attribution from Jonas Bernstein's articles in the Eurasia Daily Monitor, published by the Jamestown Foundation. For instance--

Bernstein: "For now, however, Putin appears to be trying to maintain a balance between the warring factions: After Cherkesov's article appeared in Kommersant, Putin publicly scolded him, telling Kommersant that it is 'wrong to bring these kinds of problems to the media' and that someone who claims a war between security agencies is going on 'should, first of all, be spotless.' Yet the following day, Putin created a new state committee to fight illegal drugs and named Cherkesov as its chief" ( Eurasia Daily Monitor, Nov. 2, 2007).

Satter: "Putin appears to be trying to maintain a balance between the warring sides. After Cherkesov's article appeared in Kommersant, Putin publicly criticized him, saying it is 'wrong to bring these kinds of problems to the media.' Yet the following day, Putin created a new state committee to fight illegal drugs and named Cherkesov as its chief."

THE WEEKLY STANDARD and the author apologize to Mr. Bernstein, to the Jamestown Foundation, and to our readers. We also commend to our readers the articles by Mr. Bernstein that served as source material: "Finansgroup: How Russia's Siloviki Do Business," EDM, Nov. 30, 2007; "Stanislav Belkovsky: Putin Will Leave Power Completely," EDM, Nov. 19, 2007; and "St. Petersburg Poisonings: Part of Siloviki Factional Fight?" EDM, Nov. 2, 2007. All of these may be found at the Eurasia Daily Monitor website, www.jamestown.org/edm.

CALVIN AND THEOCRACY

I MUCH ENJOYED Charlotte Allen's excellent dissection of Mark Lilla's The Stillborn God ("Look Out Below," December 17) but was perplexed at her assertion that Calvin's Institutes "formed the basis for some of the very few genuine theocracies in the long history of Christianity." Though I would not want to make too much of a side comment, I must ask if this is the same Institutes in which Calvin excoriated those who believed that a Christian polity should reinstitute Old Testament law: "The law of God given through Moses is (not) dishonored when it is abrogated and new laws are preferred to it . . . for the Lord . . . did not give that law to be proclaimed among all nations and to be in force everywhere. Rather we must make our laws with regard to the condition of times, place and nation. . .. How malicious and hateful toward public welfare would a man be who is offended by such diversity. . ."

Allen does not say where such "theocracies" existed, but I will take the usual candidate, Geneva. It could perhaps be called "Calvin's Geneva" in the sense that, yes, Calvin did in fact live in Geneva for half of his life and pastored a church there. But he held no political office in that self-governing Swiss city-state, and tried to get away from it so he could study in peace. True, he did lend a hand, when asked, in drafting laws: He was, after all, a highly trained French lawyer with a dissertation on Seneca. He worked to improve the sewage system and devised plans for creating employment for the refugees who flooded the city. In what might be an ambiguous blessing, Rousseau, in Du Contrat Social, praised his legal work.

Studies of Calvin's politics indicate that he advocated a mixed regime with a bias toward democracy. Thus, it would be no accident that America's Calvinist clergy supported the Revolution and the Constitution.

PAUL MARSHALL
Washington, D.C.

CHARLOTTE ALLEN RESPONDS: Paul Marshall makes some valid points about Calvin's relation to Geneva. Like many large European cities during that time, Geneva was indeed something of a democracy, governed by a lay council. Still, it was Calvin's theology that governed the form of worship and strict rules of moral conduct that the council enforced.

A RETURN TO RESTRAINT

THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT owes Fred Barnes a debt of gratitude for reminding us in "The Case Against Despair" (December 3) that it is certainly possible to reduce the size of government and still survive politically, as the congressional Republicans did from 1995-1997.

But contrary to the estimable Dick Armey's indication in Barnes's article, the successful spending cuts in the mid-1990s did not come about merely because Speaker Newt Gingrich ordered Appropriations chairman Bob Livingston (my former boss) to do so. Instead, as Gingrich graciously noted in his book To Renew America, Livingston took Gingrich's already-bold request for a $6 billion recission package (to offset a military and disaster-relief package) and "courageously" upped the ante to the $16 billion in cuts noted earlier. And the explosion in spending that finally began in the fiscal year 1999 occurred not because appropriators "chafed" under the discipline, but because of an ill-considered strategic decision by House leadership in September 1998 to approve more spending in exchange for holding GOP moderates in line on the leadership's preferred impeachment procedures. It was only after that dam was busted in 1998 (and after Livingston left Congress) that appropriators reverted to their pre-1995 form and began energetically leading the hogs to the federal trough.

Now if only Republicans would re-adopt their limited-government ideals, the GOP could again attract both the old-style Goldwater libertarians and the more centrist voters who rallied behind Ross Perot in large part because of Perot's call for balanced budgets. They would also, of course, be serving the country well by demonstrating principled leadership.

QUIN HILLYER
Alexandria, Va.