Not many people can say that they changed the course of history. Mikhail Gorbachev, who died [on Aug. 30] at age 91, is one of those few people. He had a profound impact on world affairs. It may not have been the impact he intended, but he changed the world for the better. 

Gorbachev was the last leader of the Soviet Union, presiding from 1985-1991. It was a tumultuous time. He oversaw the first free Soviet elections, ordered the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, and dealt with damage from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. 

More consequentially, he saw the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of independence movements that brought democracy to much of Eastern Europe. In a few short years, the map of Europe was redrawn. The Cold War and the bipolar world, in which the United States and the USSR were rough equals, were no more. 

A faithful Communist Party apparatchik, Gorbachev didn’t intend such transformation. But he saw clearly that the hidebound and bureaucratic Soviet system was blocking economic progress. His reforms — glasnost, or openness, and perestroika, or restructuring — unleashed change he couldn’t control. 

I met and spoke with Gorbachev several times, and I found him to be a fascinating and immensely talented individual, with high intelligence, charm, and charisma. My guess is he would have succeeded in any political system of which he was a part. On a personal level, I liked him and believe most Americans would have liked him if they had met him. 

After he left office, I invited Gorbachev to Indiana for a conference and lecture. To my surprise, he accepted. I think he wanted to learn a bit more about the American Midwest. During the visit, we went to eat at a restaurant in Bloomington. Of course, everyone there recognized him. He worked the room, shaking hands and chatting like an American politician campaigning for office. At one point, he noticed that employees were going in and out of the kitchen, and he followed them and shook hands with the kitchen staff. 

Gorbachev received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990 and was widely hailed as a liberator and modernizer. In his rhetoric, he did sometimes sound like a small-d democrat, although he would probably have rejected the label. He wanted to reform the Soviet system, not destroy it. 

One of his signal accomplishments was the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the first arms agreement that eliminated an entire class of Soviet and U.S. weapons. Gorbachev understood that the arms race was stunting his country’s growth. From my conversations with him, I don’t doubt his commitment to a more peaceful world was genuine. 

Many Americans credited President Ronald Reagan with the Soviet collapse; they thought his U.S. military buildup created an arms race that fatally weakened the USSR. Gorbachev rejected that view. He insisted the collapse resulted from inconsistencies and contradictions within the Soviet system. 

The rigid Soviet system had been growing more brittle for decades. Gorbachev tried to reform it, but his economic restructuring didn’t bring prosperity. He was caught between hardliners who rejected reform and critics who wanted more radical change. He remained popular abroad but not at home, where he was blamed for the decline of Russian greatness. Russian President Vladimir Putin called the collapse of the Soviet Union “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” 

It may be too early to pass judgment on Gorbachev’s legacy, but I believe it will be largely positive. A talented leader, he was a reformer who ultimately failed to achieve his goals. His efforts to create a more open society had some success but were reversed by Putin. But the world today is more peaceful and secure than it would have been without Mikhail Gorbachev’s leadership.                

Lee Hamilton, 91, is a senior advisor for the Indiana University (IU) Center on Representative Government, distinguished scholar at IU Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies, and professor of practice at the IU O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Hamilton, a Democrat, was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years (1965-1999), representing a district in south-central Indiana.

During the COVID-19 state of emergency, which finally expired on Sept. 13, the [New York] Governor’s office and state agencies were given expanded discretion on state expenditures. In an effort to expedite the state’s purchasing and procurement processes during the public health crisis, the Legislature and Comptroller’s normal oversight authority was significantly restricted.

Information compiled by the Empire Center and reported by the Albany Times Union indicates that the Hochul Administration took full advantage of the relaxed budget oversight, possibly for her political gain. A series of articles raise serious questions about an agreement to purchase COVID-19 test kits from a New Jersey-based company, Digital Gadgets, the CEO of which is a major donor to Governor Hochul’s campaign.

The Minority members of the Assembly Oversight, Analysis and Investigations Committee believe there is sufficient reason for this panel to exercise its authority and investigate this matter thoroughly.

According to reports, the Hochul Administration bought 52 million COVID-19 tests from Digital Strategies at a dramatically higher rate than was being charged by other companies. In some instances, other companies charged as little as $5 apiece for test kits. In addition, the state of California paid nearly half for the identical tests. Digital Gadgets charged New York an average of $12.25 per test. California bought approximately 10 million tests and paid $6.75 apiece — 45 percent less than New York. 

This degree of fiscal malfeasance is alarming. By contracting with Digital Gadgets rather than less-expensive options, the state paid nearly double market price, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. What makes this situation even more egregious is that the beneficiary of the Hochul Administration’s decision is an individual who gave generously to the Governor’s campaign immediately before and after the no-bid contract was awarded. Consider:

• The CEO of Digital Gadgets, Charles Tebele and his family members had no prior history of political donations but gave $300,000 to Gov. Hochul’s campaign.

• A month before the Hochul Administration entered an agreement with Digital Gadgets, Charles Tebele hosted an in-person fundraiser for the Governor.

• A business associate of the Tebeles, Jack Cayre, and his family members gave $418,000 to the Governor’s re-election effort.

• The Hochul campaign hired a member of the Tebele family on its fundraising staff.

We believe that when all facts are taken into account, the Digital Gadgets no-bid contract is a blatant example of pay-to-play governing. A campaign donor received preferential treatment from the Executive Chamber, and New York’s taxpayers were forced to pay hundreds of millions more than necessary.

This matter must be investigated. The Albany Times Union articles [call] into question the credibility of the Governor’s administration and her potential abuse of emergency declarations. As duly elected legislators, we have a responsibility to take action and uncover the truth for all New York taxpayers.          

Assembly member Joseph Angelino (R,C,I-Norwich) & Assembly member Jarett Gandolfo (R,C,I-Sayville)

Editor’s note: The above letter, dated Sept. 21, was sent to John T. McDonald III (D–Cohoes), chairman of the Assembly Oversight, Analysis and Investigation Committee and other Democratic committee members, as well as released to the press.