Posted on 03/20/2014 9:18:08 AM PDT by Kaslin
I'll let the experts churn out opinions on what should be done about Russia's invasion of Ukraine. But it does appear that many of them refuse to accept a number of truths about the world. Take these, for instance: 1) Most people do not shares our values. 2) Most people don't even understand our values. 3) Authoritarianism is often more popular than freedom. 4) Democracy and liberalism are not the same. I argue the latter point — not coincidentally! — in detail in my new book, "The People Have Spoken (And They Are Wrong): The Case Against Democracy."
Russian President Vladimir Putin may face international disapproval from the West over his Crimean actions, and he may even have to deal with some short-term ineffectual sanctions; but at home, he's enjoying his highest approval ratings in years. Yet we act as if Putin is acting alone. Before the invasion, the respected Levada-Center found that 65 percent of respondents approved of Putin's leadership. According to The Guardian, the less respected pollsters at the All-Russian Public Opinion Research Center gauged Russian attitudes March 1-2 and found that nearly 68 percent of respondents approved of Putin's job performance. That was right as Russian troops were entering Crimea, so expect that number to go up.
Putin has enjoyed 60 percent approval ratings throughout his career — and often much higher. Despite a stagnating economy, a Pew Research Center poll in 2012 found that 72 percent thought Putin was doing a good job. It's the kind of support that — apart from some fleeting moments of history — is, thankfully, unachievable in a healthy democratic nation. Despite some of the political rhetoric we hear at home, too much unity reflects poorly on a nation's health.
And the more Putin undermines liberal institutions the more popular he becomes. The people who vote for the presidents of Russia and the United States are unrelated, emerging from distinct historical, moral and ideological perspectives. So expecting people — even people given a vote — to act in what we consider a logical manner is a waste of time.
While we, for example, may be confused about the harsh fate of Pussy Riot, only 5 percent of Russians believed that the punk/activist band didn't deserve serious penalties for its actions. Actually, 29 percent believe that the band members should have been sent into forced labor, while 37 percent believe they should be imprisoned.
So the Russian government controls the country's three main television channels, and at the end of 2013, Putin replaced the national news agency with a new and more compliant version. This undermines the free press, of course, but the ugly fact is there doesn't seem to be much anger about it. In recent years, the Kremlin has imposed limits on protests, criminalized libel and censored political material on the Internet. It has banned the work of nongovernmental organizations (typically aimed at fostering more transparency in government), frozen the assets of human rights groups that receive funding from U.S. citizens and jailed the political opposition. Occasionally, a dissident dies of poisoning.
But the reversal of once promising liberal reforms in Russia is not the result of an undermining of democracy. It happened with the full consent of the electorate. In Russia's first presidential election, in 2000, Putin, who had previously been made prime minister, won 53 percent of the vote. In 2004, he won 71 percent of the vote. In 2008, his lackey Dmitry Medvedev also won in a landslide. In 2012, Putin returned to the presidency in a landslide election with a Parliament dominated by members of his party, giving him virtually one-party rule.
Gloomier still, Putin may be a better choice. It's not as if democrats with widespread support are waiting in the wings. Remember that it was the Communist Party leader, Gennady Zyuganov, who came in second place in the most recent election, with 20 percent of the vote. In a 2009 poll, nearly 60 percent of Russians said they "deeply regret" the Soviet Union's demise. So forget the Middle East, where we've thankfully stopped pretending democracy is a panacea, and start accepting the fact that most people don't view the world as we do.
Most Russians think that despite all their country’s problems - life is far better for them than in the Soviet time.
And centuries of Russian history reveal Russians need, want and fear strong leaders. They back Putin because he is what a Russian leader should be.
Russians don’t elevate metrosexuals to office. They put in tough men to run their vast country, who without their iron hand on it, would fall apart.
Russians are serfs with no understanding of freedom and responsibility, always have been and probably always will be.
My Russian teacher told us early and often that the Soviet Union (formerly known as Russia) is was and always will be of the mind set that slavery is good. The stronger the government the more comfortable they felt. The idea of starting out on your own to and unidentified end point was anathema to them as people and a culture.
Just as with the Arab world, it’s a fools errand to think we can change a leopard’s, or in this case a Bear’s, spots.
Russians will never go for a US-style government. It’s not in their DNA.
And is that wrong?
Russians are poor, alcoholic, facing a demographic disaster, but Russia is strong and that’s a point of pride to them, and entire history of the country.
While in the US, the media doesn’t even have to be forced to kiss Obama’s azz, they line up to do it voluntarily, and cover for him, and propagandise for him. While in the US, we have widespread election fraud whch no governmental agency is investigating. While in the US, the President uses the power of the IRS to subvert and intimidate his political opponents.
I’d say it’s even worse when it’s done voluntarily, they don’t even have the excuse of being threatened.
That’s how Nazi Germany came into being, by its people voluntarily and enthusiastically supporting Hitler and all his means, and those who didn’t either didn’t take him seriously or knew enough to keep their mouths shut.
Shared responsibility = No responsibility
It can complicate things when they decide other people are the same way.
And a Russian style government was one of the kind our Founders wanted to avoid being established. That bring said I also claim taking the USA to other nations for democracy is only for the fortunes of others. Except for WWII and possibly Korea our latest wars have been of questionable benefit to the people in the USA
And a Russian style government was one of the kind our Founders wanted to avoid being established. That bring said I also claim taking the USA to other nations for democracy is only for the fortunes of others. Except for WWII and possibly Korea our latest wars have been of questionable benefit to the people in the USA
All wars are economic in nature, whether the societies participating in them are worthy or not.
Yeah, Russians are different from Western Democrats, they’re bad corrupt rather than good corrupt.
The Russian's haven’t invaded Ukraine...Yet.
In fact, they (apart from a minority of westernized intellectuals) didn't support Communism's downfall because they wanted freedom of speech or freedom of the press. They opposed Communism because its stagnant economy didn't provide them with an acceptable standard of living. An authoritarian or even totalitarian government would have been just fine if only it delivered the economic goods.
You see a similarly naive attitude towards the "Arab spring," where people naively think that those who want to overthrow a Mubarak or an Assad are doing so because they want American-style republican government and capitalism in their countries.
Usually, it's the Left that has silly universalist illusions about the whole world adopting the same form of government and economy. Unfortunately, there are some similarly messianic "conservatives" who think that US political and economic institutions can be exported as easily as Big Macs.
Russia will always have authoritarian governments, just as true western-style secularism won't be sustainable in the Middle East. The only question is what kind of authoritarianism you're going to have.
Exactly. An overtly controlled press is a bad, bad thing. Hypocrisy ads luster to our system of oppression.
I agree but I would also say that territory is also cause because it is of itself or for economic benefits/wealth.
You are correct, territory, natural resources and potential use, are wealth.
Shared responsibility = No responsibility
<><><><
I grew up with that very thought ringing in my ear.
If everyone is responsible, no one is responsible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.