New at Reason

Cathy Young tries to break up the lovey-dovey relationship between Bush and Putin.

Comments

UCrawford | July 10, 2007, 3:14pm | #

Considering Bush's love of the Patriot Act, it's hardly surprising that he sees Putin as a kindred spirit.

To answer Mrs. Young's question as to why Bush is apparently incapable of determining which of our "allies" are beneficial to us (Britain) and which are not (Russia, Pakistan), I'd say that it's simply because Bush sees foreign policy as a game of checkers when the rest of the world is actually playing chess. Simply put, Dubya's just too simple-minded and lazy to realize the difference.

Cesar | July 10, 2007, 3:15pm | #

Maybe hes nice to Putin because we have enough enemies in the world right now without making another one?

ed | July 10, 2007, 3:17pm | #

Dubya's just too simple-minded and lazy

Come on. You can do better than that.

Pig Mannix | July 10, 2007, 3:19pm | #

Maybe hes nice to Putin because we have enough enemies in the world right now without making another one?

If Bush were anyone else, I might believe that. But this is a president that seems to believe you can never have enough enemies...

Gotta be something else!

Stephen the Goldberger | July 10, 2007, 3:21pm | #

it's because the republicans desperately cling to the idea that communisism and totalitarianism was defeated by ronald reagan, while constantly ignoring the evidence to the contrary

Justin Raimondo | July 10, 2007, 3:24pm | #

We're supposed to hate Putin when he implements a pale version of the draconian measures Cathy Young endorsed in the wake of 9/11:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/31970.html

Cesar | July 10, 2007, 3:25pm | #

it's because the republicans desperately cling to the idea that communisism and totalitarianism was defeated by ronald reagan

Putin is a thug, but hes not a totalitarian one. He doesn't have a coherent ideology, he doesn't build statues and name everything after himself, and he doesn't really care what Russians do in their every day lives so long as they don't try anything political. Its not ideal but hes no Joseph Stalin.

UCrawford | July 10, 2007, 3:33pm | #

Ed,

Sorry, I know it's not an inventive position but I call them like I see them.

I've tried for years to figure out a rational reason for Bush's foreign policy gaffes, his incompetent management of the Iraq war and the war on terror, his failures in judgment and weak grasp of government...but after six years I finally just came to the conclusion that he acts the way he does because he doesn't really understand how the world works, he doesn't get how other foreign leaders think, he doesn't understand the consequences of his actions and he simply can't be bothered to find out or second-guess his decisions. The man's not of below-average mental capability (i.e. retarded)...he's just apathetic, lazy and (as a result) stupid.

Honestly, if you read through Bush's bio his entire life has been one big pattern of underachievement (in college, in the military, in business, in politics). He's never been in a position where anyone forced him to produce results, held him truly accountable or forced him to learn from his mistakes, so he's never cared about doing so...and that didn't change simply because he became president. And that's why he accepts leaders like Putin or Musharraf or al-Maliki as friends and allies even though much of what they do acts against his country's best interests. Finding worthwhile allies would take effort.

joe | July 10, 2007, 3:37pm | #

The United States cannot, of course, break off relations with Russia. But for the President of the United States—who, whatever one may think of him personally, holds the highest office in the most powerful country of the free world—to embrace the president of today's authoritarian Russia as a friend is to give moral sanction to a regime that shows blatant contempt for democratic and civilized norms.

And thus, we see the flip side of Bush's confusion between diplomacy and fawning over tyrants; when he actually has to engage in diplomacy, he doesn't know how to do it, except to fawn.

It's fine that Bush doesn't want to make another enemy out of Russia, but a president can avoid that through measures short of inviting the Russian "president" to a private family dinner. That's what you do with friends.

joe | July 10, 2007, 3:39pm | #

Cesar,

Putin is a thug, but hes not a totalitarian one. He doesn't have a coherent ideology, he doesn't build statues and name everything after himself, and he doesn't really care what Russians do in their every day lives so long as they don't try anything political. Its not ideal but hes no Joseph Stalin.

The statues aside, you just described Saddam Hussein.

Cesar | July 10, 2007, 3:40pm | #

The statues aside, you just described Saddam Hussein

Except Saddam Hussein liked to start wars with other countries. Putin doesn't seem keen on doing that.

UCrawford | July 10, 2007, 3:47pm | #

Cesar,

You apparently don't consider Chechnya a real war...some do. Putin is totalitarian, he's just smarter about how he carries it out than most dictators because his military position is relatively weak. He's engaged in energy blackmail of Europe, assassinations or imprisonment of political opponents, political corruption in neighboring states, repression of the press, etc., etc., etc..

joe | July 10, 2007, 3:48pm | #

That's a good point.

I was just considering your use of "totalitarian."

Just a couple days ago, Michael Young savaged Kofi Annon for making exactly the same statement - that repression was reserved for people who got involved in politics, but people could go about their daily business relatively freely - about pre-war Iraq.

Cesar | July 10, 2007, 3:51pm | #

Chechnya is a civil war. Its on what is regarded as Russian territory. I haven't seen the US give a whole lot of concern over that war, but that makes sense because he is fighting muslims.

He's engaged in energy blackmail of Europe, assassinations or imprisonment of political opponents, political corruption in neighboring states, repression of the press

Right, thats why I called him authoritarian. . You do know the difference between an authoritarian dictatorship and a totalitarian one, right?

Cesar | July 10, 2007, 3:54pm | #

Just a couple days ago, Michael Young savaged Kofi Annon for making exactly the same statement - that repression was reserved for people who got involved in politics, but people could go about their daily business relatively freely - about pre-war Iraq.

I think Saddam was a few pegs up on the thug-meter from Putin.

And I'm not sure normal people in Iraq were exempt from random terror from the state. I think Russia is still a bit more open as a society than pre-war Iraq.

UCrawford | July 10, 2007, 4:06pm | #

Cesar,

An authoritarian is a totalitarian who hasn't reached his full potential :)

joshua corning | July 10, 2007, 4:11pm | #

It's fine that Bush doesn't want to make another enemy out of Russia, but a president can avoid that through measures short of inviting the Russian "president" to a private family dinner. That's what you do with friends.

Aside from the fact that political science is no science...i really find it funny that joe, poli-sci extraordinary, actually believes this.

UCrawford | July 10, 2007, 4:12pm | #

But I agree with you that Russia is a more open society than Saddam's Iraq was...so if you're talking a matter of degrees, then no, Putin is not as controlling as Saddam. If you're talking in terms of freedom overall, neither leader supports/supported individual liberty, either in practice or in theory.

Robert | July 10, 2007, 4:14pm | #

"it's because the republicans desperately cling to the idea that communisism and totalitarianism was defeated by ronald reagan, while constantly ignoring the evidence to the contrary"

IAWTP, except that I'm tempted to sub GHW Bush (lucky stiff) for Reagan. The Iron Curtain came down on Daddy's watch, can't have anyone believing it got bad on Junior's. Better hope it can look good just until a Democrat or at least a non-Bush comes into the White House.

joshua corning | July 10, 2007, 4:17pm | #

Just a couple days ago, Michael Young savaged Kofi Annon for making exactly the same statement - that repression was reserved for people who got involved in politics, but people could go about their daily business relatively freely - about pre-war Iraq.

Wow...i don't know what Young said...but if Annon thinks people could go about their business relatively free in pre-war Iraq...then he is a fucking idiot.

Cesar | July 10, 2007, 4:24pm | #

If anyone wants a good view of American policy towards Putin's Russia, this piece in The American Conservative is a good read.

tarran | July 10, 2007, 4:55pm | #

I agree with joshua corning.

Saddam Hussein's family was notorious for expropriating successfull businesses.

Additionally, the state security was constantly testing people's loyalty by requiring a man to approach his coworkers and try to get them to join an concocted anti-Saddam plot. If the acquaintance did not report the call to state security - he was arested and likely executed.

Brett | July 10, 2007, 8:41pm | #

All actions have consequences, be they positive or negative. The president at times, misbelieves this. When he makes a decision, he believes he already knows the consequences. His error is that regardless of what becomes true in this very-real world, his reality trumps it.

You never hear anyone saying they had Satan on their side and that's why they 'won'.

joe | July 10, 2007, 9:36pm | #

joshua corning,

In international relations, formality vs. intimacy is a carefully choreographed affair that is understood to express a great deal of meaning. It's not surprising that you don't understand this; it's certainly not surprising that George Bush doesn't understand this.

Maybe people who neither know nor care anything about international diplomacy should be a little humble about lecturing others about their naivite on the subject.

joe | July 10, 2007, 9:39pm | #

tarran,

I agree with joshua corning.

That's generally an indication that there was a miscommunication.

I didn't mean "go about their daily business" to refer to economic activity, but to day-to-day life. I didn' mean that sort of "business."

pressreader | July 10, 2007, 10:00pm | #

A very relevant discussion community about Russia is here: community.livejournal.com/wrong_about_ru/

buck smith | July 10, 2007, 10:21pm | #

Hey Joe,

So does "go about their daily business" in "day-to-day life" include the ability to marry without having Saddam's psycho son pick out the bride and rape her?

pressreader | July 10, 2007, 10:25pm | #

My dear friends, let me tell you something. I am a Russian. And there goes a saying in Russia: "let's discuss the taste of oysters with those who have ever tried them". I suppose you will never believe me, but most of you have no clue what they are talking about. Putin is no ideal man. But if you measure him by what good he did to Russia and Russian people, he will stand far ahead of any recent leadears. In fact it is awkward to be comparing him to Yelstsin or Gorbachev, because they would be more adequately measured by how much they harmed Russia. So, the bottom line is: Putin is popular in Russia, because he deserved it. But it is very unlikely that you will laern it from Western mainstream media.

joe | July 10, 2007, 10:35pm | #

buck smith,

What part of "daily business" is eluding you.

Saddam was a bad guy. Gee, do you think there might be some other topic that's being discussed?

buck smith | July 10, 2007, 10:47pm | #

So the "daily business" that Saddam permitted excludes poltiical activity, economic activity and sexual activity. What's does it include? Breathing ? Oh wait- Hajalba.

buck smith | July 10, 2007, 10:51pm | #

Pressreader,

Let me tell you something. Putin stands far above other recent Russian leader only because of the price of oil, which he has little to do with and less control of. We will see $40 oil in a few years and Putin will not be quite the badass he is today.

Adriaan | July 10, 2007, 10:57pm | #

There was once another leader, of a central European country we all know, who vastly improved his country and the fortunes of most of the people in it, for a while, before becoming a tyrant and a menace to the free world.

History does not remember this man kindly.

Even assuming Putin is improving the lot of the average Russian, it does not excuse his crimes or make his actions good for Russia in the long term.

pressreader | July 10, 2007, 11:15pm | #

Let me tell you something. Putin stands far above other recent Russian leader only because of the price of oil, which he has little to do with and less control of. We will see $40 oil in a few years and Putin will not be quite the badass he is today.

I share you concern, but it is not all that bad. Anyone following Russian economy news would now that the current GDP growth is propelled by consumer spendings, construction and telecommunications more, than it is by oil. Oil will take away 2-3%. Just check how Saudi Arabia is doing (CIA factbook is a good source). Its GDP grew %2.4 vs %6,7 in Russia

joe | July 10, 2007, 11:16pm | #

buck smith,

Actually, it includes virtually all of every one of those topics. The Saddam government exerted little to no influence over the vast majority of the activity in all of those spheres, nor attempted to.

As opposed to actual totalitarians, whose political designs, by definition, stretch into the totality of the human experience.

Which is, you know, sort of the topic of the conversation you interrupted with your "B-b-b-but Saddam was BAD!!!" yammering.

Do you have anything to add on the subject of totalitarian vs. authoritarian, or are we done?

pressreader | July 10, 2007, 11:21pm | #

There was once another leader, of a central European country we all know, who vastly improved his country and the fortunes of most of the people in it, for a while, before becoming a tyrant and a menace to the free world.

History does not remember this man kindly.

Even assuming Putin is improving the lot of the average Russian, it does not excuse his crimes or make his actions good for Russia in the long term.

Let's judge people by what they have done, not by what they may do one day. Let's have some presumption of innocence.

Future is too hard to predict. Some leaders of some North American country were swearing by the best intelligence in the world, that Saddam had WMD. And boy, were they wrong.

Cesar | July 10, 2007, 11:28pm | #

One thing that confuses me about Putin is the fact that thus far it seems he will be stepping aside voluntarily as President in 2008. Thats not something a tyrant does. I'm not familiar with the Russian Constitution, but he said hes stepping aside because he respects it. If all his other actions have violated it, its weird he would follow the Russian Constitution with respect to term limits.

buck smith | July 10, 2007, 11:41pm | #

Joe,

Over what part of human experience did the Hussein government exert little to no influence?

His son exercised droit-de-seigneur over any woman in the country he chose to.

He wrecked the environment of the Marsh Arabs.

He attacked whole cities of his own citizens with poison gas.

Eqypt is a authoritarian regime, raq under Saddam was totalitarian. Your attempts to argue otherwise are just Bush derangement syndrome.

pressreader | July 10, 2007, 11:44pm | #

Cesar

One thing that confuses me about Putin is the fact that thus far it seems he will be stepping aside voluntarily as President in 2008.

One thing that confuses me is that I do not remember Putin ever suggesting that he may stay in the office one more term, yet this question pops up in every foreign or domestic press-conference.

john | July 11, 2007, 4:38pm | #

It's been observed that people praise what they fear, a truism perhaps best and most brutally illustrated by Marxist regimes, in which the worship of the leadership reaches grotesque extremes.

Bush is badly intimidated by Putin, just as he was by Ariel Sharon, who made a point of slapping him around publicly while George Bush smiled weakly and pretended he hadn't heard right.

Mr. Bush is perhaps the weakest and most ineffectual president this country's ever had, a distinction that Jimmy Carter once held with a seemingly unshakable grip.

David | July 13, 2007, 2:10pm | #

It is not Bush's job to give or not give "moral sanction" to anyone. Why should US citizens care what happens in Russia? Not our business, let them run their country anyway they want. What does it matter to us? This type of thinking, that the US has to get involved with other countries daily affairs, is exactly what gets it into trouble. Stay out of it already, god damn it!

Godwhacker | July 13, 2007, 3:02pm | #

Good article Kathy. They say you can learn a lot about people by who they have for friends.