Follow the Leader

I'd recommend A.J. Rosmiller's remarks on Vladimir Putin. For my own two cents, I think it's always instructive to compare attitudes toward Putin's illiberalism to attitudes toward friendlier petro-states like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, etc. It's totally understandable that the United States government would take a different attitude toward governments who try to challenge US international hegemony than the one it takes toward those governments who help re-enforce it.

But to a striking extent, the press just follows along on this path. Gulf states that are far less democratic than contemporary Russia are typically portrayed as "moderate" or "reforming" whereas Putin's Russia is painted as a dark totalitarian nightmare. Even though though most people acknowledge, when pressed, that Putin is a broadly popular leaders whereas the sundry Sheikhs of the Gulf are mostly detested by their subjects.

The result of the media's decision to adhere to a double-standard is to substantially obscure from the American public some salient facts about the role our country plays in the world. It's widely understood, for example, that insofar as Vladimir Putin backs unpopular undemocratic pro-Russian leaders in the "near abroad" this is likely to make Russia even less popular in Russia-skeptical elements of the population of those countries. The analog of this, that staunch American support for unpopular undemocratic pro-American leaders in the Gulf and in Egypt is a significant source of anti-American sentiment is, by contrast, completely absent from the national conversation.

Comments

Interesting post. I think the reason for the media's double standard, though, isn't just that Putin's challenging us and the Saudis aren't; I think it's also a matter of context. The Saudis are situated in the context of other Middle Eastern states, and in that context they're "moderates" because they're not Iran. Putin is situated in the context of recent Russian history. And in that context, he's a "dark totalitarian nightmare" because the media looks at him and sees the second coming of the USSR.

Basically, the media isn't comparing the Saudis and Putin to one another, they're comparing the Saudis to their neighbors, which is sort of flattering, and Putin to his predecessors, which isn't.

Posted by Ivanova | December 19, 2007 5:58 PM

Same for Chavez vs. the openly fascism-loving presidents of Columbia and El Salvador.

Posted by Please Go on | December 19, 2007 5:59 PM

Yeah Ivanova, the Saudis who have absolutely no history of democracy are far more moderate than the Iranians, who formed the Middle East (and Asia's) first constitutional democracy in 1905. Right.

Posted by Persian | December 19, 2007 6:02 PM

And what benign conclusion do you draw from this "striking extent" of our media's conformity with government policy?

Posted by Doug | December 19, 2007 6:03 PM

"whereas the sundry Sheikhs of the Gulf are mostly detested by their subjects"

That's not the impression about Saudi Arabia I got from reading Lippman's Inside the Mirage: America's Fragile Partnership With Saudi Arabia.

http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Mirage-Americas-Fragile-Partnership/dp/0813340527/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198106434&sr=8-6

Posted by otto | December 19, 2007 6:21 PM

As someone who lives in Saudi Arabia, I haven't gotten the impression that people dislike their monarchy. On the other hand, I live in the capitol city, Riyadh, but still...
plus, you have to keep in mind, what precedent do they have? At least in places like Egypt, people still remember revolutionary leaders like Sa'ad Zughlul. I don't think Saudis have anyone to look up to, except maybe their prophet.

Posted by John | December 19, 2007 6:29 PM

the Saudis who have absolutely no history of democracy are far more moderate than the Iranians, who formed the Middle East (and Asia's) first constitutional democracy in 1905. Right.

Huh? Did you forget about that little revolution they had over there in Iran circa 1979? What relevance does the 1905 Iranian government have today?

Posted by Al | December 19, 2007 6:30 PM

The Middle Easterners get a pass because we don't view them as "white" and hence expect less of them.

Posted by David | December 19, 2007 6:32 PM

David -

Almost. The Middle Easterners get a pass from us because they sell us more oil than the Russians. On the other hand, the more Europe depends on Russian gas for heat and light, the less protest you'll hear from them regarding regime abuses and un-Democratic behavior in Russia.

Posted by calipgyian | December 19, 2007 6:36 PM

Don't forget the historical context most journalists (particularly columnists, many of whom are older than their newsgathering colleagues) have in their heads: the USSR was a totalitarian state which fought a Cold War against the US for nearly fifty years, and it's easy enough to slot Russia into that "enemy" hole again.

Posted by Linkmeister | December 19, 2007 6:47 PM

To understand why Putin now has many enemies in the Western media, follow the money. As in most things, follow the money.

Putin saved Russia from the economic disaster produced by the incompetent Yeltsin, and from gangs of mafiosi racketeers and carpetbaggers out plunder Russia and ship its wealth out of the country. Russians quite appropriately credit him with restoring stability, rebuilding the economy, generating dynamic growth and restoring Russian prestige.

Posted by Dan Kervick | December 19, 2007 6:54 PM

Re Dan Kervick

And Hitler built the Autobahn.

Re Yglesias

Russia, unlike Egypt and Saudi Arabia is a world power with the second largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Russia is a potential threat to the US, The latter two are not.

Posted by SLC | December 19, 2007 7:15 PM

SLC,

Where were those 9/11 terrorists from again?

Posted by ikl | December 19, 2007 7:17 PM

ikl -

While I don't truck with no Saudi terrorists, the sad truth is that Russia is the only country on the planet (and that includes China, England and France) that has the means necessary to end the United States as a country. The Russians retain the capability to hurt the United States that would make 9/11 look like a scraped knee. Even if al-Qaeda got a hold of a nuke (much harder to do than said), they could at best destroy a downtown and kill a couple of tens of thousand.

The Russians can stil turn out our lights for good.

Which is exactly what pisses me off about the state of affairs in the US today - somehow, threatened with anihilation, we didn't resort to domestic wiretapping, torture and suspension of elections (like 9iu11ani wanted to do in NYC after the attack) like we are today.

My God - have people REALLY forgotten how dangerous the Cold War was that they regard al-Qaeda terrorists as an existential threat? The only reason they are an existential threat is because we threaten to do it to ourselves in wild, stupid, idiotic over-reaction.

The Russians - given a proper motive, have the potential to be an existential threat in a way that al-Qaeda can only dream of being.

Posted by calipygian | December 19, 2007 7:38 PM

Putin's Russia is painted as a dark totalitarian nightmare. Even though though most people acknowledge, when pressed, that Putin is a broadly popular leader

That's an interesting segue ...

Posted by novakant | December 19, 2007 8:09 PM

Hey Al,
Yeah I remember the 1979 revolution, one of the only revolutions in that century that had actual grassroots support, unlike all those other american sponsored or soviet sponsored farces called revolutions. Even though the Iranians fucked up and got hijacked by extremists circa 1981 (partly thanks to Saddam's war on Iran, in turn thanks to...), it's to their credit that they raged against the unpopular machine that was the shah. Even the shah, though, respected the parliament...mostly.
I don't know about you, but I give a lot more credit to a nation that tried to progress and failed than those that never tried at all, like almost all of the arab and other middle eastern countries. It's why I know Iran will succeed, the people there have kicked out tyrants before and they will again.
And why is the 1905 revolution important? You mean, aside from being the first democratic movement in the middle east? Well, for one thing, it happened before your precious Russia had its revolution, and only two decades after Russia freed its citizens from serfdom and one decade before neighboring turkey wiped out its christians. It also happened while ALL of the countries to Iran's east were somebody else's colony, and all the ones to Iran's west were part of the ottoman empire. It was one in a million, and even though it eventually broke down in the thirties, at least they tried, again unlike their neighbors who worshipped and still worship their tyrants.

Posted by Persian | December 19, 2007 8:17 PM

Don't disagree with Persian's general point (I don't know why Al thinks history and memory have no importance), but Russia freed its serfs in 1861.

Posted by Ben Cronin | December 19, 2007 8:28 PM

Hey Ben,
Sorry. my bad. It's something I could have easily googled up before posting, sorry, I was caught up in the heat of the moment.
I will give Russia this: they had good universites before any other Asian country did.

Posted by Persian | December 19, 2007 8:48 PM

Any evidence for the claim that "Putin's Russia is painted as a dark totalitarian nightmare"?

I just don't see it. If anything, I think Putin gets off relatively lightly compared to leaders like Chavez or Ahmadinejad.

Also, any evidence for the claim that "Sheikhs of the Gulf are mostly detested by their subjects"?

Posted by blah | December 19, 2007 8:48 PM

Interesting post and thread.

Posted by Jennifer | December 19, 2007 8:53 PM

Hey Ben,
Sorry. my bad. It's something I could have easily googled up before posting, sorry, I was caught up in the heat of the moment.
I will give Russia this: they had good universites before any other Asian country did.

Posted by Persian | December 19, 2007 8:54 PM

No problem, Persian.

I am guessing that Al is not that interested in 20th Century (or any, for that matter) Iranian history, meaning that he'll not be paying his attentions to Mossadegh et al. any time soon.

Would that we should be so lucky.

Posted by Ben Cronin | December 19, 2007 9:13 PM

Yeah, that's what pisses me off. Iran is a country of great potential, with one of the strongest blog presences of any country (despite heavily censored and unreliable internet connection), and the people want to learn, if you look up alexa rankings for any major american university you will find that Iran is in the top six countries contributing traffic to it, way more than any other middle eastern or asian country aside china and japan, yet they are stuck with such a backwards government. It's truly sad. To have Iran placed in the company of countries like Saudi Arabia and Sudan is beyond insulting, but that's where the government wants to take them.
But it's great some Americans know all of this, and know that Tehran was the only Muslim city in the world to hold vigils for Americans on 9/11. It's too bad that number isn't high enough to prevent war.

Posted by Persian | December 19, 2007 9:26 PM

SLC, if you really think Putin is in any way analogous to Hitler ... well, you're just ignorant.

Posted by Dan Kervick | December 19, 2007 10:23 PM

Dan- if you think that in any way Putin "saved" Russia you're also not so hot on things. The big difference between Yetlsin and Putin is the price of oil and nothing else. Corruption (by pretty much any measure) is higher under Putin. The buerocracy has grown at a amazing rate. Criminals still own the major industries, only now different (FSB tied) ones. If oil had stayed at the price it was in '98 nothing would have improved at all. Yeltsin was a chump and a terrible leader, but it's crazy to give Putin any real credit here. What is one specific good thing he's done?

Posted by Matt (not the famous one) | December 19, 2007 10:51 PM

I think Matt's general point is spot on. But I would quibble with the statement that the Gulf rulers are detested by their subjects.

I haven't lived everywhere in the Gulf. But my basic impression is that the ruling families of Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Qatar are regarded as competent business executives by their citizens. Think of these states as oil corporations with flags. They have family control, a number of shareholders (the citizens), and a larger number of employees (the expatriate and migrant workers).

The popularity of the Saudis seems to vary from region to region within Saudi Arabia (e.g., Najd likes them, Jeddah not so much). As for the other GCC states, I have no idea.

Posted by Khalifa bin Zayed al Nahyan | December 19, 2007 11:16 PM

Hey! I heard Matt (the famous one) on NPR's Marketplace tonight, punditizing about the economy's role in the primary campaigns.

He sounded much shorter than I expected.

No, really, good job, MY! I enjoyed how he ID'd you as an Atlantic associate editor and then "he also blogs for them," like you combined being a janitor w/ your editorial work.

Posted by Anderson | December 19, 2007 11:20 PM

It is easy to overrate Putin in light of high oil prices, but the macroeconomic management does seem to be pretty good. Rather than blowing all of the money, there is now a pretty big rainy day fund that can be used when oil prices fall. Investor confidence probably has something to do with this. This stuff is usually considered boring by foreign correspondants, but it is really important. (Of course, the real test is when oil prices come down, so whether Putin gets any credit here is still an open question).

I also seem to recall a bunch of new laws on various economic matters (ex. law on land) passed in the first couple of years of Putin's administration once the Kremlin got control of the Duma for the first time in years (Yeltsin couldn't get laws passed the coummunists for years so the legal regime hadn't progressed past the first wave of reforms in the early 1990s). Given that this is Russia and the law often doesn't matter, I'm not sure if this has made any difference. To the extent that it has, it was Putin's doing . . .

That said, Matt (not the famous one) is certainly right that Putin's performance is hard to praise at the moment given his extreme good luck with oil prices. We'll have to see what happens when oil prices come down. Putin's historical reputation might be best served by retiring to the south of France so that someone else can take the blame if and when things go bad. Unfortunately, it seems that the power has gone to his head which makes me quite worried about the future . . .

Posted by ikl | December 19, 2007 11:33 PM

"Corruption (by pretty much any measure) is higher under Putin. The buerocracy has grown at a amazing rate. Criminals still own the major industries, only now different (FSB tied) ones."

Hmmm. Let's rephrase.

Corruption (by pretty much any measure) is higher under Bush. The buerocracy has grown at a amazing rate. Criminals still own the major industries, only now different (Bush/Cheney/neocon tied) ones.

As for the THREE things Putin did right:

1) He kicked out the oligarchs looting the country. And I'm referring to well-known NAMED oligarchs - now currently residing in Israel and London - not your unnamed FSB cronies who probably aren't significantly different from Cheney Halliburton cronies.

2) He stood up for sanity as much as possible on the Iran issue despite Iran being an oil exporting competitor.

3) He told Bush where to stick his bullshit "anti-missile defense" crap,

Christ, you can just read just about any Putin statement or watch him on video and see how this guy is light years ahead of Yeltsin (a drunk) or Bush (another drunk) in terms of brains.

Again, Putin for US President in 2008! With George Galloway as VP!

Anybody doesn't like that ticket? Fuck you.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 19, 2007 11:38 PM

Matt,

He has guided the Russian economy through its current transitional period by putting that economy, and its key developing industries, back in the hands of the Russian government and at least somewhat more in the service of the Russian people, and out of the hands of private racketeers and looters. He chased a lot of these racketeers from the country and helped end the mafia-like conditions that prevailed in the 90's.

He helped re-establish a predictable rule of law in Russia, which might be more authoritarian than the one Americans would prefer, but which is infinitely better for Russia's transition than the anarchy of the 90's, and has helped attract investment to the country. He has put Russia's finances back on track with tax reforms and a tighter fiscal policy. Recall this is a country that collapsed financially in 1998 and had to be bailed out.

He helped prevent US-Iranian conflict by using some old-fashioned power balancing, supporting neither country entirely, but obstructing the Bush administration in its efforts to implement its full "crush Tehran" sanctions+militarism agenda.

He is now preparing to pump much of Russia's oil revenue into public investment projects, and continues to chart a sound middle course between the statist siloviki and the "liberals" who would seem to prefer a return to the mess of the 90's.

Putin is analogous to a post-Soviet Hamilton, pushing a strong central government to manage an intelligent course between liberalization and protection, and to grow the country's economy at a steady clip. Fortunately for Russians he is neither a communist nor a proponent of the laissez faire shock treatment idiocy promoted by some US-style market fundamentalists.

Posted by Dan Kervick | December 19, 2007 11:55 PM

Persian,

I do not think there will be war, but I've been wrong before. I certainly, contra N. Podhoretz, pray that there _won't_ be war, not least for the reason that I think it would be a strategic and moral disaster for my country.

It's also interesting to hear from a Persian perspective about the ignominy of being lumped with the hicks of high Arabia and the Sudan. There are some of us who remember the Achmenaeids, the Parthians, Sassanians, Safavids, Qajars, et al., Rumi and Shiraz, the forest guerillas of the late 1940s -- things to love about Iran. And know that we do not want war.

Posted by Ben Cronin | December 20, 2007 12:08 AM

Yes, I'd certainly agree with this very positive assessment of Putin.

Here's another way of looking at it. I'd bet good money that if those Oligarchs were stilling running today's Russia (with high oil prices), the Russian people would be almost as poor and miserable as before, while the Oligarchs would own every professional sports team in America, plus half the Manhattan skyline.

After all, how much have the ordinary people of e.g. Nigeria benefited from these same very high oil prices.

Based on all available evidence, Putin and the people around him seem like genuine Russian patriots, maybe skimming a little off the top from themselves, but also wanting to benefit their own country and their own people. I suspect that most of the Oligarchs would have gladly sold off Russia's population on the international body-parts market.

Posted by RKU | December 20, 2007 12:13 AM

Dan- I wish what you say was true. I live part time in Russia, my wife is Russian, and I love the country. I want it to do well. But what you say isn't so. Industry hasn't been put in the hands of the Russian government and doesn't serve the people. Rather, it's been shifted to a new set of crooks, now just with FSB connections. They are cooks nonetheless. Infrastructure is in terrible state, especially in the extraction industries. there are now often gas shortages at service stations. Inflation is high. Why? because nothing is plowed back in to basic services, building for the future, and so on. As BP-TNK if there is law in Russia or not. The "investments" you say he will push won't happen. He _is_ the silovikii- to the core- and won't chart a path between them. He has esentially declared himself president for life. His model has always been Brezhnev and he's taking a page from Brezhnev's book, changing his title but not leaving power. The fact that a more able group of gangsters controls things now is the best that can be said.

Posted by Matt (not the famous one) | December 20, 2007 12:18 AM

1) It didn't help advocates for democracy in Russia that American "advisers" during Yeltsin's reign gave the appearance of helping the oligarchs steal everything that wasn't nailed down while the common Russian citizen was freezing and going hungary. People support strongmen as leaders when they see their country being raided by outside invaders.

2) See e.g, the US government lawsuit against
Andrei Shleifer and Harvard University :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Shleifer#Activities_in_Russia

This was one of the issues that pushed former US Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers to resign as President of Harvard.

3) For the REALLY intriguing details , see David
McClintick's scathing article "How Harvard Lost Russia" in Institution Investor. A online copy is here:

http://www.uvm.edu/~gflomenh/CDAE253/readings/II%20How%20Harvard%20Lost%20Russia.doc

Posted by Don Williams | December 20, 2007 12:28 AM

Matt (not the famous one), I'm starting to worry that the Brezhnev comment is apt. I don't think that Putin sees himself as Brezhnev though - Andropov is probably more like it (Andropov was also KGB and was both a hard liner and someone with a fairly realistic take on the bad state of Soviet Union of the early 1980's). That is sort of how I use to see him as well (not a nice guy at all, but fairly on top of things in some ways). Unfortunately, he is likely to turn into Brezhnev if he sticks around too long.

Posted by ikl | December 20, 2007 12:36 AM

Hey Ben,
I'm probably more inclined to be pessimistic, but I think the chances of war are high. The only question is, how will the people of Iran react? I mean, right now, they're still fairly pro-American, but not as much as they were pre-2003, when the whole flowers in the streets scenario being painted for Iraq would probably have panned out in Iran. People are more wary now. And while I don't think there will be an insurgency (Iran had its 2 years of instability from 79 to 81 - most people got their grievances out of their system) there is still a chance someone will fuck up and disband the entire Iranian army and create half a million unemployed men with guns. Then again, even at the heigh of instabilty during the islamic revolution, there wasn't too much looting and bombs were reserved for those at the highest level of government. But the times are different, and weapons are easier to get a hold of now. I'm especially afraid the Iranian gov might bring in Hizbollah and Badr Brigade people from other countries in to kill Iranians and start an insurgency, just as they're doing in Iraq. Those people have no compassion for the natives, unlike Iranian soldiers, who, at the end of the day, are related to the people they're supposed to be keeping under control.
But yeah, Iran had a good ride while it lasted. I think if the government does change by peaceful means (hell, even the revoluton in 79 occured almost bloodlessly), Iran can definitely advance above all its neighbours, including Turkey. Then again, Turkey is the one country near Iran that's not a complete shit hole. Maybe that's Iran's problem, being surrounded by failed states, it's like hanging out with stoners...
Yeah, comparing us to the hicks of Saudi and Sudan is a painful insult. I'd say even Eastern Europe is an insult, but they've improved a lot in the past decade, while the people in Iran have shown that for the first time in their recent history, they would rather go along than stand up for their rights. I mean, I know so many Iranians are frustrated when they see countries like UKRAINE and LEBANON, two places that didn't even exist before WWII, have people-powered revolutions, whereas in Iran these revolutions don't work, partly because the government is more brutal, but also because the people have lost their appetite after three revolutions in the same century. I guess slow change is the only path left.
But most Iranians love the US and Americans, maybe even ridiculously so (kind of like the teens who wear Che Guevara shirts because it's chic, not because they actually know the guy). But I, as a Canadian-Iranian, hope that our two nations can have dialog and eject the extremists who profit from our mutual suffering.

Posted by Persian | December 20, 2007 12:56 AM

Hey you know about the forest guerillas! Those people were from my grandparents' part of the country. Those people, who rebelled in the 30's, actually had as part of their new constitution for Iran, a law that not only was elementary school to be mandatory, but both boys and girls had to take it - a revolutionary idea for pretty much all of Asia.
So yeah, about being lumped in with Saudi Arabia and Sudan...

Posted by Persian | December 20, 2007 1:02 AM

The analog of this, that staunch American support for unpopular undemocratic pro-American leaders in the Gulf and in Egypt is a significant source of anti-American sentiment is, by contrast, completely absent from the national conversation.

Because it's much easier to say that 'they hate us for our freedoms'. Works every time.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | December 20, 2007 1:26 AM

Surely there has to be some allowance made for "getting more liberal" vs. "getting less liberal." Some of the gulf states (Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, at least) seem to be slowly becoming more liberal, even though they are still pretty illiberal. Russia under Putin has rather distinctly gotten less liberal in a lot of ways. There are other factors to look at besides merely "How bad is each regime right now?" I think that, perhaps, there are some unrealistic assessments of the Yeltsin era going on here, but in general, I think that Putin is worrisome because he took a Russia that, in the 90s, looked vaguely like a nascent democracy, and turned it into a quasi-dictatorship. Some of the gulf emirs, at least (not Saudi Arabia, though) seem to be modernizing and, to some extent at least, liberalizing their countries, even if they've got a long way to go. That's not everything, but surely it's a meaningful distinction.

Posted by John | December 20, 2007 1:26 AM

Let me add that there's certainly also a lot of validity to what Matt says, I just think that there's a lot at play here besides "Kuwait is friendly to US interests, so we'll depict their corrupt sheikh as a 'reformer,' but Russia is challenging us, so let's depict Putin as a 'tyrant.'"

Posted by John | December 20, 2007 1:29 AM

Wow, a lot of Putin lovers in here!

I encourage people to research the Yukos/Khodorkovsky affair to see how Putin has supposedly re-established the rule of law in Russia.

Posted by blah | December 20, 2007 1:37 AM

As far as Putin eliminating corruption in Russia, Transparency International shows that conditions have actually gotten worse. In the 2007 survey, Russia ranked 143, tied with such countries as Gambia, Indonesia and Togo, and falling a few ticks below countries such as Pakistan, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Paraguay, and Syria. The only European country to score worse than Russia was Belarus.

Posted by blah | December 20, 2007 1:56 AM

Matt (not the famous one),

My impression of Putin is that he is the best ruler in Russia since Alexander II - although that might not be saying much. Just between my two visits in Moscow in 2003 and 2005, things appeared to have changed markedly for the better - much more middle-class cars on the streets, for instance. While it is true that corruption is high and nobody should be under any illusions about the people running things, it seems like things are moving in the right direction for the common man, wouldn't you say? Corruption is usually high in all emerging economies - as it was in 19th century Britain and the US - the question is whether it is so bad that it chokes off economic investment and growth or not.

Posted by Norway | December 20, 2007 4:44 AM

Putin is analogous to a post-Soviet Hamilton, pushing a strong central government to manage an intelligent course between liberalization and protection, and to grow the country's economy at a steady clip.

Not to mention irradiating parts of central London and throwing inconvenient journalists out of tall buildings.
But then I'm hazy on early 19th century US politics. Maybe Hamilton did all that stuff too.

Posted by ajay | December 20, 2007 5:00 AM

I find the tolerance here for an authoritarian thug like Putin rather disturbing - while I welcome a dose of post neocon realpolitik, people have seemed to have lost all sense of proportion and liberal values and start sounding like the rightwing Pinochet apologists. Scary, really.

Posted by novakant | December 20, 2007 5:34 AM

much more egregious is the press coverage of the Latin American Hitler (du jour), Hugo Chavez. Despite being elected three times in fair elections (certainly there were no reports of widespread voter suppression aimed at opponents as in this country or of a "friendly" court choosing their favored candidate), despite surviving an American inspired coup (with the ACTIVE support of the anti-Latin-Hitler American press, notably the "pro-democracy" crowd at NYTimes), despite a flourishing opposition press, despite the freedom for the opposition to wage rallies, the recent election which was widely described as a power grab to make Chavez "Dictator-for-Life" by removing term-limits (as in American democracy for the first 175 years of our Republic). Surprisingly, in a close election, the Latin-American Hitler (du jour), announced his own defeat. So very totalitarian. It's time to get this bastard and all the other Hitlers; after Baghdad we get Damascus and Tehran (nukes, if necessary); then Caracas.

Posted by della Rovere | December 20, 2007 6:22 AM

What Dan Kervick said.

Attributing everything positive to the oil prices and everything negative to Putin sounds disingenuous, give the guy some credit, fellas.

I hear consistently that compare to the 1990s the place is a paradise.

I also hear consistently that compare to the 1970s and 1980s the place is a paradise. No compulsory political meetings, no 'voluntary' Saturday workdays, no mindfucking whatsoever; live and let live.

Viva Putin, I'll say. If he is a Hitler - Hitler without racism and expansionism, something like Mahathir bin Mohamad in Malaysia, national-corporatism-style - that ain't bad at all.

Posted by abb1 | December 20, 2007 7:10 AM

Abb1 once tried to defend the claim that the press in Russia is as free as it is in the US so taking anything he says about Russia as worth anything is not very advisable. He doesn't know anything about the situation but doesn't let that stop him from talking about it. That's his general MO.

For example, if he knew anything he'd know that Putin has in fact greatly encouraged a quite unpleasant growth of racism and violent nationalism while president, supporting violent nationalist groups, meeting with them in the Kremlin, allowing money to be given to them, keeping the police from disrupting their protests (unlike that of opposition political groups) and so on. Race based violence is high and growing and Putin does not oppose it. He backed laws banning non-russians from working at markets despite this having bad economic effects. His own speech is full of vulgar racists remarks and stereotypes (abb1 wouldn't know because he can't read Russia and doesn't bother to care) and is backed by a brown-shirt youth group, Nashi.

Norway- there is lots and lots of oil money sloshing around in the economy. Many people benefit from this. It's not Putin's doing. The money, as always, is almost all concentrated in a very few locations. (Traditional estimates put 80% of the wealth in Moscow, 10% in Petersburg, 10% everywhere else.) Outside of Moscow there is often improvement but there is also high inflation, gas shortages, dying villages and smaller towns, etc.

Posted by Matt (not the famous one) | December 20, 2007 7:20 AM

Of course I can read Russian (and often do), Matt, I was born and lived there half of my life.

Your claiming this total superiority all the time on account of your wife being Russian is very entertaining, keep doing it, please, it cracks me up.

Btw, Matt, my wife is Russian too. She goes there every year for a month (I don't), and the rest of the year she's sitting on her ass all day watching Russian TV. It's true, I swear. I bet my wife's ass is bigger than your wife's ass, which obviously means that I know more about Russia than you do.

How'bout that, Matt?

Posted by abb1 | December 20, 2007 7:39 AM

As far as your claim of racism, Matt, I'm afraid you're confusing it with nationalism. If you use you familiarity with the Russian language and read what real Russian racists write, you may find out that they hate Putin like poison.

Posted by abb1 | December 20, 2007 7:57 AM

Re Richard Steven Hack

Not at all surprising that fuckface Hack admires crooks like Galloway and Putin, considering his bank robbing background. Birds of a feather flock together.

Re abb1

So Mr. abb1 is from Russia. That explains why he is an antisemitic Israel bashing cocksucker. For the information of the readers of this blog, Russia is where the notorious forgery, Protocols of Zion originated.

Re Dan Kervick

Putin differs from Stalin and Hitler only in degree as he does not yet have the power to engage in mass murder. Give him time though.

Posted by SLC | December 20, 2007 8:15 AM

National Public Radio should repackage its "Driveway Moments" as "LOL moments", the recent example being the side-by-side coverage of votes re Putin and Chavez. Per the coverage and commentary, on Day One, Putin's 70% demonstrated political skill on top of effective executive power that has stabilized a prosperous Russia, while Chavez was magnanimous after a close 'defeat' in a bid to get to run again down the line. On Day Five or so, Putin was power mad, stealing elections and rigging the system to cling to power, and Chavez was throwing furniture at the walls he was so angry...

[By this same light, I heard last night that 20 million Americans will now "escape" the alternative minimum tax for a year. And hey, I, too, was heartened by the news that a Saudi rape victim was pardoned.]

FWIW, I think MY is giving the media far too much credit in re "the media's decision to adhere to a double-standard". What makes you think the media got to a decision point here? Today's Dutiful Press Stenographer is not willing to take on that responsibility, and doesn't have to.

Posted by rickhavoc | December 20, 2007 9:03 AM

Abb1- if you can actual read Russian I wonder why you are so dumb.

When I happend to get stuck in a nationalist rally last fall in Petersburg (and watched the OMAN troops stand around and do nothing, unlike, say, when gays or liberals march) and they were yelling not just "Russia for Russians" but also "Russia for whites!" I found it a pretty good indication of racism. Similarly when I talk w/ people who can't stand the "blacks", or who think that stabbing a 14 year old Tajik gir to death deserves, at most, a 2 year sentence. It's nationalism, of course, but also disgusting racism. That _you_ don't see it makes me think you're a fool, though of course that's shown pretty well from every other thing you've ever written. Has anyone ever thought a contribution by you was useful?

Posted by Matt (not the famous one) | December 20, 2007 9:15 AM

Well, I have to admit that I neither read Russian nor have ever even been to that country, so pretty much everything I know about the situation there is based upon my "analysis" of the seemingly-biased American media.

But sometimes reading the bottom paragraphs of an NYT story continued onto page A27 can actually provide informative details.

For example, I've seem claims that at the height of their power under Yeltsin, the half-dozen Oligarchs---who were basically criminals---had gained control of something over 1/3 of Russia's entire national wealth, which doesn't seem a good thing.

I've also seen claims that the consequent impoverishment of the general population caused the Russian death rate to soar, producing something like five million "excess" Russian deaths during this same period.

If these claims are totally wrong, than my view of Putin's success is similarly wrong. But to the extent that these figures are even approximately accurate and Putin has reversed this horrific situation, my lack of Russian language skills hardly seems a huge barrier to my analysis.

Posted by RKU | December 20, 2007 9:35 AM

Um, Matt, I may be dumb and a fool, but not dumb enough to project racism exhibited by ordinary people I talk with (or anecdotes about local crowd control procedures, and I think it's 'OMON', actually) to their country's president.

Perhaps you, being an erudite, genius and invaluable contributor to comment threads everywhere, could explain to me how it should be done.

Thanks.

Posted by abb1 | December 20, 2007 9:36 AM

RKU, I've also seen claims that the consequent impoverishment of the general population caused the Russian death rate to soar, producing something like five million "excess" Russian deaths during this same period.

I don't know the number of excess deaths, but they coined a special word for what was going on there in the 90s - bespredel, look it up. Unlimited gangsterism, extreme poverty, total despair. My friends told me that in Moscow - the friggin capital - it was common to collect cigarette butts on the streets and then sell them to smokers who couldn't afford to buy cigarettes.

Matt's Russian wife and her family didn't have to do it (I'm guessing here), so pontificating about the horrors of totalitarianism comes naturally.

Posted by abb1 | December 20, 2007 9:55 AM

Persian, thank you for the super comments. I want to read some Iranian history. Any suggetions?

Thank you in any case, Persian.

Posted by Jennifer | December 20, 2007 10:59 AM

isn't making the US stopping supporting dicatriohs and instead support democracy the heart of the neo-con prouject i thought you were agin the iraq war now?

There is also a very obivou ethical difference the gulf states at a minim are getting no worst-Putin on the other hand is slowly trying to undermine pluralism . It's analogu to saying the new deal years were a good tend for America even if you dislike segregation, creationism, bans on homosexuaty ect- change is relevent as well as the overall nature

not saying the post hasn't got a point btw

Posted by edmund | December 20, 2007 12:26 PM

isn't making the US stopping supporting dicatriohs and instead support democracy the heart of the neo-con prouject i thought you were agin the iraq war now?

There is also a very obivou ethical difference the gulf states at a minim are getting no worst-Putin on the other hand is slowly trying to undermine pluralism . It's analogu to saying the new deal years were a good tend for America even if you dislike segregation, creationism, bans on homosexuaty ect- change is relevent as well as the overall nature

not saying the post hasn't got a point btw

Posted by edmund | December 20, 2007 12:28 PM

The analog of this, that staunch American support for unpopular undemocratic pro-American leaders in the Gulf and in Egypt is a significant source of anti-American sentiment is, by contrast, completely absent from the national conversation.

Where do people get the idea that this is completely absent from the national conversation? I hear it all the time, and my sources of information are by no means exclusively liberal. It's practically a commonplace. The question is what to do about it, given the available options.

Posted by M.C. | December 20, 2007 1:59 PM

Jennifer, you should check out Nikki Keddie's MODERN IRAN: ROOTS AND RESULTS OF REVOLUTION (New Haven: Yale U. Press, 2006)

Posted by Ben Cronin | December 20, 2007 6:16 PM

My god your a fucking moron, abb1. That my wife is Russian (and many of my friends are and live there) is of course a source of information, but I said that to show _why I care_ about the place, as you could tell if you could read. And of course the economic situation is better. No one denies that. What I deny is that this is due to Putin's policies- even when they have helped (and they mostly have not) this is completely swamped by the change in oil prices.

As for racism- if you see as much Russian TV as you claim to you'd see government officials promoting it all the time. (Politicians saying they will "clean the trash" from moscow while harassing chornies in political commercials, for example, or Putin spouting vulgar, racists, gangsterisms at press conferences, or funding racist groups, and so on.) I know that you are impervious to argument or fact, but you are also really fucking dumb, too.

Posted by Matt (not the famous one) | December 20, 2007 9:47 PM

SLC "For the information of the readers of this blog, Russia is where the notorious forgery, Protocols of Zion originated."

And Israel is where they were put into practice.

Somebody obviously decided the forgeries were really a cool plan.

Actually it's fairly clear that Zionism is just another racist, nationalist outgrowth from the late 19th Century which became a totally stupid idea once the 20th Century moved along. After National Socialism, it should have become clear that Zionism was a moronic concept that was completely unworkable. Trying to take "Israel" back from the Palestinians was incredibly stupid.

Even some early Zionists realized that, as I've quoted before.

Now it's likely to result in the destruction of Israel - again - the expulsion of Jews from Israel - again - and probably the rise of anti-Semitism - again - the exact opposite of the desired results.

And because it's promoted by morons like you, it will be deserved.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 20, 2007 11:46 PM

RKU,

It's more complicated than just five million excess deaths. Life expectancy actually started decreasing flatlining or decreasing under Brezhnev and got worse over time. There was improvement under Gorbachev, largely due to some small reforms and the alcohol reform of 1985, which saved a lot of people who would have drunk themselves to death or died by drowning while drunk. (That's not a joke - death by drowning is a huge cause of death in Russia - too much cheap booze and too many easily accessible rivers and streams.) Once the alcohol reform was ended, rates started to decrease again. It got worse after the fall of the Soviet Union, but it is hard to run the counterfactual the other way - life expectancy might have continued to decrease even if the Soviet Union hadn't fallen.

I'll just note that life expectancy hasn't improved that much under Putin so far either, though a few trends are encouraging. (For example in 2003, the average life expectancy of a Russian male was 59 years, which is on par with places like Bangladesh.) So Putin has his own "excess deaths" problem. This doesn't even count the drug-resistant TB, the spread of AIDS, etc. that the Russian government isn't very interested in combatting under Putin.

Posted by Hektor Bim | December 21, 2007 10:10 AM