#9
From: "Peter Lavelle" <plavelle@metropol.ru>
Subject: Untimely Thoughts
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001
Peter Lavelle: Untimely Thoughts - No math questions, please
(re Some thoughts not about the ABM Treaty!)
While at university taking a course in arms control, I remember being told that physics is the same in the US and the Soviet Union. Being so made arms control logical and mutually beneficial. Political discourse has nothing to do with physics; certainly it has nothing to do with logic. The language of politics is an art. It is an art that communicates ideas as well as manipulates emotions. The Crawford Summit, or what I have termed as the Crawford Ideology, is an excellent example of this in play. So much so, it is easy to lose sight that very little - beyond the expected - was achieved.
Most people do not seriously compare Putin to Stalin. This is as it should be. Putin is anything but a revolutionary in the traditional sense of the term. However, there appears to be one area in which Putin acts similarly to Stalin. Both possess the ability to easily communicate a specific message (or political imperative) necessary for the moment, depending upon the audience. It is said Stalin could, with amazing ease, communicate just as adroitly with the lowest level worker and peasant as he could negotiate with FDR. The latter understood the language of tradition and threats (real or imagined). In regards to the former, it is said that FDR actually made some kind discursive contact with the Soviet leader when Stalin mentioned it would be difficult for him to convince his comrades in the Politburo to follow him in some areas of foreign policy. FDR understood exactly; those Republicans in Congress did everything they could to block his initiatives! Hence, Uncle Joe is not much difficult from us. History does not remember Stalin as a "Great Communicator", but he certainly made the people of his time believe so. (I am pretty sure I read this historical reference in Djilas' "Conversations with Stalin").
Now we have Crawford, an American grade school, and NPR. What we don't have are the Russian people. Like the Great Communicator Ronald Reagan, I do not see pure cynicism in Putin's political rhetoric. Putin has never gone out of his way to praise former Soviet dissents like he did on NPR. Then again, Americans like to hear about the virtues of the down trodden (read: "underdog" in American speak) - and Putin knows this. Putin singing the praises of Andrei Sakharov in Russia would most likely bring about endless and meaningless debate. When Putin speaks to his compatriots, he certainly avoids mentioning topics that will divide Russians. Maybe this is a form of self-censorship. Maybe Putin feels freer to speak his mind in the US. Or just maybe Putin understands the "math" better and his American counter-part.
George Bush only needs to speak to Americans. His foreign policy is made at home and little else matters. The exactitude of mathematics does not have much of a role in American political discourse. The fact that Putin speaks "our language" is a bonus. Putin is in a different situation. He must be multilingual. He must be much more adroit in what he says and to whom he says it. What Putin said to an American grade school and NPR is a foreign language to most Russians. In many ways Putin is a gifted man and politician. But the biggest difference between Bush and Putin at this point is that the Putin chose America. The US is simply overjoyed. Bush has not necessarily chosen Russia. Now Putin is home. He has returned to the labyrinth. Upon reflection, he now might have preferred the math questions from American's school children. Math, like physics, is the same everywhere in the world. It is clear, precise, and indisputable - unlike politics.
Next Article