text:
It's So Romantic
Filed under: Politics,Russia — The Professor @ 2:02 pm
I've written before on how Russia strikes me as a very Romantic country. Not in the look-into-my-eyes-darling sense of the word, but in the more philosophical sense of the word (note the capitalization). That thought struck with particular force as I began to read Peter Viereck's Metapolitics: From Wagner and the German Romantics to Hitler. Many of the Romantic strains that Viereck identifies in German history and character types are also pronounced in Russia. Indeed, take virtually any one of the quotes to follow, and you can replace "German" with "Russian" and still strike very close to the bone.
First, a Nietzsche quote in Viereck:
The Germans think that strength must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty; then they submit with fervor and admiration; they are suddenly rid of their pitiful weakness and their sensitivity over trifles, and they devoutly enjoy their terror. That there is strength in mildness and stillness, they do not believe easily.
Here's Viereck himself:
Almost every major German figure bears within himself both sides of this contrast [between the Romanized German and the Saxon]. That is why German thinkers and bards talk more of "two souls in one breast" than do the thinkers of any national culture. . . . They treat their souls as a fond mother treats an enfant terrible: scolding yet egging on. That may make them "geniuses" and "daemonic," but this inner conflict over the Roman wall is not always so harmless. Sometimes it is psychologically accompanied by projection, fanaticism, hysteria, instability, delusions of persecution plus persecution of others, and convulsive outbursts of physical violence.
That last sentence really hits the mark.
This next quote resonates given Russian arguments about its victimization at the hands of invaders over the centuries:
Indeed, throughout history Germany can argue an excellent case against the west. Tact and peaceful reasoning were not conspicuous in the invasions of Germany. . . . But this admission does not invalidate our thesis that Germany's aggressive inferiority complex against western civilization is the greatest cultural and political tragedy of Europe.
Here Viereck quotes Gustav Pauli:
Romanticism is Germanic and reached its purest expression in those territories which are freest from Roman colonization. Everything that is regarded as an essential aspect of the romantic spirit, irrationalism, the mystic welding together of subject and object, the tendency to intermingle the arts, the longing for the far-away and the strange, the feeling for the infinite and the continuity of historic development.
I found the phrase about "mystic welding together of subject and object" in particular to be a good characterization of Russians as well.
Here's Viereck again:
Romanticism is really the nineteenth century's version of the perennial German revolt against the western heritage.
Here's a really good, though extended, passage that fits quite well:
Some readers may object that the stress on schizoid polarity in German minds, on inner swings of the pendulum, is inconsistent with stress on the German craving for discipline, authority, ruthless order. But is it inconsistent? Is not, rather, the excessive and traditional discipline by the German state the direct product of the excessive lack of inner discipline of the individual German? In Germany as in America the increase in centralization of state power is the process by which the state is sucked into the vacuum created by the default in responsibility of the individual citizen. Anarchy and tyranny are merely the opposite faces of a single coin.
Germans accepted authoritarian Prussianism so enthusiastically precisely because it was so un-German They accepted it as the opposite extreme, the needed overcompensation, of what they unconsciously sensed as their most dangerous and typical quality: their intoxication with chaos, their Faustian romanticism.
But even in this reaction Germans could not escape themselves. In fact, nothing is more typical of the chaotic romantic temperament than this very attempt to escape from itself into the prison of limitless authoritarianism.
Germans have a strange habit of fleeing not from prisons but into prisons.
The masses worship a prison-camp type of state with fanatic hysteria so long as it saves each of them, as romantic individuals, from his inner mental and emotional anarchy.
The juxtaposition of extreme anarchic and extreme authoritarian tendencies is well-remarked in Russia. Indeed, to this very day many defenders of the current system invoke fears of the former to justify the latter.
Here's some interesting pieces on the statist impulse:
[Quoting Novalis} "From each true state-citizen grows forth the soul of the state, just as in a religious community a single personal God manifests Himself as if in thousands of shapes." Novalis defines each citizen as a mere "limb" of the state organism, which is "alive and personal."
The organic view was valuable in unifying so loose a federation as the Germany of the eighteenth century and of the pre-Bismarck nineteenth century. Such an all too "atomistic" Germany was, we must remember, the historical context of the romantic revolt against atomism.
The self-justified state, like the Faustian man, must not let ethical discrimination hamper its experience of life's totality. So we are not surprised to find Adam Muller end with bloody hymns to war. The result of Hegel's state-worship too, was that the state became the ethical end in itself in much influential German political thought. All individuals, all the external restrictions of international morality, and all the concretely existing internal parts of the state must be sacrificed to its mathematically non-existent who, the sum that is greater than its parts.
Statism, the state idolatry, the personification of the state, the submergence of the individual in the collective, the view that the state is the highest representation of the collective, are all quite pronounced in Russia too. Russians too seem to flee to prisons rather from them, and seem think that on the whole it's a good thing.
There's a lot more, but these selections make the point. I'd also point out that the virulent anti-Americanism (and anti-Semitism) that characterized German Romantic thought echoes strongly in Russia today, and for much the same reason.
Following on Pauli, Viereck hypothesizes that German Romanticism was the product of the division of Germany between the Latinized West and the Barbarian East. That Germany was on the divide between two civilizations with wildly different mental and moral universes. Romanticism was a revolt of the East against the West.
Russia, too, has a very uneasy, conflicted relationship with the Latinized West. Indeed, although the dividing line did not run directly through Russia, as it did Germany (thanks to Hermann/Arminius), post-Peter I's introduction of Western ideas into Muscovy, the same conflict has rent Russia, with many of the same consequences, political and psychological. The Slavophiles and latterly, the Eurasianists (new and old), are in essence Russia's indigenous Romantics. (It is well known that German Romanticism was quite influential in Russia. I think that this is primarily a matter that the doctrine found very fertile soil waiting for it there.)
In brief, Russia's conflicted relationship with the West, and the psychological complexes associated therewith, bear uncanny similarities to Germany's. Both Germany and Russia lie on civilizational fault lines, and Russia and the non-Romanized parts of Germany were not all that dissimilar in terms of economy and social organization. It should not be too surprising that each reacted similarly to the onslaught of modernity and the hegemony of the Latinized West, though each of course exhibits its own distinct characteristics.
Harking back to a post On Russophobia from almost exactly a year ago (and one which arguably had the biggest impact on the trajectory of SWP), it seems to me that my attitudes towards Russia are strongly reflective of my attitudes towards Romanticism. I am decidedly un-Romantic, and indeed, think that Romanticism was an almost entirely pernicious doctrine. Indeed, when I consider many of the political, cultural, and social phenomenon or viewpoints that I find the most objectionable, the thing that they are most likely to have in common is an explicit or implicit Romantic tie. Hence, it is not surprising that I find much not to admire in Russian society, culture, and polity. And as I said in On Russophobia, self-styled Russophiles, or Slavophiles, or Eurasianists would agree wholeheartedly with many of my characterizations of the features of Russian life and mind, but celebrate them, whereas I do not.
This disagreement Romanticism is characteristic of classical liberals. I note with interest that in her Bourgeois Virutes, Deirdre (nee Donald) McCloskey, a more ardent classical liberal/libertarian than even I, repeatedly traces the horrors of the 20th century large and small to the baleful influence of the German Romantic school, and intends that the third volume of the proposed trilogy will set out her case in detail. Viewed in this way, the debate over Russia is merely another manifestation of a longstanding philosophical conflict that has raged for a very long time, and in very many places.
So, from here on out: Don't call me a Russophobe. Call me a Romantiphobe;-)
Update: Reading Viereck's introduction to the last (2003) edition, I came across this sentence:
The same context is true of Slavophilism (imitated from the German romantic's [sic] by the Aksakov Brothers) and the Arab Volk mystique. Had I but world enough and time (at 86), I'd have expanded Metapolitics to enable me to add to its subtitle: "From the German Romantics to Russians and Arabs."
So, I guess the late Dr. Viereck would have agreed with the essence of my analysis.
WOW! This is one freakin' awesome blog post, sir. Definitely one of the great blog posts yet written about Russia. I'm humbled. If only Mr. Obama would read it! Who knows, there is always hope . . .
Comment by La Russophobe — August 15, 2009 @ 3:30 pm
I agree, though my views on Romanticism significantly differ from yours.
I'm going to post an essay on "Russia's Sisyphean Loop" in a few days, it may interest you.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — August 15, 2009 @ 10:07 pm
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Jews+returning+to+Russia&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
Comment by Cutie Pie — August 15, 2009 @ 10:21 pm
Pardon the double post.
Recently in Ukraine, a non-Russian extremist group sought having the Galician SS positively taught in public schools. The predominately ethnic Russian region in Crimea was quick in firmly stating disapproval of that idea.
I wonder what the stats are of Jews marrying non-Jewish Europeans? I'm sure that Russians rank high. Anti-Semitism was neither invented nor perfected in Russia. One can find tolerance of Jews among a good many Russians when compared to some other non-Jews at large.
If I'm not mistaken, SO as well as eXiled recently noted how Russian corruption isn't as great as assumed in some circles. Offhand, I seem to recall it having been said that the corruption in Russia takes a more openly "honest" (for lack of a better word) form. The same can be said with some other Russia related issues.
On another discussed topic, Germany has had regional differences to the extent which in good part explains its unfication only occurring in the late 1800s.
In other words, the Prof is again rationalizing his Russophobia by arguing, as Churchill once did (but he was provoked to say it by Two World Wars): "The Germans are either at your throat or at your feet." That same attitude characterizes the Washington Beltway Russophobe today. Either Russia is a defeated country that can be dealt with as outsiders wish with the collaboration of some grab all you can asset stripping offshoring oligarchs turned martyrs for democracy (see Khodorkovsky, Mikhail), or it's a resurgent aggressive power trying to reconstitute the "neo-Soviet Union". Both are comforting lies.
Russia was never so defeated as it appeared in the Nineties and it is not so resurgent as it appeared in more recent years. Neither will it disappear or simply be absorbed into a Greater China or trans-Caucases Islamdom (the latter no thanks to the American Council for Peace in Chechnya or other Americansky silovik front groups, the existence of which and intel community connections the Prof denies). I'm glad folks like SO are out there to remind the Russophobes that their projects will fail, and Russia will reengage and gradually revive on its own terms.
And anti-Semitism? Which country has visa free travel to Israel again and why do one million Israelis (some, as Cutie Pie pointed out, not all having Jewish grandmothers) speak Russian?
Comment by The Steve J. — August 16, 2009 @ 3:22 am
Besides that, there are Jewish quasi-Romantics, who believe Western civilization (Japan included) as it is presently constituted is dying off or not sufficiently reproducing because it lacks meaning, and the revolt of the Arab world and Islamdom is largely driven by despair rather than triumphalism that Islam will soon conquer Europe. That would be the Asia Times columnist David Goldman, who was widely read by conservatives in the U.S. even if they stoppped admitting this after he praised Putin (though not the Russians as a whole) for being willing to slug it out on behalf of a tiny minority like the Ossetians keeping Russia's demographic survival as the endgame. I suppose Goldman gets ignored here because as I have noticed, the Prof, rytb, and La Russophobe all have little use for religious viewpoints, even if they are Jewish and not Russian Orthodox or American Protestant dispensationalist (the latter group makes for useful foot soldiers for the anti-Russian cause, since they've been trained by nearly a century of Anglo and U.S.-Russian rivarly into believing that dark hearted Muscovy is the Gog and Magog of Ezekiel notoriety).
Oh and Prof, Russia establishing its own Saako-client state in our own hemisphere is almost here. All that's missing are the advisors to train the Venezuelan military, though I'm sure Russian security contractors like their American counterparts will be in the first wave and are probably already in Caracas. AP "Russia, Venezuela edge closer to oil deal, talk arms". But as you have pointed out since many Russian oil majors that wish to develop the Orinoco Belt and other expensive projects are strapped for cash at the moment and cannot borrow easily from Euro-Atlantic banks, they will have to turn to China for financing. ChiCom boots on the ground in our hemisphere here we come!
At least now I know how the Hollywood screenwriters producing the remake of Red Dawn will find their material…but go on, say I've just been rambling about hypotheticals here and say every sovereign country is free to make alliances with whomever they please, and that there is no blowback for playing Monopoly base games in the CIS.
Sort of curious though not surprisingf to see a semi-literate Russophobe professor from the USA (a distinctly non-Western country, parallel to Brazil not to France comes to mind) publicly digest outrageous bullshit generated by a phobia-afflicted second rate "poet" / "doctor" (of Jewish origin) – all in order to smear Russia. And that **** La Russophobe is the first reader. But of course.
Comment by Roobit — August 16, 2009 @ 5:35 am
This is most un-characteristic characteristic that is totally alien to Russians (of all ethnicities) but strikes me as a distinctly American trait. It is also grotesquely comically un-German – in the sense that modern Germans are obviously very much opposite of what is described in these sentences. The rabid Russophobe "professor" would apparently use any characteristic of anyone, as long as they are sufficiently negative, to smear and defame a group of people because of their ethnicity. I am AMAZED that the scum like the "professor" can still keep a university job despite consistent behavior that were it directed against a different ethnic or national group would have led to his instant dismissal.
S/O–
Thanks. I am not surprised. I think we now understand the underlying source of our ongoing disagreements. It is that you are at root Romantic, and I am not. I will look for your post. Give me a ping when it's up.
Where did I ever say that anti-Semitism is unique to Russia? Or that it was "invented or perfected there"? Uhm, like nowhere. It is well known that anti-Semitism is rife throughout Eastern Europe. But it is equally well known that it has been rife in Russia throughout history. Need I remind you of a few historical facts? EG: Pale of Settlement, pogroms, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the Doctors' Plot, just to name a few. Your habit of citing a few counterexamples is a way of knocking down a straw man, in this instance, an assertion that "all Russians are anti-Semites" or "Russia is the most anti-Semitic nation in the world." Since I never made anything remotely resembling either argument, your giving a whack to such straw men doesn't touch what I wrote. Relatedly, you need to familiarize yourself with the exception-rule concept. Your predilection to cite certain exceptions frequently highlights the prevailing rule.
And re corruption, "isn't as bad as assumed in some circles" could be true, depending on the circles that you are talking about. But, by every measure Russia is one of the most corrupt nations in the world, and is rivaled only by Third World kleptocracies that Russia should feel ashamed to be in the same company with. What's more, "some circles" in Russia, notably the circle including Medvedev, acknowledge that corruption in the country is extensive, and highly destructive. As to the open nature of corruption, that's true, but it's true of most other highly corrupt societies. It indicates that the practice is not stigmatized, and that those who engage in it can do so with little fear of punishment–so why incur the cost of dissembling and concealment? And remember, hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue. So, if you are right, large swathes of Russian officialdom don't even feel the need to acknowledge or honor virtue, let alone practice it.
The fragmentation of Germany is an important part of Viereck's argument. He speaks of the Roman Wall that divided Germany, and the effects of differential exposure to Roman culture on either side of the wall. The divide in Russia was not/is not geographical, and attributable to the outcome of a battle in a dark forest. The divide in Russia arises primarily from the Petrine effort to introduce Western influences into Muscovite society, and the ongoing effects of Western-Russian interactions in the successive centuries.
Roobit–How enlightened of you. Your comment has been edited to eliminate that vulgar reference to the female anatomy. And if by use of that term you are suggesting that LR is in fact a woman, well, you better take that up with Steve J., whom I think is of a different opinion. And thanks for telling us so much about yourself with the gratuitous reference to Viereck's Jewish heritage. That, and the aboveforementioned vulgarity, suggest that your epithet of "scum" may best be reflected in your mirror, rather than mine.
We have to disagree with the applicability of quote to Russia and the US. I think it fits large swathes of Russian thought to a "T."
And insofar as my keeping a university job, well, in this country unlike some others I could think of, there are protections (imperfect, I can say from personal experience) for free speech and expression in academia. Moreover, you are completely wrong to assert that I am "smearing and defaming" based on ethnicity. I am discussing modalities of thought that are more characteristic, in my view, of Russians than of others. This is a longstanding intellectual enterprise. Are you denying that there differences in values, beliefs, mindsets, etc., across national or cultural groups? Or do you believe that it is only acceptable to cite favorable differences? (Quite PC, and also raises the question of whose values are to be used to determine what is favorable?) Your thuggish mindset (epitomized by stating that people should lose jobs if they have the temerity to advance un-PC opinions) is exactly the kind of thing that suppresses free expression. I should also note that you engage in the same practice of making generalizations about certain ethnic modalities of thought, and indeed (per your reference to Viereck's ancestry) do so in a defamatory way.
Finally, I would note that (a) S/O agrees with my basic thesis of the Romantic aspects of Russian thought, and (b) as I stated in my original On Russophobia post, many ardent Russian nationalists, Slavophiles, Euasianists, etc. would also agree with my identification of key aspects in Russian thought, beliefs, and self-image. The difference is that S/O and the Slavophiles, etc., see these things as features, whereas I see them as bugs.
Steve J. Tell your doctor that you need an adjustment in the dosage on the meds. You are self-satirizing, and save me the work. Thanks.
Comment by The Professor — August 16, 2009 @ 9:33 am
This is what you said:
"There's a lot more, but these selections make the point. I'd also point out that the virulent anti-Americanism (and anti-Semitism) that characterized German Romantic thought echoes strongly in Russia today, and for much the same reason."
This is a broad generalization which has some inaccurate aspects as I noted. You didn't acknowledge those points.
Regarding your reply:
If I'm not mistaken, the Protocols weren't initiated in Russia, with many Russians not accepting it. Likewise, the Pale of Settlement and pogroms aren't exclusive to Russia. The Spanish Inquisition, WW II era Holocaust, Turkish actions taken against the Armenians, Bulgarians and some others, American Jim Crow laws and lynchings of Blacks serve as contrasting points.
Keep in mind this point of yours: "Your predilection to cite certain exceptions frequently highlights the prevailing rule."
This thought relates to the ongoing and often unchallenged imagery which lead to some broadly inaccurate stereotyping.
There's enough bigotry against Russia and Russians out there. I can see how your piece will be spun elsewhere.
Comment by Cutie Pie — August 16, 2009 @ 10:11 am
Wrong. Protocols were definitely of Russian origin, and more specifically, were from the Okhrana, the Tsarist secret police.
Re somebody else spinning. So you are suggesting that I should self-censor because other people may twist and distort? That's not going to happen.
Comment by The Professor — August 16, 2009 @ 10:22 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion
Pardon the quick usage of Wiki.
Moreover, Imperial Russia was by no means monolithic in such views, in terms of the people serving in its government. Some never accepted the Protocols. Keep in mind the KKK supporters at various levels of government in the US.
As for more present times, I recall Sharansky saying that the position of Jewry in present day Russia isn't radically different from the rest of Europe at large.
This point relates to a not so distant Moscow Times article on a religious Jewish group which promotes Jewish culture via use of a traveling van throughout Moscow. In the article, a representative of that group notes there being much interest and never any expressed animosity towards his orgs. activity.
With other examples, I post this excerpt since it was recently sent to me and readily available:
"ROC authorities as St John of Kronstadt and Metropolitan Archbishop Anthony Khrapovitsky, 100 years ago, vehemently and repeatedly condemned anti-Semitism and pogroms, arguing that the Church venerates many Jewish holy people, including kings David and Solomon, and that early Christians and apostles were ethnic Jews. These pronouncements are well documented in the press of 100+ years ago."
The rest of it goes on to acknowledge others taking an unfortunately different route. However, like I said at the top of this note, other Russians from that era to the present have taken more to the position of the above quoted.
BTW, I'm not suggesting practicing "self censorship." In reality, there's enough of that around. Don't expect me to do likewise.
"Not in the look-into-my-eyes-darling sense of the word"
Actually it is, if you think of it in the context of George Dumbass Bush looking into the eyes of his darling Vladimir Putin and finding him trustworthy after glimpsing his soul.
Comment by La Russophobe — August 16, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
Uhm, QTП, here's the exact passage from the wikipedia link:
Based on evidence repeatedly corroborated by British, German, Ukrainian, Polish and Russian sources over a 75 year period, The Protocols, far from being a "discovered" document as it was claimed to be, was in fact deliberately fabricated sometime between 1895 and 1902 by Russian journalist Matvei Golovinski. In a Swiss lawsuit in the late 1930s concerning circulation of the Protocols, "Two of the Russian witnesses gave testimony pointing to the involvement of Pyotr Ivanovich Rachkovsky in the forgery".[9] Rachkovsky was head of the Paris branch of the Russian secret police.[10]
The source material for the forgery was a synthesis between Joly's book and a chapter from a work of fiction titled Biarritz, which was written in 1868 by antisemitic German novelist Hermann Goedsche and translated into Russian in 1872.[11] In creating the Protocols, Golovinski took Joly's novel and changed the plotters from Napoleon III to the Jews, just as Joly had changed the plotters from the Jesuits to Napoleon III in his version of the story. The current belief is the forgery was initiated and authorized by factions of the Russian aristocracy opposed to the political and social reforms initiated by the previous Tsar, (Alexander II). The fabricated document was meant to convince the antisemitic Tsar Nicholas II not to allow additional reforms, since all reforms would play into the hands of this just uncovered "secret Jewish plot". Once the Russian Revolution began in 1905, however, the use of the forgery changed. The same group, now part of the White movement, disseminated the document during their 18 year fight against the Bolsheviks in an attempt to link the Red Army, which had a few Jews in its leadership, to the fictitious conspiracy.
The book typically consists of 24 to 27 paragraphs or sections entitled "Protocols". It has been published and distributed in many forms: manuscript, periodical, booklet, book and via the internet. It was first edited and disseminated to the public in 1903 by Pavel Krushevan, the instigator of the Kishinev pogrom. It was re-published in 1906-1907 by the Union of the Russian People, a part of the pro-Tsarist antisemitic group The Black Hundreds, as a pamphlet entitled Enemies of the Human Race. The pamphlet was published specifically to blame the Jews for Russia's embarrassing defeat in the Russo-Japanese War. It was similarly used in opposition to the Russian Revolution of 1905, the October Revolution (1917), and the peace negotiations at the end of World War I, becoming known worldwide during the 1919-1920 period when it was widely circulated in the West.
And this is from the wiki entry on the Okhrana:
Other controversial activities included fabrication of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion hoax (many historians maintain that Matvei Golovinski, a writer and Okhranka agent, compiled the first edition on the instructions of Pyotr Rachkovsky) and fabrication of the antisemitic Beilis trial.
So, unless you are going to be cute (pun intended) in your statement "weren't initiated in Russia" by claiming that Joly and Biarritz are the ultimate authors and hence the Protocols were plagiarized, the citation you provide supports my view, not yours. There is little, hardly any, methinks, dispute that the Protocols in their current form were created by and disseminated by the Okhrana. And again, to cite particular instances of anti-anti-Semitism does not contravene my basic point that official and popular anti-Semitism has been a plague on Russia for years. It went to the highest levels of the Russian government (Nicholas II was a notorious anti-Semite) AND the Russian Orthodox Church. It is ahistorical to suggest otherwise.
And re the KKK in the USA. This is news? Beyond pointing out the whataboutism, let me say that the contrast between your treatment of Russian anti-Semitism (which, sadly, is all too common) and the overwhelming treatment of the KKK in the US tells a great deal. The KKK is almost universally reviled, and its history in the Reconstruction South, and in the 1920s and later, is acknowledged and regretted. It is not excused, or believed to be meaningfully palliated by the fact that there were a few white Southerners who spoke out against it. That is, virtually all Americans acknowledge this shameful aspect of our history. They don't try the "yeah but" routine like you are wont to do, and as you do in this specific case of anti-Semitism in Russia.
Comment by The Professor — August 16, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
"And if by use of that term you are suggesting that LR is in fact a woman, well, you better take that up with Steve J., whom I think is of a different opinion." Yes I still think "she" is a dude blogging as a lady, though AK is of a different opinion. We both agree that LR is a front for some American silovik wannabe think tank or catches the crumbs from some PR agency's table, and I already wrote which one I think it has been. But as Ice Cube once rapped, thence quoted on HBO's Generation Kill, "any day / without an AK / is a good day".
As for me being on meds for pointing out the obvious, that the Colored Revolutions had some at least indirect (maybe via Soros or other fronts, hell, GS funded the first Internet connection to the USSR back in 1984 according to Wikipedia) "good shepherding" as in the Matt Damon flick of the same title, well, no need for more comment here at a public forum.
Comment by The Steve J. — August 16, 2009 @ 4:41 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runet
Also, in 1983 the San Francisco Moscow Teleport (SFMT) project was started by VNIIPAS and an American team which included George Soros.
Do I need to draw a map for you or what Prof? Why do you think the conservative media (Weekly Standard, National Review, etc.) savaged Soros for funding Democrat Left groups to defeat Bush in 2004 but never say a mumblin' word about his Eastern European philanthropy because they love the guy?
They get their marching orders too, or at least "friendly" phone calls from old friends who used to hike in the Soviet Union back in the 1980s when gas pipelines blew up in Western Siberia and now work at various foundations in D.C. We're free to discuss any Russian's "KGB ties" or "siloviki" background here, with the assumption that there's no such thing as an ex-KGB man, but not their counterparts and the concomitant phrase that "there's no such thing as an ex-CIA man" when it comes to Paul Goble and co?
Steve J. Stop it! You're killing me. Your conspiratorial mindset is out there for all to see. And if you can't tell the difference between the significance of the intelligence background of a Putin or a Sechin, individuals in position of great power in Russia, and that of a Paul Goble, you are even more clueless than I thought. And that's saying something.
Thanks. I am not surprised. I think we now understand the underlying source of our ongoing disagreements. It is that you are at root Romantic, and I am not. I will look for your post. Give me a ping when it's up.
Will do so.
PS. I'm curious whether your dislike for Romanticism extends into the purely literary and aesthetic realms – what is your opinion on Wagner, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, Delacroix, etc?
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — August 17, 2009 @ 12:24 am
You didn't prove me wrong. The basis of the Protocols' origin wasn't in Russia. Years ago, I recall Nat Hentoff saying that Nicholas II acknowledged the Protocols as a hoax. It wasn't something accepted in Russia to the degree of Nazi attitudes in Germany and some other parts of Europe.
The so-called "whataboutism" serves to highlight the hypcritical standards against Russia. Moreover, those using the "whataboutism" term have at times displayed their own version of it.
Your comments about the ROC are relative. The Vatican didn't excommunicate Hitler (that's my understanding), with the former having its own questionable relationship on such issues as the "Rat Line," involving the transfer of Ustasha personnel to other countries after WW II. On another religious matter, Martin Luther has been referred to as an anti-Semite. Without my disagreeing, these Christian denominatins have different and more positive representations. The same can definitely be said of the ROC. Hence, the negatively broad stereotyping of it by some fits the category of being inaccurate, if not prejudiced.
Your point about Russia being noticeably anti-Semitic in the present day is off the mark for the reasons I specified.
The past experience of Jews in Russia isn't as you broadly skew. It's an absurdity to liken the position of Jews in Imperial Russia with the Nazi era Holocaust (not that you specifically express support for that faulty notion). With the discrimination, a number of Jews found a role within Imperial Russian structures. One of several examples is that of Samuel Poliakov, an observant Jew, whose company won the bid to become involved in the building of the Trans-Siberian Railroad. Nobility privileges were granted to him in honor of his work.
FYI, the pogroms also involved folks not affiliated with the Russian government. These included some anti-government political types seeking destabilization of the society by playing on existing prejudices, including perhaps that of some of the organizers. In some instances, the Russian government made efforts to stop such violence. The historical accounting on this particular issue includes elements of the Russian government pursuing policies not known of in advance or approved by the top.
Getting back to another point of yours: prior to the advent of Hitler, the case can be made that Germany wasn't so anti-Jewish as some other parts of Europe. What happened in Germany is maybe not so unique as some seem to suggest. Unfairly trashing a people when they're down can greatly influence an extremist backlash. It's a fine line between distinguishing some characteristics within a group and the matter of human nature having some universal qualities. Regarding Germany, there's the comparison of how Germans are viewed today as well as before Hitler's rise. I'm not fully sold on the pre-Hitler characterization (by some) of Germans as the best explanation for Nazism. I think there's something to be said for the "it can happen anywhere" (at least in a good number of other places) mind-set.
I'll continue to oppose the politically motivated cherry picking of certain past matters, which serve to slur a given group of people.
Concerning some of the subject matter raised, someone made these observations:
I would suggest reading the ORIGINAL literature on the character of Slavs, specifically Eastern Slavs, by Byzantine Emperor and chronicler, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who was amazed at their humane laws, traditions, hospitality and incredible treatment of "prisoners of war", including the Asian raiders regularly pillaging their lands. They usually made these captives work for several years to make up for the death and carnage they incurred, and then, let tem go.
The Code of Law "Russian Truth" formally granted government stature by Great Prince of Novgorod and Kiev, Jaroslav the Wise – the most humane laws in all of Europe, with capital punishment called for only in rare, extreme cases, with most others settled by fines, compensation or work/service obligation.
Contrast this with descriptions of Germanics by the Roman historians Tacitus, and others. One can spin a Germanic/Teutonic historic track record of aggression and cruelty…. There's the "Slavic Dove versus the Germanic Wolf" comparison that has been used in researching and evaluating historic characteristics of the two ethnic groups by some historians (mainly non-Russian).
Comment by Cutie Pie — August 17, 2009 @ 1:02 am
PS: To underscore on an earlier point – the number of Jews who've returned to Russia in recent years, as well as the many people of Russian-Jewish background serves as a main counterpoint to this questionable view:
"There's a lot more, but these selections make the point. I'd also point out that the virulent anti-Americanism (and anti-Semitism) that characterized German Romantic thought echoes strongly in Russia today, and for much the same reason."
Additonal note:
As far as not facing up to an unfortunate past (a point raised at this thread by someone else), present day Russia seems to do a much better job on the pogroms and some other matters than how official Turkey views the past treatment of Armenians, Bulgarians and some others.
On a related note, it would be interesting to see a comparison of non-ethnic Turks (Kurds and Armenians in particular) in the Turkish government with non-ethnic Russians in leading Russian government positions. Offhand, I gather Russia to be more multiethnic than Turkey – a point to be considered in such a comparison.
Simply saying this is the result of a brutal conquest over others overlooks other aspects like the many patriotic Russians comprising various different ethnic backgrounds.
WHOA!!! There it is! Cutie Pie refers to "russian truth" by Yaroslav the Wise, Prince of Novgorod – and, oh, yeah, Kyiv.
Yaroslav Moodryj (the Wise) was Prince of Rus, which does not refer to "russian," but to the lands on the territory of Ukraine then known as "Rus" (pronounced "roos," with a soft "s"). But russians like to use it to justify their current existence, by equating "Rus" with "russia." He was indeed Prince of Kyiv, which is the capital of Ukraine today.
The correct word for russia is "rossiya," which is not the same as "Rus." If the intent was to say "Russian Truth," then the proper word would have been "Rossiyska Pravda", not "Rooska Pravda."
Now, in fairness, she was referring to a purported work (no reference provided, no link provided, for courtesy to the reader) on the character of Eastern Slavs, and people in Rus could fairly be considered Eastern Slavs to a certain extent, despite all of the Vikings coming down the Dnipro River, and the Greeks and Romans in Crimea.
Comment by elmer — August 17, 2009 @ 9:14 am
I still think you are being a sea lawyer re Protocols. Your recollection of Nat Hentoff's statement doesn't really pass the robust documentation test, to say the least. Nicholas II (and his wife, for that matter) was a notorious anti-Semite, and his regime provoked numerous pogroms, in part to deflect hatred away from the regime to the Jews in 1905. And what's more, your defense basically is that, well, the Okhrana plagiarized and adapted somebody else's bigotry for its own purposes. The Protocols in the form that we know them today were created by and disseminated by the Russian government, more specifically, it's secret police. The fact that others (e.g., Nazis, modern Arabs) have embraced them more fervently than the Russians did speaks ill of them, but not well for Russia. Ditto your statement that Russia has done better in acknowledging the pogroms than Turkey has its Armenian genocide.
The key to looking good, in your book, is to set the bar as low as possible, find the worst performer in some category, and then compare Russia to that standard. Your motto: "Russia! Not the Worst!" Maybe not, but hardly puts Russia in company I'd want to keep.
S/O. Looking to me for opinions on aesthetics is pretty funny. My knowledge of classical music is limited at best, so I wouldn't dare offer a critique. Re literature, I do like some things that would be considered Romantic. Moby Dick is one of my favorite books. I do like Dostoevsky as literature, although I don't find him persuasive. Romantic art (e.g., Delacroix) is a little too lurid for me, but again, my knowledge of art is very limited.
SJN–
This is for you:
think we can already point to how Washington is dealing with Russia's burgeoning military relationship with Venezuela – which despite the growing proof that Caracas is leaking these Russian weapons to FARC, the yanks are still relaxed, sober, and laissez-faire. If the Russians and Venezuelans want to have a military relationship, no need to make a big deal out of it. Russia has in the past showed a desire to have their Venezuela relationship be perceived as identical tit-for-tat meddling in a sphere of influence, but not everybody is still living in the 19th century (the calm result may have even been disappointing).
That's you Steve, living in the 19th century. And like Putin et al, it drives you crazy that Russia's attempt at tit for tat provocation draw a big shrug and a "whatever." Indeed, that's the thing that most drives Russian great power fanatics absolutely nuts. They'd rather be hated than ignored, for the powerful aren't ignored.
Ukrainian nationalists like Elmer continue to pervert history by trying to claim that modern day Russia isn't descended from Rus.
The husband and wife Massie book Nicholas and Alexandra is a good read. Within the last decade, Lev Novrozov (hope I spelled his name right, as I'm short for time on this note) wrote a piece in one of Chris Ruddy's run outlets which is of the view that Nicholas II wasn't the level of negativity that some suggest. I briefly discussed that piece with him.
Holding Russia to standards that others aren't is ongoing. As often presented, it suggests Russia to be more backwards, while at the same time expecting more of that country than others – some of whom are said to be more advanced (a claim that in some instances is questionable). This is evident when the past and present of Russia is discussed
I look forward to receiving my copy of Solzhenitsyn's work on Jewry. As I noted, the pogroms also involved folks not part of any Russian government orchestrated operation, inclusive of anti-government political types. Simultaneoulsy, the Russian government was by no means a monolith. This was why I brought up the connection between the American government and KKK. And yes, there were instances of the government making effort to put down some of these pogroms. At the same time, with the discrimination and violence (which the government was in one way or another responsible for as the law of the land), a good many Jews played significant roles within official Russia.
A parting note to you brings to your attention the Jewish-American-Israeli coach of the Russian national men's basketball team and Jewish background of two post-Soviet Russian prime ministers. Along with some earlier points made at this thread, the state of Jewry in post-Soviet Russia seems different from what you say in your above blog post.
Comment by Cutie Pie — August 17, 2009 @ 8:33 pm
This isn't the main point of the thread, but…..
That "Rus" does not mean "russian" does not equate to anything about where Russia "descended" from.
It does mean that many russians try to use "Rus" to preach that Ukraine is Russia, and that Russia is Ukraine.
Which, of course, is not the case.
In 988 AD, or Common Era, if one prefers, Volodymyr accepted Christianity and brought all of his subjects into Christianity.
Neither Moskva nor Russia existed at that time, and would not exist for quite some time after that.
"Russia! Not the worst"
Good one, SWP.
But I'm stil debating about whether Russia is not as bad as a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.
As far as Jews in Russia –
Here is a somewhat interesting discussion with Hitchens and Robert Service on the topic of "would the sovok union have been as bad if Trotsky had been able to take over instead of Stalin"? It's a 5-part series:
http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/
Which reminds me a bit of the old Saturday Night Live bits along the lines of "What If Eleanor Roosevelt Could Fly?", etc.
At any rate, in one of the parts, both Hitchens and Service note that Lenin finally realized, almost on his death bed, that in picking Stalin, he had made a mistake.
They go on to point out the "virtues" of Trotsky, and how he, of Jewish descent, went to a Lutheran school, but really had no future in Russia.
The upshot? To quote them all: "revolution was a career move."
But it is indeed very, very interesting that a goodly percentage of the oligarchs – and thugs – in recent Russia are indeed Jewish.
Berezovsky, Abramovich, and others.
Berezovsky, of course, does not set foot in Russia any more – he lives in England.
Coming on the heals of the OCSE pronouncement, stating that there was no difference between Hitler and Stalin, your article, from the veiwpoint of Romanticism, is indeed interesting.
Locke, Rousseau, etc. – and now, Viereck.
Comment by elmer — August 17, 2009 @ 9:05 pm
Cutie Pie–Chris Ruddy? Are you effin' kidding me? Again, I never asserted a monolithic Russia. Another straw man that you've valiantly vanquished.
Elmer–you're welcome, and thanks in return. And a couple of short comments. You're right, Musocvy~=Kievan Rus, although there is a connection. Also, saw the Hitchens-Service thing. Interesting. Trotsky is fascinating. One can see how he is more appealing than Stalin, certainly, and even Lenin. But still, a monster. Indeed, given his intellectual gifts, his monstrosity is even more unforgivable.
Comment by The Professor — August 17, 2009 @ 10:06 pm
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/08/17/training-russia-s-enemies.aspx
The New Republic, hawkish libs that they are, instantly respond, saying that we should just diss the Russians since we wouldn't take the same thing so seriously. One commenter slaps back with a bit of true history:
"because history affords us no examples of the United States freakingout and making a BFD over Russia training troops in Cuba or Central America, right? Washington would never bring the world to the brink of nuclear war [1962] or risk a president's impeachment to funnel arms and money to rebels [1984-87] over something so trivial.
If there's one thing that is guaranteed to cause conservatives to lead a massive case of public freakout, the People's Liberation Army setting up camp anywhere in North America or the Caribbean would be that thing. Seriously, people, we've gone to war over precisely this sort of thing in the past."
Comment by The Steve J. — August 18, 2009 @ 12:17 am
I was referring more to Novrozov and not Ruddy.
Your straw man comment is ironic.
Why do you say Elmer is right, when he's wrong in suggesting that Russia isn't descended from Rus?
Oleg from Novgorod changed his base of location from Novgorod to Kiev, when the Rus state becomes generally recognized as being in existence.
Moscow later developed as a city within Rus.
I didn't see the Hitchens-Service piece. Your stated reaction to Ruddy is somewhat along the lines of how I approach Hitchens on some topics. Didn't Trotsky favor a "world revolution" to Stalin's "socialism in one country?" While not being fond of the latter, I'm not sure that the former would've been a better alternative.
Last but not least, I wouldn't say that Soros is not a powerful guy just because he's not formally in government. His NGOs are practically an arm of the USG and the question of whether his bets well in advance against currencies like the pound had at least something to do with inside information or was some quid pro quo for his previous activities in the 80s and early 90s on behalf of various 4th branch interest is not a trivial one. But in SWP's world only Russian oligarchs can make billions from their silovik connections, that is not possible in the West. I am not so sure anymore after seeing Goldman come out of the crisis still smelling like a rose save for the stink of Shifty Paulson's shotgun wedding of Merrill and BOA.
SWP, here is an interesting article about why Russia is totalitarian, or "proto-totalitarian," and Ukraine is going the democracy route.
It does not rely on your "Romanticism" view, as far as I can tell – it's another take on the situation that gets to the same conclusions.
Excerpt below.
http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/47102
Democratic Ukraine, autocratic Russia: Why?
Today, 11:54 | Andreas Umland and Ingmar Bredies, Special to Kyiv Post
Kyivan Rus, the medieval state that
existed from 880 to the middle of the
13th century, gave rise to modern-day
Ukraine and Russia. The two nations
have taken divergent paths toward
governance, differences that began in
the old empire.
Developments in the former Soviet Union in recent years were fascinating for the specialist and might have puzzled the layman: Why have Europe's two largest countries developed in such different ways? Russia has returned to authoritarianism while Ukraine seems to be maturing towards a real democracy. How did this happen – in spite of these nations' similar Eastern Slavic Orthodox cultures and intertwined histories?
For several reasons, a historically questionable overview of the past and present.
Gentlemen:
I would like to emphasize one simple fact that the recently emerged separate country in question – the Ukraine – has had no historical proper name of its own.
The matter is that in all of the Slavic languages the word "ukraine" means one and the same thing – "a borderland" or "a rimland".
This meaning is absolutely obvious and pellucid for all of the Slavic peoples in Eastern, Western and Southern Europe indiscriminately, all of them having had the same common ancient word-stem "krai" in their vocabularies with the following meaning: "border", "rim", "part", "a part of the land", etc.
Since the prefix "u" means "at" (like the French preposition "chez"), so the world "ukraine" means nothing else but "a part of the land at the border," or in short: "a borderland."
Which is why the correct English form of the country's name must be THE Ukraine, with the definite article, because there exist a great many of various "ukraines" or "borderlands" in the world, yet it is only one of them that has become a separate state, and which has assumed the name Borderland or the Ukraine as its official name.
At the present time, the Ukraine is being a mini-empire, consisting of seven parts: 1. Malorossia (Little Russia), 2. Novorossia (New Russia), 3. the Crimea, 4. Slobozhanshchina (Sloboda), 5. Volhynia-Podolia, 6. Galicia, and 7. Ruthenia (Red Russia). Of which only numbers 5 and 6 are inhabited by the native speakers of the so-called Ukrainian language.
Comment by Michael Kuznetsov — August 19, 2009 @ 4:19 am
For any occasion, the following link GULLUP: http://www.gallup.com/poll/109228/Russian-Language-Enjoying-Boost-PostSoviet-States.aspx?version=print will show that 83 percent of the Ukrainian citizens consider the Russian language to be their mother-tongue.
Michael, spoken like a typical Kremlin shill, your link seems the usual bogus Kremlin propaganda . In the 2001 census as per wikipedia "67.5% of the country population named Ukrainian as their native language (a 2.8% increase from 1989), while 29.6% named Russian (a 3.2% decrease). It should be noted, though, that for many Ukrainians (of various ethnic descent), the term native language may not necessarily associate with the language they use more frequently. The overwhelming majority of ethnic Ukrainians consider the Ukrainian language native, including those who often speak Russian."
Try finding a reliable neutral factual link on that issue.
Your "borderland" commentary is transparently pure Kremlin. Lost empires are a bummer especialy in a culture where national granduer makes better the humilitation of the near third world conditions that can't be overcome. The sad tired clueless landscape of Putin's Russia doesn't offer much more than that.
Comment by penny — August 19, 2009 @ 8:37 pm
Penny, it is indeed easy to recognize the same old tired, oft repeated kremlin propaganda.
Including the one about "the" Ukraine, which totally ignores reality today.
Since it appears that there are kremlinoids here who want to hijack this thread, here's a very interesting article about Russia's fake history by Peter Borisow, published in Canadian American Slavic Studies (Fall 2008).
Interesting tidbit – the origin of the name for Russia, or "rossiya," comes from the Ukrainian word that means "scattered."
Kremlinoids also like to preach that there is no Ukrainian language, that it's just a bad dialect of Russian.
This article turns the tables on that old canard, and holds that Russian is actually a garbled offspring of Ukrainian.
It also covers what comes from the "Romanticism" which SWP writes about – the brutal genocide of Ukrainians in the Holodomor.
http://cybercossack.com/?p=1408
Comment by elmer — August 19, 2009 @ 10:40 pm
"Kremlinoids also like to preach that there is no Ukrainian language, that it's just a bad dialect of Russian."
That group of "Kremlinoids" are in a minority. Much like the minority of Ukrainian ultra-nationalist crackpots who claim that modern day Russia isn't descended from Rus.
On the language matter, modern day Ukrainian isn't what was spoken in the days of Rus.
In relation to this discussion, here's an interesting commentary which cuts thru the BS:
http://littledoor.blogspot.com/2009/08/medvedev-russia-ukraine-relations-at.html
Cutie Pie,
Thanks for linking to me in your comment. I appreciate it very much.
Comment by Natalie — August 20, 2009 @ 8:03 pm
You're quite welcome Natalie and thank you for your most interesting blog.
Uncommon Knowledge: Christopher Hitchens & Robert Service
http://fora.tv/2009/07/28/Uncommon_Knowledge_Christopher_Hitchens__Robert_Service
Comment by Oleg — September 29, 2009 @ 8:15 am


Among the many advantages that come with living at Isles at Bayshore are a convenient, commuter-friendly location with immediate access to Florida's Turnpike, U.S. 1 and Old Cutler Road. An abundance of resort-style amenities is another highlight of the community. They include a lakefront clubhouse with state-of-the-art fitness center, oversize community pool, children's pool, playground and a multi-purpose party room available for residents to rent and use for gatherings of any kind.
For information about Lennar's "Super Weekend" at Trellis at Isles at Bayshore, call 877-206-6318 or visit the Lennar Welcome Home Center inside the community clubhouse at 21864 SW 93rd Path, in Cutler Bay. The models and Welcome Home Center are open daily from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.
For information on other Miami-Dade communities, call 877-205-1531; for Broward communities, call 888-346-4819; and for Palm Beach County/Treasure Coast communities, call 866-313-5805. Additional information can be found on www.Lennar.com/ FloridaDeals. Realtor participation is welcome.


text:
Tim Pawlenty: The Esquire Interview
The Minnesota governor, whom many expect to run for president in 2012, on bailouts, health care, whether Obama is a socialist, and where Republicans go from herePLUS: Esquire's Anonymous Survey of the Modern Republican Party
By Mark Warren
In his first major interview since launching his political-action committee (Freedom First PAC), Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty discusses the need for Republican party leadership, explaining where his party has landed since losing in 2008. "I think I'll have something to say about that."
But when will he say it? He'll soon start campaigning for midterm elections, and many expect him to run for president in 2012. Pawlenty tells Esquire executive editor Mark Warren that he'll make that decision in late 2010 or early 2011, and is focused on spending the next two years spreading his "mainstream conservative" message across the country. "I have a pretty clear sense of the values and principles that have made this country great," Pawlenty says. "And I think the country needs that kind of leadership and insight and perspective."
In the interview, Pawlenty explains why it's him — not Sarah Palin nor Dick Cheney — who should come to speak for the Republican party. In doing so, the governor speaks candidly about what happened to his party in the wake of President George W. Bush, whether the stimulus package was necessary, and what he sees as the future for the health care plan, President Barack Obama, and, most importantly, America itself.
Highlights from Esquire's exclusive interview:
On the State of the Republican Party:
"The Republicans had their shot not long ago to address the real needs and concerns of everyday Americans, and they blew it.... Over the time that they were there and had the leadership opportunity, they blew it. We got fired for a reason."
"The party got into a whole bunch of corruption and personal scandals that weren't compatible with the principles it claimed to stand for."
"We just lost our way. You can't say that your hallmark issues are that we're going to control spending, keep taxes low, and make government accountable, and then go to Washington and do the opposite.... Let's face it, when Republicans had total control over it, they didn't do what they said they were gonna do."
"The marketplace measurement in politics is something called an election.... And in 2006 and 2008, the marketplace was telling the Republicans, We prefer the products and services of your competitors."
On Whether Obama is a Socialist:
"I don't think name-calling is helpful.... I think President Obama is governing as a movement liberal. I don't think that rises to the level of being a socialist."
On Obama's Health-Care Plan:
"The health-care debate is a pretty good proxy for this struggle between these two views. And in the case of the Republicans, what they see and what they're rightly concerned about is that it's another increment down the road toward government taking over more and more things. And it worries people."
"The Republicans didn't do a good job of articulating the alternate vision."
"Just for the first year and half of presidency, that is a very unsettling record. And that's not just a Republican or tea-party sentiment."
Behold, a roomful of Minnesota Republicans, with a few out-of-town financiers sprinkled in for diversity. All here because tonight Tim Pawlenty is launching his political-action committee, the Freedom First PAC, and with this PAC, the governor of Minnesota hopes to become known and beloved by Americans from coast to coast as he campaigns for Republicans in this year's midterms. And then he hopes to become president. Expectations are high for the governor. He's led a liberal state with success, is unspoiled by scandal or prior defeat, and has a sunny disposition.
In sharp contrast, this is an angry room. Jon Voight, one of the evening's speakers, is comparing the Democrats with the Nazis: "At this hour," he says gravely, "it's very similar to the hour during the forties when we were facing the evil of Nazism ... " John Ratzenberger — Cliff from Cheers — is here, too, a genuinely funny guy but also surprisingly angry. And then Ratzenberger says, "I think we have a surprise guest calling in," and there's the pleasant voice of Kelsey Grammer, not angry so much as somber. So Pawlenty's three for three with the Hollywood conservatives. And the message from the luminaries and the chatter at the tables is the same: The time is now, the hour is nigh. But then the governor ascends the stage for his speech and the clouds part. He can't help it. Even when he tells you the country's in danger, he is smiling. Pawlenty thanks everybody for showing up and quotes Will Ferrell from Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, to especially thank "my red-hot smokin' wife."
Before and after the event, we sat down with Pawlenty and talked about what the Republican party stands for.
Esquire: Governor, we're trying to figure out who or what a Republican is now, aside from merely opposing the president. In the coming year, someone other than Sarah Palin is going to vie to speak for your party, and it might well be you. But first, a year after President Obama was elected, the Republicans won gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey. What does that say to you about the national temperament?
Tim Pawlenty: Well, these are barometers for how the nation is feeling. You've got a swing state in Virginia and what would normally be an uphill climb for a Republican in New Jersey, and we won them both. And I think what you have is a country that is reacting to a sense that spending has gone too far, government's growing too big, and they don't like it. And so a lot of folks who are independents or maybe conservative Democrats or maybe even some soft Republicans who supported Obama are saying he's pushing the country further in a direction they're not comfortable with, and they're not taking it anymore.
ESQ: Was spending going too far and government growing too big before Obama became president?
TP: It certainly was, but he has pushed the gas pedal to the metal and exploded it in ways that were previously unheard-of. I mean, he's taken the national deficit in one year and tripled it. So we now have a $1.4 trillion deficit just in the past year. That is three times as large almost as it's ever been. That is larger than the entire economy of India. That one-year debt is larger than the entire cumulative debt of the entire nation for the first two hundred years of our existence.
ESQ: You've been very critical of the bank-bailout bill, a number of times, a bill that was passed at the urging of a Republican president. Let's role-play. I'm Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson. I come to you on a Wednesday in mid-September 2008 and I say, "Mr. President, we've got to pass this bill, because if we don't, we won't have an economy by Monday." What do you do?
TP: Well, they did say that at one point, and the bill failed.
ESQ: Yes, it failed once but did then pass.
TP: And that Monday the economy didn't collapse.
ESQ: Well, that depends on your definition of collapse. The Dow went into free fall and the American economy went into the toilet, where it remained for the next year.
TP: Well, these are the same people who said that if you don't pass the stimulus bill, we're going to have 10 percent unemployment. They passed the stimulus bill and we have 10 percent unemployment.
But the answer to your question is, we'll never know.
ESQ: We'll never know what you would have done?
TP: Whether the threats or doomsday scenarios that were painted were real or partially real or not real at all. We won't know the answer to that, but we do know that some very bright people said that we faced doomsday, and there were other very bright people who said that, at the very least, the danger was overstated, and this notion that they were too big to fail was untested or untrue.
I've argued, at least as it related to the stimulus bill as opposed to TARP, that there were things that we could have and should have done, but it should have been much more targeted. For example, instead of spending $800 billion in a stimulus package, I think we would have gotten much more bang for the buck if we would have done two simple things: focused on tax cuts that would have put cash immediately into the average citizen's pocket, and two, put money into bread-and-butter infrastructure projects like roads and bridges that could be done quickly. Of the $800 billion stimulus package, only about $50 billion, give or take, actually went into roads and bridges. It was a paltry amount compared to the overall size of the bill.
As for the other bailouts, I did not support the car-company bailout, either. They should have been allowed to go bankrupt — in fact, they [entered] bankruptcy, most of 'em. That's the way that they're going to get most effectively restructured. And I think the same could be said for many of the financial institutions. The idea that we're gonna bail out every major bank in the country with the exception of Lehman Brothers is ridiculous. Why let Lehman fail and not all the others? These markets have to correct. And the answer can't be for every problem that emerges as a result of reckless behavior, the government's gonna come in and bail everybody out. I was talkin' to people this morning who run small businesses. Where's their bailout?
ESQ: I have a lot more I want to get to. But I really want to know what you would have done. That critical week, mid-September 2008, with President Bush's men describing the credit crisis as an oncoming freight train for the global economy, there was a cohort of Republican congressmen, led by Jeb Hensarling of Texas, whose position was rather dogmatic. They said, "We must let this economy find its bottom." If you had been president of the United States, would that have been your position?
TP: Well, I read an account recently of the Sunday night before one version or another of Hank Paulson's TARP bill passed. In this story, Paulson, former Goldman Sachs CEO, was meeting with other Goldman Sachs executives, trying to figure out what to do, and surprise, surprise, they came up with the conclusion that the federal government should bail out Goldman Sachs. So I don't take as an article of faith that the financial world would have come to an end if we had let more of these institutions fail.
ESQ: You come from the state of Al Franken and Michele Bachmann and Jesse Ventura. Where are you on that continuum? How do you describe yourself?
[The First Lady of Minnesota, Mary Pawlenty, comes in.]
TP: Hi, honey. Here's the Esquire correspondent.
MARY PAWLENTY: Well, what a cool job you have!
Listen, don't let me interrupt you. Do you want me to join you, or lurk over to the side and listen carefully to your answers?
TP: You're welcome to join us.
I want to go back to the financial crisis for a second. I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything in those circumstances. The federal government has a role in regulating, overseeing financial institutions to protect consumers and deposits to a certain level, and obviously the Federal Reserve manages the money supply, and there are things it can and should do using that authority, but that is not the same as saying that we're not gonna let any large financial institutions fail. I think some of 'em could have and should have failed. Maybe still will.
But on the broader issue of Minnesota: This is also the state of Eugene McCarthy, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, Paul Wellstone, and now Senator Al Franken. Minnesota has evolved and ebbed and flowed a little bit in its politics, but it is fair to say that, with few exceptions, it's been one of the more liberal states in the country. It's the history, the tradition, the culture here. I'm someone who has confronted that in a way that for some is refreshing and for some is quite dramatic, in a way that is viewed as quite a departure from the normal trajectory here. Most of the Republicans who have succeeded here have been mostly very moderate, Democrat lite. I'm somewhat an exception to that. I'm more of a mainstream conservative governing in a liberal state.
It's been a real battle for the future of the state. To give you some objective measures: From 1960, the year I was born, until the year I became governor, the average two-year increase in the state of Minnesota's budget was 21 percent. And some of the worst years were under Republican governors. So you have an expectation that spending's gonna go up by a lot every two years, and I said no to that. I came into office with a budget deficit, and in my time as governor, we've got state spending down to on average about a 4 percent growth rate. That's a big change. Government in Minnesota was growing at an unsustainable and irresponsible level, and I changed that.
And every governor in the modern history of the state has said, We at least got to get Minnesota out of the top ten in taxes. No governor ever did it, until I got elected. We're down to twelfth, I think.
ESQ: Where do your politics come from?
TP: If you go not far from here, about a half hour, there's a first-ring suburb just out of St. Paul called South St. Paul. At the time I grew up, it was the home of the largest meatpacking plants and the world's largest stockyards. And in the sixties, they shut down summarily. These were massive operations, and the town was dominated culturally and economically by that engine, and then it was just gone. Massive economic dislocation. In my community, on my block. Lots of moms and dads losing their jobs. Blue-collar town filled with hardworking people, and suddenly there was no work.
I'm the youngest of five. My mom died when I was sixteen — cancer — and my dad for much of his life was a truck driver. Later in life he got promoted to dispatcher, so that was a big thing in our family. An office job was quite prestigious by our family's standards, and we were proud of that. Nobody was actively involved in politics.
My oldest brother, Steve, worked for forty-plus years as a produce clerk in a grocery store, a member of the United Food and Commercial Workers and a union steward; my other brother, Dan, worked for a good chunk of his adult life in an oil refinery as a member of the Atomic & Chemical Workers Union; my oldest sister, Peg, worked for forty-plus years as a secretary for the same company in St. Paul; and my other sister, Rose, is a special-ed aide in a public school and a union member. I'm the first member of my family to go to college. These are wonderful, salt-of-the-earth people. I'm really proud of my family, and grateful for them, but we had some good-natured arguments over the years that framed my thinking about a lot of things.
I'd say, Do you want your taxes raised in Minnesota? Oh, no, they'd say. We're taxed enough. Well, what about schools? Do you think we should just plow more money in there, or do you think as we give 'em more money, we should demand accountability and results and better performance? Aw, that sounds good, they'd say. We're with ya on that. What about health care? You want the government takin' the thing over, or you want to run that with your doctor and your family? We're with ya on that, they'd say. What about guns? Aw, we like to hunt and fish, don't mess with our guns. And you go down the list and maybe the top ten issues of the day, they'd be with ya on, say, seven of 'em. Well, I'd say, why are you a Democrat then? And they'd say, Well, Republicans aren't for the workin' person. And it just floored me, because, you know, we agree on most of this stuff and have a healthy skepticism of government, and they were what you'd call back then Reagan Democrats, or lunch-bucket Democrats. I call 'em now Sam's Club Republicans.
And Republicans have an opportunity, I think, to reconnect with those voters. If you have a credible messenger. The challenge is, we're competing against the other side, who create the illusion that they're giving away free stuff. And people like free stuff.
ESQ: So you think in terms of the health-care debate ...
TP: Yeah, you got a problem, we got a program, is the Democrat perspective, and it's not gonna cost you anything. Gonna be free.
The Republicans didn't do a good job of articulating the alternative vision. But it exists. It's big and long and boring and dry, all the things you can do to fix the health-care system, but it —
ESQ: The public doesn't believe that the Republicans have an alternative. Because they produced no alternative. And I don't know about free stuff, but people do want medical insurance.
TP: But the public is also very skeptical about what the Democrats are up to.
ESQ: Do you think the Republicans should have fixed the health-care problem — which you acknowledge is a problem — when they had hegemony in Wash-ington?
TP: Oh, the Republicans had their shot not long ago to address the real needs and concerns of everyday Americans, and they blew it. I think that's mitigated by the fact that we had a terrorist incident, there is a war, and there was a lot of proper focus on those issues, but over the time that they were there and had the leadership opportunity, they blew it. We got fired for a reason.
ESQ: Let's go back in time a little bit: five short years ago, after the general election of 2004. People were talking in terms of a permanent Republican majority. What on earth has happened to your party? And what are you going to do about it?
TP: Well, we got our cans kicked — for two election cycles in a row. The marketplace measurement in politics is something called an election. It's a pretty good barometer — it's transparent, it's numerical, it's objective. It gives you a pretty good measure of what your customers think of you. And in 2006 and 2008, the marketplace was telling the Republicans, We prefer the products and services of your competitors. And so when you're losing market share, you step back and say, What can we do differently?
This is not an instance of saying that we've got principles and values and we're just gonna throw them out the window and pretend like we're Democrats, but we just lost our way. You can't say that your hallmark issues are that we're going to control spending, keep taxes low, and make government accountable, and then go to Washington and do the opposite. Barack Obama has made things exponentially worse, but let's face it, when Republicans had total control over it, they didn't do what they said they were gonna do. I think also people got fatigued with the war. And the party got into a whole bunch of corruption and personal scandals that weren't compatible with the principles it claimed to stand for. And lastly, the idea machine got stale. You know, 1994 was the high-water mark of the Contract for America. It was preceded by a lot of great work by governors coming up with ideas on education, tax policy, welfare reform, and the like. And ideas matter. But after that bump in the mid-nineties, we got a little stale and in need of freshening up. The same holds true now.
ESQ: You know, it's funny that you speak in terms of market share. I was talking to President Clinton not long ago, and he said that the Republicans face a choice right now. They can either try to figure out why America wasn't buying what they've been selling, or they can double down on that which made them unelectable in 2006 and 2008. Now, given some of the extreme behavior on display by your base last summer —the people screaming that government keep its hands off their Medicare and people showing up with guns at Obama speeches —are you afraid that your party is becoming more extreme, contracting into an even smaller tent, and will enjoy less market share?
TP: I would not say that since the summer the party has contracted. If you look at the generic Republican-Democrat congressional ballot, for instance, as you look at the Republican victories in the governor's races, the Republican position has significantly improved since the summer. So it wouldn't be accurate to say that it's contracted since the summer.
I'm not here to say all is well. But there are a bunch of people who went and voted for Barack Obama who are now concerned that he's taken the country in a direction that they don't like. And they're not necessarily back to supporting Republicans, but they're available for us to persuade, and that's a huge opportunity. Our opportunities for 2010 are tremendous.
ESQ: Well, it could be said that the president's numbers are eroding because he's presuming to do large things, and that always hurts your popularity whether the policy itself is ultimately popular or not, so that will help you some. But as I said before, I want to know who or what a Republican is right now — aside from just being the beneficiaries of the discontent with the president's party — as the country waits for somebody to emerge as a national voice for your party.
TP: I think I'll have something to say about that.
ESQ: That's why I'm here. [Governor Pawlenty stops for a few minutes for a conference call with Iowa press.]
Governor, you routinely refer to the president's health-care reform as a government takeover. If you had been president, would you have signed President Bush's Medicare Drug Benefit?
TP: Yes. A version of it. Medicare was started a long time ago, and medicine had changed, having gone from clinical practices and hospitalizations to treating more and more conditions with prescription medicines. So it makes sense to extend Medicare benefits to prescription medicines.
ESQ: So that's a proper role of government? It was an unfunded half-trillion-dollar program. Okay. Do you think the Medicare Act of 1965 would have been consistent with your beliefs and something you would have signed had you been president? Or how about the Social Security Act? Is Social Security a proper role of government? How are those programs materially different from the health-care reform that has been the focus of the president's attention?
TP: Well, in 1965 I was only five years old. I think if you look at Medicare and Medicaid, the premise was that government needs to provide some assistance to people who aren't able to take care of themselves. I think we all share that goal, Republicans and Democrats. I don't think anybody's gonna go back now and say, Let's abolish, or reduce, Medicare and Medicaid. But as we confront the challenges and the responsibilities of our time — from here on — how do we serve more people or different people who are in need of financial assistance? Just forever having the government expand to address all of that seems unwise.
So I can't tell you what I would have thought in 1965. I can tell you I don't favor tearing down those programs, but I do think they can be reformed and improved.
ESQ: Governor, members of your party have taken to calling the president a socialist with such regularity that the word has become a fixture in the discourse. Is Barack Obama a socialist?
TP: You know, I don't think name-calling is helpful. I've done my share of that, so I'm not Pollyannaish about how the political process works. But as a general proposition, I think these are serious times, the country's in significant danger, and I think we need people who are thoughtful. We're gonna have sharp differences, but we need to debate those in a way that's constructive and civil. I think President Obama is governing as a movement liberal. I don't think that rises to the level of being a socialist.
ESQ: Another central complaint that has emerged from the conservative base is that real Americans are somehow losing the country as they have known it, and that rights are being abridged with reckless abandon. Do you agree with that complaint, and if so, what specific rights of ours are being taken away?
TP: I think the proposals that the president has enacted and the ones he has on the table move the country in a very unwise and dangerous direction. If you add up the TARP bailout, the auto bailouts, the stimulus bill, the massive run-up of deficit spending, the government-centric and ill-advised health-care bill, the cap-and-trade bill, not to mention what he has in store by way of tax increases — if you add all that up and more, just for the first year and a half of his presidency, that is a very unsettling record. And that's not just a Republican or tea-party sentiment. There are a lot of people saying, Hey, I voted for Obama, but I didn't bargain for this.
ESQ: Those are rather conventional political differences, Governor. But at dinner, Jon Voight talked about the Obama administration and said that not since the rise of Nazism has he been so concerned for his country. And I don't mean to hold you accountable for the words of other people in your party, but this week Congresswoman Virginia Foxx of North Carolina said that the president's health-care plan is a greater threat to our country than any terrorist. Help me out here: Is this just politics? Or do you really believe that this administration, this president, is a grave threat to the country?
TP: I think both sides have people who have genuine feelings and beliefs about what they think the proper direction of the country should be. I just think the other side's wrong. I don't question motives or assign some sort of label. But I think what President Obama and the Democratic Congress are offering is a dangerous direction for the country. Not just because it's gonna cost us more, not just because taxes are gonna go up, not just because it expands government, but because of what it does to the American spirit. As I view it, there is an American spirit that is associated with the kinds of attitudes about taking risk, about taking responsibility, about a sense of respect for the private market and the power that it has in creating and rewarding wealth. The government doesn't do that — the government redistributes, but it doesn't actually create wealth or prosperity. And the health-care debate is a pretty good proxy for this struggle between these two views. And in the case of the Republicans, what they see and what they're rightly concerned about is that it's another increment down the road toward government taking over more and more things. And it worries people.
ESQ: Let's talk about 2012. Why would you run?
TP: I think the country's in trouble. And I think I have a pretty clear sense of the values and principles that have made this country great. I've had a chance to govern and lead with those in mind, with some significant success in Minnesota. And I think the country needs that kind of leadership and insight and perspective. So through my PAC, I'm going to share my beliefs across the country. And I'm gonna take the next year to see how that goes and make my decision late in 2010 or in early 2011.
ESQ: Should the Republicans have fixed the health-care problem when they ran things?
TP: The Republicans had their shot not long ago and blew it. We got fired for a reason.
ESQ: Is Barack Obama a socialist?
TP: I think President Obama is governing as a movement liberal. I don't think that rises to the level of being a socialist.
10 Things This Facebook Photo Says About Tim Pawlenty
What Tim Pawlenty Really Thinks About Health Care Reform
Why Tim Pawlenty Might Just Be the GOP Candidate in 2012
Tim Pawlenty's Campaign Ads: Now Far Less Exciting!
Tim Pawlenty Could've Been a Bad Presidential Nominee
Tim Pawlenty and the GOP Niceness Makeover

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Chasing News
Alzheimer's prevention tied to healthy lifestyle
NYC shelters teeming with pets to adopt
Pizzeria joins effort to find missing dog
Blackout blamed on backup system failure
Doctor's Opinions
NJ Now
'Literally just the crust': Italian pizza chain offers orders of pizza crust only
By Amy Lieu
Villa Italian Kitchen, a quick-service pizza restaurant chain, will offer orders of pizza crust only starting July 18. (Photo Courtesy: Villa Italian Kitchen)
MORRISTOWN, N.J. - One restaurant is getting the attention of carb-lovers everywhere.
Villa Italian Kitchen, a quick-service pizza restaurant chain, will offer orders of pizza crust only starting July 18.
The restaurant said in a news release that it is proud to offer "a tasty solution" for crust enthusiasts with the launch of "Just the Crust" of its Neapolitan pizzas.
"We are huge pizza crust fans at Villa Italian Kitchen," said Mimi Wunderlich, director of communications and digital market at Villa Italian Kitchen. "We know that the crust is everyone's favorite part of the pizza, so skipping straight to selling pizza crusts only seemed like the perfect idea."
The company said it has received "a record number of consumer inquiries" about their crust.
"Villa Italian Kitchen's pizza crusts capture all of the chewy, bready delight diehard pizza fans know to expect from a classic slice," the restaurant said.
Orders of "Just the Crust" will start at $2.75.
Villa Italian Kitchen is part of Villa Restaurant Group which was founded in 1964 and began as a small pizzeria in New York City.
"Today, Villa Restaurant Group is an international organization that recently celebrated its 54th anniversary with nearly 350 restaurants in malls, airports, casinos and other high-traffic locations," the company said.
This story was reported in Los Angeles.
More Group Content Team Stories
By Gabrielle Moreira
Fifty years ago, the Apollo 11 spacecraft lifted off from Kennedy Space Center in Florida with a three-man crew. Two of them would be the first men to walk on the moon.
The Apollo 11, which was part of the Apollo Program, took off at 8:32 a.m. on July 16, 1969. It was set to be the first lunar landing of the program, according to the Lunar and Planetary Institute .
Aboard the 363-foot spacecraft were three astronauts: Neil Armstrong, mission commander, Michael Collins, command module pilot and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, lunar module pilot.
A deputy in Louisiana rescued a tiny kitten in the midst of a car crash and decided they were a purrfect pair.
Deputy Harry Guillot with the Lafourche Parish Sheriff's Office responded Thursday to an injured driver in a crash in the town of Cut Off, located about 65 miles southwest of New Orleans, as tropical storm Barry approached the area, officials said.
After helping the driver into an ambulance, Guillot noticed a small kitten inside the car unharmed from the crash. An animal control deputy responded to keep the feline safe during the storm.
My9NJ Chasing News App
Children's Programming
Closed or IP Captioning