Trying to Understand Russophobia

Writing on his blog, The Streetwise Professor, Craig Pirrong wrote a long post on Russophobia and its justifications. I have been fascinated by the recent increase in Russophobic sentiment in the West.

The Wall Street Journal now regularly runs Editorials by Gary Kasparov, an anti-Putin protestor. Just yesterday, the WSJ had an Editorial by Georgia’s President Saakashvili. The Economist is consistent in its reflexive anti-Russian tone with Edward Lucas near far away from the article in question.

There’s a significant disconnect between what I see daily with my own eyes and what I read in the Western media. The question keeps bumping around in my brain, Why do so many people in the West hate Russia?

Ok, we did face off for 70 years in a Cold War and so it’s only to be expected that people would have some lingering resentments and mistrust. But this historic “hang-over” doesn’t really explain the deep dislike of Russia, and in particular the Putin government, on the part of a significant group of the American Right.

Listen to John McCain or Dick Chaney. Listen to the American Ambassador to the United Nations. There’s a fundamental distrust and dislike of Russia. Now matter what Russia does or says, it’s the “bad guy.”

So back to Craig Pirrong. He wrote:

“…It is this fundamental philosophical and moral divide between the
classical liberal views I espouse, and the anti-liberal views of the
Putinists, that explains my intense antipathy for the current Russian
government and state, and which is the wellspring of my trenchant
criticism. It is not a divide that can be bridged, as these are
antithetical conceptions of the roles of the individual and the state….”

After reading this passage I had a heated debate with an American friend of mine who became incensed when I questioned his interpretation of these “classical liberal views” (he used the word “ideals”). Read the last sentence by Professor Pirrong above. “…not a divide that can be bridged…” That’s what my friend said too. Basically, if you don’t accept their interpretation of these ideals/values you are a “heretic” and the conversion is finished. End of story. Done.

Huh? I was a bit confused by this semi-Religious approach to foreign policy debate. But maybe I shouldn’t have been so surprised after 7 years of Bush’s foreign policy.

So I did a little research. I “Googled” the terms “American Christian Fundementalists Russia” and the 2nd link was a review of a book by Esther Kaplan called ‘With God on Their Side’ I thought to myself, can the divide in American foreign policy really by broken down into 2 camps, Secularists and Fundamentalists? Of course not. Not all people fall into those two ends of the spectrum. However, it does seem to me that much of the reaction to Russia from the far Right in Washington can be explained by the fact the Russia is perceived as a God-less society.

Remember Reagan’s phrase, The Evil Empire.” Not unlike GW Bush’s, “Axis of Evil.” Remember Bush said,

“I will answer the question. I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country. And I appreciated so very much the frank dialogue.”

Maybe I’m wrong but there seems to be some kind of religious code at work here. The word “evil” is a very loaded word. You either believe in it or not. Again, believer versus heretic. You’re either with us or against us.

Are countries really “evil?” What does that mean? In my brain it doesn’t compute. Yes, leaders in countries sometimes do some very awful “evil” things to other human being. But does that make the country as a whole evil? Countries are not living entities. Can we ascribe to them human characteristics? Apparently, many many on the Right in America do just that.

Take a quick read through the book review by Yoginder Sikand. The URL is:

http://www.countercurrents.org/us-sikand281006.htm

So back to Russia and the strong “Russophobic” bias of many in the West. I don’t think it’s stretching it too far to suggest that there may be some in America who see the world through those same binary glasses as did Bush when he said, “You’re either with us or against us.”

For those in Washington who are Christian Fundamentalists, not an insignificant number, the world really is a fairly simple place. There’s believers and non-believers. End of story.

I think that it socially difficult for these Fundamentalist folks to come out and publicly speak in such stark religious terms, although the stigma is quickly disappearing, so they couch their language in terms of freedom and markets. Craig Pirrong wrote:

“…classical liberal beliefs that put the highest value
on human freedom, and which emphasize the essential importance of the
rule of law, equality before the law, free markets and contract, and
limited government as the essential means for guaranteeing liberty….”

Again, whether or not these folks are even aware of this semantic substitution, they are really breaking the world into two camps… believers and non-believers. As an aside, look at “old Europe” and its “slide” into secularism. The Christian Right in America has a high degree of distain for “old Europe.” Is its secularism to blame? Perhaps.

Remember back to the Soviet days. Communism was the great “demon.” I think part of what we are witnessing is a continuation of the belief, by the Religious Right, that Russia is a God-less country run a a God-less former KGB agent.

I have to admit, at first glance this seems nuts. Are there really people in America who approach foreign policy decisions through the prism of religious fundamentalism? God, I hope not. But according to Kaplan in her book (http://www.estherkaplan.com/) that is exactly what some in the Bush administration are doing.

If we accept that, if in fact, Regligion is playing a role in shaping foreign policy decisions, then it is therefore perfectly logical that those very same people who hated Communism will hate Putin’s Russia.

No matter how many facts you give as to the improvement of all aspects of Russian life over the past 8 years, these same folks will continue to see an “evil” God-less country. Sure, Orthodox Christianity has begun to grow but Russia is still a secular society (which I like).

This is still just a hypothesis. But, if true, it does explain some of the irrational Russophobia that exists in the West.

// 08.12.2008 at 11:47 am // Tagged politics, putin, russia
fake ad - add real google adsense code in postad.php

Viewing 5 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Hello Tim, great blog. My thanks to BZM at Russophile for the link.
    Like many aspects of conservative policy, the intonement of religion is a cover for the advancement of corporate interests. When Yeltsin was playing ball, everything was fine as far as the Economist and the Wall Street Journal were concerned. Now that Russia has resisted the corporate takeover, right wing organizations such as Freedom House and the Center for Security policy are working overtime to vilify Russia. Most Americans do not hear the other side of the story so Mr. Kasparov can appear on Bill Maher with his outrageous anti-Putin act. Maher and his audience swallowed it whole and they are supposedly thoughtful liberals.
    • ^
    • v
    I really wish it were limited to the Christian Right, but, I'm pretty active in American politics on the left end of the spectrum, and I have to report, the situation is not much different over here among "godless" American liberals. Which is kind of interesting, since these used to be the people associated with Communism in America. But a significant percent of today's Democrats are "Russophobic." Here is how I understand it. They are deeply upset with Bush, and focused on issues which they feel have infringed upon their civil liberties and democratic values, such as the Patriot Act, election fraud, corruption, media doing the bidding of those in power and not serving the people, imperialist wars waged in the name of fighting terrorism, etc. They see obvious parallels in Russia, and pictures of Bush and Putin gallivanting about solidify the sentiment. They may intellectually differentiate between "Putin" and "all the rest of Russia," but like Bush's policies and anti-Americanism elsewhere, there is a strong tendency to substitute/conflate the leadership and the country.

    There also persists personal grievances among Americans whose families came to the country fleeing very real persecution by Russians/Soviets in the 20th century. I think that factors in. Especially as a lot of them have become career advisers and experts on Russia.

    You're right about the semantics, though. I mean, Hillary Clinton did not pause before proclaiming that Putin had no soul. There is a stunning lack of differentiation between the academic and the theocratic in US politics. We don't condemn the Russian gov't on the validity of its policies, but on its evilness. The metaphysical route is taken even by the secular, because it just requires less thinking. You don't actually have to do any work before passing judgement. And it's a great way side step the problem of implicating ourselves. How else could Bush have the gall to condemn Russia's use of violence? Because when we do it, we're acting with good intentions, regardless the outcome. When we do bad things, it's a mistake, it's not "really" who we are, an exception to the rule. Russia, on the other hand, is acting with nefarious intentions. If they do something good, it's in spite of their evil intentions, an exception to the rule.

    There are infinite "justifications" for our negative attitudes toward Russia. But I think - just speaking from my own experience - the overwhelming reason that it persists with such power, is ignorance. Lack of information. Absence of exposure. America's a relatively isolated country to begin with. Factor in the greater part of a whole century in a Cold war, in which what very little we could learn of Russia was filtered through propaganda on both sides. And the fact that - I assume this is a fact, actually I don't know, an educated guess - few Americans know Russian. Fewer than the Russians who know English, probably.

    It's a shame. I think Russia and America have far more in common than they ever admit. Actually, I think also explains some of the Russophobia...
    • ^
    • v
    I used to work for a small aviation company whose owner was rather closed-minded individual. After learning of my then recent visit to Moscow in 2005, he proceeded to tell me how Russians were cold and godless. He said he could see it in their eyes. He then proceeded to give a speech sprinkled with religious overtures and unfounded observations on Russia that made me want to puke. It is hard to believe that people like him exist in America but they do. I've seen it first hand.

    Thankfully most people I know can see the political manipulation that Bush(King George IV I like to call him) and his staff continue to carelessly exercise at the expense of the US taxpayer and ultimately the citizens of other countries- this time Russian and Georgia. The large majority of these people grew up during the cold war and are now retired. They represent what I would call good, honest, religious, and most important, wise American citizens. They are certainly a little hesitant (and curious) when it comes to the subject of Russia(I do speak to them about it) but there is one thing they agree on with certainty. The US political leaders need to quit playing politics around the world and address our own problems at home. Casting religious stones from a glass church is downright stupid.

    We can only hope our next round of political leaders will exhibit the genuine wisdom needed to lead the US after the disaster of eight years with George W. Bush.
    • ^
    • v
    Hi Tim -

    I'm just reading your blog for the first time. You're right that the mass media in the US paints a simplistic picture of the situation, i.e. Georgia - good, Russia - bad. I have found a couple of insightful and more even-handed articles over the past couple of days in the Washington Post. In case you haven't seen them yet:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

    and

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

    Look forward to reading more.
    • ^
    • v
    Anti russian actions and propaganda come solely from an unmentioned subjects which is the jewish domination of American, British and European policies as well as international media . They basically hate Russia in a racial sense, they see them as inferior and want to take over their ressources and prevent them from stopping their dominating drive not just middle east but in other large portions of the world.

    I am serbian and I found it telling that one American official recently said that they have "defeated" Serbia and Russia with regards to the kosovo occupation even though they have never fought serbian let alone a russian army . Entire balkan blodshed and attack on Serbia was largely one proxy war against Russia in the minds of many of its instigators see here http://www.southeasteurope.org/documents/pr199.pdf

    Another thing I can't get over is so called "christian fundamentalists" in the US which is sometimes called Judeo Christians and their so called aversion to "secularism" . These people literally are made to warship the state of Israel and the jewish people in spite of Jesus Christ. Israel just happens to be overwhelmingly secular and blatantly anti christian so much so they have banned the plus sign (+) because it resembles the christian cross. How can so called "christian fundamentalists" literally warship and financially support a secular and militant anti christian state and even propagate wars against their supposedly fellow christians as many of them did against Serbia, Iraq, Palestinians, Lebanese and surely against Russia as well at behest of the jewish lobby
 
close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« Time Magazine Gets it Correct // Neither “unique” nor wrong, Mr. Goldman »