Not So Innocent
David S. Foglesong
Donald Trump’s clumsy expressions of interest in getting along with Vladimir Putin continue to provoke widespread outrage. The desperate indignation of Trump’s critics, however, threatens to interfere with US co-operation with Russia on vital national security issues. The latest furor erupted after Bill O’Reilly of Fox News asked Trump why he respected Vladimir Putin despite his being ‘a killer’. ‘There are a lot of killers,’ Trump replied. ‘What, you think our country’s so innocent?’
According to the Washington Post, Trump’s ‘suggestion that the United States is morally equivalent to a ruthless regime’ was ‘pernicious’ and ‘shocking’. Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal spluttered that Trump had slandered the US as being on a ‘moral par with Putin’s Russia’. Bill Press of The Hill hyperventilated: ‘No president has ever betrayed his own country so totally and so openly.’ (The New York Times was more restrained, merely calling Trump’s failure to endorse American exceptionalism ‘disturbing’.)
From a factual standpoint – not ‘alternative facts’ but historical facts – Trump is right: the United States is not so innocent and has sought to kill many enemies. President Eisenhower in 1960 approved the assassination of Patrice Lumumba (though the CIA failed to poison him and others murdered him). Under Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, the CIA repeatedly tried to kill Fidel Castro. George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq that started with ‘decapitation’ strikes at Saddam Hussein and led to the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians – a point Trump awkwardly tried to make to O’Reilly. Barack Obama authorised the 2011 drone strike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen. The list could be greatly extended: Operation Phoenix in Vietnam; Operation Condor in Latin America; Operation COINTELPRO in the United States – and on and on.
But the uproar is not about facts. It is about affirming an idealistic American self-image that has for more than a century been buttressed by contrasts to its dark counterpart, Russia. Long before Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an ‘evil empire’ in 1983, and even before Lenin seized power in 1917, the brutal treatment of Jews and political dissenters in the tsarist empire led Americans to loathe Russia as a barbarous prison, the opposite of American civilisation and freedom. That had the benefit of deflecting attention from such American problems as the widespread lynching of African Americans. But it also led to actions that US leaders soon regretted, such as the abrogation of a commercial treaty with Russia in 1912, which damaged US trade but did nothing to improve Russian treatment of Jews.
More adamantly than any other American, Reagan insisted on America’s exceptional virtues and excoriated Soviet immorality. But denouncing Soviet leaders as liars, cheats and murderers, imposing economic sanctions and applying military pressure only strengthened the position of xenophobic Soviet hardliners and spurred them to tighten repression.
In 1984 Reagan changed course, softened his rhetoric and expressed stronger interest in meeting with Soviet leaders. Once Gorbachev came to power in 1985, Reagan had a potential partner. With strong encouragement from anti-nuclear activists and ‘citizen diplomats’, Reagan and Gorbachev overcame distrust and by 1988 largely ended the Cold War.
Putin is not Gorbachev and Trump is not Reagan. But tensions between the US and Russia aren’t what they were, either. When Reagan first met Gorbachev in Geneva in 1985, the dissident Soviet physicist Andrei Sakharov was in KGB-supervised internal exile, the USSR was waging war in Afghanistan, and US hardliners were bitterly opposed to any negotiation with Moscow.
Trump and Putin have an important opportunity to work together against international terrorism, nuclear proliferation, drug trafficking and other threats. That chance may be missed if journalists and politicians persist in vilifying Putin, harassing Trump with charges that he is Putin’s puppet, and throwing legislative roadblocks in the way of strategic and economic co-operation.
In the wake of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo – not to mention Hiroshima, Nagasaki, My Lai and much, much more – exceptionalist faith in American moral superiority has lost credibility with anyone who isn’t a ranting ideologue.
Comments
Nope. It remains a firm article of faith for Obama, the Clintons, the Bushes, McCain, Pelosi, NYT, Wash Post, CNN, SNL, likely most of the contributors to this blog. Too many have invested too much of themselves in this idea for too long to ever let go.
Daesh and its ilk may be such a heinous enemy that we need some cooperation with Putin, but he and Trump are cut from the same cloth. For both everything is about power; truth and knowledge as ends in themselves, compassion, decency and democracy - these ideas are entirely alien to them. They are creatures of a pre-Enlightenment time wielding the power of a post-Enlightenment world, they are the enemy we face not some absurd throwback to a medieval religion. Unless we all, of the left and right, everyone who believes in those basic Enlightenment values, gather together to stand against this new-reactionism we are in for some sort of hideous post-truth dark age.
The enemy is a way of thinking which is so obviously not just morally but also logically wrong that we did not realize it could still inspire, but suddenly these people who before only criticized from the margins are running the show. Its supporters like to say that now the grown-ups are in control; they will soon find out that there is nothing more adolescent than thinking that the adult world is one of easy choices, and that there are few things more absurdly childish than stamping one’s foot and refusing to admit it simply because one does not like what has been shown to be true.
There is no going back to what we had before. There has to be a new consensus.
Isn't this claim falsified by the response to Trump's statement of equivalence reported a couple of paragraphs earlier?
"According to the Washington Post, Trump’s ‘suggestion that the United States is morally equivalent to a ruthless regime’ was ‘pernicious’ and ‘shocking’. Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal spluttered that Trump had slandered the US as being on a ‘moral par with Putin’s Russia’. Bill Press of The Hill hyperventilated: ‘No president has ever betrayed his own country so totally and so openly.’"
anarchy.
Take just one issue: pensions. The City shuts most of its final salary pension schemes before 2000 - it was already clear that they were simply too expensive (especially once Gordon Brown had removed the dividend tax break, after the Tories had forced the regurgitation of surpluses/contribution holidays). Most corporates kept them going for much longer and the Govt of course still has them.
The media only gets interested when there's a tabloid villain in the form of Philip Green to lynch. Now Green is an unsympathetic character but, as far as I can tell, has done nothing much of the rest of business hasn't done: whether it's gearing up the business to avoid paying corporation tax (that IS what private equity does) or making too small contributions to a pension scheme and failing to match the assets with the liabilities.
He's right to that this is an interesting moment. In recent times, the US government has obfuscated and denied its dark side. It kills through proxies, or drones, and when it bombs under its own flag, it proclaims its use of "smart bombs" that only kill baddies. Its torture is done at arms length; its rapacious economic system is cloaked with talk about trickledown and opportunity at home and "bringing democracy" abroad.
But Trump has discarded the mask. People read him - even when he covers his mouth - as saying, "I don't care about other people. I don't care about legality or moral integrity. I am sexist, homophobic, and racist and I am out to make as much money as I can."
People voted for him because they could no longer sustain the cognitive dissonance that subscribing to the prior settlement seemed to involve.
Putin has a similar appeal, and the weakness of Russian civil society allows him to suppress dissent without scruple. Trump isn't yet as bold or as battle-hardened, but there is no doubt that he sees Putin as a mentor.
What he wants is not the grand international coalition against the evils that Fogelsong enumerates. Rather, he sees the Russian model of gangster capitalism safeguarded by a brutal, authoritarian nationalism as some sort of ideal. At present, how far he can go depends in part on how far the opposition grants him a loose leash - "He isn't really a fascist", "Don't rile him, he'll only lash out", "Don't worry, the system has checks and balances" etc etc. With a passive opposition, though, the future is clear.
Yes, it is a fact that America has committed atrocities throughout its history—Foglesong does not even mention the Native American genocide—and that this makes it impossible to assert American moral exceptionalism with a straight face. Even so, the “idealistic American self-image” Foglesong lambasts could just as easily be described as American moral aspirationalism, the belief that America ought to be a nation that defends human rights, equality, and justice. American aspirationalism remains credible in mainstream circles across the political spectrum, as the response to Trump’s comments by The Wall Street Journal et. al. demonstrates. American aspirationalism is behind virtually all of the current righteous opposition to Trump, from the war veterans who have volunteered to defend Standing Rock protesters to the thousands who have swarmed airports and border checkpoints to defend the rights of immigrants. Any time the United States has done something good or refrained from doing something worse—say, welcomed refugees, or taken steps to minimize civilian casualties—you can bet aspirationalism was a key part of the deliberations. The grotesquerie of the Iraq War, Abu Ghraib, etc. does not alter the fact that aspirationalism remains the only mainstream discourse through which better policies in America become thinkable.
Although it could be debated whether the United States has perpetrated more or less evil than Russia, there are vices common in Russian society that are still unacceptable in America, such as the murder of journalists and widespread corruption of the courts. The authoritarianism and mafia tactics that enable these vices are precisely what Trump admires in Putin. It is utterly naïve to think that Trump will forge a healthy collaboration with Russia to combat international terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and drug trafficking: this is, after all, the man who wondered out loud why the US doesn’t use its nukes, whose first anti-terrorism initiative has been to discriminate illegally against Muslims, and whose anti-drug initiatives include deporting random innocent Mexican-Americans. It is far more likely that Trump and Putin will bond over their shared contempt for democracy and work together to enrich themselves and their cronies. Journalists and politicians have a solemn duty right now to fight the cultivation of Putinesque authoritarianism in America and to investigate Trump’s suspicious ties to the Russian regime.
It could be argued, you say, that by illegally invading the Crimea and Ukraine, Putin has prevented a much bloodier civil conflict (one, no doubt, that he would have funded and armed) - it’s more usual on this blog to actually argue something rather than point out that it’s arguable. It could be argued that you are most likely a junior member of an English faculty at a Russian university looking to earn Brownie points by posting this drivel.
Maybe you should try independent thought, with a clear mind, rather than parroting the narrative of a warmongering political and media class. (And attempting to slur and delegitimize anybody willing to look past the propaganda).
Shocking isnt it? First I rig the US election & now The LRB is within my evil grasp.
beneficial to both sides; Putin can appear resolute and unphased by western pressure & sanctions- Western politicians can feel good about themselves by getting tough with Putin. People continue to suffer. In Iraq, Syria, Yemen , Libya, & also in the Ukraine. But did Russia start any of these conflicts? Putin is a bastard, but a careful bastard who knows what he's doing. Trump is a crazy bastard. A big daft kid. More similar to Erdogan than to Putin
—Harry Frankfurt, "On Bullshit" (1986)
The wisdom of the ancients, and one of Chaucer's favorite proverbs--but with these two, whose spoon's the longest? A question they often ask as they inspect themselves each morning, I'm quite certain.
So adversaries of Russian regime know it and use its excellent opportunity to punch personally mr. Putin.
Russians don't have such opportunity because power in the US is not personalized. The name of the US presidents doesn't mean the same as the name of the Russian leaders. They don't embody the regime of the U.S. and naming the U.S. president or the U.S. or americans the murdering thug(s) is not so effective indignity as an indignity of Russians leader.
This is the point.
Thus for Mr F the US and Russia are “morally equivalent”! He can’t be serious.
Yes the US has problems, particularly the whole issue of slavery and its ongoing ramifications, and yes the impact of religion on politics. But talk of “moral equivalence” is preposterous.
The tragedy for Russia today is the lingering baleful hand of the Soviet nightmare. Alas for the long suffering populace in Russia the end of the Cold War was not the end of the malignant Soviet mentality and practice. It’s alive and well.
So it’s simple really. End of the day, for all its flaws the US is basically committed to the Liberal democratic model, based on rule of law, a free press (hear that Donald!?), and open democratic government. Russia’s current system is not only the converse of this, but the country remains actively antagonistic to the “West”.
Mind you Putin’s faux-Soviet system probably faces the same fate as the USSR. Can they really afford to fund their recent ongoing aggression and increased military commitment?