The Boundaries of Democracy

How the U.S. labeled a Russian journalist as a Cold War agitator

A number of leading members of the U.S. media have heard echoes of the Cold War in a question I asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs the other day at a briefing. In my opinion, their actions suggest that the stereotypes and double standards toward Russia have not yet been eradicated.

Essentially, the only topic of the briefing was the recent tragedy in Arizona, where a mentally unbalanced American killed six and wounded 13 people. A federal judge and a 9-year-old girl are among those who were killed. A member of the House of Representatives, Gabrielle Giffords, who, based on the information available, was the original target of the attacker, is among the seriously injured.

Unfortunately, such massacres happen in the U.S. too often to be considered only isolated episodes that have no systemic causes. In my opinion, this is the flip side of the rights and freedoms in the form that they are exercised in the U.S. In a way, they are a price that America is forced to pay for these freedoms. Of course, to be more precise, it’s the price for the abuse of those freedoms.

I have heard this opinion from many non-American friends, and I asked Gibbs to comment on it, particularly since he had previously lamented that the mystery of the Arizona tragedy may remain unsolved.

As expected, the press secretary said that he “would disagree vehemently” that such violence may be perceived as bleak and tragic, but still an integral part of life in the U.S. In other words, that this too is America. “That is not American,” he exclaimed and delivered a little monologue about American laws, freedoms and values.

With this, the briefing ended for Gibbs, but not for me. American colleague-journalists vyingly wondered what political motivation I had in my question (I honestly answered: none) and whether I was satisfied by the press secretary’s answer (in my opinion, considering his position, he could not have said anything else). I completely agreed with one of the reporters, who noted that the time of national mourning is not the best time for such offensive topics. But the problem is that in the last couple of years, it’s quite difficult for me — and other foreign journalists, in general — to get the right to ask a question at a White House briefing.

As a result, correspondents from CNN, the newspaper Politico, a magazine called National Journal and several online publications wrote in their reports about the return of the Cold War to the White House. Later, personal attacks against me appeared in other media, including The Washington Post. Frankly, this was a little puzzling. Does this mean that when American journalists in Moscow ask officials pointed questions, they are heroes and champions of democracy, but when a Russian journalist tries to bring up pointed political topics in the U.S., he is nearly a warmonger and an enemy of the American people? And where is that same freedom of speech for which Gibbs argued in his reply?

In my opinion, this freedom at least gives me the right to a reply. I wrote it and delivered it to its destination. Only time will tell whether it will be published in the U.S.

What was I referring to at the briefing? First, of course, the right of U.S. citizens to acquire and carry weapons virtually unhindered. In America, this rule of law is in essence an ideological untouchable “sacred cow.” Outside the U.S., for very many people it causes confusion and rejection. One of my Russian friends, a radical liberal, has written to me that he would fully agree with me if I posed the question only about that freedom. But in his opinion, other “more fundamental” freedoms, including the freedom of speech, have absolutely nothing to do with it.

However, if this is true, then why was there a heated debate in America immediately after the incident about the limits allowed in verbal political battles? Why did the infamous Republican Sarah Palin have to hastily remove from her website a page where Democratic Congresswoman Giffords’ district was marked with rifle crosshairs?

Why did the Arizona county sheriff, Clarence Dupnik,* who is in charge of the investigation, immediately point to the climate of hatred and bigotry in the national political dialogue, which in his opinion could have affected the attacker? “The fiery rhetoric that has taken hold in politics may be free speech, but it’s not without consequences,” said Dupnik, and he immediately received a verbal scolding from the conservative commentators for blabbing too much.

Finally, why did President Obama himself in his vivid, heartfelt and deeply personal speech (as described by Gibbs) at the memorial ceremony in Arizona lament about the sharp polarization of the political debate in the U.S. and urge his countrymen to talk to each other “in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds”?

Referring to the Bible, Obama argued that the reasons for the existence of evil in the world and its concrete manifestations are often inaccessible to human understanding and defy rational explanations. Perhaps. But conventional wisdom says that our flaws are usually the extensions of our strengths. And if this rule does not apply in this case, then what can be used to replace it? Why do schoolchildren in America shoot their classmates? Why have even presidents been the targets of psychopaths’ bullets?

Of course, there are no unambiguous and comprehensive answers to these questions. But Americans look for them after every similar new psychological shock. Now, it turns out that experts from the U.S. Secret Service, responsible for guarding the country’s leaders, carefully examined all known political assassination attempts since 1949 and came to the conclusion that these attacks are almost never politically motivated. Most frequently, the attackers were motivated by the desire for fame — albeit odious, Herostratic [fame].

Americans are proud of their individualism. It can be said that they have a kind of “personality cult” — [regarding] separate, free human beings. Autonomy and self-sufficiency are welcomed and encouraged. It is believed that one can and should go alone against everyone for the sake of “the truth.” The image of such a “lone hero” is one of the most common Hollywood stereotypes. In general, such an attitude toward human rights is probably good and correct. But what if the personal “truth” is interpreted perversely? In a case like that, can’t such truth become a very dangerous negative value? Not to mention that according to the Bible, self-centeredness is sinful.

The stereotype of a “cult of violence” in the American mass culture has been a stereotype since the time of the Soviet propaganda. For me, it’s self-evident that this cult has been preserved to this day, even in cartoons. Moreover, with the advent of the Internet, it has grown immeasurably. Presumably, it’s also protected by creative and commercial rights and freedoms. The link between virtual and real violence, in my opinion, is at least plausible.

Some of my American critics argue that my views and I belong in a totalitarian society. In my opinion, this in itself is not relevant to the topic under discussion. But it can illustrate my original thesis. Let’s imagine that the U.S. government suddenly removed civil rights and freedoms and replaced them with a tough police regime. It’s likely that this would result in a decrease in shootings on the streets in the United States. But the “government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” as Abraham Lincoln defined it, is deliberately not going in that direction. Freedoms remain. So do the shootings. It’s a matter of political choice.

To be honest, the last argument is not mine. It was suggested to me by one of the anonymous American participants in the Internet discussion about my exchange with Gibbs. To me, it seems entirely correct. Overall, there are lots of responses on the web. For now, I have only looked at the most recent ones and was convinced that even in the U.S., many people have understood the meaning of my question correctly. As for foreigners, one Canadian wrote, “I’m not a fan of the Russian system, but this Russian raised the question about your country that the rest of the world is asking.”**

There are, of course, plenty of negative responses. This is normal. Personally, I just want Americans, for whom I have great respect and liking, to finally come up with a way to avoid new massacres — naturally, without damaging rights and freedoms.

*Editor’s Note: Clarence Dupnik is the sheriff of Pima County, Arizona.

** Translator’s Note: The original quote could not be located.