'Beneath Law's Trusty Canopy'
Published in Izvestia
(Russia) on 9 October 2013
by Boris Mezhuev (link to original)
This quote from Pushkin’s “Ode to Liberty,” let me remind you, was evoked in the joint article of three dissidents — Andrei Sinyavskovo, Vladimir Mazimova and Peter Egidesa — calling for President Yeltsin to step down after the 1993 execution of the Supreme Court. I do not intent to imply that the situation in the United States, currently described by sharp oppositions, or as we would say, different branches of power, is approaching what occurred in Moscow in 1993, but certain analogies are indisputable.
Obama’s rhetoric is becoming more and more aggressive. Of course, he has not yet called Congress a bunch of morons who are only capable of using force, but something similar has already emerged in his speeches, where he has essentially accused Republicans of blackmail and compared his opponents to extortionists. Supporters of Obama, such as leftist, liberal economist Paul Krugman, are not yet shouting, “Destroy the vermin,” but the tone of Krugman’s rhetoric is already utterly “Moscow-Octoberist:” The president should not make any compromises with his opponents in the House since, and I quote, “the modern Republican Party is no longer capable of thinking seriously about policy.”
Just as we did 20 years ago, people are using statistics from public opinion polls. A poll presented by CNN yesterday demonstrated that of the 57 percent of respondents who blamed the Democrats, 63 percent were also frustrated with the Republicans. In the eyes of both parties, you could say Obama is in the pink — only 53 percent of respondents blame him. Krugman is not afraid, on the basis of these and similar figures, to threaten to essentially boycott Congress.
To be fair, it must be admitted that Obama is making a great case for American exceptionalism — just not in a good way, as far as America is concerned. Only U.S. government institutions, and indeed, those of most other democratic countries — we will put aside for the moment the whole group of U.S. imitators, such as Brazil — have such great separation between the legislative and executive powers that any conflict between the two always requires long and patient cooperation between the two sides. It is no accident that it was in America that the idea of democracy as a system sustained primarily by a tradition of negotiations and agreements was born. In countries with parliamentary or presidential systems, the sort of conflict we are witnessing in the U.S. today would be simply impossible — here, when it happens that the president and the majority of Congress belong to different parties, they are always at risk of failing to agree on the budget. This is ominous for the entire world; along with the failure of America’s budget, there is also a threat that the U.S. might default on its international financial obligations.
Indeed, it appears that from the start the global economic order has had an obvious crack and that crack has now expanded up to the very top of the pyramid, to the point that it threatens to obliterate all of the global power of the dollar, and that crack is the extreme division of power in the U.S. political system. Of course, Locke and Montesquieu, the creators of the theory of the separation of powers, were no doubt great men, but we would most likely not be incorrect to say that the U.S. Constitution, with all its exceptional characteristics, is suited only for a very elite, almost aristocratic society, as was the white America of the 18th century.
The Americans created a system for a society where all are adults, responsible for their families and cities, where the men go to Protestant churches every morning and pray to God, and in the evening, to Masonic lodges, where they discuss the perfection of man. And if at any point in between any sharp differences arose among them, they knew that they could easily resolve those differences the next morning or evening; they could come to an agreement about everything in good faith in the lodge, even if they belonged to different parties or denominations.
And so it was, for quite a long time. But today in America we have a country divided into two hostile ideological camps. What are their churches now, their lodges? They cannot even talk calmly with one another — as far as Obama is concerned, the tea party members that support blocking all his reform initiatives are nothing but crazy extremists, while his enemies on the right feel exactly the same way about Obama. They see him as a secret socialist, an atheist and advocate for a global government.
If Clinton were in Obama’s place, he would have backed down from any reform initiative in a heartbeat and would have begun some sort of nice little war to placate Congress instead. But Obama cannot do that; the American people support him in his battle with Congress, but they are utterly opposed to Obama’s desire to help the Syrian opposition deal with Assad. So, Obama is forced to show leniency when it comes to the Syrian issue, so that he may demonstrate his inflexibility in relation to the lower house of Congress and, at least in that area, not enter into any compromises.
So what is the end result? Republicans — and the centrists, who are trapped in the worst possible position in particular — will desperately begin to seek any chance they get to come to agreements in good faith. Most likely, they will convene more so-called supercommittees of 10 people from the House and Senate to forge agreements on the lifting of the debt ceiling, defrosting of government budgets and reducing spending. Whether for the sake of consensus Obama will be willing to sacrifice his medical insurance reforms — that is the principal question of the day. And although personally I am sympathetic to those reforms and Obama’s economic policies in general, those sympathies most certainly do not extend to the language of infighting that is now in vogue in Washington.
I think the whole world would sleep more soundly if Obama backed down on the current issue for the sole reason that he is almost guaranteed a victory in the 2014 midterm elections. Just as in the case of Syria and the Russian proposition regarding Syria, a style of political compromise, even if with an unappealing opponent, will likely yield beneficial fruits.
The author is deputy editor of Izvestia.
Obama’s rhetoric is becoming more and more aggressive. Of course, he has not yet called Congress a bunch of morons who are only capable of using force, but something similar has already emerged in his speeches, where he has essentially accused Republicans of blackmail and compared his opponents to extortionists. Supporters of Obama, such as leftist, liberal economist Paul Krugman, are not yet shouting, “Destroy the vermin,” but the tone of Krugman’s rhetoric is already utterly “Moscow-Octoberist:” The president should not make any compromises with his opponents in the House since, and I quote, “the modern Republican Party is no longer capable of thinking seriously about policy.”
Just as we did 20 years ago, people are using statistics from public opinion polls. A poll presented by CNN yesterday demonstrated that of the 57 percent of respondents who blamed the Democrats, 63 percent were also frustrated with the Republicans. In the eyes of both parties, you could say Obama is in the pink — only 53 percent of respondents blame him. Krugman is not afraid, on the basis of these and similar figures, to threaten to essentially boycott Congress.
To be fair, it must be admitted that Obama is making a great case for American exceptionalism — just not in a good way, as far as America is concerned. Only U.S. government institutions, and indeed, those of most other democratic countries — we will put aside for the moment the whole group of U.S. imitators, such as Brazil — have such great separation between the legislative and executive powers that any conflict between the two always requires long and patient cooperation between the two sides. It is no accident that it was in America that the idea of democracy as a system sustained primarily by a tradition of negotiations and agreements was born. In countries with parliamentary or presidential systems, the sort of conflict we are witnessing in the U.S. today would be simply impossible — here, when it happens that the president and the majority of Congress belong to different parties, they are always at risk of failing to agree on the budget. This is ominous for the entire world; along with the failure of America’s budget, there is also a threat that the U.S. might default on its international financial obligations.
Indeed, it appears that from the start the global economic order has had an obvious crack and that crack has now expanded up to the very top of the pyramid, to the point that it threatens to obliterate all of the global power of the dollar, and that crack is the extreme division of power in the U.S. political system. Of course, Locke and Montesquieu, the creators of the theory of the separation of powers, were no doubt great men, but we would most likely not be incorrect to say that the U.S. Constitution, with all its exceptional characteristics, is suited only for a very elite, almost aristocratic society, as was the white America of the 18th century.
The Americans created a system for a society where all are adults, responsible for their families and cities, where the men go to Protestant churches every morning and pray to God, and in the evening, to Masonic lodges, where they discuss the perfection of man. And if at any point in between any sharp differences arose among them, they knew that they could easily resolve those differences the next morning or evening; they could come to an agreement about everything in good faith in the lodge, even if they belonged to different parties or denominations.
And so it was, for quite a long time. But today in America we have a country divided into two hostile ideological camps. What are their churches now, their lodges? They cannot even talk calmly with one another — as far as Obama is concerned, the tea party members that support blocking all his reform initiatives are nothing but crazy extremists, while his enemies on the right feel exactly the same way about Obama. They see him as a secret socialist, an atheist and advocate for a global government.
If Clinton were in Obama’s place, he would have backed down from any reform initiative in a heartbeat and would have begun some sort of nice little war to placate Congress instead. But Obama cannot do that; the American people support him in his battle with Congress, but they are utterly opposed to Obama’s desire to help the Syrian opposition deal with Assad. So, Obama is forced to show leniency when it comes to the Syrian issue, so that he may demonstrate his inflexibility in relation to the lower house of Congress and, at least in that area, not enter into any compromises.
So what is the end result? Republicans — and the centrists, who are trapped in the worst possible position in particular — will desperately begin to seek any chance they get to come to agreements in good faith. Most likely, they will convene more so-called supercommittees of 10 people from the House and Senate to forge agreements on the lifting of the debt ceiling, defrosting of government budgets and reducing spending. Whether for the sake of consensus Obama will be willing to sacrifice his medical insurance reforms — that is the principal question of the day. And although personally I am sympathetic to those reforms and Obama’s economic policies in general, those sympathies most certainly do not extend to the language of infighting that is now in vogue in Washington.
I think the whole world would sleep more soundly if Obama backed down on the current issue for the sole reason that he is almost guaranteed a victory in the 2014 midterm elections. Just as in the case of Syria and the Russian proposition regarding Syria, a style of political compromise, even if with an unappealing opponent, will likely yield beneficial fruits.
The author is deputy editor of Izvestia.