Monday, September 23, 2013

Gulling the gullible, or trying to



The past week or two have seen plenty of fodder for bad comedy.  One of these routines was the “House Republicans Celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month” video. In it, mostly “Hispanic”—in this case meaning Caucasians with Spanish names—Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives make insipid platitudes that are both condescending and patronizing. All of them were elected in part because of their opposition to immigration reform; in regard to the Hispanic Republican members, their main selling point to be voted into office (if not by traditionally right-wing Cuban-Americans in south Florida), is convincing enough right-wing whites that they are not one of “those” people, and if anything, are even more bigoted than they are.  

For those who actually take this self-serving video seriously, the “joke” is on them. As Alex Altman wrote in TIME that “Yes, a few dozen conservatives are open to a path to citizenship. But House Republicans have vowed not to take up the Senate bill, and an alternative proposal in the House never materialized. It seems unlikely a House Republican majority that has been content to let the issue languish will abruptly shift course — especially now that Sen. Marco Rubio and Rep. Raul Labrador, two of the Republicans with the credibility to sell an overhaul to their colleagues, have abandoned their roles as pitchmen.”

House Republicans have decided to do nothing on immigration reform, because they want to use the anti-Latino immigrant issue as a political bludgeon and white paranoia tool for at least a few more election cycles; immigration reform would only take that off the table for another decade or so. Thus its “celebration” of Hispanic Heritage Month is only cringe-worthy and embarrassing in its duplicitous attempt to con a few gullible people. Most of us, of course, can only laugh at the pathetic effort to insult our intelligence. 

Then there was the stand-up routines of Russian president Vladimir Putin, formerly a Cold War KGB agent, and Sen. John McCain, who has apparently given himself the title of Assistant Secretary of State. First, Putin’s polemic, which appeared in the New York Times’ editorial page, is fairly predictable anti-US accusations. He also proclaims that Russia upholds and respects the authority of the United Nations, asserts that the whole world opposes intervention in Syria and supports the Assad regime, and claims that “terrorists”—not the Syrian government—are using chemical weapons against innocent people. Syria is not threatened by a brutal regime, but by “terrorists” within. Furthermore, Russia has always advocated “peaceful” dialogue to any and all international disputes. He closes his op-ed with this rather surprising (coming from him) bit of sentimental posturing:

“There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.”

It would be “nice” if Putin could be taken at his word, and this is entirely sincere without an ulterior motive. Unfortunately, Putin can’t be trusted and this polemic isn’t anything new. In fact, many people in this country, mostly on the left, have voiced similar views. I wouldn’t be the least surprised that he simply re-quoted some things he found on progressive websites. I have no doubt that his op-ed was aimed mainly at those on the left who would be the natural “audience” for “peaceful solutions” to problems. There is a problem with resort to this method, of course, and that is you have to have your own hands clean, and Putin’s certainly has not been so.

For from his hand, this all sounds self-serving and hypocritical. Since Putin became president, Russia is still “finding its way” to democracy, but mainly in the opposite direction; Putin has managed to establish himself perpetual dictator (or perhaps in his mind, Czar) of Russia in opposition to the spirit of democratic government. He and his cronies have stifled, imprisoned and even assassinated political opponents and press. He maliciously intervened in the internal affairs of supposedly independent Ukraine and Georgia, supplying military support to a breakaway province in the latter. Putin’s brutal actions in Chechnya beginning with his election in 1999 have also called into question his belief in “peaceful dialogue.” 

Under Putin’s “leadership,” more innocent civilians have been killed by incompetent Russian security forces than by the supposed terrorists in the country—such as in the 2002 Moscow theatre and 2004 Beslan school hostage crises. Suspicions that the 1999 apartment complex bombings which killed 300 people were in fact planned and carried out by Russian FSB (the successor to the KGB) agents in order to persuade the public to support another war in Chechnya may not have been mere conspiracy fodder. 

But if Putin’s scolding of the United States is worthy only of incredulous laughter, Sen. McCain’s “response” is even more cringe-worthy. The former Communist news organ Pravda accepted the challenge to print it on its website; interestingly, it not only denies its Soviet-era roots, but continues to publish anti-American propaganda as if the Cold War never ended, and is unabashedly pro-Putin. Here are some recent Pravada-ru headlines on its English language website, clearly misfiring in its effort to gain sympathy from its English language audience:

Syria: The shocking truth incriminates the USA
The leader of the free world: Obama or Putin?
Hollywood and America Reek of Nazi Influence
US diabolical design for Syria
Putin works Obama shirks

Frankly, it sounds more like cheap supermarket tabloid fare or hate-talk radio in this country, and I wonder how much of the Russian public actually accepts the veracity of what they are fed by their media. There is no doubt some truth is here and there if one looks real hard, but the overall picture is not one of objectivity or the kind of self-examination that a truly free media engages in. But instead of engaging Putin in a point-by-point analysis that exposes the hypocrisy of both Putin and the groveling sector of the Russian “independent” media, McCain speaks directly to the Russian public in an often achingly patronizing tone, as if they are children in need of civics lessons. While many Russians certainly agree with the sentiment that “President Putin doesn't believe in these values because he doesn't believe in you. He doesn't believe that human nature at liberty can rise above its weaknesses and build just, peaceful, prosperous societies. Or, at least, he doesn't believe Russians can. So he rules by using those weaknesses, by corruption, repression and violence. He rules for himself, not you,” I wonder how many believe that McCain is being rather audacious in his effort to “school” them on the facts of their daily reality. 

Not that they couldn’t use more information; if Russia Today is any example, Russians learn more about what is alleged to be occurring in foreign countries than what is going in their own country from its media. But instead of asking the Russian public to demand accountability from its ruling class themselves by asking the hard questions, McCain speaks to them as if they have no idea what is going on inside their own country, and comes off as an outside interloper merely making personal attacks—not just on Putin, but the Russian public as well, for electing and then tolerating his rule.

There are right ways and wrongs ways to reach a target audience; one way that is guaranteed to attract the wrong response is to expose oneself as a hypocrite, and another is to be condescending. Taken in isolation, they may seem have some internal virtue; but in context, they can be taken as “amusing” efforts to gull the foolish.

No comments:

Post a Comment