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