Briefly emerging from the darkness to urge all humans NOT to read Peter Pomerantsev’s “Nothing is True and Everything is Possible” despite the fawning reviews it is getting from an obtuse press eager to view Russia as ‘absurd’ and ‘dangerous’ as opposed to actually trying to understand it as a place with a unique history, culture, politics. It is a terrible book that views Russians and Russia as little more than cartoon characters. Should we be surprised, given that it’s written by a reality TV producer?
I’ll be back once I finish grad school, dear readers.
Farewell from the Senate, Max Baucus. You won’t be missed by me. Now the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, if Democrats hold the majority will be a Rockefeller. That’s just silly.
We are constantly prone to referring to ‘the national discussion.’ But what really makes up the national discussion? Are we, as Americans, discussing the same issues in relatively the same ways, as the media might have us believe? The national discussion, or how different issues and events will be perceived nationally, receives particularly heightened attention during election season. What will American voters think about Romney’s refusal to disclose his tax returns? How will Americans perceive Obama’s stance on gay marriage?
Frankly, the whole concept of things being perceived ‘nationally’ is wishful thinking. The United States is just that—a collection of states that are all undergoing their own struggles for power, political debates, and election season jockeying. Every state will see national events through its own lens, colored by local issues and local political races, which are how voters most directly interact with the issues. And even if none of that mattered, local politics is where the power and resources are really doled out—it’s local and state governments handing out contracts for patronage, making policies that hurt or soothe unions, or massaging local interest groups and lobbyists.
Given my views on local politics being the real dominant source of wrangling for power, we can only really determine what course the big, old, wooden skiff of national politics will take if we examine state politics. State by state. So I’m diving into a research and writing challenge. I’m going to write fifty posts, each one about a race, either for senate, house, or the governor’s mansion in each state. Consider it a fifty stop tour of this country in order of electoral votes.
I’ll start with Wyoming, with three electoral votes. On August 21, 2012, Wyoming will be holding its Republican primaries—for all intensive purposes, this is the election for heavily-Republican but sparsely populated northwestern state. Republicans make up 63% of Wyoming’s registered voters against just 24% identifying as Democrats.
There’s three candidates—the favorite is incumbent John Barrasso, who has never actually faced the voters in a regular senate election. A former orthopedic surgeon, Barrasso was appointed by former Wyoming governor Dave Freudenthal to serve out the remainder out the remainder of Craig Thomas’ term after Thomas passed away from complications from leukemia.
Dave Freudenthal May Look Unexceptional, But a Jewish Democratic Governor of Wyoming? OK, Fine, He’s Episcopal.
With less than a full term under his belt, Barrasso has proved an able player of the political game—he’s maneuvered his way onto both the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Both committees are key to Wyoming’s economy, as the state is the fifth largest crude oil producing-state, the second largest natural gas-producing state in the country, and, cue the drumroll, the largest producer of coal in the United States.
As a reliable keep-your-taxes-and-regulation-away-from-me conservative with a stake in natural uses and land use, it should come as little surprise that his campaign is bankrolled by oil and gas companies. His campaign has only raised $6.5 million, but that’s no small sum when you remember Wyoming has only half a million people.
And yet oil companies aren’t nearly the largest campaign contributors to Barrasso’s coffers—health care cand pharmaceutical companies have contributed almost twice as much to Barrasso’s campaign as oil and gas companies, reflecting the nearly unlimited sums that the health care and pharmaceutical industries pour into lobbying across the board. I guess it shouldn’t come as a shock that Barrasso voted against the Affordable Care Act (although the man was pro-choice until changing his tune somewhere down the line—sound familiar, Mittens?).
Even with Barrasso providing a fascinating microcosm of special interest politics, one of his opponents in the primaries provides a much more interesting look into the colorful cast of characters that make up the political landscape of the United States. Although the 36-year old real estate agent and Republican challenger Emmett Mavy deserves a special tip of the cap for attempting the real estate business in a state where 48% of the land is owned by the government, my interest is far more piqued by the other challenger.
He goes by the name of Thomas Bleming. While Barrasso worked as an orthopedic surgeon and Mavy toils as a real estate agent, Bleming has put together a long and illustrious career as a mercenary. There’s plenty of folks in the Senate who fought in Vietnam. But how many joined guerilla armies in Burma and Panama? A rabid anticommunist, Bleming fought as a soldier-for-hire against a Rhodesian communist uprising in the 1970s.
Well I’m finally back, dear readers (all two of you). I apologize–it’s been a long time, I shouldn’t have left you with a strong post to step to.
Last week, Secretary of State and internet-meme sensation Hillary Clinton hit the newspaper, specifically the Wall Street Journal, praising Russia’s pending accession to the World Trade Organization and calling on Congress to repeal the Jackson-Vanik amendment (for those of you who aren’t hip to what Congress was up to in 1974, the Jackson-Vanik amendment restricted trade with countries that limited emigration rights–such as Russia.
Clinton argues that, by extending an olive branch of normal trade relations to Russia and letting Russia into the WTO, the US will benefit economically, more American jobs will be created, and all of this will lead to Russia becoming more democratic and more humane towards its long-abused citizens. In short, Clinton wants to take away a somewhat out-of-date stick and shower the Russians with carrots.
The logic is flawed for reasons both economic and political. First the economic: Clinton argues that repealing Jackson-Vanik will open Russian markets to American goods. Ms. Clinton, who has been shuttling around the world for the last three years, probably has a keener sense of geography than I do, but she seems to be forgetting that Russia borders China, rubs elbows uncomfortably with Japan, and nuzzles with several European borders–the EU is Russia’s largest trading partner, both in terms of imports and exports. The US, on the other hand, is across the ocean. There’s not all that much that we make in the United States that can’t be made better in Europe and far cheaper in Asia–not sure how much of a market there is for US exporters to tap into there, Hillary.
The political flaw comes with the reasoning that letting countries into clubs and giving them favored trade status somehow encourages them to clean up their acts. It’s not flawed logic if you force them to reform before joining, but letting Russia waltz into membership and expecting them to right the ship after becoming a member is rather deluded. It’s been clear in recent history that repressive countries don’t democratize once they join or receive prominent roles in international institutions. In fact, it often has the opposite effect–Kazakhstan, for example, after assuming chairmanship of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) amid much fanfare about their liberalization, ignored the rule of law all-the-more brazenly while chairing the OSCE. Joining the WTO hasn’t exactly cleaned up developing countries records, either. Members like Gambia have been persistently wretched abusers of human rights since joining in 1990s. A more recent example in backsliding is Ukraine, which joined in 2008 and has since peeled back most of the progress made during the Orange Revolution only a couple years prior.
There is indeed a flourishing of democratic spirit happening in Russia right now. It’s unexpected given the ossified political culture but refreshing given the rich intellectual society. It’s the most genuine expression of democratic solidarity in Russia seen since the fall of Soviet Union. But giving Putin political and economic handouts won’t give the protestors momentum–it may just give Putin carte blanche to break out the baton all the more fervently.
'No Voice'--well of course not, fool, you have tape over your mouth.
I’ve always been a cynic about Russia. I often chalk up stories about the Russian opposition and discontent with the Putin era to Western media painting a picture of what they hope exists rather than what really is. I’ll admit, up until a couple days ago, I was poo-pooing the current protests on parliamentary elections.
But something has changed. Up until very recently, any protest of this nature would have been stamped out before it could’ve gathered momentum. The police wagons would’ve outnumbered the protestors by day’s end, and the names of arrested dissenters like Aleksei Navalny and Ilya Yashin would’ve been hushed. But now, much to my surprise, there are at least 20,000 people braving the cold in Moscow–and they’re not scared, as the video below shows:
So what’s changed? Perhaps, after four years of Medvedev the mannequin spouting liberal values, people started listening. It was all a masquerade; Medvedev talked about democracy, while Putin and his lackeys ran around and did the opposite, muffling any voice of dissent, from Yuri Luzhkov to now Aleksei Navalny, while stealing more and more from the state and creating an ever-more inept system of subordinate ministries competing for their favor at the expense of ordinary Russians. But maybe, just maybe, while Medvedev dangled democratic ideas before the noses of the perpetually disappointed Russians, people liked the sound of some of the ideas they heard.
Russians are too well-educated, and for the first time, too wealthy to treat them like absolute fools (though the bulk of Russians suffer in poverty). Yet that’s precisely what Putin did with the sham of having Medvedev assume the Presidency and play his part while Putin the strongman cavorted only to return and ‘save the day’ after a global recession. But the Kremlin doesn’t have the money it had when Putin left the Presidency. The budget continued to swell every year, but an economy that’s overly dependent on oil prices failed to find any alternative sources of revenue before prices started falling.
It’s easy to treat people like idiots when you can stuff money down their throat. But when you run out of things to stuff down, they’re bound to clear their throats and say something.
That’s right, ya’ll. Polar Bear Colony just turned two years of age. Thanks to all the readers, intentional and accidental. Whether you googled ‘Bokeem Woodbine’ or ‘Saparmurat Niyazov and civil society’, you somehow found your way here.
Expect a year of screeching, shouting ‘NO!’ and general temper tantrums. Ain’t that what being two is all about?
I apologize in advance for this off-balance rant, but on nights when the Knicks drop 131 AND the Mets beat the Phillies before the hopelessness of early June seeps into my frail bones, these things are prone to happening.
How about the NY Times putting an article about Nursultan Nazarbayev, my great-great uncle and the only leader Kazakhstan has known since 1989, on the front page of the paper? In case you’re not an avid follower of Central Asian politics (if you’re my zero-to-one person audience who is, my bad for the detour), I’ll fill you in.
Turn my headphone up.
Nazarbayev was re-elected president of Kazakhstan this Monday, garnering 95 percent of the vote. This comes after he rebuffed the brownosings of certain Parliament members to make him President-for-Life, and then just President until 2020, but to placate these yutzes Nursie moved elections from the 2013 date up to April 2011. It’s unclear whether or not the folks pushing for the elimination of term limits and deification of Nazarbayev were put up to it by others or were just generally sycophants. The Times, being all Timesy, of course, could not resist talking about the country with a hue of quaintness:
“It is almost comical to consider campaigning against Mr. Nazarbayev in Astana, the gleaming city that he ordered built in the 1990s on the blank plane of the northern steppe, its skyline melding folk mysticism with science fiction.
At its central point, citizens can ascend to a large glass orb and place their hands in a golden cast of the president’s handprint, which they believe can grant wishes.
Kazakhs do not believe in unicorns, yetis, or that some gold ball in a tacky tower in a synthetic-feeling, culturally-meager city is going to grant their wishes. They’re normal human folk, not force-fed propaganda to the same degree their Turkmen neighbors are.
Yet the Times presents Kazakhstan as if they’re the Phoenix Suns of 2005 and 2006, or a horse than can only be ridden by one man. They don’t really say why, other than quoting the dean of history at Moscow State University saying that without Nazarbayev the whole system would fall apart within five years.
But why? Don’t autocrats replace other autocrats all the time? Can’t a guy like Kassym Tokayev, Chairman of the Senate, just take over the reins? Kazakhstan is an interesting situation, more so than the Times lets on–hold on to your hats and I’ll tell you more.
Polar Bear Colony 