Jewish World Review May 13, 2005 / 4 Iyar, 5765

Putin U.S. down

By Jay D. Homnick

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | With all Americans, we have been watching with interest the latest wrangling between Bush and Putin.

Here is the Cliff Notes version of recent events: back in February, one day Bush smiled at Putin and spanked him publicly about fizzling democracy in Russia, the next day Putin sold sizzling nuclear rods to Iran. Now the bell seems to have rung for Round Two. Bush is heading to the capitals of Georgia and Latvia to celebrate their democracy, a sort of backhand slap to Russia from whom those republics gained their freedom. Putin is striking back by venting on Sixty Minutes. And so the fretful mothers-in-law of the punditocracy wonder about the health of the marriage. (Quiz Question: what is the capital of Georgia? Hey, which wise guy said Atlanta?)

These concerns need not preoccupy us overly. Who says that every Presidential trip to Russia needs to be for a conjugal visit? We already have Britain and Israel as our trustiest allies; let Russia play it lukewarm if they wish. Not every alliance needs to turn into a great historic partnership, like Herb and Al with their teas or Sal and Ted with their peanuts. There is neither an ideology nor a unity upon which to rebuild the old Soviet Union, their nukes are rustier than their cash registers, so let Russia just be like Japan and call it a day.

Ah, but this Putin interview on Sixty Minutes is too compelling to pass over. Like a train wreck in the middle of the "Bridge to the 21st Century", it turns our necks into rubber. What a feat of diplomatic perversity!

Going to Mike Wallace to critique the Federalist Papers?! This is really red meat. Let us sit back and enjoy the fare.

Before we gain entree, we must admit that it does appear a tiff. Rasps Putin: "In the United States, you first elect the electors and then they vote for the presidential candidates. In Russia, the President is elected through the direct vote of the whole population. That might be even more democratic." Is this really Putin taking on Hamilton, Madison and Jay to fight the thinking that went into the Constitution? Well, some say that the Russian system of selling weaponry to the highest bidder is indeed the opposite of con-stitution (i.e. pro-stitution).

Actually, you don't have to read too far between the lines to understand that this is intended as a swipe at Bush, who initially won the Presidency despite losing the popular vote. Putin is saying that in purely democratic terms, Al Gore should have been the President in 2000, in which case he might well have been reelected in 2004. Well, we can certainly appreciate that a man whose initials are VP might have sympathy for Gore, but it's not like the Russian electorate really gets clear information to vote on through the State-intimidated media. Like my Mama said: "People who live in Glasnost shouldn't throw stones."

More twisted Putin input: "And you have other problems in your elections. Four years ago your Presidential election was decided by the court. The judicial system was brought into it." Once again, Bush is the personal target. No sitting on the fence here; this is fencing with the sitting President. If we may respond in loco presidentis and parry with the coarse, we might remind Mr. Putin that third-party interference by the court is preferable to his goons trying to kill Yushchenko with poison before the Ukraine election.

Finally Putin pipes in: "But we're not going to poke our noses into your democratic system because that's up to the American people." This final (nasal) passage is his most overt piece of red-state baiting. He is saying in no uncertain terms: "Keep your noses clean and well clear of our business. We don't need Bush whacking us in the Baltic. And you don't help the marriage between our countries by throwing Rice at us, either."

Of course, the threat is implicit: he who pokes his nose may get a poke in the nose. Oh, yes, he certainly treated us to some Russian delicacy. And there is a promise of more, even if just deserts. Now, this is definitely not a good diplomatic course. It ain't smart to make us smart.

But we do see that he has a bit of a point. In the area of moralizing, it is better to give than to receive. And he certainly is very giving when it comes to wise counsel, like a monarch of old. Wasn't it Shelley, or perhaps Manilow, who said: "Ozymandias, you came and you gave without taking."?