Ditka's Power Has Dwindled

Obama's election was the first time I felt really happy, deeply soulfully happy, about a political contest. No doubt the burden of reality will push elation aside quickly. But a great moment is a great moment and I've been happily savoring this one. 

The view of the election from Kyrgyzstan is interesting. Most people don't know very much about Obama's biography but are happy that he one. He noted for being black... unfortunately in Russian the term "Niggr'" still gets tossed around casually, though of course the cultural context is totally removed from the history of repression, hate and abuse in the US. The translation carries only moderate derision.

So most people are in favor of the new president. This opinion is basically based on a naive belief that a new president can "stop" the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. These opinions uninformed by the fact that Obama campaigned on a promise to escalate military involvement in Afghanistan. But I have little doubt that if they were as informed as most Americans that they would come to the same conclusion. Much of the reaction is fairly typical Russian-esque ambivalence.

Coverage of the election results on the news cycles out of Moscow was given little more time than the average news story and as stuck in between a nasty car accident in Moscow and a folk dance.

Unfortunately the poor coverage of a historic and triumphant moment in American history (irrespective of political orientation) was matched by very poor US coverage of the Russian response. As you probably heard, the Russians announced they would move missiles up to the Polish border in response to the US missile shield. What was not mentioned is that Medvedev offered a refreshingly sober assessment of the state of Russian democracy/governance. 

"In our days, at the new level of development, Russian society confirms its adherence to the democratic values of the constitution. On the whole, it has embraced democratic habits, practices and procedures. Unlike in the recent past, our citizens no longer associate the democratic structure with chaos, powerlessness or degradation. New Russia has proved its ability to fulfil social obligations and ensure economic growth, guarantee citizens' rights and demand law abidance, and successfully fight terrorism and external aggression.

Now it is not a question of whether democracy can exist in Russia, as it used to be not so long ago, only 15 years ago. It is clear that democracy can exist in Russia. This is obvious and nobody is arguing with this. The question now is about the way Russian democracy should develop in future. I believe that Russian citizens are much more ready for free enterprise, professional as well as social and political, than at the beginning of the reforms, enterprise without state guardianship. More and more people are relying on themselves, first and foremost. They believe that their personal success and consequently the success of the whole country, depends on them. This is why it is not only possible but necessary to increase the level of trust in society. (Applause)

Meanwhile, state bureaucracy is still - as well as 20 years ago - going by the same mistrust of free people and free enterprise. This logic prompts it (bureaucracy) to make dangerous conclusions and take dangerous steps. Now and then bureaucracy makes life a nightmare for business - what if they do something wrong; it takes the media under its control for them not to say something wrong; it meddles in the election process - for people not to elect somebody wrong; it pressurizes courts for them not to bring in wrong verdicts, and so on. (Applause) As a result, the state machine is a major employer, the most active publisher, the best producer, as well as its own court, party and its own nation, in the long run. A system like this is not al all effective and creates one thing only - corruption. (Applause) It gives birth to mass legal nihilism. It contradicts the constitution, puts brakes on the development of innovative economy and democratic institutions. A strong state and omnipotent bureaucracy are not the same thing. A civil society needs the former as a tool to develop and support order, to protect and strengthen political institutions, while the latter is mortally dangerous for it. This is why our society should develop democratic institutions in a calm, persevering way and not putting it off.

Democratic institutions, which have been created in the past few years, and, let's be honest, on an instruction from the top, must take root in all social layers. To do this, we need constantly prove the viability of democratic order, and second, entrust more and more social and political functions directly to citizens, their organizations and self-governing bodies.

No, the state must not renounce responsibility for its sphere of authority and we must act pragmatically, soberly assessing risks, but action is really needed."

So, there is more hope for Russian domestic politics than is typically reported in the US. Also, the Russian perspective on US policy is biased but not fundamentally rooted in any enormous lie. Its fun to have an adversary and always politically and market-wise (news coverage) expedient to paint an antogist as fundamentally irrational and baseless. It is also not constructive over the long term.