Putin’s Grand Plan for Europe and America 

Although Hitler made a fortune on the publication of Mein Kampf, few people have read his diatribe wherein he declared his hatred of democracy, Marxism and the Jews, and his belief that the Aryan race—specifically, the Germanic—was divinely decreed as the master race. Well, if you missed your chance to learn about his part in history and his advocacy for preordained nationalism, you now are witness to its reincarnation. President Putin believes that Providence guides Mother Russia to rule all of Europe, from the Atlantic to the Pacific Oceans—what he terms Eurasia. He detests democracies, LGBTQ people, and anybody, including Slavs, even Russians, who dare to oppose his right to re-establish—and extend—the former Russian empire under his rule. He has warned that any country opposing him would face the full force of Russian power. (Is this not a reference to his nuclear arsenal?) His Eurasia myth promises to replace chaotic democracies anywhere with nationalist rulers who bow to his dictates. Of course, the beneficiary of this proposed nationalist empire can only be Putin and the coterie of his chosen sycophants, who are currently his Russian oligarchs and chosen military leaders. Those he will govern are destined to a limited or even meagre subsistence while told to bask in the glory of an all-powerful state and in gratitude to its supreme leader.  

What the world is seeing in Ukraine today is not merely Putin’s fear of Western hegemony, but his attempt to advance Russian dominance in Europe on his way to Eurasia. Ukraine is just another hurdle to overcome. Chechnya, Crimea, and parts of Georgia and Syria are behind him. Belorussia, already cowed to his will, and Moldovia may be next, then Poland and the Baltic states. He is acting on a long-held belief that it is his destiny to restore and extend the Russian empire to its full glory as preordained by Providence. As a result, he will concoct any imagined pretense—whether it is to rid Ukraine of neo-Nazis and protect its Russian inhabitants, or to counter NATO’s infringement on Russia’s hereditary lands, or to prove Russia as a legitimate counterweight to American power. Rather than a free democratic Ukraine, he will make Ukraine a vassal of Mother Russia like its former colonial status under Soviet rule. But the war he has started clearly has a purpose beyond Ukraine. Caesar recognized Gaul was divided into three parts and that he had to conquer all its parts before establishing the Roman Empire. Napoleon crossed every border with his massive army on his way to Moscow. And Hitler too was looking beyond Czechoslovakia on October 1, 1938, to extend his reign even beyond the point of Napoleon’s failure. These world conquerors—Putin’s kin—must unleash the hell fires of war and extend their dominion to match their inflated egos (reference “Recurring World Visions”).  

The twentieth Century has taught us of both modern warfare’s enormous devastation and its unpredictability. I certainly cannot offer a ready bromide for this recurring human ailment. But we can better cope with this current crisis if we understand how it came to be. Putin’s wars have a prelude where all the discordant notes were played in advance of the main theme. 

That prelude began with Putin’s sudden rise to power in 2000. From an unknown former KGB operative in the 1980’s, he came to prominence in St. Petersburg where he used his government position to enrich himself and his assembled gang of thieves. Meanwhile, he rose through the ranks of the KGB—now the FSB—to become its leader. Three months before President Yeltsin’s unexpected retirement, he was appointed Vice President. Then, in January 2000, he inherited the presidency when the former President was forced into retirement at the end of 1999. (He was eventually elected in March of 2000 under a very dubious “free” election, reference “Is War in Europe Inevitable?”) The Soviet era and his KGB training had been the major influences in his life and on his mindset. ¹ Shortly after Putin became the head of state, he consolidated his power by protecting and enriching the men—mostly his St. Petersburg gang—who would become his oligarchs. For Americans, his approach was not dissimilar to Trump’s appointments of self-interested millionaires, lobbyists, and criminally prone individuals to government positions or to his “kitchen cabinet.” Like Putin, Trump’s back story included mob boss tactics of bending the rules and of employing sycophants to serve his self-interests. Trump’s mindset was not dissimilar to Putin’s. 

It should not be surprising then that Putin’s intelligence network had noted Trump’s potential as an “idiot source” long before he won the presidency. He had been weaned on laundered money from Russian oligarchs. And Putin, as the experienced KGB handler he once was, tested this source by inviting him to Russia and offering him free publicity and a Moscow venue for his beauty pageant. Subsequently, he used the opportunity his newly won supplicant provided to assist Trump’s campaign for the Presidency. He had his intelligence operatives engineer a massive online effort to support Trump’s candidacy. If he did not personally suggest, he most certainly approved of the man who volunteered to lead the candidate’s campaign for free (reference “Why Does Putin Favor Trump?” written in 2015). That man was Paul Manafort, a Putin operative who had served/guided Yanukovych, the Ukrainian President who also served at Putin’s pleasure.  

Putin’s grand plan was hatched early in his Presidency and implemented in stages by – 

 (1) amassing a 600 billion rubles government surplus in a strained Russian economy, as a future war fund secretly financed by the Russian people,  

(2) staging a coup in Crimea, followed by the invasion and occupation of Ukraine’s Donetsk and Luhansk regions, 

(3) setting up a favorable bilateral relation with the President of Belorussia who later would allow the placement of the Russian military on Ukraine’s northern border, close to Ukraine’s capitol,  

(4) planning the elaborate movement of 70-75% of Russia’s military resources from all sectors of the country to strategic locations surrounding Ukraine. 

(5) and, of course, abetting the election of Donald Trump to lessen America’s official aversion to Putin’s annexation of Crimea and his ongoing incursions into southeastern Ukraine.

When Putin’s plan succeeded in duping enough Americans needed to elect his candidate, he must have been delighted to see how President Trump responded to his wishes by –  

(1) reducing America’s short range nuclear missiles deployed in Europe,  

(2) decommissioning the spy plane that had previously been part of mutually agreed overflights of American and Russian terrain to assure both signatories were adhering to their nuclear arms treaties, 

(3) destroying the plane’s ultramodern surveillance equipment, thereby prohibiting its future reuse, 

(4) reducing American support for NATO, even to the extent of pulling troops back from Eastern Europe. 

(5) and delaying arms shipments to Ukraine while accusing Ukraine of meddling in America’s Presidential election—thereby exonerating Russia, the actual perpetrator.  

Within a few short years, Putin had been able to concoct this elaborate plan to attack and subjugate a democratically free state, while neutralizing any American opposition. In his mind, he was on a divinely ordained mission to restore the Russian empire that had fallen victim to the hegemony of European democracies and to the United States. Does his elaborate plan not remind us of another obstinately determined and deranged visionary of 20th century vintage? 

As one might expect, the reference here is to Adolph Hitler. Of course, Hitler revealed his megalomania much earlier than Putin. In 1924, he had been arrested, trialed, and convicted of treason. But he denounced the verdict in his rebuttal: “You may pronounce us guilty a thousand times over, but the goddess of the eternal court of history will smile and tear to tatters the brief of the state prosecutor and the sentence of this court. For she acquits us.” After his three and a half weeks in court, he spent another 9 months in the Old Fortress at Landsberg where he dictated Mein Kampf to his forever loyal Rudolf Hess. ² This self-proclaimed bible fortified his quest for power and subjugation.  

Putin, likewise, has written lengthy treatises justifying his tactics, much of its philosophy torn from the pages of Ivan Ilyin’s writings. Note that Ilyin “began his article on ‘Russian Nationalism’ with the simple claim that ‘National Russia has enemies.’” ³ How often have we heard this refrain repeated by Putin? The world is Russia’s enemy until subjugated by Russia under its nuclear umbrella. And Putin has no need to call upon some goddess to justify his actions, for he believes Divine Providence already guides him. But, as warned in the Bible, “Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves” (Mathew, 7:15). And further, “They speak visions of their own mind, not from the mouth of the Lord.” (Jeremiah, 23:16). Putin, like one such ravenous wolf, has concocted a scheme out of his bewitched mind to swallow up the nation of Ukraine. He has become our 21st Century Hitler. But he wields not the “sword of the spirit” (Ephesians 6:17), nor Hitler’s blitzkrieg, but an unprovoked and genocidal war under the threatening cloud of nuclear war. Stated bluntly, Putin threatens an apocalypse unless granted unbridled power over the lives of innocents. 

The lesson of history here is plain: as Lord Acton told us, “All power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The quest for power is not an uncommon human trait. But so is the urge to form self-supporting communities and a system of social justice. For the past 235 years, the United States has struggled with these often-opposing traits. How have we survived? The answer: we repeatedly revive the power of our union and its guarantees of liberty and justice for all. And we do so at the polls. For example, we recently voted out of office a pretend dictator. Throughout our history, we have used our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms to correct any waywardness from their provisions and to right the course of our democracy. Nevertheless, no human society is or stays innocent of wrongdoing. The saving virtue of democracy is its ability to right its course. When America loses this ability, it loses its place in history as perhaps the best hope for humankind. All who support democracy must stand together, otherwise we will all face the same recourse that the Russian people face today, that is, subjugation to a maniacal tyrant or—in America’s case—to a rogue political party fallen under the spell of Donald Trump, our very own Putinesque fanatic. Of course, our “fanatic” is less likely to speak in religious terms, but in terms of wealth and power. But history has shown us that men who seek absolute power (yes, they are always men) surround themselves with sycophants who feed off the trough of that power and extend its reign. 

It is both natural and necessary for Americans to support Ukrainians, for their struggle is the same as ours. They were developing a democracy just as we have been struggling to preserve ours. Our futures are intertwined. And the world depends upon our success in this struggle. May God help the Ukrainian people and guide us to form societies and governments that guarantee liberty and justice for all. The alternative is a return to feudal conditions, aristocratic rule, and sworn loyalty to an autocratic system under a soulless dictator. If you will forgive my poetic fancy, there is a line from a Robert Burns’ poem that has always stayed with me:  

“The best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men

      Gang aft a-gley, 

An’ lea’s us nought but grief an’ pain, 

      For promised joy . . . 

But och! I backward cast my e’e 

      On prospects drear! 

An’ forward though I canna see, 

      I guess an’ fear!”˜  

 __________________________________________________________________________

 ¹ If you really want to understand this man and his objectives, read “Mr. Putin,” authored by Fiona Hill and Clifford G. Gadddy. And, if you want to know how he rose to such power, read Karen Dawisha’s “Putin’s Kleptocracy,” where his brutal rise is extensively documented. 

² William L. Shirer, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” pp. 75-79 (quote taken from P.78). 

³ Timothy Snyder, “The Road to Unfreedom, p.28.  

˜ Robert Burns, “To a Mouse,” Norton Anthology of English Literature,” p. 1786. 

On September 10th, 1938, Hermann Goering gave a bellicose speech at the Nuremberg Nazi Party Rally where he exclaimed “This miserable pygmy race (the Czechs) is oppressing a cultured people (the Sudeten Germans), and behind it is Moscow and the eternal mask of the Jew devil.”¹ Applying Goering’s speech before the October 1 invasion of Czechoslovakia to the preamble of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is as simple as replacing the “Czechs” with alleged Ukrainian Nazis, “the Sudeten Germans” with Russian speaking Ukrainians, “Moscow,” ironically, with the United States, and the “Jew devil” with Ukrainian’s current President. And so, we can recognize the similarity of Putin’s unprovoked war against Ukraine with Hitler’s invasion of Czechoslovakia: specifically, that the Ukrainian “pygmy race” of alleged Nazis who oppress Russians (the superior race) are backed by the United States and led by Zelensky, the “Jew devil.” This ironic parallelism becomes even more relevant when the strategic location of the Sudeten Germans is considered. It bordered Germany and provided the Czechs with the natural mountain defenses of Bohemia and its defensive fortifications against a Third Reich invasion. In a similar fashion, Ukraine is Eastern Europe’s borderline protection against Putin’s imperial ambitions. Like Hitler, and Napolean before him, Putin is obsessed with creating a great empire, his Eurasia, by extending his reign from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Perhaps not incidentally, he would then match America both in dominion— “from sea to shining sea”—and nuclear power. (If only Trump had been reelected, as Putin openly wished, together they could have intimidated the world. As a result, Putin would have had no need to align with China, a potentially greater threat on Russia’s border than Europe.) 

The craven imperial ambitions of Machiavellian autocrats or tribal leaders are the recurring world visions witnessed throughout human history. It is not just their recent 20th and 21st century versions. From the ancient Pandiyan and Byzantine empires to the more recent Holy Roman and Russian empires, humans have often subjugated others as sub-humans, killing them or sometimes reducing them to slavery. These last-named empires ended during the rise of the 19th century democracies of the United States and the French Republic. The nationalist and imperialist ambitions of rogue states, however, did not end. Instead, they were thwarted by democratic states, resulting in the two world wars of the 20th century. But the recurring vision of empire and the dominance of allegedly superior humans persist—along with its inhuman detritus of subservient vassals, slaves, and an impoverished proletariat. That vision, however, runs aground before the democratic concept that all humans are equal at birth and possessed of certain human rights including the opportunity to live the life they choose. Hence the inevitable struggle between democracies and autocracies persists into the 21st century. 

Democracies, as any elementary school child should know, represent an anomaly in the 315,000-year history of Homo Sapiens. With due respect for the short-lived Athenian experiment, America’s 235-year-old democracy is the longest surviving democracy. And yet it is a mere blip in the history of our kind. In fact, democracy is still in its incubation stage, not yet even an adolescent in the sweep of history. At its core, America subsists as a Constitutionally law-based government where free and fair elections allow citizens to choose their representatives and the policies that serve their general welfare. But from its birth it has suffered growing pains. There have been contested elections, starting with President Jefferson, our third President, and persisting to the present day with President Biden. And, of course, there was the Civil War, with which some present-day reactionaries seem aligned. Then, as now, the same challenges persist: should all citizens be treated equally and have the same rights of citizenship? Race and gender biases hotly contest this question. Similarly debated are what freedoms and opportunities should be granted universally to everybody. In the past, those who harbor these opposing reactions have created inhuman conditions such as slavery, gender inequality, disenfranchisement, voter suppression, and impoverished inner cities where opportunity is supplanted with hopelessness. America has grappled with these reactionaries throughout its history, even as these words are being written. 

As in the antebellum South, these reactionaries have feared the loss of white supremacy, male dominance, and wealth privilege. They believe that white men must control the wheels of power, else civilization as we have always experienced it will perish. Until that fear is understood and assuaged, humankind will continue to subsist amidst bouts of imperialistic wars and insurrections or revolutions. Western civilization does have an antidote for this “sickness unto death,” that is, the fear of relating to the humanity in others and of discovering our shared humanity. Religious principles, as exemplified by “love thy neighbor as thyself,” are reiterated in the great religions of human history. And our philosophers, artists, and cultural leaders often exemplify how to overcome the fear of losing status or power by becoming who you already are: a coequal member of a shared humanity. Once you can believe and muster the courage to “do onto others as you would have them do onto you,” you find in yourself that power you foolishly sought by dominating others. Instead, you gain power from relating to others as equals—Ich und Du.² Our common humanity reveals itself when we can identify with a fellow human being—when we indeed feel the import of “I am you.” How else should we interpret those democratic ideals by which we affirm ourselves equal by merely being born human and committed—each of us together—to form that fully human community, which is our more perfect union? 

The recurring world visions of humanity were always and universally exclusive, that is, only for the privileged, until America’s founding fathers defined the ideal of an all-inclusive society. But that ideal conflicts with human history—those recurring world visions—and the competing struggle for dominance, to include the class struggles defined by Communism and the ever-present threat of autocratic suppression. Today, American democracy is under siege by the same forces that have always defined human society, by distinguishing the “haves and have-nots,” the privileged and the subservient or “unclean classes,” the white and non-whites, the orthodox and the libertarian/libertine, and so on. Within the last century, America has fought World Wars of liberation from totalitarian regimes, welcomed immigrates from “ancient lands . . . (and) storied pomp . . . yearning to breathe free,”³ granted women the right to vote, own property, and earn fair wages equal to men, and finally extended voting and civic rights to its suppressed racial minorities. But this inclusive narrative is now and has always been at odds with the ever-prevailing narrative whereby only the socially/economically privileged or the politically self-anointed leader/savior must suppress those “not like us,” dominate all institutions of state and finance, and wield unchecked power.  

If democracy is the only answer to the recurring vision of world dominance and autocratic governance, how can it be protected, without another world war? First, we must admit the fateful import of another world war: faced with the interminable destruction of modern warfare, escalation to nuclear war could be considered the only reasonable endpoint—as witnessed by Putin’s oft repeated nuclear threats. In other words, it becomes inevitable. Democracy’s survival, then, becomes an existential necessity. Therefore, our survival demands we rededicate ourselves to our democratic ideals, reform our government wherever it conflicts with those ideals, defeat at the polls whomever candidates are misaligned with those ideals, and assure reactionaries and insurrectionists are held accountable for their disloyal/traitorous actions and demagoguery. Our current President has identified the existential struggle of our time as that between democracy and autocracy. He is not overstating the gauntlet before us all. 

A previous blog (reference “Democracy and the Just Society”) addressed the intersection between democracy and morality. Both share an arresting antecedent: we cannot support what we think is good in a democracy if we do not believe that democracy is good. But many moral philosophers have argued further that we cannot know what goodness is without becoming good. Therefore, being a good citizen in a democracy requires more than a stated preference for democracy over autocracy—though many followers of Donald Trump fail even that low hurdle. Rather, we must become good citizens in a democracy. Most of us recognize that voting in democratic elections is a prerequisite for any democracy. But our vote must be an informed vote. As a citizen in a democracy, we are responsible for the general welfare and the provision of all the rights guaranteed to us in our Constitution. Our first President warned us in his “Farewell Address” that “unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” That “enablement” can only be the result of a misinformed electorate. Unfortunately, many Americans have fallen prey to the “big lie” invented by Donald Trump, believed and circulated by his sycophant partisans, and promoted by the propagandized “reporting” of certain Fox news personalities and subversive legislators. If democracy, however, is defined as “people rule,” as the Greek derivative of “democracy” implies, then it essentially and definitively depends upon its citizens’ belief in the goodness of democracy and their dedication to assure its integrity. If the logic expressed here is understood and accepted, then any citizen in a democracy who considers him/herself a patriot—that is, a person who loves his/her country—must know, believe, live, and support the principles of democracy. 

Many philosophers, historians, and sociologists have made the case for a democratically inspired self-government. But unfortunately, the ideal of democracy can never be realized unless it is defined and implemented in practice. Its proponents must define what it means for themselves, as our American founding fathers did in drafting and winning ratification of the American Constitution. But sustaining the democracy they thereby founded, unfortunately, rests not just with them, but with all the Americans who succeeded them, including present day Americans. Surely, as my readers can attest, this blog has addressed issues with equality in the light of racial, gender, and economic disparities. In fact, present day Americans confront many threats to their Constitutional rights, to include the right to life threatened by incidents of police violence and the legal possession of lethal military weapons. Also threatened are our personal liberties and opportunities that are reduced by uneven court sentencing, by unnecessary or violent policing, by job/education unavailability, and by racial and sexual biases. Those biases can and do negatively affect asylum seekers, pregnant women (reference, “The Supreme Court: A Bulwark of our Liberty”), uneven law enforcement, and available job/education opportunities. And they can generate propagandized journalism, as we have witnessed in recent suits and/or indictments against Fox News and one infamous TV huckster. Obviously, democracy presents an ongoing challenge; and America remains, as always, a work in progress.  

However far humankind may search for peace and for liberty and justice for all, the pendulum of history swings back to this recurring world vision of dominance by the few—or the one—over the many. The United Nations Charter that commits nations to honor the territorial integrity and sovereignty of other nations is violated by a generation born after the World Wars of the 20th century. Not only is history forgotten, but even the recent experience of our grandparents. The allied nations that defeated Hitler and are represented on the UN Security Council can no longer preserve the UN Charter that guarantees the territorial integrity and sovereignty of nations, mainly because of one man. Russia is not only a signatory of that Charter but sits on that Security Council as a key member dedicated to assuring the sovereignty of nations. The main offender here is its President, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, a dictator who will order a genocidal war to realize his world vision of dominance over neighboring countries. When will we all unite—including all our national leaders—to end this recurring world vision of such men and their hateful ideology that has threatened humanity throughout its history? If not now, when? And will we have another opportunity to do so? 

_____________________________________ 

1 William L. Shirer, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” p. 383. 

2 A reference to Martin Buber’s treatise, “I and Thou.” 

3 A reference to “The New Colossus,” otherwise known as the Statue of Liberty. 

“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” 

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (The Communist Manifesto) ¹ 

Marx and Engels were not wrong. In some ways, their forecast of the future was inciteful with the emergence of East Indian and Chinese markets, of trade with the colonies, and of America’s rise and its ongoing industrial revolution. Ironically, America helped realize their forecast with its zealous capitalist system that redefined class structures under a democratic government, but not the communist framework advocated in The Communist Manifesto. From the burgers of the Middle Ages through aristocrats and bourgeoises to our modern-day capitalist Zions—whether Western billionaires or Russian oligarchs—serfs and the proletariat have been transformed into citizens of a multi-tiered middle class, ² but not without its privileged overlords. And that transformation has changed the nature of class struggles, though it has not eliminated them.  

 Though democracies promise a representative government via a general plebiscite, that representation still depends upon the integrity of elected officials to act in accordance with the intent and general welfare of voters. Therein is an assumption that mirrors Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” by which capitalism married with democracy. Both democracy and capitalism rely on the same premise that humans act in their own best interests and that those interests serve the whole of society. But is that premise valid?  

The grasp for power can corrupt just as much in a democratic state as in a totalitarian state.

Most dictators, like Napoleon, Hitler, or Putin, have sought to rule in service of their own interests without the restraints of law, morality, or any substantive consideration for the general welfare of citizen-subjects. They have—even currently—waged unprovoked wars of conquest without regard for lives lost, including their own soldiers. But elected officials in a democracy also can and do fall prey to the same dictatorial inclinations by using the power of office to extend their influence and better serve their grandiose ambitions. Or they can yield to the whims and interests of wealthy capitalists who fund campaigns for the sole purpose of enhancing their coffers with government expenditures and services. This grasp for power can corrupt just as much in a democratic state as in a totalitarian state. The common element is that dark “dictatorial” side of human nature—that immoral urge to serve only self-interests, even to the detriment of others. As stated in a previous blog (reference, “Democracy and the Just Society”), democracy may be “humanity’s best hope for a just society,” but it still depends upon an ever-evolving implementation of its founding principles as the moral pathway to the general welfare of all its citizens. And those moral principles require an enlightened citizenry that both believes in core principles and has the tenacity to live by them.

In America, we pledge allegiance to “one nation under God with Liberty and Justice for all.” And we demand that all elected officials pledge before God their oath to serve our Constitution wherein the nature and ideals of our government are established. Our universal assumption is that such an oath or pledge will assure not only loyalty to the democratic principles at the root of America’s existence but also the general welfare of all Americans. But is that assumption still valid? The word “valid” implies more than mere acceptance. It comes from the Latin Valere, “to be strong.” ³ The question raised here is how strongly do we believe in democracy and our commitment to uphold its principles? Let us review a few current events in the light of this question.  

Too often our American ideals conflict with the American reality.

Currently, a very vocal, and sometimes violent, minority in America believes the former President’s lies regarding the fairness of the last Presidential election results. This minority refuses to acknowledge the results of myriad court cases and an extensive investigation by the House’s January 6 Committee. In other words, a notable number of Americans do not accept the validity of a free election, the decisions of American courts in many state and federal districts, and the conclusions of a year-long Legislative investigation. If any American defies demonstrably fair election results, the courts, and his/her elected legislature, then one must question whether that American believes in democracy. And, in addition, any Presidential candidate, including the incumbent Donald Trump, who endeavors to undermine a democratic election, refuses to acknowledge the transfer of power, and incites supporters to “fight or you will not have a government anymore,” is not an American patriot but an anti-democratic subversive and a traitor. His followers can no longer call themselves patriots after they staged an uprising against the seat of government and the peaceful transfer of power under flags touting allegiance to the Confederacy, to the usurper Trump and his duplicitous “MAGA” emblem. Whether they were dupped into believing they were fighting for democracy or inspired into a violent rage over the grievances Trump claimed he shared with them, their actions were anti-democratic, insurrectionist, and illegal, as subsequent court convictions clearly demonstrated. These Americans clearly do not trust, believe in, or support our democratic system of government. Whatever patriotism they espouse cannot be identified with the assumption that democratic principles are valid and that, by their very nature and definition, must serve the general welfare. Instead, they have fallen under the spell of a man besotted with the lust for absolute power. They strongly believe in his ability to serve their interests and address their alleged grievances rather than the general welfare of all Americans. And they represent a significant class of denialists who defy democratically established institutions of government in their quest to form a populist government under an all-powerful fascist-like leader.   

This new class of denialists espouses beliefs not only at variance with democracy, but adverse to its unifying principles. The basis for the human rights enumerated in America’s founding documents is predicated upon Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence wherein he declares that “all men (sic) are created equal. . . with certain unalienable rights . . . that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”  Therein, he prefaced the colonies’ lengthy list of grievances against the British Monarch with a rebuttal to “absolute tyranny” and its rejection of laws “most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” America, therefore, is predicated upon principles of equality and the general welfare of its citizens. Yet some Americans seem disinclined to recognize human equality as a birthright. They subscribe to closing the borders to desperate asylum seekers and to supporting discriminatory laws and practices inspired by white supremacists. The racial nature of this discrimination reveals itself in attempts to limit access to jobs, education, housing, protective policing, lending, and many social settings or environments. And male machismo still affects women in the workplace, in career mobility, in governance, and in the management of their own bodies (reference “The Supreme Court: A Bulwark of Liberty”). Even the reluctance to eliminate military style weapons from civil society reveals a moral ambivalence about the most basic Jeffersonian principle, the right to life. As the American press constantly reminds us, mass killings now seem ubiquitous in present day America—the worst cases involving Ar-15s, the apparent weapon of choice for mass murderers. How can we Americans live with the fact that most childhood deaths in America are now reported as the result of gun violence? It appears that too often our American ideals conflict with the American reality. And that reality reflects a people at odds with themselves because a minority of naysayers within the body politic are not aligned with their espoused democratic values and want to impose their subversive will on the majority. 

Our union is the main prop to our liberty.

 In America, as in any vibrant democracy, governance must depend upon the unity of a diverse citizenry, potentially composed of different races, genders, educational profiles, and potentially diverse cultural backgrounds and/or political persuasions. That unity can only be obtained by a universal acceptance of majority rule, usually assured by a transparent and fairly administered free election. Without free and lawfully executed elections, democracy cannot exist. Likewise, without acceptance of election results, democracy cannot exist. Donald Trump’s incitement of his followers against the results of the last Presidential election is categorically unlawful and anti-democratic. His insistence that the election was rigged—against all evidence to the contrary—is treasonous to America’s democratic system. He may yet be held accountable for inciting an insurrection and be made ineligible to hold any State or Federal Office again. In a democracy, nobody should be above the law, including the President. Every American President takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and to “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed” (reference Article III, Section 3, Constitution of the United States of America). In addition, as President he is specifically tasked to serve the general welfare of all citizens, regardless of party affiliations, rather than his/her own profit or personal interests.  

For the real—and ongoing—test of our democracy is Americans’ ability to support free and open elections and to vote for the general welfare of all their fellow citizens. We can disagree over candidates but accept the results of elections. Likewise, we can disagree on policies, but learn to compromise for the good of all. Autocrats, conversely, cling to power for their own benefit, often blaming scapegoats to justify their use of force or incitement of violence. In George Washington’s Farewell Address, he would designate them among those “designing men” who excite division or “a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views.” But if Americans uphold their dedication to free elections and the will of the majority, then Washington’s promise rings true that our “union ought to be considered as a main prop of (our) liberty and that the love of the one ought to endear (us) to the preservation of the other.” Freedom admits diversity, but democracy demands commitment to underlying principles. 

Can humanity survive without just societies?

A society that rises against tyranny and declares all its members equal as a birthright will have—and has had—the difficulty of realizing its most fundamental raison d’état. Although America’s Civil War allowed the slaves citizenship, the Hayes Compromise of 1877 ended Reconstruction and allowed the Jim Crow laws to persists until the civil rights movements of the 1960’s, a century after President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Likewise, the women’s suffrage movement finally gained the right for women to vote nearly a hundred and fifty years after Jefferson’s declaration that “all men (sic) are created equal.” What can we learn from these ongoing struggles to attain America’s most fundamental ideals? In truth, a just society—where the welfare of all is government’s primary mandate—is an ongoing commitment and not easily attained given the nature and history of humankind. The recent women’s “Me Too” and “Black Lives Matter” movements are the most recent expressions of angst over America’s laggard implementation and ever-evolving agenda of “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” for all. But America’s struggle to form a truly just society where diversity is valued as much as individual excellence or merited privilege is now more urgent than at any time in human history. For we may now be faced with this unwelcome forecast, that humanity cannot survive without the structures of a just society.  

The well-being of every human inhabitant of this planet is now at stake.

If the World Wars of the twentieth century have not yet alerted humankind, then the nuclear age of the twenty first century should awaken the nations of the world to the dangers of their current course—that is, the demise of human history. As America swims through the rough waters of white supremacy, LGBTQ/gender inequality, political turmoil, and a revolt against its institutions (the so-called “deep state”), China prepares to invade Taiwan while Russia conducts an unprovoked and genocidal war against Ukraine. Meanwhile, both North Korea and Russia threaten to use their nuclear power to regain “lost” territory from neighboring independent countries. Iran, already abetting military conflicts in Syria, Iraq, and Ukraine and fomenting internal uprisings, is now actively pursuing entry into the nuclear club. Meanwhile, violent conflicts persist in the Middle East, Africa, and South America. Amid this global-spanning violence and chaos, humankind faces the universal threat of climate change. Instead of the nations of the world acting like inmates in an asylum—each occupied within their own self-delusions—they should awaken to the urgent need of cooperative and responsible joint efforts against their common foe, that is, their collective inaction. The effort to build a peaceful world order after the twentieth century debacles must be renewed to face the very real threats of the current century that include both a nuclear holocaust and global climate change. The United Nations Charter, signed in 1945 by its initial 51 member states, was designed to forestall future world wars by guaranteeing the territorial integrity and sovereignty of all member states. As membership now approaches 200 member states, it is long past the time to redress not merely the threats to peaceful coexistence of nations but more urgently the broader mission to preserve humankind itself. More than respect for borders and self-governance is now at stake before the threats of nuclear annihilation and of an uninhabitable planet. The nations of the world must come together to assure the well-being of all humanity, which means support for and promotion of just societies where individual lives, liberties, and opportunities are both secured and advanced for all classes of people. How else will Marx and Engels’ assessment of self-annihilating class struggles be eliminated from human history? Otherwise, the “free” world will never convince the inhabitants of rogue states that the hegemonic ambitions of maniacal dictators are not only a threat to their liberties, but to the peaceful coexistence of all humans and to a constructive world order as well. The well-being of every human inhabitant of this planet is now at stake. 

What prospect for a better life will we leave for our progeny?

It is frightfully possible that I am writing this blog for a future generation of archivists, shocked to find their world’s dire fate forecasted. God help us all if we leave our progeny such a dastardly destiny. Our forebears ended world wars and created a world order they thought would provide us with a more secure and prosperous life. What prospect of a better life will we leave for our progeny?         

_____________________________________ 

1 “The Communist Manifesto,” The Norton Anthology of English Literature, Volume 2. pp.1180-1190. 

2 A previous blog outlined the uneven course of American capitalism (reference, “American Exceptionalism Revisited”) under its democratic system of government. A companion blog (reference, “A More Perfect Union”) attempted to describe in brief the evolution of American democracy itself. 

3 Puer Ille Ut magnus Est et multum valet, M. Accius Plautus, died 184 B.C. (my translation: (“the boy in order to be great must also be very strong.”) 

“Ancient Athenians used a kleroterion, a stone slab with a grid of slots, to select jurors from among volunteers in such a way that all of the population’s 10 tribes were equally represented. A lottery system enabled the jurors to be randomly chosen on the morning of the trial, minimizing chances of bribery.” ¹

The earliest democracy consulted by our founding fathers was that of Athens in ancient Greece. Of course, they also referenced the social philosophies of the Enlightenment. But they made no reference to the Athenian kleroterion and the problem it tried to resolve—a problem that still haunts our democracy today. How can a democracy assure descriptive representation of its citizens, inclusive of all classes, age groups, gender, race, and individual differences—like the average folk we encounter every day? In Ms. Procaccia’s article quoted above, for example, she explains that a descriptive representation in any assembly would necessarily include an equal number of men and women. But, as she illustrates, “the average proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments worldwide was 26 percent in 2021—a marked increase from 12 percent in 1997 but still far from gender balance.” And she was just referencing one descriptive distinction that can unfortunately disassociate democratic governance from its plebiscite. Of course, there are many other discrepancies in democratic representation that may include race, national origin, class, fame, and wealth besides gender. Although everybody can vote, only a few govern. But those few too often favor interests other than their diverse electorate’s. Why is that fact demonstrably true, while being equally unfair to voters in any democracy so defined? Well, this distortion of democracy can be explained.

In just a few days, the vote count in America’s mid-term elections will be determined and reported. And we will know how well the results will reflect the voting public. Although a large majority of Americans are registered as Democrats, the Republican Party far exceeds their rival in campaign funding—that is, by billions of dollars. Obviously, Republicans have a wealthier donor base. While both Parties have and will emphasize voter turnout, the Party that can afford more advertisements and fund more campaign workers has an advantage. So, money is a significant advantage in tilting the scale in turnout and, as a result, in election outcomes. Since July of 2015, this blog has repeatedly raised the issue of replacing private campaign funding with public funding. The problem is not just with wealthy donors having more influence on government policy—which is unfair in any democracy—but with the quasi-criminal influence of “dark” money. The latter includes campaign donations from foreign countries that seek profits from American investments and/or influence over our foreign policies. How can a true democracy of the people survive where elections are tilted in favor of those privileged by wealth or influence? The answer is obvious and partly explains this distortion of democracy.

Another anomaly in America’s electoral system is the Electoral College’s reflection of the majority vote. Since voting majorities are calculated by State defined Districts, rather than the overall vote count by State, it is possible to form Districts that favor one Party over another—a process termed gerrymandering. For example, in Wisconsin 44% of the voters can elect a Federal Senator of the Republican Party even though 56% of the electorate voted for a Democrat. This anomaly is the result of years of Republican maneuvering and redistricting at the State level (reference “Majority Pejoraty”). In the past, both Parties have been guilty of gerrymandering. But the Republicans have honed this devious advantage—even to the point of manipulating the ten-year census to minimize the vote count in Democratic precincts. And this gerrymandering has been extended to many mid-western and southern States and explains how Donald Trump won the Electoral College vote in 2016 while losing the popular vote by more than three million votes. How is it possible that an immensely unpopular President—who lost his incumbency by more than seven million votes, the largest vote differential in American history—could have been initially elected by a minority of voters? Given the success of gerrymandering, the answer is obvious and further explains this distortion of our democracy.

When Europeans discovered and eventually colonized the American continent, the initial settlers where organized into colonies. But these colonies gradually became quasi-independent city-states and demanded the same individual freedoms guaranteed to British citizens. But, in order to attain those freedoms, our founding fathers recognized the need to unify under one banner and, if necessary, fight for those freedoms. John Adams was the chief organizer of the American rebellion; George Washington became the leader of our revolutionary army; James Madison helped define the structure of this newly proposed democratic republic; Benjamin Franklin was the consensus builder at America’s Constitutional Convention; Alexander Hamilton became its chief interpreter/defender; and Thomas Jefferson had already defined the very basis for American independence when he proclaimed, “all men are created equal” and later demanded the first ten Amendments be added to the newly ratified Constitution. Those ten Amendments captured the same Bill of Rights that every Brit had by virtue of birth, that Jefferson thereby demanded, and that he justified in his Declaration of Independence. Those were the same rights and individual freedoms that Washington recognized could only be preserved by our unity. And they inspired what I have called Washington’s prime principle, “if we love our freedom then we must preserve our unity.” And those words are also evocative of our current President’s oft-repeated phrase, “there is nothing we cannot do if we do it together, (for) we are the United States of America.”

Given these American birthrights bequeathed us by our founding fathers and extended over a  235-year period to include women, Blacks, immigrants, and LGBTQ, how is it possible that we now seem poised to deny the very principles that founded our nation? Gangs of white supremacists, anti-abortionists, and various hate groups now dictate policies adverse to our founding principles. Our legislators include deniers of a fair and democratically constituted election. Our Supreme Court Justices boldly invalidate a personal freedom their predecessors defined as Constitutionally guaranteed while threatening to amend other Court precedents affecting individual rights and freedom. And, it would seem, these threats to our democracy all emanate from one man whom most Americans rejected as their President twice. But he has gained tribal authority over one political Party that has manipulated its minority into an electoral, if not a voting, majority and has packed the Supreme Court with subversive ideologs. Yes, I know, the terms “subversive ideologs” is outrageous and offensive. But how does one characterize Justices who reverse legal guarantees of fair State elections and the individual freedom every woman should have over her own body as a personal birthright guaranteed by the 9^th and 14^th Amendments? Of course, the man referenced here is the criminally discredited, twice impeached former President Trump. And the Party he now controls is the current version of the Republican Party which bears no resemblance to Ronald Reagan, its most memorable President of more than three decades ago. Taken together, Trump and his Party have pulled together the forces of money and corruption to distort and destroy American democracy. The only remaining question is whether they will be successful?

Election politics can be confusing. The issue of democracy, for instance, is buried under many mis-directions. The Republicans divert our attention from their Supreme Court appointments, specifically, judges who testify in support of the Roe v. Wade decision, then defy their own testimony by ruling against it (reference “The Supreme Court: A Bulwark of Liberty”). They blame the current President for inflation, while ignoring Trump’s failures to contain COVID and to support Ukraine’s defense against a Russian invasion. The results of these failures were not only extensive loss of lives in America and Ukraine, but supply-line failures and an escalation of Russia’s war against Ukraine. The latter resulted in a curtailment of Russia’s gas and oil supply to the world economy which, together with the impact of COVID, has resulted in a global inflation. The current Administration has fixed the supply-line issue and has done what the Trump Administration refused to do, which is to fund and administer a nationwide program to reduce the impact of the pandemic, return people to work, reopen schools, and save lives. And, of course, America now leads the world in support of Ukraine. The Republicans also fault the Democrats for the increase of crime in America. But they refuse to ban military style weapons that terrorize and greatly increase the death toll resulting from criminal violence. Moreover, the nine worst States in crimes per capita are all governed by Republicans. These campaign gambits are examples of that age-old political game of misdirection, that is, the attempt to divert the electorate from reality. And that ill-intended attempt is a further distortion of our democracy.

In Ariel Procaccia’s referenced article, she describes how a 1983 abortion ban in the Irish Constitution was overturned in 2016. The Irish Parliament “convened a citizens’ assembly, whose 99 members were chosen at random.” ¹ The process of selection assured representation across a wide spectrum of age, gender, and geography—much like the Athenian lottery used in conjunction with their kleroterion. The resultant assembly “heard expert opinions and held extensive discussions regarding the legalization of abortion.” ¹ Its final recommendation would overturn the abortion ban “in all circumstances, subject to limits on the length of pregnancy.” ¹ As a result of this recommendation, the abortion ban was repealed by 66 percent of Ireland’s voters. The citizen assembly was successful because it represented “average” people who represented a cross-section of the Irish population AND because they were provided the expert opinion of doctors and scientists and the opportunity to discuss and analyze the data and circumstances affecting abortions. In other words, the Irish abortion ban was lifted as a result of an informed electorate that represented a broad cross-section of the voting community.

How do we Americans overcome the misinformation heralded by well-funded special interests, electoral brinkmanship, and self-invested politicians who value their hold on office over public service? We can begin by learning the lesson the Irish represented. America began in the colonies where the rights of citizens and the purpose of government was discussed at the kitchen table, in lecture halls, the workplace, and pubs. Although we live in the “information age,” the sources of political information are polluted by self-serving protagonists, ridiculous conspiracy theories, bold lies, and inflamed rhetoric designed to influence behavior rather than reasoned judgment. The task of becoming self-informed has become a selective task of choosing sources. What can help penetrate this cacophony is grounding in America’s formative culture—that is, our history, social studies, art, music, and foundational ideals. The latter is well represented not only in our founding documents but in the words and actions of our founding fathers, as summarily reverenced above. How is it possible for the most formative democracy in human history to limit, or even eliminate, civics classes in its public school system? How can our democracy survive where political campaigns are based on winning rather than the general welfare of the voting public?

Generally, I would never recommend voting along party-lines. But the current Republican Party has become a granite block of resistance to any public serving policies. We only know what it is against, namely, Democratic politicians at any level, all policies that serve civic health, education, world peace, climate change mitigation, and any honest debate based on facts. What the Party does support is  election of its candidates and its hold on all civic power. Their public platform no longer serves the general welfare, for it does not even exist, neither in writing nor in practice. They have become the Party of Power and Bluster. Yes, I do believe there are Republicans I would normally support, but their funding and support within the Party today is conditional upon their adherence to “talking points” and a political strategy of winning at all costs. The problem on this campaign cycle is that those costs include the demise of our democracy.

_______________________________________________________________

¹ Ariel Procaccia, “A More Perfect Algorithm,” in Scientific American, November 2022 Issue, pp.53-59.

A Footnote:

Putin, in a recent speech he gave on 10-27-2022 stated that “the West is no longer able to dictate its will to humankind but still tries to do it, and the majority of nations no longer want to tolerate it.” In fact, President Biden has done a very effective job of leading a “majority of nations” to not tolerate Putin’s dictates, his unprovoked war on Ukraine or the genocide of its citizens. But America’s ability to influence the world order it largely created after World War II depends upon it remaining a beacon of hope and a model democracy. But the distortion of our democracy outlined in this blog has an unfortunate impact on a peaceful world order. Unless Republicans can wean themselves from Trump’s embrace, his proposals to demolish NATO, to align American foreign policy with Putin, to limit support for Ukraine, and to develop “friendships” with dictators like Kim Jong-un, Erdogan, and Orban will remove America from its status as a beacon of hope for democracies around the world. What prognosis for world peace would then be plausible?

This blog is about the parallelism between very disparate entities, like the confluence between hyper-capitalism and hyper-personalization. Yes, this comparison is between America and Russia, however unlikely it may seem. Although America is still believed to be the “land of opportunity,” where an individual can follow his/her dreams in pursuit of happiness, it still struggles to provide equal opportunity for specific racial minorities and certain classes of immigrants. In Russia, by comparison, the disparity between rich and poor—between privileged and unprivileged—is the fully intended feature of government policy. Both countries, it should be noted, house some of the wealthiest individuals in the world, like multi-billionaires whose fortunes exceed the annual income of most nations. While “conservative” politicians in America continue to propose cuts or even elimination of the wealth tax, Russia has no inheritance tax. So, those American politicians who euphemistically call themselves “conservative” have more in common with Russian kleptocracy than American democracy. In different degrees, both countries favor the wealthy.

Although America does have a progressive tax system, every time a Republican majority seizes control of Congress, the Party attempts to lower taxes for wealthy corporations and individuals. The last Republican majority lowered the highest corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. Moreover, property investors/developers can take advantage of significant expense and depreciation tax breaks. And many multi-billion dollar corporations have evaded taxation completely (at least until a minimum tax law recently passed by Democrats is implemented). Meanwhile, Russia has maintained a flat tax rate of 13% since 2001, effectively abandoning any pretense of wealth redistribution. But, more significantly, individual Russian oligarchs can hide their accumulated wealth and pilfered “income” from state owned industries and operations—that is, their grift—in government approved “cooperatives” and in undeclared foreign holdings that include both real estate and bank accounts. Between 1993 and 2018, for example, Russian gas/oil production has resulted in a massive 250% trade surplus. But the official reserve estimate is only 25%. The oligarchs hold the difference in offshore assets “which exceed one year of the national GDP, or the equivalent of the entirety of the official financial assets held by Russian households.” ¹ Some still control their foreign investments from Russia. Others prefer to live abroad almost exclusively, in cities like London, Monaco, or New York. One of the ironies of this wealth-privileged parallelism between Russia and America is that Russian money laundering in Western enterprises has also enriched some Western billionaires as well. Therefore, both Western and Russian parasites are feeding off the income and wealth created by average Russians. Can you see the surprising, if unlikely, paradox here? Capitalism and kleptocracy embrace in two directly opposing economic systems.

One incidence of an American enterprise benefiting from purloined Russian money is uniquely relevant to my American readers. Back in 2016, one of Donald Trump’s sons was asked how the Trump organization continued to raise money for investments after multiple bankruptcies closed the door to American bank loans. His reply was straightforward: Russian money. Also in 2016, much was made of Donald Trump’s desire to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. He already had a builder in tow, but, in Putin’s Russia, he would need the Russian President’s blessing. How he intended to fund this project is not known, but he already had loans with a foreign bank whose most important Board member was Putin.  His pitch to Putin surrogates included the offer of an executive suite on the top floor for the Russian President. But that bribe-like offer had a greater significance to the parallelism topic of this blog. For it also offered President Putin a “quid pro quo” opportunity. It should be noted that he had begun his KGB career as a spy handler, actively recruiting German, French, and Spanish contacts to obtain Western technology. How could an experienced “handler” not recognize Trump’s offer as an opportunity to recruit this perfectly positioned “idiot source”? Besides, Trump was already compromised by his dependence on oligarch money grifted from the Russian people.

These two men also shared similar predispositions besides their persistent pursuit of wealth and power. After his Presidential election, Trump shared many unrecorded calls with Putin and was reported to quote his mentor/handler as his authority when contradicting his foreign intelligence analysts. Recently, he even credited Putin as a “genius” when the Russian President termed his unprovoked war against Ukraine a “military exercise of liberation.” Therein Trump could readily recognize his own pension for branding as depicted in his MAGA slogan and his self-characterization as “the greatest President in history.” It should not be surprising that these two men could relate to each other for they sought the same things—power, fame, wealth—conducted their relations on the same transactional basis, and brandished self-fabricated facades to hide their self-serving intents. Is there not an unlikely paradox in the relation of these two Presidents? Their parallel time in office represented two diametrically opposed political systems, one democratic and the other totalitarian. Even though these two men could not be more different in personality, education, or intellect, they had a common self-serving enterprise and ego-branded facade—surely, yet another paradox.

Before Putin became President, he developed much of his thievery skills as Chairman of the Committee for Foreign Investments in St. Petersburg. While Chairman, he was not only able to skim money from foreign transactions but to amass a coterie of swindlers/enablers in various skimming and money laundering activities. They would become his lifelong partners in many self-enrichment schemes. From 1991 to 1996, Putin rose to prominence in St. Petersburg while enriching his gang of thieves. Together, they worked with foreign mafia contacts, shared ownership in joint foreign and domestic ventures (like the infamous Ozero Cooperative), and hung onto Putin’s coattails as he rose to ultimate power. ² Most of these men now hold prominent positions in both government and industry. They are part of that uniquely Russian clan of wealthy oligarchs, nearly all of whom have become multi-billionaires. Although Trump lacks the skill and knowledge of Putin, he does see himself as the “genius” benefactor his wealthy friends should acknowledge. After he cut the top tax rate from 35 to 21 percent, he exhorted his Mar-a-Lago guests to thank him for “I just made you a lot richer.” To some extent, he was just replicating what corporate tax lobbyists attempt to do, i.e., assure the rich get richer. When he campaigned for the Presidency, he claimed only he could “clear the swamp” in Washington because he bragged that he knew who the dirty politicians were, for he regularly bought them with his campaign contributions. In fact, he included them in his circle of “my people.” But, as with many of Trump’s assertions, his own words convicted him even while condemning others. He is as much a part of that swamp, as Putin is integral to both the wealth and welfare of his oligarchs. They both lead a band of opportunists, if not outright thieves. Again, these two men could not be more different, and yet so paradoxically alike.

During Joe Biden’s campaign for the Presidency, he spoke about the ongoing conflict between democracy and totalitarianism on the world stage. But his words are also relevant to contemporary America. The January 6 insurrection and defilement of the nation’s capital should have awakened all Americans to what Trump had wrought during his four-year term as the nation’s President. As the Nebraska-Kansas Act set the stage for the Civil War, Trump’s refusal to honor the electorate’s decision in 2020 has inspired his followers’ attempts to game future elections. At his urging, they now plan to permanently divide the country while setting the stage for one party rule. And that party, according to the Republican Party’s official platform, would have no other policy agenda than every dictate or whim emanating from Donald Trump. His acolytes would then reenact in future elections the failed 2020 plans revealed by the J/6 Committee. At this very moment, they are attempting to assume positions in Government that would control a/o certify election results. If successful, they would either attempt to reinstall Trump as President or rig future elections in favor of Trump and his chosen candidates. The Republican House Minority Leader has already vowed allegiance to Donald Trump in exchange for his support of a very dark legislative agenda.  If he becomes the Majority leader after the mid-term elections, as he presupposes, he promises to eliminate the Affordable Care Act, cut Social Security and Medicare budgets, codify a ban on all abortions, reduce the 21% tax on wealthy Americans to 15% and make that reduction permanent, eliminate what he terms America’s blank check that supports Ukraine’s war of survival, and repeal much of the Biden agenda passed within his first two years in office, including limits on seniors’ yearly medical expenses, reduction of prescription drug costs and of student tuition debts, and the single largest investment toward mitigating the impact of climate warming in America’s history. He promises to block anticipated Presidential vetoes by simply shutting down the government. But how does his legislative agenda serve the interests of our general welfare? Instead, It rather deepens the divide between the very wealthy and the rest of Americans, furthering the wealth gap, much like what exists in a totalitarian state like Russia.

My previous blog highlighted how Putin rigged his initial election to the Presidency (reference, “Is War in Europe Inevitable?”). After the controversial Duma elections and President Yeltsin’s resignation, he became the acting President with total control over Russia’s electoral system. Donald Trump, however, does not currently have the power to reconstitute the results of the last election or rig his own reelection in 2024. But he can select and support surrogates/stooges for elective offices where they could control future elections, to include the casting, counting, and/or certifying of votes. His intent is obvious. If he cannot overturn the last Federal election, he must rig the next one. He has already begun to do so. As Sherlock Holmes would say, “the game is afoot.” But his underlying premise is based upon the same fallacy espoused by his Russian counterpart. Putin promised that only he as President could assure democratic freedoms for his people, much as Trump promised “only I can” make America great again. But those promises belie a fundamental truth: totalitarianism and democracy are diametrically opposed at every level. Either people are allowed to vote their conscience, or not. Either government reflects the will of most of its citizens or just a few, usually a ruling class and/or a dictator. The general welfare of citizens appears quite different in a democratic versus a totalitarian state as a result. “Government of, by, and for the people” cannot and will never exists under either of these men.

While Putin can resurrect centuries of Russian imperial or communist totalitarianism, Trump must recall and reinvigorate a less distant past of American white male superiority by virtue of race and gender. Could he take America back before the 2009 women’s pay equity legislation, 1960’s hard won voting and civil rights laws, the 1920’s Amendment granting women’s suffrage, and the 1860’s Amendments abolishing slavery and granting civil rights for all, including Black suffrage? It seems as unlikely that Trump could reintroduce white male supremacy as Putin could reestablish Russian rule over its lost empire. Trump is that repulsive male chauvinist caught on tape during his initial Presidential campaign. And Putin is the very embodiment of the “Russian Bear” caricature poised at Europe’s border anxious to swallow up Ukraine, Moldova, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia—If NATO would just allow him to do so.  But it is doubtful that his imperialist appetite would be any more satisfied with these conquests than it was with Chechnya or Georgia. In truth, Belorussia, Poland, Hungry, Czechoslovakia and all of Europe would shudder with that hungry Russian Bear on its border (reference, “The Russian Bear”). Ironically, both Trump and Putin relapse into a recidivism of “better” times that they imagine only they can resurrect. While Trump would reverse much of America’s 234 year evolution of its democracy, Putin would re-introduce Russia to a monarchic and aristocratic era not too dissimilar to the Middle Ages. When these men attain positions of power over others, their only intent is to amass more power, fame, and wealth without the least concern for the will or general welfare of their citizens. Moreover, the ego-obsessed brutishness with which these self-deluded strongmen govern are parallel parodies of paranoia.

Is it necessary—or even appropriate—for America to recover a former greatness or for Russia to reclaim its empire? The pursuit of a MAGA or imperial myth-shrouded past is to ignore responsibility to build a better future. History’s tragedies only repeat themselves when the lessons they record are ignored. In truth, neither Putin nor Trump care more for the welfare of their citizens than the advancement of their own interests and pursuits. While Trump was reducing staffing at the White House and appointing sycophants wherever he could to enhance his power, Putin had already concentrated his authority by placing his St. Petersburg gang in charge of key Russian industries and government positions. ³ Both men recognized the necessity to surround themselves with as few acolytes as they could control and to make themselves both the key decision-makers and prime controllers of their country’s wealth distribution. But Putin was better positioned to succeed in his quest for absolute power. He was following a path well-worn in the aftermath of a totalitarian system that had nurtured him from the very beginning of his career as a KGB operative. In addition, as deputy mayor of St. Petersburg and chairman of the Committee for Foreign Liaison, he obtained sole foreign purchasing authority. This chairmanship allowed him to organize his crime syndicate of smugglers, money launderers, and foreign mafias as his power base while his official government position allowed him to embezzle City funds, siphon off money from foreign sales, and extort money from a legal gaming industry. Putin’s St. Petersburg associates, some from his previous KGB period, were not only beholden to him, but anxious to follow him into his Presidency. They became his trusted cohorts and the wealthy oligarchs he often appointed to dual positions in charge of both key industries and their regulatory institutions. As President, any who might oppose him faced more than his anger, but an enabled flight out of a six story window. His St. Peterburg associates, however, he protected as fellow collaborators through whom he maintained control over key business sectors and much of Russia’s wealth. Likewise, Trump attempted to use his Presidency to profit himself (as detailed in previous blogs) and “his” billionaires. He was also willing to harm his or their supposed enemies. While Putin could use his FSB to quietly silence his opposition, Trump attempted to use the Department of Justice to punish his supposed enemies like CNN’s Jeff Zucker, and benefit Fox’s Richard Murdoch, his friend, prime supporter, and initially his regular confidant. In like manner, he tried to find a way to help his Florida neighbor from Palm Beach, Nelson Peltz, in his complaint against a common foe, Jeff Bezos of Amazon. Peltz had a $3.5 billion stake in Procter and Gamble, which he felt was threatened by Amazon’s purchase of Whole Foods, a major competitor. Of course, Trump was anxious to help since he considered Bezos’ purchase of The Washington Post a personal affront to himself. ⁴ Fortunately for America, Trump only appointed a few billionaires to cabinet positions in his government, though his policies could and did benefit many more of them. By comparison, he proved to be just a Putin wannabe or, as I have previously coined, a “Putin’s mini-me.”

It might seem that America’s very democratic roots would explain how its abhorrence of past czars or Soviet totalitarianism would naturally extend to Putin’s present day autocracy. But that assumption would be wrong. There were monarchists amongst our pre-revolution colonists. And there have been anarchists who have risen against our federal system of government throughout our history, not just during our Civil War. Texas once sought individual statehood and threatened war against the United States of America. Even the liberal focus of the so-called Locofoco’s transmuted itself many times between 1820-1870 to support potentially contending rights, meshing laissez-faire economics with the individual rights claimed by classical liberalism. Have we Americans ever resolved this conflict between hyper-capitalism and an equitable distribution of wealth in a democratic society (reference “American Exceptionalism Revisited”). Both the “robber barons” and the civil rights movements of women and Blacks claim their heritage from classical liberalism. Within America’s quest for individual freedoms, we can find white supremacists like the Klu Klux Klan from the 1870’s, Hitlerism in the 1930’s, McCarthyism in the 1950’s, Gov. Wallace in the 1960’s, and the Republican Party’s current flirtation with fascism (referenced here in its historical, rather than philosophical contexts). The point of this argument is that devotion to democracy is not divorced from the vagaries of human ambition or of its moral pitfalls. The paradox here is not in democracy, but in human nature.

How can men like Trump or Putin rise to occult-like power and demand absolute loyalty of their followers and/or subjects? Perhaps this loyalty is explained by Robert Wright’s diagnosis of a “conformist bias” in our nature (as quoted in “What is American Democracy’s Fate?”). Are we then so tribal by nature that we can ignore their actions—even at the expense of our American democracy or Ukrainian lives?  Both Putin and Trump violate the trust and moral beliefs of the people who willfully support their Don Quixote enterprises. But I know most Americans are not yet under the MAGA spell and would never consciously concede to the overthrow of our 234 year-old democracy. Likewise, I doubt that Russians not bilked by Putin’s propaganda would support his genocidal and unprovoked war upon a nation with which they share a common inheritance.

Although Russia and America exist under very different political and economic systems, they both suffer from opportunists who share a common interest in accumulating wealth and power at the expense of the governed. These men—yes, they are always men—will rig elections, surround themselves with their “gang of thieves,” create a “protection racket” to quell their enemies, and justify their ill-got gains as the messianic restorers of an imagined “past golden age.” This latter delusion is the product of their paranoia whereby they see themselves as the “great leader” whom all must acknowledge and follow. The architype they present to their followers is not that of a father, but of a warrior who will lead them into battle and eventual conquest. Neither Trump nor Putin are satisfied with merely winning but in vanquishing their enemies. Trump will destroy free elections, avoid accountability for his lawlessness, and disregard our system of checks and balances to become President forever. Putin will destroy Ukraine and any other independent country he considers an obstacle to his mission of recreating a Russian empire. Neither of these men want to destroy capitalism or their respective governments. Parasites need host victims. Instead, they choose to expand wealth creation, but mainly for themselves and their loyal cronies. And, of course, their egos demand obeisance and supreme command over their respective nations. Ironically, neither man fits the model of a warrior-king: Putin is a control freak, scared of being preempted (reference his quote from the title of my previous blog); and Trump is an occult leader demanding obeisance and undeserved flattery from others. Neither can withstand opposition. Trump will throw a temper tantrum or pen a hateful tweet; Putin will reserve a jail cell for anyone he finds disagreeable or personally offensive. These are men who have attained great power, but who act like ten-year-old brats and schoolyard bullies.

Paradoxically, both men seem bent on returning to the early 19^th century, before the American Civil War and the fall of the Russian empire. An historian might conclude that they are both anachronistic in time and place—historically, square pegs misfitted into round holes. And that observation makes the parallelisms noted here the central paradox⁵ of this blog.

( . . . A Relevant Footnote for my American Readers:

It’s well past the time for us to turn away from unsupported “facts” and “assumptions” purported by bias news sources, hearsay internet nonsense, and incendiary political speech. Democracy cannot survive without an informed electorate. Check your sources. Challenge unsupported arguments. Research incendiary “facts” and withhold your consent until verified by trusted sources. The information age can be a wondrous expansion of individual awareness and knowledge. But it has also proved to be a bottomless well of misinformation, gossip, and self-serving propaganda. Our democracy depends upon us as informed and committed citizens.)

_____________________________________________________

¹ This quote and the Russian stats mentioned in this paragraph are taken from Thomas Piketty’s “A Time for Socialism,” pp. 178-181.

² These references to Putin’s work in St. Petersburg are described by Karen Dawisha in “Putin’s Kleptocracy,” Chapter 3, “Putin in St. Petersburg 1990-1996,” pp. 104-162. It should be noted that Putin began assembling his gang of miscreants while working for the KGB from 1985 forward. Eventually, he rose to the KGB leadership before becoming Prime Minister and then Acting President in 1999. He was still head of the renamed KGB, the FSB (Federal’ Naya Sluzhba Bezopasnosti), when he was finally “elected” to the Presidency.

³ Dawisha, ibid, the references in this paragraph to Putin’s Moscow period are taken from Chapter 4, “Putin in Moscow, 1990-1999,” pp.224-265.

⁴ Peter Baker and Susan Glasser, “The Divider,” pp.54-59.

⁵ According to Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, the etymology of “paradox” is the Greek, para, near, beside, along, and doka, opinion, notion, expectation. But, as anybody who has studied the Greek language knows (?), doka can be used in context to mean false opinion, delusion, or fancy (ref. Langenscheidt’s Greek-English dictionary). Webster does provide a definition closer to Greek usage: “a tenet contrary to received opinion” or “a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true.” In ancient Greek, word definitions can subtlety change in context. In the context of this article, “paradox” is the only appropriate word that captures the odd, conflicting parallelism of democracy/kleptocracy, wealth/grift, ideals/delusion, or Trump/Putin. Regarding this last parallelism, I suspect my readers have no need of a Greek dictionary to relate to my phrase “parallel parodies of paranoia.”