2.2. Forbidden questions in public politics of USA and Russia 2.2.1. The original sin of statehood
“About the current moment” №11(83), November 2008. Bureaucratic despair in Russia and global project “Obama” · перевод (English) · раздел 6 из 13
Перевод исходного произведения; точность перевода оценивается отдельно.
2.2. Forbidden questions in public politics of USA and Russia 2.2.1. The original sin of statehood
One of the forbidden subjects for public discussion in post-soviet Russia is the issue of its “original sin”. The matter here is that post-soviet statehood of Russian Federation as well as of the rest of post-soviet states on former USSR territory originated despite the will of people of USSA, who during 1991 referendum explicitly declared their desire to maintain the union and continue development of its culture and economy [6].
And consequently current statehood of RF is legislatively illegitimate, which both Putin and Medvedev are bound to understand as both have degrees in law [7].
And the “founding farther” of post-soviet Russia - Boris Nikolaevitch Yeltsin [8], often referred to as EBN by the people - one of the destroyers of the USSR despite the will of its people. But this is not all: liquidation of socialist regime and Soviet power with its own internal forces, dissection of the country, destruction of its military force and creation of the system of economical and ideological dependency of the country on outside world is clearly stated in the Directive of Department of Homeland Security of the USA 20/1 of 08. 18.1948 “The goals of the USA in Russia ” [v]. Therefore one cannot help but raise a question of treason of the people of USSR and RF by M. Gorbatchev, A. Yakovlev, B. Yeltsin and number of other politicians of the time (officially is a crime).
And fairly large part of ex-USSR population is convinced that Yeltsin was not at all the leader of democratic movement and founder of democratic (and in future prosperous) Russia. They believe that he was nothing but ambitious carrier bureaucrat of party-apparatus incompetent in any professional field, whose outlook and depth of worldview were clearly insufficient to lead a country not mentioning country in crisis. They are convinced that he was hypocrite and shameless villain who was tricked with ambitions to take the role of the “motherland savior” in order to, behind his back, first execute above mentioned DHS Directive 20/1 from 08.18.1948 and secondly “cut coupons” on the principle “money don’t smell, and if they do - they smell quite nicely”: what was primary objective of every participant of USSR destruction and of building bandit-oligarch’s capitalism in Russia of Yeltsin times - does not matter.
However on the contrary to this historical truth [vi] all representatives of Russian “elite” and mostly political “elite” in all their public speeches talk about Yeltsin as a man of exceptional good will, who work hard and honestly, risking his health and life (second presidential campaign continued despite his heart attack) for the good of humanity even though he made a lot of mistakes in the difficult business that he started. However for those mistakes he sincerely apologized in his address to the people of Russia on 12.31.1999, which showed his non-lust for power and an example of democracy. He also found very capable successor, under whose management Russia succeeded to solve many issues of nineties, which boosted his ratings higher than those of Yeltsin himself. And all in all for the total sum of his actions he deserves respect and therefore to preserve his memory his name should be given to many streets, libraries (inc. the Presidential Library in St. Petersburg), scholarships and educational institutions.
Opinions of those who stick to negative assessment of Yeltsin’s personality and his work are not discussed in Russian public politics, as if those opinions do not exist at all, or as if those are obvious nonsense and lies, as if there never was DHS’s Directive 20/1 of 08.18.1948, executed in its major propositions with active involvement of Yeltsin, who allegedly returned the country to the main route of the development after 70 years of deception and evil actions of Soviet forces.
The worst that Putin could allow himself to say in public speeches was admitting that fall of the USSR was the greatest tragedy for many people and for which he was reproached by whole liberal community both in Russia and abroad. In all other cases Putin publicly acknowledged his adherence to the following version: “Boris Yeltsin is the founding farther of democratic Russia and an outstanding politician whose grateful memory should be kept for centuries”, although as an employee of Special Agencies Putin is bound to know about DHS’s Directive 20/1 of 08.18.1948 and many other facts that do not conform to the cult liberal myth about establishment of post-soviet states on former USSR territory. And neither Putin nor any other public politician or journalist bothered to look into algorithmic of that catastrophe, using facts that do not fit into sweet-liberal version of Russian history.
United States of America also have an “original sin” of their own: USA started as slave-ship state and functioned in those conditions for not less than hundred of years before legislative abolishment of slavery as a result of the North victory over the South during civil was of 1861-1865.
It is well known that slaves were massively imported from Africa, they were black and even founding furthers who wrote American Constitution and Bill of Rights themselves owned slaves. Now black people in America (in the majority descendants of slaves) are called African-Americans [9] and legislatively have the same rights as any white citizen of the US. But American historical past has such nature that US future is in many ways dependent on the question of whether or not their society can overcome “original sin” of American statehood, elaborating a common and uniting approach to the historic past of their country, which will be a sound foundation for building future America, free from flaws of the past and present one.
Barack Obama, who himself is not a descendent from African slaves (his farther immigrated from Kenia and his mother is Caucasian) freely deliberates on the problem of “original sin” of American statehood, focusing on the task of freeing society from its burden, in the way that he understands it. He is ready to dialogue with his opponents, but only if the talk is to the point, and not in some “abstract humanism” style deadly to people; and he does not hold grudge towards founding fathers of the US, who, although owned slaves, could however express ideals that can be supported by many millions, if not billions of people around the world. Barack Obama writes:
«I recognize the risks of talking this way, In an era of globalization and dizzying technological change, cutthroat politics and unremitting culture wars we don’t even seem to possess a shared language with which to discuss our ideals much less the tools to arrive to at some rough consensus about how, as a nation, we can work together to bring those ideals about. Most of us are wise to the ways of admen, pollsters, speechwriters and pundits. We know how high flying words can be deployed in the service of cynical aims, and how the noblest sentiments can be subverted in the name of power, expedience, greed, or intolerance. Even the standard high school history textbook notes the degree, to which, from its very inception, the reality of American life have strayed from its myths.” (p.8).
And never the less he insist on the truthfulness of ideals and necessity of bringing them about, despite all the mistakes and abuse of the past and despite the actions of those who make mistakes and abuse their power in present.
And this is precisely the key idea of the book, that gives an impression that Obama is not a talkative hypocrite, but sincere activist with good intentions, and then one can understand those Americans who trusted him with presidential power.
“ “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness“
Those simple words are our starting point as Americans; they describe not only the foundation of our government but the substance of out common creed. Not every American may be able to recite them; few, if asked, could trace the genesis of the Declaration of Independence to its roots in eighteenth-century liberal and republican thought. But the essential idea behind the Declaration - that we are born into this world free, all of us; that each of us arrives with a bindle of rights that can’t be taken away by any person or any state without just cause; that through our own agency we can, and must, make of our lives what we will - is one that every American understands. It orients us, sets our course each and every day.
Indeed, the value of individual freedom is so deeply ingrained in us that we tend to take it for granted. It is easy to forget that at the time of our nation’s founding this idea was entirely radical in its implications, as radical as Martin Luther’s posting on the church door. It is an idea that some portion of the world still rejects - and for which an even larger portion of humanity finds scant evidence in their daily lives.” (p.53)
Of course every nation has their own Smerdyakovs [vii] and at times there are too many of them due to the particularities of historical development of events, but generally the majority of people will full heartedly agree with the above quoted words of Declaration of independence of the USA, because they would prefer to live in such society which will make those words reality.
However the problem is in the fact that the majority, including Americans, does not know how to bring those ideals about…
And therefore entire history of the USA is a consequence of their original sin: a gap, often abyss, between undoubtedly humanistic declarations and practical politics.
A bit further in the book Barack Obama looks in more details into Constitution of the USA and its role in life of the country throughout its entire history (obviously, talking about Constitution in a manner detached from life with its many realistic factors is nonsense):
In sum, the Constitution envisions a road map by which we marry passion to reason, the ideal of individual freedom to the demands of community. And the amazing thing is that it’s worked. Through the early days of the Union, through depressions and world wars, through the multiple transformations of the economy and Western expansion and the arrival of millions of immigrants to our shores, our democracy has not only survived but has thrived. It has been tested, of course, during times of was and fear, and it will no doubt be tested again in the future.
But only once has the conversation broken down completely, and that was over the one subject the Founders refused to talk about.
The Declaration of Independence may have been, in the words of historian Joseph Ellis, “a transformative moment in the world history, when all laws and human relationships dependent on coercion would be wept away forever”. But that spirit of liberty didn’t extend, in the minds of the Founders, to the slaves, who worked their fields, made their beds, and nursed their children.
The Constitution’s exquisite machinery would secure the rights of citizens; those deemed members of America ’s political community. But it provided no protection to those outside to constitutional circle - the Native American whose treaties proved worthless before the court of the conqueror, or the black man Dred Scott, who would walk into the Supreme Court a free man and leave a slave.
(…)
There’s a school of thought that sees the Founding Fathers only as hypocrites and the Constitution only as a betrayal of the grand ideals set forth by the Declaration of Independence; that agrees with early abolitionists that the Great Compromise between North and South was a pact with the Devil. Others, representing the safer, more conventional wisdom, will insist that all the constitutional compromise on slavery - the omission of abolitionist sentiments from the original draft of the Declaration, the Three-fifths clause, the self-imposed gag rule that the Twenty-fourth Congress would place on all debate regarding the issue of slavery, the very structure of federalism and the Senate - was necessary, if unfortunate, requirement for the formation of the Union; that in their silence, the Founders only sought to postpone what they were certain would be slavery’s ultimate demise; that this single lapse cannot detract from the genius of the Constitution, which permitted the space for abolitionists to rally and the debate to proceed, and provided the framework by which, after the Civil Was had been fought the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments [viii] could be passed, and the Union finally perfected.
How can I, an American with the blood of Africa coursing though my veins, choose sides in such dispute? I can’t. I love America too much, am too invested in what this country has become, too committed to its institutions, its beauty and even its ugliness, to focus entirely on the circumstances of its birth. But neither can I brush aside the magnitude of the injustice done, or erase the ghosts of generations past, or ignore the open wound, the aching spirit that ails this country still.” (P.95-97)
In short, his position on the matter of the relationship between present and past is similar to the one of Russian historian V.O. Klutchevski: “We need to know the past not because it has happened, but because on its way out it could not hide its consequences”, which means that unacceptable consequences of the past must be eliminated.
Further on B. Obama concentrates on history of fight against slavery and names those - slaves, free, simple people, and state officials - who sacrificed their lives to the noble task of slavery elimination, and concludes:
“The blood of slaves reminds us that our pragmatism can sometimes be moral cowardice. Lincoln, and those buried at Gettysburg, reminds us that we should pursue our own absolute truths only if we acknowledge that there may be a terrible price to pay” (p. 98).
He also pays attention to the crimes of USA statehood towards both its own people and population of other countries, which throughout American history were a great many. And he clearly expresses his opinion getting to the heart of the matter.
In relation to the whole problematic mentioned in Obama’s book, he expresses a right - from managerial education point of view - position:
· It does not matter how the managed object (managed system) has come to one or the other situation
· It only matters to what extent this situation is adequately identified and its problematic is being diagnosed, what future goals are set, and what ways towards achieving those goals are suggested.
The goals themselves are unchangeable - bringing to life ideals, expressed in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, which includes the totality of: 1) objective ideals, 2) real goal-setting in politics, which is provided by objective and subjective factors of historical specifics, and 3) means to achieve the goals. The second and third, as history shows, can be deceiving, and keeping in mind possibility of mistakes, it is necessary to act in the direction of revealing and bringing those ideals about. To illustrate such example Obama brings up A. Lincoln:
“ I like to believe that for Lincoln, (…) it was a matter of maintaining within himself the balance between two contradictory ides - that we must talk and reach for common understandings, precisely because all of us are imperfect and can never act with the certainty that God is on our side; and yet at times we must act nonetheless, as if we are certain, protected from error only by providence.” (p. 98).
That last phrase would have been a more precise expression of the reality of life is it sounded like that: “we must act in the way for the providence to protect us from error”. But independently from the way you put it in words, this morally-ethical principle is in itself very well grounded in reality, provided that the subject will follow it sincerely, because God is not indifferent to what is happening on Earth, and religion - dialog with God through one’s inner world and flow of life circumstances.
From the systematic position of such sort of principles B. Obama concentrates not only on problematic of life of American society: possibility of personal growth and self-realization in given historical and cultural circumstances, real and desired policy of American statehood in relation to these circumstances; internal and external policies and other questions. He looks at those issues in in their mutual correlation, in specifics, not avoiding the facts, that are unpleasant for nice myths about USA, and thus confirming the principle mentioned in the beginning of his book:
“I believe in free speech, whether politically correct or politically incorrect…” (p. 10)