Brutal Peace

[TOC: all blog posts]

Crabbe and Goyle, in the Harry Potter book series, seem to like a bully. They are always willing to aid and abet, if not implement, the schemes of Draco Malfoy. They are not alone; consider American foreign policy.

Imagine a schoolyard bully beating up a scrappy little kid for his lunch money. The bully is huge and has a reputation for brutality, so most kids stand back, hoping the little kid somehow gets out of this mess. Some of them encourage him to keep fighting back. He's holding his own.

Finally, an upperclassman, who's even bigger than the bully comes by. He shouts at the two boys to stop fighting. The bully ignores him, so his victim keeps defending himself. The older boy decides he needs to do something to restore peace.

He walks up to the fighters, and tells the smaller boy to hand over his lunch money. "What do I get in return?!" the boy asks. 

"He'll stop beating on you," the older boy says.

"Is that it? I'll keep fighting!"

The upperclassman then grabs the smaller boy, pins his arms, and tells the bully to keep punching. The victim can no longer fight back, so he gives up his lunch money.

The upperclassman and the bully walk away, congratulating themselves on their masterful restoration of the peace. The bully offers the upperclassman half of the lunch money. He quickly accepts. And winks.

The U.S.-brokered "peace plan" for the war in Ukraine is not so different from this, except that the stakes are far more serious. And the self-appointed peacemaker spent time conspiring with the bully to make sure all the bully's demands would be met. Who knew that the American ideal is to side with Goliath.

But the kid hasn't given up his lunch money yet. Some of us are still rooting for him. And maybe, if enough of us stick up for him, the bully and his even bigger ally will back down. Of course being bullies, with their fragile egos, they'll require the rest of us to pretend that they won anyhow. I suppose we will, if it means the kid can keep his lunch money and get back to his schoolwork.

Oh, and just a random thought: although Draco Malfoy survives the final battle between good and evil, Crabbe is killed and Goyle likely imprisoned.

Dissidents

[TOC: all blog posts]

Two Russian dissidents, armed only with words and the force of public opinion, faced authoritarian regimes. Both were imprisoned for speaking out. One was exiled, the other killed.

I recently read their memoirs:

• Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: The Oak and the Calf
• Alexei Navalny: Patriot: A Memoir

Navalny makes the point that the Soviet regime, which persecuted Solzhenitsyn, was worse than Putin's oligarchy. Yet Navalny was the one to die in prison.

One could argue that it was his own fault. After an unsuccessful assassination attempt through poisoning, he returned to his homeland. He didn't have to. But he was in no way at fault. His death was the fault of the regime that poisoned him, imprisoned him, killed him.

I reread The Oak and the Calf because I remembered a reference to "conservatives" in the government who did not want to allow publication of Solzhenitsyn's books. This struck me at the time as strange, because I thought of Communists as left-wing, which is another word for liberal, which has commonly been thought of as the opposite to conservative. In his memoir, I think, Solzhenitsyn uses the "conservative" label for stick-in-the-mud fuddy-duddies who wouldn't change their ways rather than as an indication of their political ideology. But Navalny too accuses Russian Communists (after the Soviet Union) of being "more conservative than even the American right" (p. 186).

Solzhenitsyn's title is from a Russian proverb about a young calf head-butting an oak tree, presumably with some delusions of winning the battle.

In America, we like to think President Reagan brought on the fall of the Soviet empire. I'm pretty sure Solzhenitsyn was even more responsible: the oak fell. And he was rewarded with the opportunity to return home. His assessment, too, was that Putin's regime was better than the Soviet era. I suspect that even now, after the imprisonment and murder of a man whose efforts were so like his own, Solzhenitsyn would still prefer Putin to the USSR. But I expect he would be outraged and would speak up. Or would he be more "conservative"?

Navalny's memoir is more relevant than that of his predecessor. The iron fist now wears a glove, but it is still ruthless and it has more propaganda tools than ever. "In the twenty-first century you are confronted not just by the machinery of a repressive state but by the PR machinery of that state." (p 138) "Propagandists," he says, "create a public opinion that no longer simply enables Putin to commit war crimes but demands them." (p. 430)

The courage of one man to speak up against a corrupt government and against its stupid, unjust war against Ukraine is an inspiration. We should all aspire to his persistence, determination, fearlessness, patience, faith, and humor.

Buy Navalny's book. Support his widow and his children made fatherless by Putin. A simple purchase can be another piece of the puzzle of describing and protesting autocracy.

Our country is not as far gone as Putin's vast fiefdom, but not for lack of trying by the current administration. There are too many similarities. Shutting down and shutting up the opposition is reaching new heights in the land of the free. Let's learn from dissidents and at least remain the home of the brave.

Conspiracy Theory

As the Russia connection keeps heating up, some Trump opponents seem sure the scandal will bring him down. I have a nagging fear that it won't.

Suppose he's clever. Suppose he knows what is involved and that it's messy but not strictly illegal. He plays this issue, blusters and bloviates, blames others, twists the facts, brags about his rights, stonewalls. (The Trumps are very practiced at blocking legal proceedings, and the Donald isn't likely to change his strategy now.)

Trump may be playing our fear and loathing against us. He may not master much, but he is a practiced master of deceit. What if, after Trump and associates invest in months of obstruction, the facts finally come to light—unseemly and more than a little aggravating, but no impeachable offenses.

By making this one issue the primary focus, we run the risk of losing big. The obstructionism could merely be a ploy to keep demanding our attention for months on end, only to let the less-than-criminal results finally come out. In the end, Trump's detractors could be humiliated while his supporters revel in the win. By association, his other misdeeds are proclaimed to be equally innocuous.

Meanwhile, so many colossal issues gain traction because this one seems the colossus. He refuses to release his tax returns so America has a baseline for judging whether he uses his office to enrich himself. Legislation that favors his economic class expands. Bigotry and intolerance increase. Congress joins the President in kicking at the fingers of those barely clinging to hope and healthcare. The environment groans. Dependable allies are abandoned and ridiculed out of some perceived slight of his honor. Great piles of lies accumulate so high we can no longer see the truth somewhere beyond.

The Russia connection needs to be investigated. I hope those who see it bringing an end to this presidency are correct. But it is only one small part of the picture. Let's keep applying pressure on all fronts. Let's make sure we aren't duped into expending too much energy and reputation on this one issue.