Least Convincing Contrast Of All Time
Posted on November 20th, 2008
by Daniel Larison |
|
While Washington is worried about Main Street, in Russia the government wants to rescue the oligarchs — at the expense of the Russian taxpayer. ~Garry Kasparov
In fact, both are quite similar: the government is using taxpayer money to bail out powerful financial interests that have developed a strong relationship with the government. In theory, the benefit and cost to the public is much the same, but when it is done in Moscow it is a horrendous swindle. It seems to me that if it is a swindle there, it is a swindle here as well. However, I suppose that’s not something that one would want to mention in the oligarchs’ preferred paper.
I don’t know whether Kasparov really believes the administration line that our bailout was aimed at protecting “Main Street” interests or if he is just being careless in reminding people that our bailout was more or less directed to our own set of oligarchs. Either way, this is perhaps the weakest point in a typically weak Kasparov article, which argues that unless Obama becomes even more fervently anti-Russian, er, anti-Putin he will have forfeited the mantle of change. Is it any wonder why Russian liberals go nowhere?
Filed under: politics
5 Responses to “Least Convincing Contrast Of All Time”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
A Russian dissident who advocates slavishly aping the West will get nowhere. There is an internaitonal “human rights’ constituency that will fawn over such dissidents, but the more fawning occurs, the less popular the dissident will be at home. Any solutions for Russia will have to proceed organically from Russian history and tradition, even if these have to be revived somewhat artificially after the nightmare of Bolshevism.
Russia has huge problems, which go far deeper than the politics of the moment. Peter tried aping the West, an experiment that bore some fruit, but ultimately failed. Peter was a far bigger man than Gary Kasparov.
“Peter was a far bigger man than Gary Kasparov.”
In more ways than one, I think.
I dont undestand; Kasparov seems to be against the oligarchs when he derides the bailout of them. But he doesnt want to mention that in their preferred paper?
Perhaps I was trying to be too clever with that formulation. By the oligarchs’ preferred paper, I meant the WSJ, and the oligarchs to which I was referring are the American ones.
Oh, got it, thanks.