About the benefits of lobbying

I'm afraid that lately I've been a little overzealous in organizing sessions of masochism with elements of exhibitionism. Reading and subsequent public commentary on the works of Slavoj Žižek and Ulrike Meinhof and their comrades led me to the conviction that the state of the Russian market for political literature is quite deplorable. Simply put, I decided that normal non-fiction about the situation in Russia and the world in Russian does not exist at all.

The review of positions began last week, when I came across an excellent book by Pavel Sheremet and Svetlana Kalinkina about Alexander Lukashenko. The matter was completed by the study I read the other day by Eduard Lozansky, “Ethnicities and Lobbying in the USA. On the Prospects of the Russian Lobby in America” (International Relations Publishing House).

This is a case where a book delivers more than its title promises. In essence, E. Lozansky offers the reader a rich outline of American foreign and domestic policy. The author talks in detail about the history of US immigration legislation, demonstrates how the attitude of the population and authorities towards national minorities has changed and how the self-determination of diasporas themselves has developed, and traces the formation of political and ethnic lobbying from its inception to the present day. Central to the book is the story of how the concept of a melting pot country was replaced in America by the pathos of multiculturalism. This process was not easy, with prohibitions at the top and the Ku Klux Klan at the bottom, but as a result, over the past decades, a radical change has occurred in US politics - the country actually abandoned the declaration of relying exclusively on wasps, finally recognizing its multi-ethnicity and multi-confessionalism. In 1947, President Truman publicly called America a Christian country for the last time; subsequent presidents could no longer afford such political incorrectness.

Perhaps the author's optimism will seem excessive to some readers of the book. E. Lozansky conscientiously presents arguments for and against the current US immigration policy, but he himself is clearly on the side of those who do not see the growing number of unassimilated immigrants as a serious threat to the foundations of American society. The concerns of Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington , who point to the weakening of public consensus on liberal democracy as an inevitable consequence of the triumph of multiculturalist ideology, apparently do not seem very justified to him.

Be that as it may, the author is absolutely right in his statement: America cannot return to the practice of limiting immigration not only for moral reasons, but also for elementary economic reasons. The birth rate in the States is low, there are not enough young people, but you want to maintain a high standard of living - so you have to import workers from third world countries. As a result, “by 2050, there are expected to be fewer whites in America than Hispanics, Asians, and African Americans . ” In other words, “the world as we know it is coming to an end . ”

However, for E. Lozansky all this is a saying. The main moral of the book lies in the polite reprimand that the author gives to Russian officialdom for its reluctance to use the lobbying potential of the six million-strong diaspora as effectively as Israel, Haiti or Croatia do. Based on the simple and indisputable idea that the strategic interests of Russia and the United States coincide, E. Lozansky explains the problems in bilateral relations by the fact that our country is losing the war for its image: “The discriminatory Jackson-Vanik amendment adopted back in 1974 has not yet been repealed, depriving Russia of most favored nation status in trade with the United States, the visa regime for Russian citizens entering the United States has been tightened, Hollywood is using Russians as prototypes of negative characters, etc. And all this does not cause any organized resistance . "

In part, the book about lobbying can be read as an act of lobbying by E. Lozansky for the interests of the Russia House - Washington company created and headed by him . An association “engaged in establishing political, business, scientific and cultural cooperation between Russia and the United States” would, of course, benefit from the status of an official unofficial representative of the interests of the Russian Federation in the States. And, judging by Lozansky’s book, this would benefit not only the Russia House, but also Russia.

By the way, the Soviet authorities used the mechanisms of international lobbying for their interests much more successfully than the Russian authorities. There was a special institute of “export” lobbyists, whose roles, as a rule, were “permitted liberals” from among cultural figures. The most obvious example from the 60-70s is, of course, Yevtushenko and Voznesensky, and in an earlier period such a global ambassador of the USSR was Ilya Erenburg.

“The Ehrenburg case” is discussed in detail in the book of the same name by Benedikt Sarnov (a joint publication of “Text” and the House of Jewish Books). One of the brilliant aphorisms of Viktor Shklovsky, who called Ehrenburg Pavel Savlovich, was used as an epigraph. However, despite the duality inherent in this definition, B. Sarnov’s half-research, half-memoir would be more accurately called “Ehrenburg’s Vindication.” The author clearly acts as a lawyer for his hero, with whom he has been in close contact for several years and who is humanly sympathetic to him.

One of the central points of this defensive speech is the episode of 1953, when Ehrenburg did not sign an appeal to Pravda by several dozen scientists, generals, and writers of Jewish origin, accusing Soviet Jews of aiding world Zionism and thus preparing the ground for their subsequent expulsion. Moreover, refusing to sign this text, Ehrenburg sent Stalin his own letter, where, in a language understandable to the leader, he urged him to abandon the idea of ​​​​deportation. According to B. Sarnov, this letter not only reached the addressee, but was also perceived by him as a guide to action, serving as the reason for “some change in Stalin’s immediate plans . ”

The book about Ehrenburg is the final part of a kind of trilogy, the previous parts of which, “Hostage of Eternity. The Case of Mandelstam” and “The Coming of Captain Lebyadkin. The Case of Zoshchenko,” were written during the Brezhnev era and published several years ago. For my taste, the last “Case” turned out to be more successful than the others, which is natural - the language of B. Sarnov (you can call it sixties, but this definition, of course, does not explain much) is quite suitable for describing Ehrenburg, but is hopeless when trying to analyze Mandelstam.

The funniest thing in the book is the traces of the war with professionals that its author has been waging for many years. He pronounces the word “poetry expert” with the intonation with which other people talk about pickpockets. Last year's article by B. Sarnov, “ Why count Igor Kobzev’s debtors? ” read like a manifesto of beautiful amateurism, opposed to narrow specialization. Recently in the magazine "Lechaim" B. Sarnov attacked Lotman, but there was a misfortune - he confused father with son and instead of Yu.M. attacked M.Yu. Moreover, he supported his arguments with a photograph of Lotman Sr. - the same famous one with the mustache. So in “The Ehrenburg Case” the names of Mikhail Gasparov and Gennady Kostyrchenko appear again - in a context, of course, that is the most derogatory.

Ehrenburg was an intellectual idol of the 50s and 60s. When I was young, I read B. Sarnov’s texts in the perestroika “Ogonyok” in the late 80s. The 70s were the time of Nathan Eidelman. A shelf with his books was a mandatory attribute of almost every humanitarian home.

In recent years, Eidelman has been published a lot, but chaotically. Therefore, the collection of works of the outstanding historian, started by the Vagrius publishing house , is certainly a useful undertaking. Today, “The Edge of Ages” (about Paul I) and “The Last Chronicler” (about Karamzin) have already been published. Next up are books about the Decembrists.

It is generally accepted that Eidelman belonged to the galaxy of those amazing humanists of the seventies who knew how to write in such a way as to be interesting to a professional and accessible to a layman. Usually Lotman is named next to Eidelman in such cases. Don't know; in my opinion, the general availability of both is very deceptive. Both of them were undoubtedly the greatest experts in their fields, and therefore reading them, like any serious researchers, without prior preparation is not at all an easy task. Without in any way detracting from the educational talents of Yu.M. and N.Ya., nevertheless, let me note that their popularity was largely a political phenomenon.

I first read “The Last Chronicler” when I was 12 years old, “The Edge of Centuries” - several years later, under the impression of Solovyov’s “Assa”. Until now, when I reach the phrases “He will be childish, go reign” and “Father died of an apoplexy, everything will be with me as with my grandmother ,” I pronounce them to myself with the same intonation with which Palen and Alexander pronounced these remarks in film.

What is characteristic is that in Eidelman’s “Assa” the negative Krymov-Govorukhin reads, and not the positive Banana-Africa. This is probably why today the Bananas stage mediocre performances and mingle with the Limonites, while the best people of the new Russia, all sorts of Potanins and Abramovichs, came out of the Krymovs. Some, alas, turned out to be Bykovs (in this case I’m talking about Anatoly), but this can be attributed to production waste.

A sad paradox: the Soviet Union was, of course, an evil empire, a magnet that attracted to itself all the most vile things that had accumulated in the world. But at the same time, the compulsory reading circle of the intellectual of the 70s included Eidelman and Lotman, and not Harold Bloom or, God forgive me, Subcomandante Marcos, as in today's intellectual get-togethers. Feel the difference. Hiring a lobbying company to rectify the situation, but I’m afraid it won’t help.

for providing the books . The author thanks the “Phalanster” store (B. Kozikhinsky lane, 10, tel. 504-47-95)