For the sake of a nice word

Articles about the "Kremlin project" of the liberal party, streaming on the Internet, are more and more reminiscent of texts submitted to the Literary Institute for a competition before the entrance exams - there you need to show that a person ...

Articles about the "Kremlin project" of the liberal party, streaming on the Internet, more and more resemble texts submitted to the Literary Institute for a competition before the entrance exams - they need to show that a person can be taught and learned to be a writer.

In any case, the spirit of this kind of competitiveness is evident in the headlines: “Knee-deep in Barshchevsky”, “The Nano-Party will be born in pain or a requiem for the Union of Right Forces”, “Freedom is better than a test tube with broth”. Thoughts are not enough. There is more and more beauty of the style, and they serve mainly to offend more painfully. Those who agreed to an unpleasant party combination invented (according to rumors - by the same invisible political technologists who wrote the book “Ears are waving a donkey”, where they openly admire Hitler’s propaganda and strive to learn from it) and offered by the Kremlin.

Why I am on the side of those who were forced to agree, was explained earlier in the article “Reflections at the front door” (published on October 2 in Vedomosti). Its essence was that if the liberal idea was taken hostage by the authorities (this year, for example, not a single SPS list was registered at all in local elections), then it is necessary to negotiate with those who are holding the hostages, and not with those who cute. Not to agree means, for an unknown period, to cede the entire legal field to little-respected imperious and cunning uncles. And from what, exactly? ..

We can already draw some conclusions.

Actually, what has been happening for almost a month and a half can hardly be called a struggle. Everyone can see how Leonid Gozman, like a wolf with his back against the wall, daily defends himself, grinning in all directions, from a whole pack of wolfhounds. The attackers do not hide their goal - to morally destroy A. Chubais, L. Gozman and everyone who agrees with them. And those, on the contrary, fully recognize (and I, along with them) the need, along with the "legal" party, as well as a broad opposition movement with street processions, rallies, etc. (L. Gozman, by the way, took part in such a procession last fall - although he was warned in advance about a very tough dispersal). They are not busy looking for insulting epithets for those who have chosen the rally path, but boring and at the same time painful things - drawing up a charter, program, etc., with upholding liberal values ​​​​in them (so far it seems to be successful).

The all-on-one picture is generally deeply unpleasant, but there is an addition to it. I deeply despise some of the leaders of the Kremlin - those who have set themselves the goal of corrupting free Russia and, to our shame, are successfully achieving this goal. But today it’s almost as disgusting when the opponents of the “Kremlin project” have an idea that, in essence, does not go further than childish boasting: but how will I take people out into the street, and right now, how will I give her (the authorities) - she will fly up with me upside down!

Both old and young compete in this. Narcissism, which does not suit a man at all, but triple politics (having inadvertently got into Ilya Yashin's LiveJournal and saw a number of magical changes in a cute face there, everyone is touched by the loving attitude of the magazine owner to his appearance), - this is, after all, admittedly, not wine , and men's misfortune is excusable. The fault lies elsewhere - in the lack of a sense of scale, the inability to measure. In how a narcissistic young man throws kicks (so he believes in ecstasy) with all sorts of Chubais. Especially colorful is the story about Chubais, in 2003, after the defeat of the Union of Right Forces, "remaining in the president's ranks and probably seeing this as a guarantee of his own security."

And indeed! This Chubais will always hide in a hole. Not like Ilyusha Yashin - all the way under bullets.

V. Kara-Murza, Jr. (it must be said, she always sympathized with his temperamental speeches at SPS congresses), turns on former comrades from a historical distance. Clinging to Gozman's phrase on the radio, he reproduces for the Internet reader that historical episode when "contrary to the calculations of the ruling bureaucracy ... the elections of 1906 were won by the liberal opposition, which offered the voters a program of democratic reforms." The author does not take into account that the Cadets could offer anything - it was important to realize this under the conditions of the Russian autocracy, which forced its way onto the throne through force. And what did the royal family see at the solemn reception of the deputies of both chambers in the Winter Palace? V. Kokovtsov expressively describes this: "Two enemy camps stood here opposite each other in complete irreconcilability."

V. Kara-Murza is sure: “The liberals were ready to take responsibility for the fate of the country ... to prevent the impending revolutionary explosion. But the Cadets could take ministerial chairs only on a condition of principle…” Well, of course!.. At least from our days, looking through the decades of the Gulag, one could take a more sober look at that long-standing situation. To see its historical risks, which the "professorial" party of people's freedom could not meet. Unable to cope with the stubbornness of the autocracy, among other things, because she had poor control over her own ambitions.

V.V. It is not for nothing that Kara-Murza sympathetically quotes Milyukov's words about Stolypin - about "the obliging hands of a courtier and an ambitious man, but not a statesman - Stolypin." We know, they say, these today's courtiers and ambitious people ... Let me remind you that Maklakov wrote about these assessments - “I find that this is not only an addiction; there is not a bit of similarity in this <...> Stolypin cannot be imagined either as an "intriguer" or as a "helpful courtier". In his personal conduct he was an independent, resolute and courageous man." Very soberly assessing the situation in retrospect, Maklakov argued that if Stolypin's reform had been done earlier (the meaning of his thoughts "we assessed later, under the Bolshevik regime") - "the revolution of 1917 would not have taken on such a destructive character." So to write about Stolypin as a petty ambitious man who, you see, “at the cost of a lost opportunity for the country” (he allegedly prevented the appointment of a Kadet government) “received the desired appointment to the post of chairman of the Council of Ministers” is unwise, but very usual for today. So, by the way, Soviet officials were surprised at dissidents or "departure" - "And what did this need? .. An apartment, a good salary ...". It is from this sovietism that today's vile confidence originates: whoever else than me, he thinks, was paid.

Today, politicians, politicians and intellectuals have completely lost the idea that Russia's interests may be more important to someone than caring about their reputation. And there are such people. And the personality of Stolypin, perhaps, serves as an example to some extent.

F. Rodichev, whom V.V. Kara-Murza quotes sympathetically, he gained dubious fame with the well-known phrase from the Duma rostrum about “Stolypin ties” (later, the Bolsheviks talked about it in schools for half a century - and a touch of the attitude they inspired towards Stolypin is still felt in the speeches of our honest people). At that time, insults with impunity did not become the norm - the Bolsheviks later did so. And Stolypin immediately, during the break, challenged Rodichev to a duel. He publicly apologized for a long time, repented, etc.

……It’s not like I really wish for a revival of dueling. But something, your will, it would be necessary to come up with. And then I won’t keep any. “The desire of the “Kremlin rightists” to justify themselves in the eyes of decent people is humanly understandable” (the dishonorable ones, and I, along with them, are moved to tears by such an understanding), “They will write scripts for them in the Kremlin”, “they will not stop being puppets for a moment and with the ropes won't break", "the shameful drain of the Union of Right Forces", "the result of a trivially vulgar exchange - we are your party, and you are our Rosnanotechnologies ...". It is Mr. Ryklin who conveys valuable information for any reader: he does not want to think so, but he, Ryklin, thinks so. Then I have a question - and who would he, Ryklin, want to see at the head of this for the vast majority (including me) of a mysterious, but undoubtedly important department for the country? I would like to hear the candidacy - if without the "drain", without Chubais. Who does Ryklin like more? Zubkov? Yakunin? Sechin?

V. Kara-Murza sounds very touching in an article with the elegiac title “SPS. Farewell” (at least one phrase was missing for me: “I actually live in Washington, guys”) words about how the leaders of the new democratic movement will not “coordinate every comma” with the curators on Staraya Square, but "they will honestly defend the ideals and interests of millions of democratic voters...".

Voters are those who, at a minimum, reach the ballot boxes on election day. So far, there has not been a democratic crush of millions at these ballot boxes. It rather goes where they are in a hurry to cast their vote for Comrade Stalin (and we should deal with everything - and urgently - it would be precisely this, and not the struggle with each other). So, maybe there was a little confusion, and the farewell message of the younger Kara-Murza is still about Washington? .. About their elections? ..