Yeltsin is not a tidbit.

From the editorial office. February 1, 2011 marks the 80th anniversary of the birth of the first President of Russia Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin. The anniversary is already celebrated. In blogs, in the journalistic texts of Yeltsin, they remember with special feelings - albeit different - but always very bright. In memory of this state figure, RSA opens a discussion about the role of the first president in the formation of new Russia.

* * *

This is not to say that the figure of Boris Yeltsin is becoming more popular. The publication of the biography and events on the occasion of the 80th birthday means that the official authorities are trying to portray such popularity, because Putin personally owes everything to Yeltsin, and is trying in every possible way to fulfill these personal obligations to Yeltsin, to his family. In addition, there are wide circles of people who were better, psychologically and money, during the time of Yeltsin, and they, of course, remember him with nostalgia. But the vast majority of Yeltsin’s society hates, and in this sense he has popularity: he is remembered, this is not a forgotten name. And this hatred over the years does not become less. And no efforts of the authorities, even if they were carried out more than once a year to the anniversary, but much more often, they cannot change anything here.

In some ways, the policy of Vladimir Putin is continued in relation to Yeltsin’s policy, in some ways. Yeltsin, like Putin, has many wires in that cable, which is their policy. For example, it is customary to contrast them in relation to freedom of speech and say that under Yeltsin there was freedom of speech, and under Putin it has become much less. Is that so? Yes, it is. This is wrong? Yes, this is not so. Because under Yeltsin just like today federal channels have been controlled. And when Yeltsin was obviously incompetent, or went into a binge, or was hard, or something else, the first channel, the 2nd channel continued to tell some kind of abracadabra about the fact that the president works, and so on. The NTV channel laughed at this, but in its criticism he never crossed a certain face.

Now they do not let liberals on the screen, such as Nemtsov, Ryzhkov, Kasyanov. But in the 90s, the nationalists who were now occupied, cricuns like Prokhanov, Kurginyan, Dugina were not allowed to the screen or extremely reluctantly. So to say that we had a completely open television under Yeltsin, I could still not. The journalists had some personal union with Yeltsin, sympathy for him, this is true. But there is no sympathy for Putin, there is, on the contrary, disgust, and mutual, with rare exceptions. But personal sympathies and antipathy-this is still not quite that firm freedom of speech.

Under Yeltsin there were no courts, everything was decided in relation to ownership of concepts. Berezovsky and many others, using personal ties with the Yeltsin family, seized huge pieces of property. Under Putin, in the same way, taking advantage of personal proximity to Putin, formally not in personal, but enormous pieces of state property were given to actual property. In this matter, little has changed.

Putin made harsh anti -Western statements, but Yeltsin also made them. When there was a war with Yugoslavia, Yeltsin shouted: let Clinton know that we have rockets, that we can overdite them, let Clinton remember that he deals with great Russia. How does this, in fact, differ from Putin's Munich speech? In style, it may differ something, but in fact nothing.

Under Yeltsin, the Russian Kamarila Rules of his close relatives, his personal guards, lackeys, some other people and admitted to the body, so to speak, liberal economists. And under Putin, the rules of the Camaril of his close environment, his old friends and admitted to the body, so to speak, liberal economists.

But there are differences, of course. Under Yeltsin, the state was much weaker and therefore gave much more space to the local kings, all this Luzhkov, Shaimiev, Tuleyev, Ilyumzhinov, Rossels, and other feudal lords. Under Putin, the state became stronger and became local feudal lords to take to the nail slowly. Under Yeltsin there were elections, especially the elections of local governors, there was a competition of parties. Under Putin there is neither competition of parties or elections, this is true. And for this reason, many PRers and political technologists were left without work, respectively, they hate Putin and with nostalgia recall the times of Yeltsin.

Liberals are trying to use the memory of Yeltsin for their political purposes, but this card is broken. Yeltsin’s daughter suddenly arose on the Internet, began to lead her, extremely stupid, from my point of view, blog. But the effect was known in advance: her thousandth was doused with mud. It is impossible to successfully conduct a blog with the surname Yeltsin, such is the attitude of society.

Therefore, what can liberals relate well to Yeltsin? Those who made a career in the 90s, who felt psychologically comfortable, who recalls with nostalgia about rallies of the early 90s, the name Yeltsin as sugar. They do not need to be especially agitated, they will always be happy to remember about Yeltsin. Those who lost their savings in the 90s, who were afraid of bandits, who remembered the poverty of the early 90s, who nostalgia in the Soviet Union, for those Yeltsin’s name as vinegar. And no stories of liberals will change their opinion, especially since they hate the liberals themselves even more than Yeltsin. The liberals hated by the population praise Yeltsin hated by them - how can this change the attitude of society? No.

Sometimes they do this: they take their extremely unpopular brand and catch it to an extremely popular figure. The simplest case when, when elections to the State Duma, some well-known and popular singer or athlete was introduced into the list. This number, however, has not been working for a long time, but in the early 90s were bought for this. Yeltsin is not a tidbit that is not universally recognized for everyone, which can be eager for tasteless liberal porridge. Yeltsin itself is a piece of the same porridge. Who loves this porridge, he will eat her with Yeltsin, and whoever is not, he will be sick with Yeltsin. Closing to Yeltsin, the liberals are trying to pull themselves by the hair from the swamp.