Putin was right

The Russian state has been very fond of children lately. It catches terrible pedophiles like crazy, it passes laws to protect children from harmful information and “homosexual propaganda.” It is coming up with ways to further limit the Internet and the sale of alcohol - naturally, all for the sake of children. On the posters they now write that the circus is 6+, and some Grigory Leps is 12+, children are now much safer. And, of course, demographics are getting stronger, the birth rate is rising, the president reports on successes as if it were his personal merit. Well, and also our orphans who are tortured in the USA. The state's increased attention to children may seem surprising - why is it suddenly making such a fuss? Either everything was okay before, but now suddenly threats came from all sides. Either we didn’t get around to it before, but now we’ve got it, we need to make up for lost time.

Previously, they really didn’t get around to it. They were busy overcoming the chaos of the dashing 90s, fighting terrorism, fighting oligarchs, fighting Georgia, getting up from their knees, GDP growth, stability. And then all this stopped working - it became boring, does not inspire confidence, can neither unite nor mobilize. The Russian ruling class has long experienced an acute shortage of ideas that could captivate society, and after the elections of late 2011 - early 2012, it was also supplemented by a lack of legitimacy. Speaking in human language, it has become completely unclear on what basis and in the name of what they rule the country and command its citizens. Putin, when he created the Popular Front, directly called on citizens to rally around him - he did not even try to offer any idea other than his personal power. Putin wanted to win with charisma - but the infantile and uncharismatic Medvedev did not even have this to his credit. By the middle of his presidential term, when even the most stubborn optimists stopped believing the chatter about modernization and humanization, the state remembered children and rolled out the idea of ​​“child protection” as an ersatz national one. On the one hand, children are mimimi. A little of this affection could go to Medvedev himself, a lover of shiny toys and school badminton. On the other hand, everyone seems to agree that children must be taken care of, they must be protected.

Protecting children from various types of attacks turned out to be almost the only idea on which there is consensus in society and on which the authorities can rely. In addition, an archaic paternalistic society, which does not consider adult citizens to be independent and valuable individuals, perceives children as property, and not entirely private property. Property rights in Russia are generally quite vague. Any right here is ephemeral, any property is precarious, it is always not entirely private and always somewhat state-owned. Suitable for children very well. What can we say about “state children”.

And it was exactly in this place that the puncture occurred. Of course, the ban on the adoption of orphans by US citizens imitates concern for the welfare of children to exactly the same extent as the law to protect children from harmful information or the campaign against “pedophiles.” But unlike them, this is the first “pro-children” act that harms not “society in general,” but specific children directly and directly. Its consequences are clear and tangible, and they are much more serious than the lack of sex education in school, the failure to publish some good books, or even draconian sentences in fabricated “pedophile” cases, which in no way stand out from the general mass of ridiculous unjust sentences. The authorities - and Putin, in whose name and in whose name they have been acting since his re-election - were absolutely right. Taking care of children really brings people together. The ban on adoption was perhaps the first initiative of the authorities in the past, I can’t even say how many years - maybe since 2000, and maybe since 1991 - which caused such rejection of the so-called active part of society and united the “liberals” , and various kinds of radicals, and “loyalists,” and people deeply indifferent to the political process. Even some members of the government allowed themselves to publicly object. The effect was enhanced by the “concern” shown in response to American measures against Russian officials suspected of theft and complicity in murder. At the press conference, Putin was bombarded with questions about orphans by journalists from independent publications, representatives of the loyal press, and staff propagandists of the official media. And Putin’s answers left no doubt that the initiative is not a product of the idiocy of deputies, but a state policy adopted and approved at the highest level.

Known for his protective views, the editor-in-chief of Russian Life, Dmitry Olshansky, wrote on Facebook words that could be subscribed to by many Russians, who until recently maintained loyalty or neutrality towards the authorities: “From now on, I am taking away from myself the right to criticize opponents of our government. , laugh at them, or somehow condemn them. Some invisible but significant line has been crossed for me these days. And even if it will still be bad later, it’s not the “badness” that already exists now. excuses and does not justify."

Most likely, under pressure from public opinion, the State Duma, the government or the Presidential Administration will find a way to quietly roll back the ban on adoption. But they are unlikely to be able to neutralize the effect produced. It is possible that they still have majority support - but the majority is largely passive. But among the active minority, thanks to the efforts of the authorities themselves, many now consider deputies, ministers, and the president their personal enemies.