Pike share

On April 27, New York Times published the next column of David Brooks. This commentator is very different from other regular authors of the famous newspaper: he is not so much a political analyst as an essayist, a moral philosopher, a person, inclined to deepen the requirements of the “current moment” and the malice of the day. It is always interesting to read it, but you do not always agree with it. And now, his article, entitled “Goodness and Power” (Goodness and Power, - the first word would be better translated into an old “virtue”), causes some objections.

An article begins with a very interesting sociological statistics. A survey was conducted about the attitude of American voters towards Hillary Clinton, who once again nominates its candidacy for the presidency from the Democratic Party. One of the questions was this: does Hillary have the necessary force in order to become the president of the United States? 60 percent of voters answered positively: "Yes, possesses." But to the next question: whether she deserves confidence, whether she is an honest person - 61 percent of the respondents said "no."

David Brooks stops talking about Hillary Clinton on this and goes through his usual manner from the issues of current policy to issues of moral and philosophical plan. Of course, politics is a sphere that does not coincide with the sphere of personal morality. That is (I say already in my own words), as it has long been known, politics is a dirty thing, the politician should close his eyes a lot, be secretive and cunning, and when - very often - and lie. Therefore, there is a feeling that the cool guys should become a politician, speaking of the current Russian slang. The eternal norm of politics, the practice of power, as it seems, was correctly and forever established by McCovelli. The main political argument of power is power, it is essentially synonyms, and just in the English language - Power.

A political cunning and a businessman who thinks exclusively about strength and neglecting morality, reaching the heights of the authorities, surrounds himself with the corresponding headquarters, brings closer to power of the same shameless people

And then David Brooks says it is wrong. It is like reducing the fighting qualities of a warship to its firepower and not paying attention to its stability on the water (the sailors say stability). A political cunning and a businessman who thinks exclusively about strength and neglecting morality, reaching the heights of the authorities, surrounds himself with the corresponding headquarters, brings the same shameless people closer to power. That is, people who are essentially not trustworthy. His psychology is possessed by suspicion, compiling mental lists of opponents and enemies. Then the main requirement for close associates is not their business qualities are made, but to the personal loyalty to the leader. All sorts of corruption begins, fraught with political scandals. It is clear who Brooks personally mean, however, names, however, names: Richard Nixon with his Watergate and Bill Clinton with his monik.

But then the Columnist "New York Times", it seems to me, begins to contradict himself. He says correctly that in essence this version of rule cannot be established in modern society. The current government is sprayed, does not have a single point of concentration. It is impossible to imagine that it is possible to rule exclusively with fear not to please the ruler and fly out of among the close associates.

Everything is so, but only Brooks forgets to add: this practice is impossible in a democratic state, and in any other way it is possible. Then it turns out that morality is, as it were: the main thing is not the personal qualities of the ruler, whatever it is, but established, that is, constituted, institutions, mechanisms of government, the same classical separation of powers. And in the current democratic society - Brooks does not forget to mention this - one of the powerful branches of power is journalism, media.

Here I recall a recent conversation between the President of the Russian Federation with reporters. Putin admitted that Mass Media is the necessary means of control over the ruling ones, and remembered the Russian proverb: to the pike in the sea so that the crucian did not doze off. But who is pike in Russia and who is crucian? A rhetorical question, of course.

And another memory is visited by a Russian man, literary: the fairy tale of Saltykov-Shchedrin "Karas-Yidealist". The crucian carp did not believe in the omnipotence of the pike, but on the contrary, claimed its ability to embroider moral exhortations. Faced with her alone, he gained spirit and asked: do you know, pike, what is virtue? The end of the crucian is known.

I would not call David Brooks a karazem idealist. Because he does not live in Russia, but in America, where the pike is by no means omnipotent and can control the small fish for no more than eight years.

Boris Paramonov-New York writer and publicist

Opinions expressed under the heading "Law" may not reflect the point of view of the Radio Liberty editorial