Andrey Ostalsky: On Putin's hook

"Why did the conservatives fall on Putin's lie?" This question was asked by the British expert in Russia Edward Lucas . For many decades, the article published by him in The Times, the Soviet Union, attracted the left -wreks. Now, some of the largest fans of the Kremlin should be sought among the right ones. What happened?

Lucas calls the large "Putin themes" order, sovereignty, Christian faith "and writes that they resonate with the views of many conservatives. The restoration of Russia after chaos and humiliation of the nineties is admired by those who believe that their own countries have weakened as a result of the manipulations of the liberal elite. This turn is most clearly outlined in the United States, where what Lucas calls the "political earthquake."

Recently published data on the growth of sympathy for Putin among conservatives in the United States are really amazing. They were brought together by the American political scientist James Kurchik . Almost half - 49 percent of ordinary Republicans - consider Russia their ally. And the popularity of Vladimir Putin among them has recently grew up with a staggering pace: over the past two years, the number of Putin positively assessing Putin and his policy has three times, having reached 32 percent.

James Kurchik believes that the matter is not only in Trump and his views on Russia. According to him, the Kremlin has long and stubbornly extends those who adhere to conservative social views and achieved considerable success on this path. One of the Putin trump cards is the attitude to gays and especially to the same -sex marriages that are not allowed in Russia. The processing objects in the United States were the National Rifle Association , Veteran Organizations, and so on. In confirmation of this observation, we can cite a lot of quotes from the statements of conservative figures who have come across sympathies to Putin since the mid -zero years, especially after the Kremlin tightening anti -liberal rhetoric. Prominent conservatives long before the election of Trump already called Putin the "savior of Western civilization", "the last hope of the world", declared him worthy of the Nobel Prize.

But still these were figures, although prominent, but still quite marginal. However, during the election campaign and the 2016 presidential election itself, a sharp shift of the Republican Party to the right occurred. What was marginal yesterday suddenly became the mainstream. And now, such respectable, enjoying high authority among conservatives, publicist, like Christopher Koldwell, regularly printed in the British Financial Times and in the American Wall Street Journal , recently declared Putin "the most outstanding statesman of our time." A figure who "saved his country" and "became a symbol of national self -determination" in the battle against globalism. And national issues, issues of sovereignty, according to Koldwell , is Zeitgeist , the spirit of the century, "driving power, passion that owns the West today."

“In our own conservative party, a faction is growing, which thinks about the same way,” writes Edward Lucas, “this approach recalls the sympathy of the left to the Soviet Union. The less you really know about “working paradise”, the easier it is for you to experience enthusiasm in relation to it. ”And recalls the realities of today's Russia, which, in theory, should not cause sympathy among traditional conservatives - supporters of freedom, law and independent state institutions.

Even if it is proved that Russia intervened in the presidential election and played an important role in them, this will not confuse a significant part of the supporters of the Republican Party

So what happened? The French author Nicolas Enin in his recently published Russian France expresses the assumption : Russia everywhere can spread its propaganda, claiming that Western countries are in a state of moral decline, since they are "too open to foreign influences, there are too many immigrations, too much Islam and the rights of sexual minorities." The main object of this propaganda in America is "angry white." Considering that Putin is maintained primarily by populists, Enin gives the following definition: “A populist does not have a political program as such. His main thesis is formulated as follows:“ You are angry and you need to be angry even more. We will steam you even more, and when you get to the extreme in your aspiration, you will vote for me because I am a boss of the party of angry. "I will add that this could be attributed to Britain - here also the votes of" angry white "determined the outcome of the referendum on the exit from the EU.

Who in this case, the conservatives consider enemies, if Putin is a friend and an ally? Polls show that in the United States this role is assigned not only to the Democratic Party, Clintons, Obama, but to all liberals, and, perhaps, first of all, the native American media, those of them (and this is the majority), which do not show delight about the actions of Donald Trump and his politicians. There is every reason to assume: even if it is proved that Russia intervened in the presidential election and played an important role in them, this will not confuse a significant part of the supporters of the Republican Party. This is natural when an ally comes to the aid of a friend in the war against a common enemy, they say.

“It doesn’t bother conservatives that Putin undermines the foundations of Western democracy, since this autocrat hates liberal values,” Huffington Post believes. And continues: “Conservatives feel deep sympathy for authoritarianism and deep distrust of modern Western culture.” But it seems to me that this assessment suffers from some unilaterality. Yes, it is true that the main thing is in the main thing The worldview of the conservatives in recent years has been an aversion to human and minorities, and therefore the alliance with Putin from these positions really looks logical. And everything is logical in its own way.

Right on The Times, under the article by Edward Lucas, you can find visual evidence. The author gets strongly - most of the forum participants sharply, sometimes in impolite and evil expressions criticize both the article and the author himself, which, as is customary in social networks, must first be insulted and humiliated. But another is amazing: they attack him from opposite positions! He caused rage of both right and left. Lucas writes about the system of false propaganda of Russian television channels, and on the right they answer: " BBC is no better."

Another commentator is clearly the right -conservative views of the author, “If Lucas cannot understand why the conservatives refuse to consider Putin to be the personification of evil, then let him think about the contrast between Putin and Merkel - that’s the real evil in the flesh!” On the left, a certain comrade accuses the author of slander against Russia and proves that contrary to Lucas’s statements, everything is in order and industry with the Russian economy too, and with knowledge proves that it is difficult to find Western goods in Russia, just as in the West Russian. His other like -minded person writes that "the West needs a strong enemy, so Western politicians spread lies about Russia and Putin." The third accuses the author of corruption of the fact that the article "ordered weapons orders". And again on the right, already closer to the case: "Perhaps the whole point is that Russia is mainly a white country and is considered racially clean. This is a question about restoring control, with the safety of your race at the forefront."

If we compare the elegant formulations of the right -conserving theorist of Koldwell, writing about “national self -determination”, zeitgeist and sovereignty, with a much more rude, simple and frank statement from the forum about the “purity of the race”, then it is difficult to get rid of the feeling that it is, by and large, the same thing is about the same. Huffington Post Sardonically assumes that if it goes further, then Putin fans can find other allies for themselves. “Think that the whole point is that it is necessary to destroy liberalism, that is, another force is also a deeply religious, supranational, loving weapons, autocratic, faithful to traditions, white, homophobic, despising women, merciless the liberal values even stronger than Putin. It is called the Islamic State.

Andrey Ostalsky - London political commentator

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