Issue #26/51, November 5 - 18, 1998 
| In This Issue |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Las Vegas Lines |
| Quizzin' Time |
| Taibbi goes AP |
| South Park in Moscow |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we get the point: Russia is totally fucked. The previous so-called reformist regime stole and destroyed everything. The present government is screwing things up even worse by tinkering with communism. All this gloom and doom stuff, it's so 1998. Today's search for ever-more melodramatic "signs of desperation" in Russia is just an adult's easter egg hunt, only less challenging. You may as well head into a jail and search for "signs of blood-stained mop handles."
Russia's plight appears so totally hopeless to Westerners in large part because no one in the West can figure out how to fix the mess. They're as stuck in the narrow corridors of communist-reformist ideological debate as most Russians.
The one ideology that the West has not only rejected but even denied entry into the discourse is nationalism. Nationalism-that is, patriotism, a quasi-religious commitment to national sacrifice, even the willingness to engage in armed conflict to achieve political goals, as the United States routinely does (see Kosovo, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, etc.).
The very word "nationalism" causes the Western humanist to instinctively cringe, just as the word "vagina" used to make me cringe as a kid. This same Westerner, particularly if he's American, conveniently forgets that without its near-fanatical, even aggressive nationalism, America today might very well be something like... well, like Russia today.
Here's proof that nationalism, patriotism, and war have worked for America.
Eight years of New Deal socialist projects failed to pull America out of the Great Depression of the 1930s, despite myths about its success, a myth that even Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov promotes. What did finally beat the decade-long Depression was 3-1/2 years of mobilized, blood-soaked, nuke-'em-high patriotism and victory over the Axis Powers, a watershed that led to the greatest economic boom perhaps in America's history. On the other hand, the loss in Vietnam in the early 1970s, and the concurrent anti-patriotic, anti-nationalistic backlash in society, led to what was certainly the darkest period of my life, a time simply known as "The 70s." America was a wounded giant, its people cynical, and its economy suffering from stagnation, stagflation, earth shoe-clad dirtheads, and incredibly unfunny marijuana jokes. The times were so desperate that America voted in someone considered on the far nationalist right of the Republican Party spectrum, Ronald Reagan, whose platform advocated military buildup and confrontation. Despite having a completely insane economic plan, he did succeed in creating the first new generation of "Proud To Be American" idiots since the early 60s. Reagan's nationalistic religion renewed confidence in the country. What followed was a decade of reckless economic boom.
When that began to peter out, and a banking collapse loomed in 1990, President Bush shuffled his cards and pushed America into a complete blowout war in the Persian Gulf, a victory almost unprecedented in military history. For America, the present decade's economic boom began literally the day the cruise missiles started slamming into Baghdad. Consider: on January 15th, 1991, on the eve of the Gulf War, the Dow Jones Industrial Average stood at 2490. A bear market had ravaged the market for some six months or more, and recession gripped the economy. On February 15th, after a month of camcorder smart bombs snaking their way into bunkers, chimneys, car hatchbacks and day care centers with the zany comic style of a Sam Raimi film, the viewing public responded by pushing the Dow up to 2934.7. That one month of military success and flag-waving patriotism translated into a leap of some 20% in the nation's paper wealth. Just seven years later, with America still-unchallenged, the Dow would soar to over 9,000, as the economy has yet to experience a single downturn.
Coincidence?
Let's take an even more extreme example. When the Nazis took control of depressed, corrupt, decadent Germany, they made nationalism into a state religion. The results were astonishing. Unemployment plummeted from over 6 million in 1932 to less than a million in 1936, while the GNP soared over 102% in the same period.
| Total Armed Forces | Reserves | Nuclear Weapons |
| RUSSIA | ||
| 1,270,000 | 20,000,000 | Several thousand |
| China | ||
| 2,935,000 | 1,200,000 | A few hundred |
| Kazakhstan | ||
| 40,000 | 2,500* | 48 SS-18s |
| Ukraine | ||
| 400,800 | 1,000,000 | 220* |
| Estonia | ||
| 3,450 | some 6,000 | None |
| Check out "The Vegas Betting Genie's" War Picks | ||
Former Vice Premiere Alfred Kokh, the man responsible for having sold off most of Russia's prized state assets, proved himself to be one such person.
In a radio interview in New York the former Privatization Minister called Russia "hopeless," its people "incapable of creating anything new" and said "the long-suffering masses are responsible for their own suffering" because they "jailed themselves and shot themselves during the repressions [...] they get everything they deserve." Igor Chubais, brother of the godfather of Russian reforms, Anatoly Chubais, wrote that Russia's elite considers the Russian people to be "simply a tiresome, annoying nuisance which for some reason has to be paid wages." If these guys were the Einzatsgruppen in 1943 Rostov, such opinions might all make sense... but these guys are Russians, charged with transforming the country. For them, these Russophobes, transforming Russia meant destroying it.
The last two Russian regimes have been the most Western-leaning, least nationalistic regimes in Russia's history. For playing the sensitive, ponytailed humanist, they were rewarded with two humiliating defeats in Afghanistan and Chechnya, the abrupt dissolution of an empire that took centuries and untold millions of lives to build, and the complete collapse of their economy. Anyone here knows what sort of pride Russians take in their government: the emotions range from shame to disgust to hopeless rage. In short, Russia has taken the inverse of the American model of nationalist pride. And the results have been... well, the complete inverse of America's.
Arguing for nationalism may be simplistic and dangerous, but it's also extremely logical.
Anatol Lieven, an expert of the Former Soviet Union for the International Institute For Strategic Studies in London, explained, "In the absence of religion and communism, patriotism is one of the relatively few emotions that can guarantee a degree of responsible behavior on the part of the elite. Russia is an excellent example of what happens when the elite has no commitment beyond their own self-interests."
Patriotism and nationalism can positively affect a nation's economy because they motivate the elite to work for the common good, while the masses tend to trust and respect the laws more. In other words, nationalism is the sunlight necessary for civilization-including democratic civilization-to grow.
"When you have an elite that isn't committed to its people, then you have a kleptocracy as in Russia, because they don't care about the country's well-being," said Lieven, who was a correspondent in Russia from 1990 to 1996. "If the average person sees the elite stealing from the state left and right, which is what happened here, then by what conceivable right can you tell the average person not to break the law. On the other hand, the effects of patriotism or nationalism can be better tax collection, enforcement of contracts, and the creation of a civilized market economy."
Of course, nationalism, especially in an ethnically-mixed, volatile country like Russia, can be dangerous. Alexei Malashenko, a specialist on nationalism for the Carnegie Endowment, distinguished between ethnic-based nationalism of the kind promoted by crypto-Nazi Alexandr Barkashov's RNE, which he sees as destructive, from a state-nationalism of the sort common in Europe and the United States, which he said "can play a positive role." In his opinion, Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov best represents such a platform.
Edward Limonov, as leader of the extremist National-Bolshevik Party, has been pushing for nationalism as a solution to Russia's ills since forming his party five years ago. At first, Limonov's party platform-buy Russian products, ban dollars, default on foreign debt, impose economic dictatorship and nationalize banks-was seen as so extreme as to be either frightening or laughable. Today, many of his programs have been adulterated and even made policy.
"To build a state and a state economy, you need to motivate the masses," Limonov said. "Russians have never been purely motivated by money, but rather by emotions. What they need now are victories. Not just in war, but inside the country."
While Westerners debate the dangers of Russian nationalism and engage in Weimar comparison Easter egg hunts, the Russian political mainstream has already moved deep in that direction. Tragic ex-dissidents and English-speaking Westerbees like former Foreign Minister Andrei Kozerev are so far off the mainstream map as to make even Limonov seem reasonable. The three leading presidential candidates for the next elections, Mayor Luzhkov, KPRF leader Gennady Zyuganov, and "gruff-voiced" General Lebed, are all trying to claim the nationalist vote, whether as opportunists like the Communist leader, or as missionaries, like Lebed. Of the three, General Lebed is undoubtedly the least known quantity, having expressed admiration for General Pinochet's "reasonable" tally of 3,000 kills.
"I would agree that patriotism is the answer in Russia, so long as it isn't a dangerous form," Lieven said.
* * *
When I first came to Russia in late 1993, I was bewildered by the contempt foreigners showed towards the Russians, and even more shocked by how passively the Russians, in particular the younger, educated Russians, accepted it. It was a time when many younger Russians were still ashamed of themselves in comparison to Westerners, something that used to drive me into acid-burping rages.
The foreigners who first came to post-Soviet Russia were overwhelmingly rejects and failures in every sphere, both career-wise and sexually. Most of us would have been grateful to land a gig as night shift manager at Mister Donuts; our idea of a satisfying one-night stand was getting a rim job from Sparky by smearing peanut butter on our asses. We arrived ashamed, hoping not to be caught. And, to our surprise, in Russia we met a people even more ashamed than we were.
Why did Russians feel shame towards their country? One reason is that "blue chip" foreigners who came here to help transform Russia had nothing but contempt for anything not familiar.
One American I'd met in late '93, Mike Fogel, came over as part of Jeffrey Sachs' Harvard team to work as an advisor to then-Finance Minister Boris Fyodorov. Mike came from a neighboring surfer-suburb of mine. But we were on opposite sides of the paradigm world. His utter loathing of everything Russian was limitless.
"What have the Russians ever built?" he'd ask, over and over. "These people are hopeless. They've never built anything that the world needs. Not one thing."
"The Kalashnikov," I noted.
There was no arguing with him. I saw no way out except to try to incite a pogrom against foreigners. I went so far as to compose a few rage-filled articles detailing conversations I'd had with foreigners, and considered trying to publish them in Zavtra. It was absurd-Zavtra at the time was a real peasant-fascist, smelly-underwear newspaper that would have tossed me out of the office, but I was driven. I only lacked courage.
And then Zhirinovsky won the parliamentary elections.
I bumped into Fogel shortly after. He'd lost that contemptuous, overconfident swagger. The sneering was still there, but it was less convincing, more embittered.
I saw Fogel one more time, a month after those elections. He kept calling me for some reason. I avoided him as much as possible, but finally, I gave in when he offered to buy me drinks on the Harvard bill. We met at the Armadillo bar, and he started off with the usual anti-Russian diatribe before changing his tune.
"I decided over Christmas to read Tolstoi for the first time ever and I was amazed... that Russians felt so many emotions. I didn't know Russians felt this way," he told me. "I feel like I should have learned some of the language while I was here. I should have studied it."
I didn't indulge him. I've seen this part in the Tom Hanks film way too many times, the penance, the epiphany. It was a trap, plain and simple.
A few weeks later, with Sachs and Fydorov out of power, Fogel split town.
Fogel's deportation was my first victory ever in life over the Beigeists, the first shot fired in a war that went public with the eXile. It was amazing to me to see that someone like that could actually be wounded. All on account of a fake "extremist nationalist." So you can see, I'll always have a soft spot for the nationalists. They've never threatened me a fraction as much as bloodless beigeocrats like Fogel. Russian voters made the wrong choice by voting in Zhirinovsky, but for that one January day, I remember thinking, what a wonderful mistake!
