Gobble Gorba
April 4th, 2006Time magazine, a periodical that has bothered me since it had Ann Coulter on the cover (as I wrote at the time, there wasn’t a reason in the world to feature her on the cover unless someone at the top of the Magazine had the goal of bedding her in mind), and today they manage to get things wrong, again. In their weekly “Ten Questions For…” feature they speak to Mikhail Gorbachev, and open it with this: “History will remember Mikhail Gorbachev as the leader who brought openness (glasnost) and economic restructuring (perestroika) to the Soviet Union, ushering it toward the end of communism.” The term “ushering” implies that Gorbachev was happily leading away the Dark Ages of Marxist, Stalinist thought through his reforms, but that wasn’t the case. Gorbachev didn’t seek to dismantle Communism: he intended to tweak it slightly so as to make the flawed Economic society more solvent.
It isn’t just there that there’s error but in the whole piece, in Gorbachev’s own statements. After being asked where the difficulties of today began for Russia, Gorbachev pins the blame on former President Boris Yeltsin for allowing “the wealth of the country to be taken by a few people,” and he mentions that no Western leaders were critical of Yeltsin. That’s very true, but it’s because there were constant Coup attempts in Russia while he was in charge and he presided over the roughest era to preside over: the after-effects of a peaceful revolution. It’s like Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko — no matter what he does, there’s no way he can completely fix the Ukraine, rid it of corruption and drastically alter the nation’s fundamentals. He can put a start to it by moving in the Right direction and serving as the example of Democratic government.
It’s the same with Boris Yeltsin, who had to confront hundreds of hard-line Communists who would rather be Soviets than Russians and prefered the old order to the new. Yeltsin’s hands were tied, his movements constrained, by all of his opponents. Further, those critical of Boris Yeltsin ignore the fact that all the realistic alternatives to Boris Yeltsin were hard-line Communists or ultra-Liberal Communists who wouldn’t change a thing in Russia and would lead it right back into the Cold War. Mikhail Gorbachev, who appreciated the Soviet Union for everything it claimed to be, was one of those old-timers, and his view is prejudiced as such.
His support of the Soviet ways is evidenced by his stalwart support of Vladimir Putin for leading the country “in the right direction.” For Boris Yeltsin’s flaws, Yeltsin didn’t sacrifice their Democracy and return it to the days of the KGB. Vladimir Putin is actively doing this, and for that he deserves strong condemnation from all, Russians especially. Gorbachev moves from praise of Putin to an attack on American foreign policy, stating, “America is intoxicated by its position as the world’s only superpower. It wants to impose its will. But America needs to get over that. It has responsibilities as well as power. I say this as a good friend of America.”
The context of this question involves Gorbachev saying, “But just as Russia is beginning to rise again, the West doesn’t accept it.” Which is absolutely untrue. The Russians are playing host to the G8 this year and have been allowed into it despite the fact that, if we wanted to not “accept” their role in the world we would say, “You’re a poor country. You kill Chechnyans like they were nothing. Your missiles are loose. Your leader’s an Autocrat. We’re keeping the Global Seven.” America does everything it can to support Russia, even when the Russians do everything they can to sabotage American foreign policy and put lives at risk.
Russia is, currently, the Robert Novak of the world: it’s only where it is because it’s got a good amount of friends in all the right places, and it’s willing to destroy a woman to get at their man.
After being asked if he thinks America and Russia are on the path to a Cold War, he takes a cop out and claims that there are some advising Bush on this course then says, “This talk of pre-emptive strikes, of ignoring the U.N. Security Council and international legal obligations–all this is leading toward a dark night.” As if Russia can talk with any legitimacy on that issue, first of all. Second, the United States does keep its committments. Guantanamo isn’t the Gulags, kids, but Terrorists are not subject to the Geneva Conventions. Pre-Emptive War, and its follies, is a perfectly valid point, I concede, but his contention that there’s “talk” of it is errant. There aren’t many people arguing for more “pre-emptive strikes” in Washington — aside from John McCain.
Instead of pressing him with follow up questions, Time allowed him to walk away with making false contentions — and sometimes irrelevant ones — without asking him for further words. Their last three questions are softball questions — “how has life been since your wife died, what are your hobbies, are you enjoying life?” — but that’s a hard-hitting interview, I guess. I’m not saying that you should Crucify someone who you interview, but follow up on contentions and scratch them when they ignore the premise of the Interview. And for God’s sake, don’t ask someone if they’re “enjoying life” during what’s supposed to be a serious interview of a serious person, and you certainly don’t ask softball questions when they’re making turkey comments that can and should be, at least, prodded for clarification.