Many have discussed Russia’s pursuit of a new identify following its disastrous experiment with communism. Would Russia have a purpose on the world stage, or would it merely be an ad-hoc pragmatic power, largely selling the world natural resources on its way towards a full blown kleptocracy?
It turns out Russia does have a purpose and it is the restoration of social conservatism.
Putin is the movements leader.
This effort is obviously strategic. Consider the following from Alina Polyakova’s brilliant piece, Putinism and the European Far Right.
“Europe’s far-right parties and the Putin doctrine frame their respective nations and people as being in the middle of a culture war between Western liberal plurality and traditional Christian values. In 2013, the Center for Strategic Communications—a Russian based think-tank— published a report entitled “Putin: The New World Leader of Conservatism.” Putin, according to this report, stands for traditional values in a world fraught with instability: law and order, family, and the Christian heritage. The FN’s Marine Le Pen has praised Putin for standing up for Christian civilization and traditional values, hailing him as a “natural ally to Europe.”
You can read the report in its entirety here.
Subtitle is “The phenomenon is a wholesale suspicion of the principle of representation itself.”
Here is the most informative line,
Populisms represent what we could call the “democracy of suspicion” whereby the apparatuses of representation (the parliamentary system, the parliamentary “class,” the elite, their pet experts and so on) are subject to hostility, precisely for not being representative enough or, more significantly, for being mere “representatives” in the first place.
Excellent read and a refreshing break from the populism = racism work you see so often.
All populism, regardless of time or geographical context, is a confidence in the “people” and a skepticism in experts. This sentiment is always there yet it needs some sort of social or economic issue to get it up off the ground. In Latin America it has been economic. In America it has been demographics. In Europe, both.
You can read the entire thing here.
PS, this article won the Hennessy prize for essay writing on British politics. It’s author is Thomas Osborne.
AEI’s Dalibor Rohac has a great column on how liberals (who if you haven’t noticed are losing the war of ideas as of lately) can reclaim the narrative of globalism.
He encourages liberals to
…show the national interest is not advanced by empty promises of manufacturing jobs, immigration bans and ethnic homogeneity. Instead, it is best served by economic openness, international engagement by liberal democracies and reasonably liberal immigration policies.
He further states
What liberal leaders must offer is a different narrative about national identity and national greatness, one we might call “internationalist nationalism.” A genuine commitment to prosperity and success of one’s own country, they must argue, goes hand in hand with the embrace of openness, economic dynamism and globalization.
Such a perspective has been absent from the larger debate as those who advocate open markets, relatively open borders, and the institutionalization of international politics have usually assumed that the net benefits speak for themselves. Yet the lure of tribalism is most seductive when one’s identity is least certain, such as in the wake of the creative destruction of globalization.
The rest of the article can be found here.