A tearful Putin claims Russian election victory

[Sheilbh]

I didn't say he lacked any self confidence, I said he lacked that almost messianic self confidence you see in Presidents.  Watergate was not an act of confident man.  It was an act of a man who felt persecuted and desperate.  You don't engage in desperate measures if you think you are invincible.

Nixons flaw was that he lacked the supreme self-confidence

He had that.  He became President.  He saw his role as President as being a chess grandmaster on the world stage not dealing with pissant issues like domestic politics.  He went for Watergate and the like because he thought he could get away with it.

Watergate wasn't an act of desperation.  The checkers speech and the end of his Presidency are desperate, self-effacing, humiliating attempts at keeping power.  Watergate ain't.  It's the act of a man who feels invincible and immune.  It's what a confident gangster, like Putin, would do.

I don't doubt that he had a sense of persecution.  You maybe right that he didn't have that messianic zeal to change the world and America that most other politicians have, at least not in a straightforward way.  But I don't think that's the largest of his flaws.

[Razgovory]

I'm not so sure.  During the last decade conservatives were writing about how we need a more "muscular" presidency, and cheered the grabbing of power by Bush.

I buy into the whole Imperial Presidency theory.  I think the executive does far too much and Congress has allowed itself to be emasculated.  But nothing on the scale of Putin's changes.  For example he replaced elections for Governors (and I think Mayors) with appointment by the Kremlin which isn't subject to scrutiny by the Duma.  That's a million miles from what conservatives would want in the US or what would be plausible in the US.

The US is not in dire straits.  Russia had just collapsed in the 1990's and was in really bad shape.  If the US was in bad shape, would people go for a Putin?  I think it's possible.  After all, who did he target?  Journalists, Muslims, and robber barons. Not exactly the most popular people in the US.  Remember, the US once incarcerated 100,000 of it's own citizens due to their Japanese background.  A bit more distantly a US President illegally force migrated the Cherokee.

Remember when I created a poll that asked if you would rather be rich in an unfree state or poor in a free one?  Most people on Languish chose to be rich in an unfree state.  The standard of living has risen in Russia quite a bit since 1999...

[DontSayBanana]

Watergate didn't happen because Nixon underestimated himself.  Watergate happened because he overestimated both himself and his enemies.

[Razgovory]

I didn't say he lacked any self confidence, I said he lacked that almost messianic self confidence you see in Presidents.  Watergate was not an act of confident man.  It was an act of a man who felt persecuted and desperate.  You don't engage in desperate measures if you think you are invincible.

Nixons flaw was that he lacked the supreme self-confidence

He had that.  He became President.  He saw his role as President as being a chess grandmaster on the world stage not dealing with pissant issues like domestic politics.  He went for Watergate and the like because he thought he could get away with it.

Watergate wasn't an act of desperation.  The checkers speech and the end of his Presidency are desperate, self-effacing, humiliating attempts at keeping power.  Watergate ain't.  It's the act of a man who feels invincible and immune.  It's what a confident gangster, like Putin, would do.

I don't doubt that he had a sense of persecution.  You maybe right that he didn't have that messianic zeal to change the world and America that most other politicians have, at least not in a straightforward way.  But I don't think that's the largest of his flaws.

A confident gangster doesn't worry about pissant psychologists and things like that.  As the tole of the Presidency weighed on him, he was took to heavy drinking.  He didn't think he was up to the task, and he was afraid everyone else would find that out.  The irony was, that he was in fact more competent then say JFK.  It was this insecurity that destroyed him.

[Sheilbh]

The US is not in dire straits.  Russia had just collapsed in the 1990's and was in really bad shape.  If the US was in bad shape, would people go for a Putin?  I think it's possible.  After all, who did he target?  Journalists, Muslims, and robber barons. Not exactly the most popular people in the US.  Remember, the US once incarcerated 100,000 of it's own citizens due to their Japanese background.  A bit more distantly a US President illegally force migrated the Cherokee.

Remember when I created a poll that asked if you would rather be rich in an unfree state or poor in a free one?  Most people on Languish chose to be rich in an unfree state.  The standard of living has risen in Russia quite a bit since 1999...

Ok.  This is changing the subject though.  What does the internment of the Japanese or the Trail of Tears have to do with conservatives arguing for a muscular executive?  All countries can commit atrocities and they can all fall for a dangerous anti-democratic national saviour.

But I don't think American conservatives are a natural constituency for that sort of an executive and I think culture and institutions matter.  The culture, the constitution, the heritage and the institutions of the US create a lot of buffers between electing someone like Putin and him being able to achieve what he has in Russia, without being impeached.  As I say there is a world of difference between the Bush era imperial Presidency and the trend towards increased executive power, and the sort of executive power that the Russian President has.

Bluntly I think if your point is that Putin could happen in the US and have similar effects, not least because of the dangerous yearnings of American conservatives then it's wrong.  If it's that all nations can do bad things and fall for a dodgy guy in a leather jacket, then it's banal.

I agree that life's got better in Russia and that pride has been restored.  I don't think it's madness for many Russians genuinely to vote for Putin despite the corruption and the gangsterism that's rife in the state.  It was better than what went before.  Those memories will still be raw.  He just games the system by making sure there's no credible opposition.

[Sheilbh]

A confident gangster doesn't worry about pissant psychologists and things like that.

You've clearly never seen The Sopranos

[Razgovory]

A confident gangster doesn't worry about pissant psychologists and things like that.

You've clearly never seen The Sopranos

Not the best gauge on how organized crime works.  Trust me.

[MadImmortalMan]

He didn't think he was up to the task, and he was afraid everyone else would find that out.

Sounds like the man was a good judge of character.

[Razgovory]

The US is not in dire straits.  Russia had just collapsed in the 1990's and was in really bad shape.  If the US was in bad shape, would people go for a Putin?  I think it's possible.  After all, who did he target?  Journalists, Muslims, and robber barons. Not exactly the most popular people in the US.  Remember, the US once incarcerated 100,000 of it's own citizens due to their Japanese background.  A bit more distantly a US President illegally force migrated the Cherokee.

Remember when I created a poll that asked if you would rather be rich in an unfree state or poor in a free one?  Most people on Languish chose to be rich in an unfree state.  The standard of living has risen in Russia quite a bit since 1999...

Ok.  This is changing the subject though.  What does the internment of the Japanese or the Trail of Tears have to do with conservatives arguing for a muscular executive?  All countries can commit atrocities and they can all fall for a dangerous anti-democratic national saviour.

But I don't think American conservatives are a natural constituency for that sort of an executive and I think culture and institutions matter.  The culture, the constitution, the heritage and the institutions of the US create a lot of buffers between electing someone like Putin and him being able to achieve what he has in Russia, without being impeached.  As I say there is a world of difference between the Bush era imperial Presidency and the trend towards increased executive power, and the sort of executive power that the Russian President has.

Bluntly I think if your point is that Putin could happen in the US and have similar effects, not least because of the dangerous yearnings of American conservatives then it's wrong.  If it's that all nations can do bad things and fall for a dodgy guy in a leather jacket, then it's banal.

I agree that life's got better in Russia and that pride has been restored.  I don't think it's madness for many Russians genuinely to vote for Putin despite the corruption and the gangsterism that's rife in the state.  It was better than what went before.  Those memories will still be raw.  He just games the system by making sure there's no credible opposition.

I think some countries and some people are more susceptible to this sort of thing.  I think the US is more susceptible then we'd like to believe.  I also think that some people in the conservative camp aren't that keen on Democracy.  I remember Hans posted one of articles from the NRO about Hong Kong.  The author argued that the government there should not engage in democratic reforms as it threatened the purity of the free market.  I remember Hans himself railing against the social contract.  These things bother me.  I kept his rant in my sig all of last year.  I fear a distrust of democracy in Conservative camp.  Particularly in the libertarian side.  I think they see the poor masses as parasites who will use their superior numbers to vote the affluent or the potentially affluent out of their income.

As to your question of what Japanese internment has to do with it, I remember Ms. Malkin, a Conservative pundit used the internment of Japanese as a positive example during the Bush administration.  It seems to me the sort manifestation of the "Muscular Presidency", they were talking about.

[derspiess]

lol

[Razgovory]

lol

Which would you rather be?  Rich and powerful in an unfree state or poor and impotent in a free one?

[Sheilbh]

Which would you rather be?  Rich and powerful in an unfree state or poor and impotent in a free one?

Which of those describes Putin's Russia?  Even the rich are only as powerful as their sponsor, whoever that is, in the Kremlin or FSB allows them to be.

[Ed Anger]

lol

Which would you rather be?  Rich and powerful in an unfree state or poor and impotent in a free one?

I would have thrived in the Reich. 

[CountDeMoney]

lol

Which would you rather be?  Rich and powerful in an unfree state or poor and impotent in a free one?

I would have thrived in the Reich. 

You would've been a Goering, all bloated and collecting shit.

[Ed Anger]