An American star not only coaches the Russian national basketball team but also praises the USSR’s controversial 1972 victory over his own country, while Putin claims to be modeling himself on America’s greatest president: After a century of representing humanity’s thesis and antithesis, are the two powers merging into one another in a cute form of synthesis?
Probably not, though the two anecdotes highlight an important point: the more Russia and America engage, the more truths they unearth about each other.
First, Putin. In what has become a traditional pow-wow with western media and academics, Russia’s PM basically announced his intention to stand for another presidential term in 2012. His justification? Your Roosevelt hung on for three terms! (Though Scripps notes that he would’ve been more persuasive had he cited Grover Cleveland, who was the only US president to serve non-consecutive terms).
Most Western observers worry that were Putin to be successful, he would effectively end up ruling Russia for around 25 years. Such defacto unlimited term presidencies are viewed, not without justification, as a threat to democracy.
The truth of that threat, however, should not detract from the essential truth of Putin’s comparison: that American political system itself is saturated with superpresidentialism. Putin’s reference to FDR, however far fetched, should therefore make Americans fear not just about the state of Russia’s democracy, but their own too.
Incumbents in the US Congress, which lacks term limits, enjoy re-election rates of as much as 90%. Moreover, the US presidency is phenomenally strong, and there have been serious calls to scrap term limits, the most recent by influential Democrat Steny Hoyer.
He said:
The time has come to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, and not because of partisan politics,” explained Hoyer. “While I am not a supporter of the current President, I feel there are good public policy reasons for a repeal of this amendment. Under the Constitution as altered by the 22nd Amendment, this must be President George W. Bush’s last term even if the American people should want him to continue in office. This is an undemocratic result.
Even culturally, the US public frequently falls into line behind the image of a strong president, especially in war time; which has made criticising the President quite dangerous. Remember the Dixie Chicks?
Putin’s reference to the US presidency may have been self-justificatory and disingenuous, but not entirely specious.
After all, hearing someone you disagree with cloak his positions in your own philosophy and arguments can provide very useful opportunities for self reflection.
Stepping into the Other’s shoes can also generate clarity. When American David Blatt came to Russia and rose to become their national coach, the experience and engagement allowed him to reappraise something that he, along with most of his countrymen, believed without a doubt: that the US was unfairly robbed of the gold medal in the 1972 Olympic finals.
He revealed that while he cried as a kid whilst watching that match, seeing the Russian perspective led him to dispassionately assess the event and deem that it was in fact fair.
Perhaps unwittingly, the NBA chief proved his point by retorting: “You watch a film, or you hear reports, you can debate whether or not it was right or wrong. But if you lived it, and you were there, you know that it was wrong what happened.” In other words, ‘we’ are always right, facts be damned.
Yet only a deep engagement with an alternative experience can provide the kind of emotional distance, and clarity, necessary for the intellect to overpower the tears.
But in order for any of that to take place, dialogue is essential. As John Dewey wrote, “of all things, communication is the most wonderful”. And whether or not Russia and the US will ever see eye to eye, the more Americans talk with Putin and coach Russian teams, the more insight they will gain into their own country.
