Of Presidents And Sycophants
Oleg Gordievsky writes about how many Russians behave as toadies to Putin, but the examples he cited, while embarrassing and often ridiculous, seem positively tame compared to the praise regularly heaped on our Presidents by their partisans. To my knowledge, no one has speculated, jokingly or otherwise, about Putin’s potential to be a Messiah or a “Lightwalkerworker,” and I am skeptical that there has ever been any Putin sycophant so delirious as Hinderaker when praising Bush as a “man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius.” Maybe Putin has similarly fawning admirers, but I have to assume they are somehow on the government payroll. Perhaps systems with strong roles for presidents inevitably lead to this sort of flattery of the quasi-monarch, as our cousins in the parliamentary democracies do not usually fall into such excesses of leader-worship. Parliamentary leaders are readily replaceable and the electorate is not involved in raising them up to their leadership position in the same way.
It seems to me that our bad habits might be worse in that they often seem to be more expressions of real enthusiasm in praising mediocrities rather than self-serving celebration of someone who can give you patronage. Nominating conventions here in the U.S. are elaborate pieces of staged propaganda for something very much like a personality cult. While many of the speakers no doubt craft their remarks to advance their political careers, that still cannot really explain the zeal of most of the delegates and other partisans around the country. This staged propaganda moment was not always the case, but as the conventions have increasingly become more of a formality and a televised performance than a necessary political gathering the sycophancy of the attendees seems to have grown apace.
Republicans rolled their eyes at the stagecraft of Obama’s acceptance speech in Mile High Stadium, obsessing about the “Greek temple” look that was actually a reference to the Lincoln Memorial (talk about a personality cult!), but this was, I think, mostly a function of jealousy after their own relatively technically inept convention centered around an uninspiring speaker. The response to Palin seems to confirm this. There is nothing particularly edifying or attractive about flattering people in power. However, unlike in Russia’s populist authoritarian system where there may be some clear incentive to do this as a way of gaining access or employment, there is not necessarily any reward for abasing oneself before party leaders here and yet thousands and millions of people here do it on a regular basis.
7 Responses to “Of Presidents And Sycophants”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’m loathe to praise Putin, since he’s an authoritarian and a killer. But I can understand Russian affection for him more than I can understand American affection for Bush. Putin has presided over the revival of the Russian economy and the reassertion of Russian influence abroad, whereas Bush presided over the decline of American influence and the American economy.
Putin’s an intelligent, competent and energetic leader, and given the kind of leadership Russia’s put up with in its recent history I get why he enjoys strong support. The article quotes a few people saying things like “thank God for Putin,” “Putin’s a giant,” etc. Given where the country was when he took over and where it is now I don’t think those are outlandishly sycophantic remarks. I’m aware of Putin’s authoritarianism, his brutality, his murders of political opponents and journalists, etc., but it’s a bit much to feign bafflement as to why the average Russian might support him.
as for the general U.S. populace, it’s either political sycophantry, or American Idol – take your pick.
Really, it’s just part of the bread and circus situation we’re in. People need to love something, and as that is no longer Deity, the adoration will find its way somewhere.
While I’m posting, please allow me to take a minute and compliment you on; your writing style, vocabulary, obvious good taste in political affiliations (or lack-thereof), the choice of the word “Eunomia” (which is how I first found this blog), and the lovely shade of blue you’ve chosen to adorn the sides of the page. You’ve got my vote anytime, and if Simon or any of the other judges disagree with me, I’ll sock the right in their gosh darned mouths!
Daniel, I think one reason for the absurd sycophancy in the United States is the role television plays in our society and in our politics. Television seems to have saturated America more deeply than in any other industrialized society, with the result that an American President isn’t just a politician, but a TV character like Gaius Baltar or Eric Cartman. Most Americans are too ignorant to really understand the president’s policy choices, but they can certainly appreciate his cultural impact.
The president is a brand mascot, and to augment and establish that brand, there’s going to be a bunch of dolts who gush about this particular mascot. (I.e., Fox News with Bush, probably the Huffington Post with Obama.) But there will also be a horde of dolts to gush about the mascot-ship itself, in the abstract – about the dignity and solemnity of the office, and the majesty of the electoral process, and the who’s-up / who’s-down Big Mo horseraciness of it all, too – because were it not for this ritual, normal people might realize the whole thing is shallow and repulsive.
I think separating the Head of State from the Chief Executive would be enormously helpful for American culture, but I don’t see it happening any time soon.
I’m not sure I’ve heard of anyone seriously suggesting any American President is literally a “messiah”, much less a “lightwalker” – whatever that is. (Did you mean to say “lightworker”? If so, in the new age lexicon that title can apply to virtually anyone doing good things, nothing particularly special in calling Obama that). Some evangelicals might have thought Bush was annointed in some sense, while others worshipped the bulge in his flightsuit, but I’m not sure if any really took it all that seriously. And Obama using Greek stagecraft hardly suggests anything heavenly – the Greeks did originate democracy, after all. If he’d positioned himself atop Mt. Olympus you might consider it a bit of hubris. So I’m really not all that impressed with the notion that Americans worship their Presidents. They simply get enthusiastic about popular personalities, as with all celebrities, singers, and movie stars. In America, the President is just the biggest celebrity of them all, which is a far cry from being a “messiah” in any serious sense of the word, regardless of the conventions of our civic religion.
Daniel,
If you think sycophants did not heap fawning praise on Putin to the same degree as Bush, you missed John Laughland’s wholly uncritical and even girlish piece on him in AmCon’s Nov 7, 07 issue.
No, I didn’t miss it, and I don’t buy that it was all that fawning. It certainly wasn’t Hinderaker-esque (few things can be that bad). In my experience, whenever anyone attempts to describe positively *anything* that Putin has done without a dozen qualifications saying that he is an evil KGB villain this is treated the same as hero-worship. Laughland was giving an account of a meeting he attended, and he made a number of observations about Putin’s tenure as President, most of which are not really in dispute. Laughland never called Putin a “man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius” or anything like it. I believe one part that particularly set off Michael Moynihan about that item was that he claimed Putin is not particularly ideological, which is obviously correct. That means he is self-interested and keen to find ways to hold on to power, but it also means that he is not the fanatic rebuilder of the Soviet Union some people want to make him out to be. I have been over this a few times in the past, and I have to say Laughland’s critics don’t have much to complain about when it comes to that specific article.
Based on my correspondence with Ms. Hopkins, she doesn’t agree with you.
The Laughland article was devoid of criticism. He could identify nothing on which the U.S. or UK (since he’s not an American) diverge in their interests from Russia. He could find nothing in Putin’s tenure that merited the least criticism. And his description of Putin’s physique “relaxed body language”, “soft eyes”, “body taut”, are embarrassing coming from a man. (I’d say the same about the descriptions of Bush you alude to.) That is not the purpose of a journalist in interviewing a head of state. (Although perhaps we can agree Laughland is not a journalist.)
I certainly agree that the major media in the U.S. present a cartoonish portrayal of a “malevolent” Putin and Russia, and exaggerate (I think it’s fair to say grossly) the extent to which the US and Russ have conflicting interests. A useful leavening of that suffocating distortion is proper. (Just as a substantial correction in our country’s policies toward Russia is in order.) But you correct distortion with reasoned and balanced reporting, not the equivalent of a Barbra Walters’ interview.
Is it really possible that there’s nothing on which Putin can be criticized? Since when is popularity a measure for conservatives of a statesman’s virtue? Obama is incredibly popular, as was Clinton before him and even Bush for a time.
You will not persuade me on Laughland and Putin. That article substantially undermined Laughland’s overall credibility for me, and I’m glad that he has not appeared much in TAC since then.
My unpleasant view of Laughland aside, you likely are correct that nothing approaches the obsequiousness toward Bush (the “rebel in chief”), until, at least, we’re further into Obama’s presidency. So in that way, at least, I’m unfair to Laughland.