Room for Debate: Russia and the Liberal

Room for Debate: Russia and the Liberal Ideal

The Liberal Ideal of the West, which grew out of the Romantic/Enlightenment era where men like Voltaire and Rousseau espoused the qualities of naturalism, freedom, and equality, is now being challenged by Russian President Vladimir Putin. He in turn is raising questions and rebuttals from those who oppose his regime's initiatives. Three articles from The New York Times show different perspectives on this challenge -- specifically, its effects on the social, political and economic situation of those it is aimed at rebuffing. This paper will identify the perspectives, synthesize the arguments, and put forth the new argument, which is this: while Western (and Eastern) liberals may object to these anti-liberal policies, as leader of Russia Putin has the right to oppose and/or support whatever ideals he deems healthy for Russia.

Each article shows why Russia's new anti-liberal direction is problematic for both liberal Russians and Westerners. "Pussy Riot Members Take Tour to New York" addresses the problem on the social scale. "Anti-Gay Policies Chill Viewers' Interest" addresses the problem on the economic scale. And "Anti-Gay Law Stirs Fears in Russia" addresses the problem on the political scale. The Pussy Riot article shows that the significance of Russia's stance is global and far-reaching. The "Viewers" article shows how the issue is significance for small business owners, who wish to support the liberal ideal but also bring in customers by showing the Winter Games on their TVs. The "Law" article shows the significance of Russia's stance politically, as Russia asserts a new "moral law" in the face of what it believes to be decadent Western values.

The Pussy Riot article provides the perspective that Russia's laws are uniting liberals across the world. Celebrity social activists like Susan Sarandon are meeting with the jailed (now released) members of Pussy Riot to promote opposition to Russia's anti-liberal stance. Bands like The Flaming Lips and artists like Peter Gabriel and Madonna are performing in New York to "raise awareness of what Amnesty calls prisoners of conscience" (Gladstone). The perspective of this article is sympathetic with the stance of Pussy Riot and the liberal ideals they represent. The phrase "prisoners of conscience" evokes the notion that the Pussy Riot members who oppose Russia's anti-liberal laws and were jailed for their protest are victims of anti-liberal oppression, that Russia is impinging on their right to follow their "conscience." The article does not suggest that Russian leaders also have a right to direct Russian citizens on how to properly form their consciences so that they are in conformity with the "moral law" that Russia desires to promote.

The issue of "moral law" is mentioned in the article that gives the political perspective of the issue, "Anti-Gay Law Stirs Fears in Russia." However, as the title of the article indicates, Russia's "moral law" is viewed as archaic, insensitive, aggressive and hostile to Western liberalist ideals. The article describes how the law views homosexuals as "perverts" and that there will be a "crackdown" on such people (Schwirtz). The language used in this perspective is meant to inspire fear among liberal citizens and draw attention to what appears to be ruthless lawmaking based on old world doctrine. Schwirtz notes that "Western governments" are urging Russian lawmakers to oppose the anti-liberal laws. This note is meant to appeal to hopeful liberal idealists, even as the rest of the article shows how hostile to liberalism Russia is fast becoming.

The perspective of the article that deals with the local economic impact of this issue is sympathetic to gay small business owners whose clientele is of the homosexual community. It shows how the business owners want to support liberal ideals by boycotting the Olympic Games hosted in Russia, but how they also need to appeal to clientele who want to see the Games in spite of Russia's anti-liberal stance. One owner is described as deciding ultimately to show the Games and use the venue as an opportunity to "hold fundraisers for pro-gay advocacy groups in Russia" (Bernstein). This shows that the liberal community is using the anti-liberal agenda of Russian leaders as an opportunity to rally its own communal members.

What none of the articles discuss in detail is the right of the Russian leaders to pass anti-liberal laws. Schwirtz quotes Russia's LGBT Network head as saying no amount of legislation can turn a homosexual into a heterosexual and that therefore the legislation forbidding the dissemination of homosexual propaganda to minors is as pointless as a law stipulating that we "turn off" the sun. The issue that Schwirtz glosses over is the claim that the Network head is making: that homosexuality is natural. Russian leaders appear to be arguing that it is unnatural and contrary to moral and spiritual order (Schwirtz). Each article represents a perspective on the issue of Russia's new laws, but each fails to represent the heart of the matter, which is this: what is natural and good for individuals and society as a whole and what is not?

It is appropriate to suggest that the argument be shifted away from the perspectives shown in each article and toward a more abstract/philosophical dimension of the question. For underlying each of the social, political and economical perspectives is this question of universal good and universal truth. The question is as old as history and the ancient Greeks, especially under Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, attempted to underline the importance of this question in their teachings. A fair debate regarding the issue of Russia's anti-liberal laws would need to start there. It could begin by posing the question: Is liberalism a philosophy that promotes what Plato identified as the one, the good, the true, and the beautiful? The problem is that the liberal community believes that it does whereas the anti-liberal community believes that it does not. A discussion on the efficacy of liberalism is one that could heighten and deepen the debate at hand. One should understand both sides of an argument before attempting to reach a conclusion and these three articles of The New York Times are mainly sympathetic with the liberal side of the argument, portraying Russian authorities as hostile, aggressive, anti-Western and out of date with modern thought.