On Trump-Hitler comparisons

It is perhaps a bit too late, but I would like to lay to rest the Trump-Nazi comparisons. In my opinion they are superficially based on comparing rhetoric and personality traits, and miss the essential points. At best they are misleading, at worst - they are offensive to those who indeed suffered under dictatorial or totalitarian regimes.

1. People often confuse dictatorship with totalitarianism. Dictatorship is about one person controlling all power branches, whereas totalitarianism is about re-building society according to a different model - it is about ideas that surpass a single person. Nazism, fascism and communism are all totalitarian ideologies which continue to attract people well after their founders died. Hitler, Lenin, Mao and others took a great deal of effort to summarize their ideologies in their written works, where they openly expressed their disrespect for the "rotten" social democracy and described the methods for dismantling it. Trump has no ideology, it is all about himself. So any comparisons with Nazism are simply invalid.

2. Hitler didn't win elections. His party didn't have majority in parliament even after several election cycles. He came to power through a crack in a democratic system - he was appointed the chancellor because of a constitutional crisis, i.e. when government could not be formed democratically.

3. Hitler didn't get total power just because he became a chancellor. He also had his people appointed to key ministries, police etc. And it took them many years to dismantle democratic mechanisms. To be a dictator, Trump would have to have a majority in Congress and Senate, loyal supreme court, his people in FBI and CIA, etc. Until recently the Republicans complained that assassination of US citizens, going to war with congressional authorization, and executive action erode US democracy - they have a valid point here. One could also add the NSA total spying program - a necessary tool, if one wanted to eliminate political opponents.

In short, if I had to bet on one of the two candidates becoming a US dictator, I wouldn't bet on Trump. Which, of course, doesn't make him a good candidate.

Political neurosis. (Or how to vote for Hillary and remain sane.)

Summary: Voting for Hillary is your right, and one could even make a logical case for it. One could disagree with such a choice, but it is a choice to be respected. On the other hand, ignoring Hillary's faults, attributing to her non-existing competences, and framing your support for her as something grounded in high moral values are a different story. And it says more about you than about her.

There are many people who would like to believe that Hillary is good and that Trump is evil, and that the good always wins. And if you are one of them, then there is nothing easier than surrounding yourself with like-minded people and reading only Hillary-friendly media, i.e. living in a comfortable emphatic bubble.

Except if you are too intelligent to dismiss the evidence that Hillary is far from an angel. And that the world is far from being a good place, and people are being exploited and murdered every day to guarantee your rather comfortable way of life. (I could give you here a long list of Hillary's faults. However, if you need such a list, then you probably belong to the previous paragraph.)

But then you may not have enough courage to accept that the world is such a nasty and scary place. And you want to explain it away: by arguing with those who disagree with you, by ignoring the Hillary's faults and by trying to prove that even doubting her virtues paves the way for unimaginable horrors to come. In short, you try to convince yourself that the world is not what it is, but what you want it to be.

Isn't this the very textbook definition of neurosis? Yes. And we know that it doesn't matter how much you argue and even if you manage to convince someone - your anxiety will remain. Because the ultimate person that you have to convince is yourself - and, as we have already assumed, you are too intelligent and informed to ignore the truth. The reality will not change - the only thing that can change is you. Mastering courage is the only path to mental health.

P.S. Bonus: not only will it make you feel better, but it will also make you look smarter!

P.P.S. The bad news: you may still have to deal with hundreds of less courageous people around you...

Russian's guide to western naiveté: Belief in a good Tsar

A Facebook friend mentioned today that Russians often see westerners as naive in political matters. This is a very rich subject, and I hope that I will have inspiration to write more about it in the future. For now I limit myself to only one aspect.

Proposition: Westerners believe that honest politicians exist and that the politics in their countries is done honestly.

This is something that Russians refer to as a "belief in the good Tsar" ("Вера в доброго царя.") The story behind this is that Russians for centuries held a belief in a loving and caring Tsar, attributing their privations and poverty to the abuse by the government officials, who supposedly disobeyed their sovereign. Thus, if only the Tsar could be made aware of the Russian people's desperate situation, things could be straightened out: the Tsar would punish crooked officials and reward hardworking and honest people.

The expression is used nowadays as derogatory to describe those seeking solutions in changing political personalities while leaving in place the system that encourages the abuse. That is, the root of the problem in pre-revolutionary Russia was not corrupted officials standing between the Tsar and the Russian people, but the autocratic system that inevitably produces such a situation.

Most Russians nowadays are likely to believe that "all politicians are crooks" - something that westerners know as "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Yet, very few of my European or American friends seem to think that this maxim applies to their countries and/or their favorite politicians, which makes me think of them as naive. (Yes, I mean people like Barack Obama, Justin Trudeau, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, etc. - no political personality is holy for a disgruntled Russian. More about this in a minute.)

So, let me provide you with a bit of a practical advice: if you happen to discuss politics with a Russian, don't start with an emphatic proposition, such as "George Bush is a war criminal./Obama is very smart./Trump is a bigot./Hillary Clinton is competent." Instead of showing empathy, the Russian may ask you: "WHY DO YOU THINK SO?" and you will be in an unenviable position of having to provide logical reasoning for your feelings.

OR they may come hard at you with a bunch of facts demonstrating that your statement is wrong. This doesn't mean that they side with the other political side, but simply that they read newspapers and they judge your statement as technically incorrect. Alas, the maxim "Plato is my friend but truth is a better friend" still matters for Russians. ("Платон мне друг, но истина дороже."/"Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas")

OR they may say nothing. And this is the worst thing, because they probably think that you are too naive/ignorant/stupid to take seriously.

Instead, try another approach. For example, explain why you think that the US should continue spending money on defending South Korea and Japan, and why you think that leaving these countries to defend themselves and allowing them to develop their own nuclear weapons is a bad idea. Don't forget to mention pros and cons. The Russians may not agree with you but they will think you are thinking. And intelligence is something that they respect more than political correctness: "He is rude, but he is a good person" ("Он хам, но человек хороший.")