Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
So Give Me the Scoop on this CPAC Thing
I’m guessing there’s no better group of people to ask. I want to know what really happened at CPAC. Remember, I wasn’t there. Missed the party. Wasted my weekend on the news about Boris Nemtsov being blown away on the streets of Moscow. No, of course I don’t know who killed him, but I’m not yet at that zen state where I look at that news and think, “Political assassination in Moscow, Kremlin critic lying dead just outside the Kremlin’s walls, who cares, how could that possibly affect the world.”
So after freaking out completely, I turn my attention back to the US to scan the news from the other superpower, the last, best chance of –well, “my country,” as I quaintly think of it. I read, variously, that CPAC is freaking out the Nation because it seemed “disturbingly sane,” and that 25.7 percent of the 3,000+ attendees–half of whom identified as between the ages of 18 and 25–think Rand Paul’s the man for the job.
If I were just casually skim
ming the news, didn’t know all that much about America, my takeaway would be that CPAC made itself look “disturbingly sane” to the Nation–and I’d be confused: Shouldn’t CPAC just look “disturbing” to the Nation? What does CPAC look like to our nation, as opposed to the Nation? What about the world–did CPAC just make our nation look sane, insane, or “disturbingly sane?” I hope people at CPAC were sane enough to be really freaked out by that news from Moscow–were they?
Ricochet is on the CPAC beat and it’s been there all weekend. Looks like we’ve got 21 podcasts from CPAC and lots of people who were there. Which one should I listen to if I want to know, “What really happened at CPAC?” I figure I have a better chance of figuring that out than figuring out who killed Nemtsov. I want reassurance that CPAC is sane, not “disturbingly sane to the Nation,” or “totally insane, full stop.” So I want to know if lots of people there were thinking, “Who killed Nemtsov,” and worrying about the things sane people worry about when that news clatters across the transom.
Or, maybe I could just focus on the really important part. The key metric. It sounds like there were a lot of Washington critics in Washington. All alive and accounted for, as I understand it. I myself find that undisturbing and entirely sane. Unlike that other superpower I could mention.
But yes, I’d find it weird if you told me, “No one there was at all concerned about Kremlin.” It’s one thing to look so sane it confuses the Nation, another thing to be insane, like the Nation. 
Basically, I don’t think Americans are insane. I reckon if you offer them Rand Paul, my fellow citizens will still be the Americans I know, so unless I’ve completely lost the plot, they’ll give you Jim Webb.
Frankly, he makes a lot more sense to me on national security. Or at least, he seems to be in basic contact with reality. So yes, given that awful choice, I’d vote Webb. My loyalty–and my duty–isn’t to the Republican Party. It’s to the United States of America. If I think the American conservative party has gone nuts, I’ll vote for the least-nuts Democrat. I reckon–I hope–that many Americans do share my view. But you’re there, I’m not. Do you?
Published in General
It’s not the right question to ask. The question with countries like this is not, “Are they nice places.” It’s, “Did they just cross a new threshold in craziness. If so, why. Does this suggest they’re about to cross another one–and if so, how soon. And in what way. And if so, what do we do.”
This was a big one. It wasn’t like the other recent ones. You can do lots of stuff in a country with a fairly subservient media–like invade countries on your periphery–and convince people that it kind of makes sense or is even just great. You can assassinate a few journalists, a few oligarchs, a few people abroad, and most people will still think, “Far from me, big deal; I’m sure they know what they’re doing.” You can put lots of people in prison, you can corrupt everything–and still people will think, “It happens.”
When the former deputy prime minister is assassinated in front of the Kremlin, you’re not in “managed democracy” territory anymore. You’re either in “flat-out terror” territory, or “no longer in control of the Kremlin” territory. Both would be quite different from what we’ve seen so far. Whether it’s a severe escalation in the insanity or a sign that he’s losing control, it has real implications.
Claire – Beyond agreeing with you – what would you have Americans, the President, the State Department or the US Congress do?
We know that Putin is dangerous and capable of sanctioning barbaric acts. He is, after all, promoting at least one war.
I don’t get it. I mean, I’ll accept that if people think it is a Big Deal, then it is (for that reason alone). But I still see nothing remotely surprising about just another assassination or elimination of an opponent.
I think this particular threshold is worn from frequent passage. As to what we do about it, my guess is nothing until all the alarms and flashing lights turn on at NORAD. We’ll never risk open war, and our best non-military pressure is in energy development, something the current administration has the same taste for as I have for balut.
Apparently some 70,000 people are now marching in Moscow to protest the Nemtsov murder. Let’s see if this grows beyond a one-day event.
I’m not (yet) convinced that the Nemtsov murder is the Kirov affair redux, but it is a very big deal indeed. Yes, opponents of V.V. Putin have the tendency to end up dead, but for the most part, the prominent ones have not actually been all that prominent: parliamentarian, journalist, former KGB agent. For the most part, people who were basically unknown outside of Russia (or like Anna Politovskaya, known to close Russia-watchers; or like Khodorkovsky allowed to die under color of law).
Nemtsov is different. He was basically Yeltsin’s heir apparent until Boris Nikolayevich forewent Boris Yefimovich in favor of Vladimir Vladimirovich, much to the world’s eventual sorrow. He was a very important guy, and although he’s not been anywhere near the levers of power under the Putinshchina, he’s been one of the loudest critic of the regime from, essentially, our point of view—that is, in favor of a liberal society, economy, and restrained state.
His positions in this regard have given him, in some respects, undue prominence in the Western media. As one of the undisputed good guys, American, British, French, German, etc., reporters all knew and liked the guy (who was by all accounts a very likable guy). In the small worlds of Western Russophiles and Russian Occidentophiles, this is a titanic earthquake and a shock. Hence the NYT headlines of Russia in fear! or whatever it was.
But, unfortunately, the fact is that most Russians could care less about Nemtsov or his ideas. He’s been in the “loser” category for a while, and the public discourse in Russia has been dominated by Putin’s propaganda machine. To the point, that, as Iulia Ioffe reported on Twitter, most ordinary Russians are asserting—having been carefully taught—that the U.S. probably had him whacked.
The lesson here is that Putin—or perhaps someone in a power ministry or affiliated “private” mafias who wished to rid him of a turbulent priest—is comfortable taking his dictatorship to the next level: publicly murdering people in the élite. In this respect, it is like the Kirov murder. Is this going to kick of a Great Terror like Kirov’s murder? No, there’s no Party to purge, and Nemtsov as not an erstwhile ally (though they worked together under Yeltsin).
No one with eyes can mistake Don Vladimir for anything but a gangster with a revanchist grudge. What’s new here is that the Nemtsov murder seems to announce that the very highest levels of politics in Russia are now part of the gangland. It used to be that at a certain level—especially if, unlike Khodorkovsky and some of the other “oligarchs,” you didn’t possess billions to be able to act on it—you could criticize the government or Putin fairly broadly. Unless Putin’s investigation turns up a credible alternate scenario (don’t bet the farm, kids) which is presented in such a way to reassure the non-Putinist elements, that era looks to be over, unless you’re willing to be a martyr for your views.
So, I’d suggest the historical analogy is less Kirov than if, say, Hitler had had the head of the former Center party shot outside the Chancellery in 1938 in order to let people know what the score really was.
But it’s a very important, very grim development that seems to confirm that Russia’s not only far down the slope towards naked despotism, but accelerating.
Naked is the key term here. If we’re doing the Dance of the Seven Veils here, with each revealing more and more, Nemtsov’s murder was the dropping of the sixth. There’s not much left covered, but it’s hard not to be riveted wondering if it’s really going to go all the way.
Boris Yefimovich Nemtsov (1959–2015), requiescat in pace (and though he was Orthodox, in view of his mother’s having been Jewish, alav ha-shalom).
iWc:
I think you’re right to see it of a piece, but it’s an important difference in degree (and perhaps in kind) based upon whom the “opponent” is.
Claire,
Let’s see I’m supposed to even consider voting for any democrat after being subjected to six years of:
The Arab Spring Policy
The Reset With the Russian
Libya
Total Withdrawal From Iraq
Appeasement of North Korea
Intending from day one to give the BOMB TO IRAN!
—
Obamacare
Obamanet
Obamaschool (Common Core)
The Single Most Absurd Immigration Policy of any Country on the Face of the Earth.
A Fabulously Psychotic Global Warming Obsession That Will Kill The American Economy and Probably Bring on a World Wide Depression.
—-
I’m supposed to consider voting for Jim Webb on the basis of a 1996 puff piece on Frontline which made him sound heroic because he didn’t join the rest of his party in the Tailhook Warlock Hunt and because some well paid staff writer who didn’t fall asleep in Law School (as opposed to the entire Obama Administration including Obama) writes a nice constitutional position piece.
I’m supposed to ignore the fact that if Webb actually believed his own position paper he’d have been screaming for the IMPEACHMENT of Obama for the last couple years.
Jeb Sucks. If Rand gets the nod I’ll be glad to take the risk that he might be a little too Libertarian on foreign policy. Marco will work for me. Scott’s fine too. Any Democrat would be 149th on the list not because I’m such a loyal Republican but because the party of total nonsense comes along with any Democrat.
I hope that clears things up.
Regards,
Jim
This is real. And the problem is not Tina Turner–who cares about her–it’s people who don’t have a lot of money, and have an ugly choice: do I leave my family and go back to the US so I can support them? Because many of us can’t support them under a double-taxation regime. And their families can’t come back with them, either, given our immigration climate. So they get to ask themselves, “What will it do to my marriage and kids if I go back to the US so that I have a hope of being able to support my family–meaning I only see my kids 30 days out of the year, at best? What kind of strain will that put on my marriage? Is that going to be good for my kids’ mental health?”
So guess what people who respond to economic incentives conclude: don’t get married, don’t have kids, and try not to earn too much money. Most Americans think this is not a problem, because they think by definition, if you live abroad you’re a wealthy one-percenter, as opposed to someone struggling to stay afloat financially and keep her family together. But in fact, most expats are the latter. Expats are (by definition) going to have a hard time forming a lobby group in Washington, because we’re not there. Most of us are not Tina Turner and not in Switzerland. Most of us have middle-class jobs (at best)–and families. Many of us would be delighted to come home, but not if it means leaving our families behind.
And guess what. US citizens are now toxic to banks abroad. They don’t want our money, because they don’t want to deal with the IRS any more than we do. It’s too baffling, there’s too much paperwork, and it’s easier for them just to tell US citizens, “We don’t let US citizens open accounts.” This should be a clue to someone that most of us are not, actually, stashing huge amounts of money overseas, because they’d probably think we were worth it if we were. They don’t.
Now, I’d sooner give up a limb than my US passport, because I’m American. Period. I don’t know what I’d do if the choice was “my passport or my kids.” Thank God it isn’t. But I hope one day we’ll remember that Americans are “pro-trade, pro-family, and the people who bring money, commerce, and business with us wherever we go–not our federal bureaucracy–and especially not the IRS.”
But everyone loves the idea of soaking the rich, and everyone is prepared to believe that if you live overseas, you’re rich. In fact, you’re usually an English teacher.
CPAC is interesting because it’s the only political event where the national news media are surrounded by conservatives in the hotels and hallways. That prevents them from their usual open hostility and snide reports back to New York. Also, most of the media coming from the event are internet, podcasts, or C-Span, i.e., New Media.
From the new to the old …
I’m viscerally with iWc on the Nemtsov murder. I have no idea whether Putin was really behind it, but if he was, I’m not the slightest bit shocked. The Soviet Union was a terror state long before Radical Islam was a glint in The Prophet’s Eye. The stories of Stalin’s paranoid purges are familiar to Americans, and Putin is always reported as longing to go back to those days.
What will be revolutionary is if this event sparks a retaliation. We’re hoping.
Exactly this. And more, because Claire didn’t even get into the FBAR and its delights.
This is the comment to which my comment above referred. Ricochet does not like my Kindle Fire!
Well, this is part of what’s interesting about the hall of mirrors that Russian “politics” are becoming—not unlike the old, opaque Soviet days. One theory bandied about is that if anyone wants to foment a crisis, it’s actually the really hard-core, true-believer nationalists, who take Putin (rightly) as a lot more cautious and cynical than they. Ergo, create a crisis of legitimacy, who’s to benefit? Not the long-discredited allies of the decadent Latin West, but the God-anointed champions of the Third Rome who will ride to the rescue and restore the Divine plan. (Or substitute “Atlanticists” and “Eurasianists” if you’re Alexander Dugin.)
I consider this pretty outré, not least because, much as these guys hated Nemtsov and everything he stood for, Nemtsov’s death is (in my admittedly trivial opinion) very unlikely to bring about any sort of crisis, but the opposite. A few marches, then settling into the new order. So it seems to me to have been more likely to signal a consolidation of power and the state’s unwillingness to be crossed. Ergo, Putin or some pro-Putin group is the most likely suspect.
Why they’d feel the need to send up such a flare? Well, usually it’s one of two things. Either they feel emboldened to act as they really want, or they’re running scared. I don’t think they’re scared.
I agree. Assuming that the obvious theory (Putin did it) is indeed the right one, it tells me that he’s passed the “There’s no pretence anymore” point. That’s a significant one. The analogy I’d make is this one: Turkey locks up its own journalists all the time. When they start locking up foreign journalists, it has an unusual significance. This is not because it’s so unexpected for Turkey to lock up journalists, and it’s not because a foreign journalist’s life is worth one bit more, but because it means they no longer care who notices. It’s a formal declaration: “We’re not even pretending to be sane anymore. We now get it that we don’t have to pretend–we know you won’t do a thing.”
It’s a new stage of nuts: Call it “Formally, officially, brazenly and totally nuts.” Generally a sign of a dawning realization: “We don’t even have to pretend to play by the rules anymore. We don’t have to sneakily poison our dissidents in London, we can just shoot them right in front of the cameras in front of the Kremlin. What are they going to do? Nothing.”
This is assuming that “the obvious theory” is correct. The second-most obvious theory, the default theory, is that someone else did it. Which tells you that things are falling apart, and we don’t know who’s in control. Not a great and comforting thought either. If he doesn’t have a lid on things, why–that poses its own problems, doesn’t it?
Yep. If hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue, what this says is, “We’re not bothering to pay the tribute anymore.”
Claire, I’d say the second-most obvious theory is that, if the Kremlin didn’t order it, they didn’t stop whoever did. Nemtsov was doubtless under Cheka surveillance pretty much 24/7. If someone else was scoping him out for a hit, the odds that the Chekists didn’t know are pretty slim. And obviously, if they knew, they stepped aside. Which implicates Putin by proxy—but might give him a little deniability if he decides that the appearance of brazen assassination of élite opponents isn’t in his interest. But I’m not sure it’s not, right? I mean, even if he didn’t have it done (unlikely, but possible), he’s the big winner by its being attributed to him. He’s the scariest dude in the prison yard.
I suppose next we wait to see if someone inside the siloviki circle gets taken out. I kind of doubt it. I think the Russians learned the lesson of Stalin pretty well. Absolute terror at the top of the political system is not functional.
I don’t know the exact timeline, but news of the murder was just coming through Friday, the 2nd day of CPAC. While I expect they saw the headline, I doubt many of these speakers are, at this point, being briefed so regularly on foreign affairs that they would be prepared to speak publicly about it that quickly. Rubio would be the one I’d expect to jump on it: but he was also the earliest to speak Friday.
In other words, not mentioning it at CPAC tells us nothing at all about Walker, Perry, Cruz, and Jindal — who spoke Thursday — and very little about Rubio, Paul, or Bush.
You can’t listen to Marco Rubio speak without realizing that he is serious about this country and quite aware of the reality of evil. Jeb Bush is knowledgeable. Scott Walker is a capable, effective leader. They’re all serious, responsible people — sane, if you like. I don’t feel any need to forget everything else I believe is important for this country because of their comparative lack of foreign policy experience.
Oh, and Rand Paul winning the straw poll — again — means nothing except that the Pauls have a special kind of following that is willing to be bused in to these events on purpose in order to win straw polls. For what it’s worth, Rich Lowry’s foreign policy takeaway from the event was that the party has left behind any idea of a Paulian foreign policy.
The only big news from the straw poll is that Scott Walker actually made it close. The main question in the Republican primary right now is how quickly Walker, while still very actively governing Wisconsin, can put together a coherent national policy on a range of issues, and how effectively he can communicate it off the cuff. If his national performance is at a level comparable to what I’ve seen in his state, he may well be the nominee. If not, it’s probably Bush or Rubio.
Well, I just don’t know. I don’t know enough to say that confidently. I don’t have a very good sense of what it would take to pull it off without the Kremlin’s blessing. Is a Sikh bodyguards/Indira Gandhi situation imaginable? How loyal is that surveillance team? How are they vetted? Is it remotely imaginable that their could be an anti-Putin Cheka faction? Could they be bought off? Infiltrated? I mean–obviously, I’m totally out of my depth, and have no idea. It would help if I could read Russian, had lived there, really understood how it worked. Is the assumption that Putin has things securely and totally under control a solid one? I assume that for sure, he has enemies. Can’t see why this would benefit them, though–although yes, it’s true, people exist who like to kill people like Nemtsov for reasons that have nothing to do with Putin.
My intuitive model on this is Turkey, which may be a useful one or may not be. I assume that this is not, in fact, a one-man show, even though everyone focuses on Putin, that he needs the cooperation of the Russian equivalent of the Deep State, and that it’s at least possible this could be a Hrant Dink sort of thing, right? Because you’re right–he didn’t pose an obvious threat to Putin, and this is the sort of thing that makes Putin look nuts–which may be a desirable effect, from his point of view, but if so, why? He was doing quite nicely without upping the ante, wasn’t he?
I’m not even remotely qualified to figure it out, but logically, either he’s upped the “I am insane” stakes, or his control isn’t complete. And if he can’t keep the boys around the Kremlin under his thumb, what else might be about to shake loose?
I’m wondering if the effect of our policy so far has been to enrage and destabilize, but not remotely to deter. Anyone got a better idea? And seriously, was this discussed at CPAC? If so, did it seem like a serious discussion?
What are we prepared to do if the next step is a full-on, obvious Clause V violation? Is that the next step? Or is it to be more strategic? Fund more pro-Putin parties in Europe, try to sow more discord in what’s left of NATO?
I wish I knew him and had better insight into how he really thought. I do know this sort of thing has the desired effect on me–it terrifies me.
Oh. Like Erdoğan. I find that sort of thing distasteful.
Jeb Bush’s team bused in supporters for his appearance as well. It is to be expected at an event such as CPAC. It’s more important to listen to what each of the prospective candidates say, how they say it and what they do not say…and ignore the sycophants in the audience in any given camp who hoop and holler or clap wildly at the drop of a hat.
And since when has politics been a tasteful endeavor?
Claire – I think you have an inflated notion about the sort of conference that CPAC is. It is essentially a “beauty contest” for prospective candidates to present themselves to the conservative base of the party to provide sound bites on a wide range of issues but only in a cursory manner. It is not a conference where in-depth discussions on the complex, inner workings of Putin’s Russia or any other foreign state are presented. That is much better addressed when candidates engage in discussions sponsored by AEI and other similar think tanks…and I think that’s the problem with this post in general – that you want CPAC to be something that it is not.
Well, like the Pauls. It’s organized, but it’s also just that most conservatives have jobs or families or other commitments. The ones who make it to these things are somewhat disproportionately libertarian.
I don’t know if there was any discussion on the ground, but it was still breaking news Friday. To be honest, conservatives are overwhelmed with things to worry about. They’d be quite prepared to take Russia seriously — but you might find some more focused on taking Iran seriously at the moment.
Claire – Of course, your other problem may have been in reading an article from The Nation and taking it seriously.
Well, like I said, the main thing is that we don’t shoot our political opposition. That’s both immensely admirable and huge unusual. And I sure don’t take it for granted.
And I reckon it’s more than enough for me to feel great pride in being American, even if I wish people instinctively felt that it was a bit tacky to bus in their supporters to bump up their standing in the straw polls. I mean–that’s not a sign of confidence in the persuasive case you’ve come to present or your ability to win over those who aren’t already in your camp.
I like to think of us as having big-time superpower gravitas. And I think this would be a fine moment for a display of it. Bussing in your own supporters so they can vote for you just seems insecure to me. As if you don’t really believe you’re able to win anyone over on the strength of your arguments.
Politics is the art of the tacky.
I think I need to trademark that. :-)
I was thinking this while half-watching the political drama in Oregon. I don’t know if you followed that, but basically all the elements of that story were the kind of thing that would have led to bloodshed in most times and places throughout history. Corruption, a powerful, influential mistress, and a governor descending into utterly erratic behavior. A week’s political theater and the Secretary of State took over, and it’s back to Left Coast politics as usual, quite peaceably with no one dreaming it could conceivably have been otherwise.
But CPAC isn’t the Republican National Convention. I agree that busing in the supporters is an act of the insecure or the fringe. For Ron Paul, it was always his only chance to win anything anyway (except the roadside sign count). For Bush… well, maybe he should feel insecure. Walker, I understand, didn’t have any apparent organization.
You pick up that lingo in Paris, Claire? Huge unusual for them French, I reckon. Anyways, we here in America know our politicians -all of em – are playing the perception game, you know, how things appear to folks. We takes our own straw polls, us voters. Considerin’ that they all bus them in, we want to know where they bus in from. Are they young folk fresh out of college maybe liberty-minded for Paul coming from all over for a day out, or are they direct from K street, some of em even Democrats, as Mollie Hemingway will tell you, comin’ in for Jeb – the millionaire.
Now don’t you fret, Claire, over there in gay Paree what them baguette chewin cafe intellectuals say about America. Obamas the biggest embarrassment we got. None of them at the CPAC gathering ain’t close to that varmint – not even Jeb the millionaire – in the lackin of the gravitas. But don’t let em see that Duck Dynasty guy, that’d sure scare em right off their scooters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJDEFskS-UE
A few days ago, Nato conducted exercises with Estonian units in Estonia, described as “a show of force.” Novaya Gazeta (Mikhail Gorbachev’s paper, described as “opposition-minded” and warned last fall of “signs of extremism.”) then comes out with a report on a Kremlin policy recommendation to absorb Crimea and the eastern portions that predates Yanukovich bugging out of Kiev.
Then Nemtsov gets whacked.
1) Vladimir did it to prove what an evil cold-hearted thug he is.
Pro: He is.
Con: Everyone knows already.
2) Russia Times thinks it could have been the Ukrainians, or the CIA, or MI-6, or MI-5. For some reason they didn’t list the Livonian Brothers of the Sword. It could be the Brothers. They always were a bunch of undisciplined swivel-eyed loons. It was done to discredit Vlad.
Pro: Wheels within wheels within wheels….
Con: Seems just a tad too indirect, plus it scans like a grade B thriller. Which self-respecting intelligence organization would sign off on something this squirrelly?
3) Somebody else had it in for Nemtsov, so decided to hit him in what is likely the highest security location in Moscow.
Pro: I got nuttin’.
Con: In murder, you don’t get points for level of difficulty.