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.
Another Interesting Idea out of Russia
So why am I starting a post with God Save the Tsar, a song not seriously sung in over a century? Because the biggest new idea out of Russia seems to be a revival of the monarchy. Seriously.
It seems to be an effort to keep Putin in power after he finishes his second term as Russia’s president and cannot stay in that office again (or return to it). Revive the monarchy and name Vladimir Putin as Tsar. (He would be Vladimir IV, and the first new Tsar Vladimir since the 12th century.)
It seems there are a few issues to be ironed out. Will the revived Tsar be an autocrat like the previous one or a constitutional monarch like the current Queen Elizabeth II? How will the succession work? Will the position of Tsar be inheritable, and if so, must it pass down the male line or can Tsarinas rule? (Putin only has daughters.) Another possibility is Tsar would be an elective office, but one elected for life. (The game plan there is for the Russian Parliament to elect the Tsar rather than the people.) Don’t laugh. There have been elective kings in history. That is how the Holy Roman Emperors were chosen.
If you are interested in all the ghastly details, here is an article discussing the concept.
As a student of history, I am not quite sure how to feel. I should be appalled or amused. (After all, I once used the handle “No Truce With Kings.”) Yet, face it. Many so-called “presidents,” “premiers,” “first citizens,” and “chairmen” are really kings, emperors, and tsars by other names. Could a real one be worse?
Meanwhile, if you want to brush up on the lyrics, here is a second round of the anthem. This one with words.
https://youtu.be/0bOjT3fvKy0
Yes, they are in Russian. What did you expect?
Published in History
This past spring, a piece in the Washington Examiner argued that the claims made in our popular media, and in some of the comments above, bury the truth [emphasis added]:
Russia lacked the strong altruistic leaders the American republic was blessed with at its founding. There are very few George Washingtons in history.
The notion that another czar, in an almost unbroken succession of czars (by other names for a 100 year stretch), will make Russia safer for the world is foolish. Russia believes it has a right to empire, just as China believes it should dominate the world.
Only by starving the Russian imperial war chest through sustained massive American oil and gas output will we keep them in check.
A Russian Tsar is a great idea. Nothing could clear out all the chaff like Russian politics of old.
Artists actually speaking real truth to real power at real risk.
I agree.
But it’s important to remember the strategic position of Russia’s leaders. They sit atop a nation whose borders are so large they are indefensible. A nation invaded by Charles XII, Napoleon, the Germans twice and Japan. Plus China sits invitingly close to the natural resources of the Russian east. Its only option is to create a buffer, either directly by occupation or by influence.
Present reality is no western nation would attempt an invasion. There is more to be gained through commerce, regardless of Russian corruption. In the east, I imagine the Chinese, who were are always instructed, take the long view; probably expect Siberia and the other eastern provinces to fall into their orbit as Russia decays.
One would expect the rational Russian choice would be retrenchment and a focus on fixing their internal problems. But that goes against the grain of leaders who grew up in an era when the world was awed by Soviet power. It’s all public theater. No different than many regimes in history, creating an external foe contributes to internal support for the state. Putin is making Russia “great” again.
This is why Russia is dangerous. A semi failed state with nuclear weapons. This in my view is the reason Trump’s public statements about Russia are moderate, even when the action of the administration is more aggressive. Regardless of how clever Putin thinks he is, there’s no doubt he could miscalculate.
Yeah, Russia pretty much deserves the depravity of monarchy. They overthrew their soviet murderers and just allowed another thug be in charge. They are a doomed society and have been for centuries. There is no hope for them.
Let’s see – Putin was president, then he was succeeded by someone who he probably planted, and then found himself elected again! What a coincidence! Now there’s this “double eagle group” that is promoting the idea of a return to a czar! Wow – what a coincidence! I’m sure Putin has no part in that – coincidentally, I think @claire Berlinski’s new book, is titled a return to the Czars…..
This is nothing to sneeze at – take a look at what Russia has done over Putin’s reign(s), and figure it out – you have a right to be concerned. And shame on the Church – a puppet of the regime.
10 – ok – make it 50 Likes….
Almost everyone and anyone would choose a police state to chaos-anarchy. Of course, few actually want a police state. That is why the folks that do want a police state, try to first create chaos-anarchy.
A million likes.
I think it’s more about their own beliefs about their own character and ethics.
I forget which thread it was on, but someone pointed out recently that the United States started out with really great leaders, and I know Michael Medved has always made a big deal about the Protestant culture at that time. To be clear, I’m not an expert on any this.
Places that are easily invaded tend to like strong rulers and are willing to give up a lot of what we take for granted in exchange for not being invaded. Russia has no natural boundaries. It is far to the north, so frozen over for long periods. Short growing seasons subject to poor rains and bad soil. It was most recently ravaged by a Western ideology that murdered tens of millions of people and destroyed the wealth of a nation that had been accumulated over centuries.
I love learning about the dynamics of this stuff.
Definitely. Any group of people who lack any sense of security are more easily manipulated. It works on an individual basis, for example, kids with parental issues often become sexually promiscuous because they are preyed upon by opportunistic, manipulative types. Cultures in Africa and the Slavic cultures became very willing slaves to gain security that they felt they couldn’t have otherwise.
One other aspect to this is that when you have warfare on the scale that we saw in WWI and WWII, so many folks that have the personality to fight against oppressors are killed off and the weak-willed souls are left behind. Not only was Europe tired of all the death and destruction of the 1st half of the 20th century but the only folks left were the cowards and the unfit. Socialism, Communism and totalitarianism isn’t a bad deal for those folks.
On a related note LOL <—- trigger warnings
#2
Geez. I’ve been so close to going Libertarian so many times. I actually voted Perot in my second Presidential election. Its just so sad that they are so stupid on such a regular basis. I think the Peterson guy has some real promise and I am a big Rand Paul fan. Yet, every time I’ve ventured out to meet up with local folks, I’ve found them to be idiots. The guy in those ads is so right on so much yet so cringy. He’s a more extreme version of Trump in that regard.
I guess to the point of the original post, it underscores how our faith, allegiance and security should not be in the hands of any individual or party. Yet we find ourselves very distant from where our founders had envisioned us. It is almost like they saw all this nonsense more clearly than we do.
That is a big problem.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again again. What I wish would happen is, the national party should just worry about generic marketing, particularly around presidential elections and local candidates. Everything below governor, or something. Then let the Republican Liberty Caucus handle everything else.
Tom Woods had a long interview about what happened to the Libertarian party in the last election. I really recommend it, but there’s no way to know how accurate what that guy said is.
There are just too many stupid people, and there’s too many types of libertarianism, you just can’t run the thing in a normal way.
Can we have a constitutionally-limited republic instead?
Everything beyond that is not value added.
There is a transcript at reason magazine.
Well, we do. That we’ve chosen not to keep it reflects poorly on our forefathers and ourselves. Still, much like Dorothy, we have had the power all along. It’s just that rustling up 75 million votes is a lot more difficult than clicking one’s heels.
Justice Scalia had a great speech about this. Anti-centralization has to live in peoples hearts or everyone is just screwed. The Founders said something similar.
This is epic if you have the time.
And the Libertarian Party became pacifists, even after we were horrifically attacked on 9/11/2001 they issued a statement within a short while blaming the attack on us. Yeah, I was done with the LP after that. I still don’t like the republican party, but I won’t be a party to a pacifist suicide pact.
I’m not going to get into a big discussion about it, but I actually find a lot of that libertarian / Austrian anti-war stuff incoherent when you look at what they say actually causes wars.
Considering that the most well known policy of the Libertarians is legal POT, what do they have to offer in 2020?
Damned Russian colluders…
I have a Russian relation (an in-law) living in the states selling luxury cars who is very admiring of Putin. Even named his second son after him. Socialism sickens the soul.
But, yes, declaring Putin to be czar would seem a more honest description of what already exists. The people have sacrificed their sovereignty for security under a strong man. Let it be openly recognized.
Da, is previously owned. But good car. Honda guts.
His politics would make more sense if that were the case, but, no. Real, brand spanking new, high end luxury cars. He’s living the capitalist high life, while being nostalgic for the Trabant.
How much of this is nostalgia for a romanticized memory of the USSR, when it had respect and many constituent nations and a theme song and a logo and the Fearsome Red Army? I stumbled across a movie the other night called “Salyut-7” – the Soviet version of “Apollo 13,” more or less. Made in 2017. Only saw the beginning, but it seemed to have a bittersweet reverence for the old days, when Russia had purpose and resources and a belief system. (You know, the mid-80s.) Perhaps the film switches gears and we discover that the spaceship was crippled because the bureaucracy was stupid and a party hack was appointed to lead the Crucial Bolt Division or something, but what I watched seemed to be sighing, with Slavic regret, for the loss of the old church of Lenin.