Why Are American Conservatives Praising Putin?

Russian President Vladimir Putin, the career KGB officer who has presided over the rollback of his country’s post-Communist freedoms and revived Cold War-style anti-Americanism, is an unlikely hero for American conservatives. Yet the Kremlin strongman has lately found some fans on the right who see him as a defender of Christian values — most recently, in the imbroglio over Russia’s new legal ban on gay “propaganda.” It is a sad misjudgment that does a disservice to the causes of conservatism, freedom, and religion alike.

Spokesmen for several right-wing groups including the American Family Association have praised the Russian law, which prohibits any pro-gay speech or expression that could be accessible to minors. Veteran columnist Pat Buchanan has joined the Putin cheerleading squad. And, shockingly, the usually thoughtful author Rod Dreher, who blogs for The American Conservative, has added his own “1.5 Cheers for Putin.”

While condemning anti-gay violence and authoritarianism in Russia, Dreher praises Putin’s willingness to speak up for Christianity and laments that “post-Soviet Russia, for all its grievous flaws, is . . . more conscious of its Christian history and character than the United States.”

This is a truly grievous misunderstanding of the reality of religion and politics in 21st Century Russia. Russia today is outwardly far more religious than most of Western Europe, but it’s a religion of state more than church: Orthodox Christianity has taken Communism’s place as the new official ideology, with church membership an official badge of patriotism and loyalty.

Apparently some folk cannot grasp the fact that while some of us applaud Putin for turning Russia back to its traditional moral values, we are certainly not abandoning America's traditional moral values; which include a maximum degree of personal responsibility & a minimum degree of Government.

They also apparently do not understand a basic principle of the Law of Nations, cited by Jefferson as Waashington's Secretary of State, that every Nation must be the Judge of its own internal affairs.

Nothing is more antagonistic to any nation--and hence to human freedom--than for one nation to try to alter the culture of another. Any people's culture reflects the accumulated results of their multi-generational interaction, and is hence unique to every nation.

William Flax

Well, the issue is who is preferable as a leader. If we can flush the Obamanites out of office in 2014 and 2016, I would say that Obama is as his impact can be erased.

However, it increasingly appears that is not going to happen. And it isn’t necessarily anything Obama has done.

Its directly related to the erosion of polical astuteness on the part of American voters who can elect a fraud like this into office, not once, but twice, and STILL think he is doing a great job overall - even though they apparently disagree with him on nearly every major social issue.

After all, he is the nation’s first BLACK President.

The following reason:

Putin: Will not tolerate terrorists
Obama: Support terrorist

Putin: Spoke up about Christian persecution
Obama: Crickets are chirping

Putin: Does not allow Gays to adopt
Obama: Allows Gays to be gay everywhere...even him. =)

Putin: A Russian born - became president of his own country
Obama: A Kenyan born - by fraud became president of his
adopted country - not eligible.

Putin: Likes to do manly things
Obama: Likes to do girly gay things
(Photos Please)

Yes Putin is a dictator and a communist, but we are not saying we want him. We want a leader like him to have a strong leadership - that’s all.

1. Note the source: The Boston Globe.
2. Imprecise criticism of Russia’s law. A. It bans exhibiting or modeling same-sex attraction behaviors where children can see them. Actually, it’s sad any society needs a law that legislates discretion...but that’s the reality. I am sorry for all the parents who shepherd children through pornographic advertisements and displays.
B. Public sexual displays have never been considered “civil rights.”
C. The author, as with all critics, never seem to admit that the law seeks to protect children. I am sure she is aware of a very common law in all fifty (or Barack’s 57) states called in some places, “corrupting a minor.”

3. She confuses private and public violence. The Russian state has arrested protesters. There has been notorious incidents of attacks on people who have displayed homosexual behaviors. It is not correct to implicate the state in that. I wish she would have written on the wonders of freedom of expression.

4. She is correct about the church-state relationship, abortion, and the disadvantaged status of unregistered “cults” (various Protestant denominations). She perhaps overstates the popular state of religiosity. It is such a large and diverse country. Moscow and St. Peterburg are exceptions to what goes on elsewhere. State enforced secularism had its effect, though.

5. Hyper materialism does not apply to this vast nation. It definitely applies to Moscovites.

6. Many Russians see themselves apart from “Europe”. One of my students said that she would like to visit Europe. I said, “Ummm... I thought this is Europe. Maybe my map is off....” She meant Western Europe. Along with that comes a critique of the social features of Western Europe and her North American relatives. However, there is still the paradox of parades of Moscow commuters sporting brand names on their clothes; UK and US flag-attired apparel; and Samsung Galaxies, iPhones and iPads.

7. Her last two paragraphs create some confusion. She is correct about the Christian critiques of the current Russian regime. She only answers Dreher’s critique with a critique of the state-controlled church. That’s not an answer. One sin does not excuse another.

8. She does not recognize that conservatism usually means conserving the best of the past. She must be unaware that sodomy has never been state sanctioned until recently. She also must be unaware that President Putin has also spoken out against the burning of churches and extermination of Christians in Syria by the anti-government forces and the now out-of-power Egyptian MB.

9. A ruler who uses some breath to promote Biblical behavior and criticize mistreatment of Christians is a service for Christians and social conservatives, particularly when the Present Obama: a. promotes sodomy as a state policy and criticizes other nations for not adhering to Massachusetts “values”; and b. barely mentions the burning of churches and supports those doing the burning in Syria and Egypt.

10. There are plenty of other aspects of Putin’s Russia that should not be emulated. There is hypocrisy. History provides plenty of examples of religious bodies losing their souls under state tutelage. However, that should not prevent Christians for giving credit to a law that asks people not show off and push their same-sex attractions in public where minors are; and for voicing concern over the besieged Christians of Syria and Egypt.

>>>Ms Young and her fans don’t seem to understand that Putin is a leader who fits the circumstances of Russia, not those of the United States. Were he the POTUS here, he’d fit the American culture, and that is what the conservatives (assume and) admire in him.<<<

Bingo. I have always said that neocon doctrine of judging every society under same measures is a failure. It was probably intentional misconception, designed to destabilize said societies under a naive belief that neocons are able to manage following chaos.
It was clear since the very beginning they can’t but their policies had a fresh start and still gaining momentum under Obama to further ruin US influence.
The reality is Jefferson or Reagan won’t make any good presidents for Syria or Libya, just like Assad junior or Q-duffy won’t make it in US politics.
A set of values and traditions are absolutely different.
You can’t drill with a hummer or nail with a drill. Societies are different in a same way and different methods required to govern them.
The problem is Americans for most part are able to reconcile freedom and responsibilities but the residents of Arab nations aren’t. They don’t give a flying hug about separation of powers, fair elections, free enterprise etc. For muslims liberty is a freedom to kill a Christian, to rape a neighbor’s underage daughter and rob a Jew. But a significant part of population dislike an idea of being killed, raped and robbed by either party. It takes no less than Saddam Hussein and public executions to keep said party from performing this way on a daily basis.
I think it is pretty much clear why Saddam didn’t need to address a question of political liberties first and it is an extremely primitive to think he didn’t just to hold power.
Saddam was good at that the majority of his people wanted, he had an economy providing higher standards of living comparing to the rest of the region, as a secular dictator he kept jihadi rapists and murderers in constant fear, both at home and he wasn’t shy to cross some national borders to bleed their noses abroad if needed.
It worked for the majority of his people well, right until jihadis provoked Saddam into some stupid (from international PR perspective) things to defend his nation and then bought western media and politicians to bring Iraq to oblivion in 1990.
You won’t sell safety before freedom in America for obvious reason, yet. It makes Saddam a bad American president.
The French, the Germans, the Russians are different is some way or another too.
If you are about to judge a foreign leader you have to evaluate his approval rating first. If one is a popular leader and his policies aren’t directly hostile to US (it doesn’t mean one has to be pro-American) consider one a good leader.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.