______________ CHICAGO  SUN-TIMES FRIDAY, MARCH  4, 2005

PAGE 49

Bush a hypocrite to lecture Putin

ANDREW GREELEY
 

S uppose that Russian President       Vladimir Putin visited Canada       and announced that the United       States was retreating from its       principles of freedom since the World Trade Center attack. The United States, he might have said, has denied due process of law to some American citizens. It has established a concentration camp in Cuba. It has tortured prisoners, indeed often and in many places. It denies aliens the right to trial by jury -- indeed, it acts like the only ones who have Mr. Jefferson's inalienable rights are American citi- zens, and not always.   Then he says, while I'm at it, there are a lot of flaws in your democracy. You certainly don't think your Electoral College is dem- ocratic, do you? Neither is your Sen- ate, with its disproportionate repre- sentation of smaller states. Rhode Island is as big as California? Gimme a break!   And what about your gerryman- dered congressional districts (pre- sumably he knows about Elbridge Gerry) which guarantees the re-elec- tion of incumbents, especially if they are conservative Republicans? What about Tom DeLay's open theft of Democratic congressional districts in Texas? Is your House of Repre- sentatives all that democratic?   And all the capitalist dollars that

are poured into your campaigns? And the false attack ads aimed at the character of an opponent? And the endless spinning of the truth so that it no longer means anything? Would Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madi- son approve of that?   How dare, he might conclude, the American pot call the Russian Samovar black?   It is not my intention to say that Russia is more democratic than the United States. Patently it is not. Nor do I propose to argue that American democracy is far from per- fect. Patently it is far from perfect. Rather, I am suggesting that for President Bush to come to the edge of Russia (Slovakia) and preach about democracy to Putin is rude, crude and undiplomatic. It is an in- sult to Putin and to Russia and to the Russian people.   It is also hypocrisy. ___________________ Conservative Republicans don't really believe that Russia has changed.   Putin seems by all accounts to be popular with his people. He is the strong leader that Russians have al- ways wanted, most recently after the drunken confusion of Boris Yeltsin. The Russians show little inclination to imitate their neighbors in Ukraine. The Gulag is over, the rule of law is aborning. Russia has a long way to go, but it is struggling, how- ever imperfectly, with the develop- ment of its own brand of democracy -- and without much of an internal historical model to imitate.   Did Bush lecture the Germans and the French about their treat- ment of Muslims? Did he lecture the

English about their continued fail- ures in Northern Ireland? Hardly. He understood--or the people around him did--that it was inap- propriate for him to intervene in the domestic problems of other coun- tries. What made him think it was appropriate to lecture Russia like it was a spoiled and obstreperous schoolchild about its failings?   Did he expect Putin to accept his insult and promise to do better? Did he think that the Russian people would say that it was time for the Russian leadership to shape up in response to the criticism of an American president? What good would come of his criticism? Why did he bother to make such a big deal out of it?   The answer is that his conserva- tive base expected, indeed de- manded that he criticize Putin. Probably Karl Rove, his gray emi- nence, insisted that he do it. Conser- vative Republicans don't really be- lieve that Russia has changed. They're waiting for Russia to renew the Cold War. They expect a Re- publican president to be ''tough'' with the Russians. Russians are still the bad guys, and Bush should ''crack down'' on them. For Bush, lecturing Putin on the failures of Russian democracy is a no-lose situ- ation. He doesn't lose any votes in Russia and solidifies some votes in the United States. He enhances his cowboy image in Europe, but what's wrong with that?   Why not be rude and crude and patronizing? Why not act like an evangelical minister preaching to South American heathens? Why not act like the campus evangelist who tells Catholics that they are not Christian? Why not act like a Catholic bishop refusing the sacra- ments to a political candidate?