I have yet to read Masha Gessen’s new book, The Future is History: How Totalitarianism Reclaimed Russia. To be honest, I’m not sure that I will. The use of the word ‘totalitarianism’ in the title is so extreme that it rather discredits the product before one even looks at it. But, whatever the book’s merits or demerits, it surely can’t be worse than a couple of reviews of it I’ve read in the last few days....Masha Gessen is a Russian Russophobe like many Russian "liberals," as well as a Putin-hater who is regularly given a voice in key US media as "expert."
The Russian Russophobes are liberals that are somewhat comparable to American "latté liberals" and "limousine liberals" that look down on most of the US as "flyover country." They view Russians other than cosmopolitan liberals as backward as just American liberals views Americans for whom "God, guns and gays" are hot button issues. As result, neither the Russian or American liberals understand the appeal of skillful politicians like Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump that have their fingers on the pulse of the country.
But Professor Robinson focuses this post on reviews of Gessen's book, in particular that of Francis Fukuyama, he of capitalism as the end of history. Robinson delivers a serious smackdown, not only of FF but also the publisher of the review, none other than the New York Times. If you want a good laugh at their well-deserved expense, read the whole post.
Irrussanlity
Which is worse? The book or the reviews?Paul Robinson, Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa
No comments:
Post a Comment