On Second Thought: A serious conversation

Hilary Clinton warned us in advance against Tucker Carlson’s Vladimir Putin interview. Deploying one of her favorite disparaging epithets, “useful idiot,” against the journalist, Clinton told us he was going to be manipulated by the wily autocrat. Sure enough, as soon as the interview actually posted, every media personality worth a Fox or MSNBC moment chimed in to let us know Carlson had merely channeled the Russian president’s Russian talking points. Next came days of satirical observations on the duped journalist’s grocery shopping foray in Moscow until, finally, the death of an imprisoned political dissident in Russia offered fresh meat for righteous indignation.

Yet despite all of these efforts to make sure nobody got the wrong idea, the pundits missed the most dangerous aspect of that interview. Early on, after one of Carlson’s few interruptions, the Russian dictator chided him, “Is this a talk show or a serious conversation?” The hapless Carlson laughed, and for the next two hours innocent Americans were exposed to the subversive spectacle of a political leader speaking knowledgeably on political issues.

The novelty was not lost on YouTube viewers. Predictably, given Carlson’s largely conservative audience, many commented on the contrast to the stilted, error prone performances of President Biden on the rare occasions when he meets the press. But Biden’s chief rival in the approaching presidential finals, former President Trump, isn’t likely to win any debating contests either. Putin developed a logical (if debatable) historical case for Russia’s claims in Ukraine, starting from the ninth century; Trump can’t remember whether Nancy Pelosi or Nikki Haley ruined everything in his fanciful reconstruction of events on Jan. 6, 2021.

In defense of American presidents, it is important to remember that they, unlike the Russian dictator, must sometimes contend with reporters who ask questions. The safe course (unless you are Donald Trump, for whom mocking anyone who asks questions is the point) may be to stick to generalizations about “free markets” and “shared prosperity” when speaking of economic issues, and to explain all wars as a matter of “democracy versus autocracy.” Putin, on the other hand, doesn’t have to worry about speaking definitively enough to be caught in error since, on his home ground, anyone inclined to point out a presidential goof risks silencing, jail or death.

Still, it might be nice sometimes to hear more of our own president’s thoughts. And we have had presidents with interesting thoughts. Presidents as different as Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter offered insightful interviews on American policy in Israel, for example … after they were no longer in office shaping that policy. It’s fascinating to hear Nixon explain that Israel is not of major strategic interest to the United States, or to hear Carter tell Amy Goodman on “Democracy Now” that, in some ways, the Israeli version of apartheid is worse than the old South African variety. Too bad, neither cared to say as much to us while he was actually making decisions to bind the fate of this country to Israel’s.

When you think of it, there is no shortage of topics for a presidential conversation that might interest Americans at least as much as anything a Russian dictator might say. For starters:

Why is it, Mr. President, that we Americans spend twice as much as people anywhere else in the world trying to stay alive but die sooner? Does it have anything to do with the fact that everybody else, from nice Canadians to commie Cubans gets some kind of guaranteed health care, and we don’t? Do all those insurance, pharmaceutical, hospital association, medical equipment lobbyists schmoozing the people we sent to Congress have anything to do with why we pay so much and get not enough health care?

Or the president might take up the kind of specific foreign policy issue Putin lectured Carlson on. It shouldn’t be that hard to challenge Putin’s version of the world. For example, Putin seems to think the only possible alternatives for Ukraine are infestation by Nazis or pacification by Russia.

Just the other day Senator (and one time presidential contender) Mitt Romney provided the perfect opening when he proclaimed a vote on more weapons for Ukraine “the most important vote we will ever take as United States senators.” While the polls indicate that a lot of Americans are not convinced sending more weapons to Ukraine is the most important thing our senators could ever do for us, maybe the president, who is asking for those weapons can explain.

It would be good of you, Mr. President to explain how a country described by your former boss, Barack Obama, as a “core interest” of Russia, but not of the United States has become central to “the most important vote ever.” We’d also like to know, since it was vital to send more weapons last year when Ukraine was advancing, and vital this year, when it appears to be in retreat, if more weapons for Ukraine ever won’t be the most important thing. And we can’t help remembering that President Obama refused to arm up Ukraine back when Russia grabbed Crimea almost ten years ago because, “Ukraine is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what.”

We really do have a lot to talk about, Mr. President.

——

Will Rawn of Havre is a retired Montana State University-Northern professor.