The Nation
May 19, 2003

BY NINA KHRUSHCHEVA

Many Russians who fled Brezhnev's USSR because they could not speak
freely are in a state of shock in today's America. One is Roman
Kaplan, an intellectual from Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) and the
owner of the "Russian Samovar," a famous New York City restaurant for
Russians and East Europeans (visitors and immigrants alike), which he
opened in 1986 together with two icons of the Soviet immigration, the
late poet Joseph Brodsky and the dancer Mikhail Baryshnikov. "America
was our dreamland, the last frontier of freedom," Kaplan said. "Where
do we go now? I can't believe I left the Soviets thirty years ago to
end up in Brezhnevland here!"

In 1991 I too left the Soviet Union to embrace America's freedom (not
so much political--Gorbachev's glasnost was in full bloom then), but a
freedom to be myself regardless of politics. Today I ask myself the
same question, "Where do we go now?"

Those who stayed in Russia are equally dismayed--they welcomed
American help to bring down Communists, only to see, ten years later,
the White House employing strategies akin to what America used to
condemn about the Kremlin--an expansionist foreign policy, disregard
for public opinion, propaganda rhetoric and manipulation.

We found ourselves back at the drawing board, turning off George
W. Bush's enthusiastic TV appearances the same way we tuned out
robotic CPSU Secretary Leonid I. Brezhnev. Determined President Bush,
it seems, has an invisible tape in his head playing out a collection
of keywords--evil, compassionate, terrorism, national security,
liberation, promoting democracy. Those who've studied the Soviet Union
know that Kremlin leaders similiarly repeated words and catch-phrases
for decades on end. Brezhnev, too, seemed to be plugged into an
electric socket, automatically replaying his own endless broken
record--imperialism, socialism, world equality, peace and security...

Regardless of how true Bush's words about evil dictatorships may be,
they are hardly made believable by of their repetitious, mechanical,
Brezhnevian nature. Especially when "compelling" reasons to start the
war in Iraq--from WMD to terrorism to democracy there--were based on
falsified evidence and were devoid of consistency.

George Orwell was right: "All propaganda lies even when it tells the
truth." As much as newspeak was a signature of the Kremlin, it is an
equally apt description of today's White House. Its resolute war
message is similar to Brezhnev's insistence on the superiority of
socialism: Both lack public debate and are handled top-down.

The United States may indeed have a noble cause of liberation in Iraq
(in addition to such not-so-noble causes as oil, money and power), but
the original idea of socialist brotherhood was beautiful, too, before
it acquired a totalitarian treatment. There is something remarkably
"Soviet" in Bush's requirement for a blind trust in a "higher cause"
of "peace and freedom," just by the virtue of previous American
successes in Eastern Europe. (And mind you, that was Europe.)

Don't get me wrong. I recognize the difference: Here we voice our
opposition without being killed, sent to the gulag or the asylum as
people were in the Soviet Union, but a bleak and hopeless feeling of
being irrelevant to the democratic process--despite months of
worldwide protests the war was always inevitable--is a signature
characteristic of both regimes, Brezhnev's thirty years ago and Bush's
today.

>From the start this White House employed an autocratic formula of
ends justifying the means, forgetting that you can't bomb a nation
into freedom: Peter the Great and Stalin the Terrible tried to
Westernize and industrialize Russia by killing millions. After the
initial euphoria of ending Communism, Russia's democracy has been a
troubled one because its leaders regularly fail to involve their
public in a discussion of the country's future. In 2003 Russia still
fights a 200-year war with Chechnya and has a president who insists on
managing freedoms and the press. What's more, its public at times
still finds it easier to be ruled from the top. And Russia had years
to prepare itself for "American liberation" (and is, at least
nominally, part of Europe).

Imagine then how troubled Iraq's road to democracy may become, with no
leaders in place to implement the process and the public, though if
happy to be freed from Saddam, with no experience of either
responsible government or citizenship.

Nina Khrushcheva is a senior fellow at the World Policy Institute of
the New School for Social Research.

This article can be found on the web at
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i030519&s=khrushcheva