Is Putin An Effective Leader Or An Evil Thug?

Thoughts on using moral judgments in politics

On a visit a few months ago, I spent a lot of time with my elderly father, who was born in the Great Depression and whose health and mental clarity is clearly deteriorating. During our visit, my father stated, “All we need to wait for is determine if Putin is worse than Stalin.”

I felt quite of bit of sadness, because my father was once a rather insightful individual. He told me when I was quite young and still naïve about the corruption of our society. Now, he watches the nightly news and has let himself become just another programmed NPC. Nightly news is largely just propaganda without attempts at truth, so it is no wonder he buys the lines so easily.

The entire liberal establishment punditry class and media pushes the idea that Putin is an evil thug and America is good. This effort provides a moral justification for whatever actions America takes, even if the results are horrendous.

American’s have long viewed themselves as unique and above the diplomatic manipulations of Europe. For the most part, America stayed out of the various 19th century imperialist activities. Even the Monroe Doctrine was nothing more than a cover for the British to exploit the newly independent Latin American countries, while the British fleet kept the other European countries from interfering with British efforts. America might have pretended it had big boy pants on, but it was largely empty rhetoric for decades.

It was only towards the end of the 19th century that America began actively enforcing the Monroe Doctrine itself. By then, the myth had become reality, American idealism the core of American foreign policy. America viewed itself as noble and good, as opposed to those imperialist European countries.

Once America took over as global hegemon from the British following World War II, America continued the British push for open markets and such. American foreign policy post-World War II is largely summed up in opposition to closed systems. America does not mind if the country is ruled by a king or dictator, as long as the economy is open to US business.

And now, America added Woke doctrine to this, so we are pushing homosexuality, identity politics, and trans rights. At first, this seemed like an odd addition to the general, pro-business position America has taken since World War II. However, it makes perfect sense. This ideology disrupts local culture and society, thereby weakening resistance to inclusion into the American empire. Democracy and capitalism were good at this as well, but as good as Wokeness. It transforms individuals from part of their family and community and makes them into wage slaves and consumers. It is more subversive than communism.

But are those pushing these ideas evil? Are they immoral? Do they view themselves as good people doing good in the world or cynical Machiavellians increasing their personal power?

Strangely enough, most every single individual that is engaged in pushing these destructive ideas is doing so out of care and concern for the world and/or their country. Even the so-called sociopaths ruling large corporations and hedge funds, who seem to put profit above all, still don’t think of themselves as bad people.

Decades ago, Ford Motors made a small car called the Pinto. It sold like crazy, and I remember seeing them a lot as a kid. Unfortunately, the Pinto had a design defect that could cause the car to explode if it were hit in just the right spot. The fix was not that expensive per vehicle, but the total cost exceeded the amount Ford estimated it would pay out for loss of life lawsuits related to the car.

Ford executives made what now appears to be a sociopathic decision that intentionally led to the loss of human lives. Many companies engage in similar decisions, risking human lives for short-term profit. However, I suspect that not a single Ford executive individually was a sociopath. Instead, I suspect that each decisionmaker individually had to justify to themselves that they were still good people and that the decision was moral.

Capitalism, as well as politics, often leads to result that objectively might look evil. Truman dropped atomic bombs on Japan when Japan was already on the verge of surrender. We know today that Truman was trying to send a message to Stalin by using the atomic bombs. Was Truman an evil thug who intentionally killed more people than necessary? By the standards used against Putin, yes. Objectively, probably not.

Many years ago, I had a friend who was working on some litigation regarding Microsoft. He reviewed emails sent between various executives as Microsoft, including Gates. I asked him what he gleaned from it. He said, "They are all idiots. None of them was very bright." He went on and on about their decision-making process as laid out in communications and how shocked he was at they all seemed to be midwit incompetents. I was shocked by his description.

Now, I suspect his assessment was actually understating the issue. Gates really isn't that smart. He may not even have some grand scheme or plan as he may not be smart enough to have one. Maybe he isn't engaged in some grand depopulation scheme, but merely supporting ideas he does not understand that are placed in front of him.

Likewise, Blinken appears rather inept at conducting diplomacy. Perhaps he is just incompetent, not a calculating Machiavellian. Or perhaps he has power and is merely playing a role as directed by others. Jake Sullivan has always seemed rather clueless to me, credentialed but an idiot. I have read that Sullivan is the one deciding things, especially on Ukraine. I don’t think Sullivan is an evil sociopath. Instead, he is just way over his head and doing the bidding of his equally clueless masters.

It is just idiots all the way up, not sociopaths all the way down.