Vladmir Putin surprised a lot of people last week with his New York Times open letter (“A Plea for Caution From Russia”), myself included. I found the letter to be extremely well-written, reasonable and measured. Beyond simply describing its nature and content, my response was much more visceral – I simply enjoyed reading it. There is a feeling to logic that simply makes sense – it reverberates. This is different from determining truth, per se, but goes a long way toward it. I found the letter to be refreshing in the way that a shower strips away the smells and accumulations of time and interactions. There was a nakedness about it. This should not suggest that the message was free of an agenda, no one could truly believe that to be the case; just as to observe something naked does not make it transparent or available to thorough examination inside out. It simply suggests that the parts are exposed, and whether they line up and are in proportion to one another can more readily be determined. How they compare to others similarly naked or concealed will also be revealed. In fact, it becomes more evident by contrast.
A message and its means of delivery, including the person or medium through which it is delivered, are difficult to separate. In many instances, it would be inappropriate to separate them, as critical elements impacting our determination and response may be housed in one or the other, the message or its delivery. In such instances, they must be taken as a whole to yield favorable results. Yet, in other instances, an inability or unwillingness to separate them with even a modicum of astuteness will yield lost opportunities, if not dire consequences. Con artists, for example, thrive on the substitution of one for the other, the conflation of one and the other. The confidence that they infuse into situations comes not from truth, but from appearances of truth and things associated with it when deficits would otherwise be clear. People who are not discerning, especially those with excessive confidence in their knowledge of what is, are most prone to deception. Herein lies the first layer of complexity regarding Putin’s message.
Many have responded to Putin and his letter with predictable ad hominems, but we will consider the veracity of the content which would otherwise get lost in an analysis of the author. There is something to be learned from everyone, if only what not to do. Fraudsters and thieves can teach us what to avoid and how to safeguard ourselves. That their lives do not or have not stood up to their own subsequent advice is moot. That Putin may be a hypocrite (or worse), having used freedom of speech in another country that he would have thwarted in his own is not the point. That his ethics may not comport with his message should not divert the focus from what he said. He said and alluded to a number of things that have filled countless volumes, and could ad infinitum. The ideas of greatest interest to me, though, all fell under a single umbrella: American Exceptionalism.
To be exceptional as a people is neither absolute nor inherent, and to think so is to promote the very extinction level dangers that the world has spent most of its history trying to address, undo and prevent. “Exceptional” is defined as being well above average and extraordinary. When one believes this to be true of themselves or their group, not only do prejudices mount, but power and special rights are presumed while corruption and abuses ensue. Such abuse also manifests itself as forced fed morality, and unilateral enforcement of such. On an individual level, no one who holds themselves in excessive esteem is respected; or if they are, are not as respected as they could be. Even when one is truly talented beyond the norm, presumptiveness will invariably cause their skills to fail, often at a most inopportune time. What good is a skill prone to such a lapse? Countless social ills are generated when expectations are uniformly in line with exceptional results and treatment, when effort, inputs and treatment of others are not commensurate.
The “We’re No. 1!” refrain is old and has become increasingly exposed on a global scale; be it on education, gun violence, economics, and increasingly military action. The world is getting tired of hearing about America’s high self-regard from America’s own lips as it continues to trail smaller and more staid countries. Considerably less than half of Americans travel internationally, and that estimate is extremely liberal as others have the percentage at much lower. This speaks to a lack of firsthand exposure and a lack of perspective required to make such overarching and widely accepted claims of superiority. Most Americans speak only one language with debatable fluency and expertise. Compare that to 66% of the world’s citizens who are at least bilingual. Furthermore, there are many measures of accomplishment subject to enumerable criteria and weights. That alone should quell any debate attempting to solve such a giant puzzle, no matter how serious the intent. The bombast of the hare eventually led to its defeat at the hands of the more blue collar tortoise, more quietly grinding away and building a lead. While real world examples abound, one need look no further than (the ever rising super power) China for comparison.
Being told endlessly that we are special has the same deleterious effects as being constantly derided, and it can be just as abusive in distorting the actual perception of self. This is especially true if it occurs in the face of evidence to the contrary, or if it blinds us to it. In essence, it is not most important to be above any threat of low self esteem or patriotism is this instance, but the harm resides squarely in being off center. The risk in other words, is not singular, but double edged.
Irrespective of who Vladimir Putin is, he could not have be more accurate in his letter’s closing statement: “It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. … We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.”
God bless.. us ALL.
Excellent analysis. Well written. BTW, are you multilingual?
Peter Firmin
Hey Peter – Thanks for reading and commenting. I speak enough French to steer people decidedly wrong and unknowingly embarass myself I’m sure. I studied it for about 7 years. I can order food and negotiate cab rides in broken Chinese, Russian and Spanish; but those are just functions of my trips abroad. I can honestly take credit only for English.
God bless us all!!