As an American who follows the political and cultural scene here and as someone who writes on Russia, I read Putin’s recent comments on western culture at the Valdai Conference with particular interest. My thoughts are that, overall, I think Putin made some interesting observations about the changes in culture that are going on in the west. However, I would argue that his understanding of the dynamics of what is going on culturally – particularly in the U.S. – is actually somewhat superficial and decontextualized. I found it interesting that he did not make a connection between these cultural phenomena and the elite interests and inequality that he mentioned earlier in his speech.

The US is in decline, not only on the world stage but in terms of the standard of living and stability that it offers its own citizens.  The elites who have benefited from decades of neoliberal economic policies, consequently gobbling up even more wealth at the expense of the majority, obviously don’t have any interest in that majority successfully organizing for policy changes that would improve their material well-being.  It is in the elites’ interest therefore to keep the majority divided and distracted by using elite institutions to encourage a preoccupation with sex (including deviance and pornography) and immersion in gadgets as well as infighting over cultural wedge issues that have become more extreme over time.  A number of these controversial policies represent the views of academics ensconced in their ivory towers with little connection to regular people in the real world.  Interestingly, their bright ideas of progress don’t always align with the views of the groups on whose behalf they claim to be advocating.  For example, the term “Latinx” was coined and is used primarily by the academic community and mainstream media in the U.S., but is very unpopular among Americans of Latin or Spanish descent. 

The mainstream media and social media platforms in the U.S. do their part to keep the pot stirred by giving disproportionate attention to sensationalist issues and not allowing a balanced and nuanced debate on controversial policies.. A small but vocal group of people – usually consisting of obscure academics, media personalities and self-appointed activists – will put pressure on those who express opinions that don’t conform to their dictums about what is correct.  Some of those who have been targeted in such a way have lost their jobs, been doxxed or stigmatized out of the public conversation. This is antithetical to the traditionally liberal values of free speech and confidence that one’s ideas are valid enough to withstand debate.

People who want to see a balanced and reasoned exchange of ideas increasingly have to go out of their way to find independent left or conservative media who give voices to people who have been tarred as deviating from the politically correct “liberal” position on a given topic.  As someone who generally considers myself an independent leftist, I want to see a range of views presented and debated. I have sometimes gained a richer insight on topics from hearing views I don’t necessarily agree with and I can at least walk away with a better understanding of why someone I disagree with sees the world the way they do, which is valuable and contributes to empathy. This is the same reason I have found value in friendships with people over the years that I had political and religious differences with. How stunted would my growth as a person have been if I had only ever associated with people I agree with on everything?

But in today’s cultural environment, I often find that when one is actually allowed to hear what these supposed heretics of “liberal” orthodoxy have to say, it turns out to simply be a more nuanced view or an acknowledgment that there may still be many aspects of an issue that are as yet unknown.  Putin uses the topic of gender as an example of the troubling trends in US/western culture. A good example on this topic recently involved Dr. Lisa Littman, a scientist who specializes in research on this subject  She received major backlash for reporting on her findings regarding the sudden change in the age and sex of gender dysphoric people in recent years and the long-term complicated effects of gender transition among teenagers. 

(We’ve seen similar censorship and shaming of qualified doctors and scientists who report findings that don’t totally agree with the rigid establishment view surrounding the Covid pandemic response.) 

With respect to transgender issues, which took off in terms of cultural prominence around 2015 after the US Supreme Court ruled that same sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, a couple of points are worth noting. First, most minority groups have to build momentum for their cause for years or even decades before they get any traction and realize their political and/or legal goals. Second transgender people have historically composed a very small percentage of the population even counting for underestimation due to taboos. It does make me wonder why this particular group is seeing such vocal prominence given to their struggle so quickly.

Meanwhile, increasing poverty, worsening health and the collapse of small business continues on – affecting far more people than transgender issues – with politicians talking big to get voter support but caving to their elite donors at the moment of truth.  President Joe Biden chose not to fight for a $15 an hour minimum wage within weeks of taking office (a figure which now represents a poverty wage in most American cities with astronomically  unaffordable housing prices).  Free community college, paid family leave and lower drug prices won’t be in the much ballyhooed legislative bill after all.  But, hey, you can still get your daily 15 minutes of hate against your neighbor by watching FOX or MSNBC before you go back to online porn or shouting intolerant outrage on Twitter.  I would argue that the elites are perfectly content with this arrangement as it keeps the masses pacified while their shenanigans remain out of focus.

I think a lot of people grasp that this seems to be a look-over-there-while-I-pick-your-pocket-over-here stunt. Political and cultural liberalism in the US today is not only being used as a form of distraction, it is a very different animal from that of the New Deal era through the 1970’s. It has become more authoritarian, supporting illiberal means for supposed liberal ends.  It is also eating its own as transgender activists butt heads with feminists and gay rights advocates, people of color don’t embrace the latest terms cooked up for them by out-of-touch elite academics, and the working class is ignored and looked down upon.  The liberal label seems to have become less attractive, especially to younger people in the U.S. who are increasingly identifying themselves as independent or democratic socialist.  

I find it interesting that many opinions and analyses I’ve read of Putin’s speech – even by people I consider to be reasonable commentators on the subject of Russia – accept the idea that the policies and trends that Putin is critiquing actually represent genuine liberalism or progress.  The implication often seems to be that Putin and the Russian government may not be able to hold this back, that these attitudes and policies are an inevitability for an advanced and successful nation.  I’m not sure that is at all clear and I’m wondering if they are missing the larger point – that some of these trends, the way they are currently being handled as discussed above, do not represent true liberalism.  Moreover, change is not necessarily a good in and of itself but discernment should be used when determining whether change is constructive and should be embraced and/or to what degree a balance should be struck in the interests of pluralism.