Vladimir Putin And “The Good Pagan’s Failure”

By JUDE DOUGHERTY

The Good Pagan’s Failure is the title of a book first published in 1939 by Rosalind Murray. It is an indictment of Western liberalism. Readers of a certain age will remember that Rosalind was the daughter of Gilbert Murray, the distinguished Oxford professor of Greek and Classical Studies, who in my youth was the object of compulsory study.

For a time, Rosalind Murray was the wife of Arnold Toynbee, the celebrated author of the 12-volume A Study of History (1934-1961). Given the British literary circles in which she moved, Murray knew well the pagan mind of which she wrote.

The pagan of her day was likely to be a philosophical materialist, an empiricist who denied a natural order to which he might be accountable. Murray’s liberal was a mild sort, living comfortably within an inherited culture and a moral order he did not create and whose principles he could not defend. Unlike the pagan of antiquity, he denies the existence of a divinely scripted natural order. The pagan of antiquity did not, as the modern liberal has done, reject Christ. The pagan did not know Christ, but the modern liberal has known Christ and has rejected Him.

Murray is blunt: “The contemporary world is atomic in its outlook, governed by disassociated ideas, emotions, and sense impressions.” We do not look to the modern liberal for moderation and wisdom, or for kindness and good sense.

Rosalind Murray’s book came to mind as I read Lionel Barber’s interview of Vladimir Putin in the June 26, 2019 edition of The Financial Times. Given its provenance, the interview was mainly about the hopes Putin held for the G-20 which was about to occur, and Putin’s reflections on the twenty years that he has been in the upper echelons of the Russian Federation’s governing body.

In response to Barber’s question, “In the last twenty years do you believe that the world has become more fragmented?” Putin replied, “During the Cold War…there were at least some rules that all participants in international communication more or less adhered to or tried to follow. Now it seems there are no rules at all. In this sense the world has become more fragmented and less predictable, which is the most important and regrettable thing.”

The interview goes on to discuss Russia’s relationship with Japan, China, OPEC, the United States, and North Korea. Speaking of the last, Putin opined, “We should not be talking about how to make North Korea disarm, but how to secure the unconditional security of North Korea and how to make any country, including North Korea, feel safe and protected by international law that is strictly honored by all members of the international community.” Of President Trump, whom he clearly respects, Putin said, “I think that he is a talented person. He knows very well what his voters expect from him.”

Putin’s view of U.S. foreign policy is far from positive. “It is impossible to impose current and viable French or Swiss democratic standards on North African residents; the region has known only monarchies with a system similar to that which existed in countries such as Libya.”

He goes on to say, “When our Western partners foolishly attempt to impose the democratic modes of government on people who have never known or even heard of them, the result is inter-tribal discord and conflict, as in Libya where war continues with no end in sight.”

Several times during the interview, Putin sought to address a number of cultural issues but Barber put him off until the near end of the interview. Putin was finally allowed to make the point that, “The liberal idea has become obsolete. It has come into conflict with the overwhelming interests of the majority of the population.” Looking at both Europe and America, Putin said, “The liberal idea allows the immigrant to kill, plunder, and rape with impunity, because their rights as immigrants must be respected. What rights are these? Every crime must have its punishment.”

When asked, “Of the many world leaders you have seen, whom do you most admire?” Putin responded, “If you mean any present-day leaders from different countries and states, of the persons I communicate with, I was most seriously impressed by the former president of France, Mr. Chirac. He is a true intellectual, a real professor, a very level-headed man, as well as very interesting. When he was president, he had his own opinion on every issue, he knew how to defend it and always respected his partner’s opinions.” In those words of tribute to President Chirac, Vladimir Putin could have been describing himself. Like minded! No wonder the two enjoyed each other’s respect.

The interview finally got around to a discussion of the liberal assault on religion and its role of religion in society. “Religion should play its role.” Putin insisted, “It cannot be pushed out.”

“Russia is an Orthodox Christian nation,” he said. “There has always been problems between Orthodox Christianity and the Catholic world.” Putin noted that today there may be problems in the Catholic Church, but they should not be exaggerated or used to destroy the Roman Catholic Church itself. “This cannot be allowed,” he said. “Sometimes I get the feeling that these liberal circles are beginning to use certain elements and problems in the Catholic Church as a tool for destroying the Church itself. This is what I consider to be incorrect and dangerous.”

Putin added, “Have we forgotten that all of us live in a world based on Biblical values? Even atheists and everyone else live in this world. We do not have to think about it every day, attend church, and pray, thereby showing that we are devout Christians or Muslims or Jews. However, deep inside, there must be some fundamental, human rules and moral values. In his sense traditional values are more important for millions of people than this liberal idea, which in my opinion is ceasing to exist.”

Barber responded, “So religion is not the opium of the masses?” Putin said, “No it is not.”

Religious authorities have made that point time and again, but who among Western political leaders has come anywhere close to affirming Putin’s assessment?

Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress