On Russian Imperialism

United States Presidents from Harry Truman to the first George Bush built alliances and maintained a policy of American military preparedness as a bulwark against Soviet communist expansion.  The policy of containment, never seriously questioned by mainstream politicians in either party, was a 45-year-long hallmark of bipartisan cooperation even as the two major parties squabbled over everything from Civil Rights to levels of taxation.  As today, there were fringe politicians like Henry Wallace, who had been Franklin Roosevelt’s 2^nd Vice President.  Wallace, the Progressive Party nominee in 1948, opposed both the Marshall Plan and the Truman doctrine, instead advocating for appeasement of the Soviets in Eastern Europe.

 

American leaders on both sides of the aisle and even overseas like Winston Churchill framed the argument that Communism was a menace that needed to be stopped at all costs.  In May of 1945, the British had gone so far as to draft a plan for forcibly expelling the Soviets from Eastern Europe.

Except Communism was never at the heart of Soviet expansionism.  The threat posed by Russia precedes the Cold War, the creation of the Soviet Union, the 1917 Russian Revolution, and even the philosophy of Communism itself as espoused by Karl Marx.  It harkens back to the 16^th Century when Russia, declaring itself the Third Rome, began a policy of barbarous military expansion.  The empire expanded as far as Manchuria to the east, Germany to the west, and they even controlled Alaska before it was sold to the United States in 1867.  Ukraine and Poland suffered in particular, being invaded multiple times.

 

The only significant difference between the Soviet era and earlier was the Soviet’s official policy on religion – communists pushed the doctrine of Atheism.  But prior to the Soviet Union, and today, the Russian Government has both co-opted and been emboldened by the Russian Orthodox Church. 

 

Do not mistake the above delineation between Russian aggression and Communism as an endorsement of Communism on my part.  Communism is a failed economic policy – evidenced by the fact that few officially Communist nations actually practice it.  (Neither is pure, unregulated Capitalism a workable policy – but that’s a discussion for another time.)

 

It is standard among political scientists to regard Communism and Fascism as opposites.  They are not opposites.  The are two sides of the same tyrannical coin.  The opposite of Communism is Liberal Democracy.  The opposite of Fascism is also Liberal Democracy.  In other words, no matter the form Tyranny takes, its opposite is Freedom.  But there is a line between freedom and anarchy - and when that line is crossed, as it was in Germany in the 1920s and Russia in the 1990s, Tyranny steps in to restore "order."  Both Fascist leaders like Mussolini and Hitler, and Communists like Stalin, routinely had political opponents and even ordinary critics detained and executed.  Putin, currently presiding over a nation which is more fascistic than communistic, has done the same – including poisoning overseas critics with radioactive material, crashing the plane of a General who dared oppose him, and throwing those seen as less than fully loyal from windows.  The only substantial difference between Putin and Hitler is that, like Stalin and Mussolini, he has been able to maintain his grip on power for a longer period of time.

 

One could engage in whataboutism by whining “What about the British Empire?”  But one should take heed that by the time Britain had acquired nuclear weapons technology, the Empire was crumbling.  It has since been transformed into a Commonwealth from which any member is free to disassociate itself at any time.  It can also be argued that there is an American Empire as well, which included the acquisition by force of much of the western United States and then the territories won during the 1898 Spanish-American war.  The difference is that, even during that conflict, Americans showed enough restraint that they declined the opportunity to take over the island of Cuba (which in retrospect can be argued was a mistake).  Further, when the Philippines wanted independence from the United States, it was granted to them – even after American service members died liberating the archipelago during World War II.  Finally, it has never been creditably proven that any American President, even Richard Nixon or Donald Trump, had political opponents and critics “offed.”  Trump's recent suggestions that he may annex Canada and Greenland have been met with derision both internationally and, with the exception of his most ardent idolators, domestically.

 

The real culprit during the Cold War was, and is today, Russian Imperialism.  It is Russia’s in general and Vladimir Putin’s in particular thirst for conquest and material resources that is driving his push into Ukraine.  In 1991, as the Soviet union dissolved, Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear arsenal (then the world’s 3^rd largest) and to refrain from joining NATO in exchange for a pledge from Russia to never invade Ukraine.  As they have multiple times, Russia broke that treaty in 2014.  As much as I respect Barack Obama personally, his administration’s response to the 2014 invasion of the Crimea was appallingly weak.  Indeed, it was John McCain who first sounded the alarms about the danger Putin represented in 2000 when he was a Presidential candidate.  George W. Bush was seen smirking contemptuously during that discussion.  Later, President Bush claimed to have looked into Putin’s eyes and seen the soul of a fellow Christian, apparently forgetting that Hitler also called himself a Christian and claimed he was carrying out Christ’s mission by “cleansing” Germany of Jews, Roma, homosexuals, and political opponents.  Following Bush, neither Obama nor Trump did anything substantial to stem Putin’s acquisition of personal power or Russian military aggression.  Only Joe Biden showed the fortitude to stand up to Putin when he invaded Ukraine.  For that he was rewarded by a Russian driven propaganda campaign that included the cooperation of those on the far left and right, including Jill Stein, Tulsi Gabbard, Tucker Carlson, and Donald Trump himself – one of the oddest amalgamations in American history.  

 

Henry Wallace’s philosophical equivalent today would be Jill Stein, except that Stein has never held a significant government position (in addition to being Vice President, Wallace had been Secretary of Agriculture and Secretary of Commerce under FDR).

 

By throwing Ukraine under the bus and sabotaging relations with American allies in Europe and North America, Donald Trump, who has been creditably accused of being recruited by the KGB in 1987, has committed the grossest act of appeasement in American history.  Whether or not Trump will face consequences in his lifetime, history will remember how his actions condemned millions of people to the enslavement of Tyranny.

Ravel and Tchaikovsky with Seong-Jin Cho and Welser-Möst

Franz is back.  Music Director Franz Welser-Möst, having successfully completed treatment for cancer, returned to leading the Cleveland Orchestra several weeks ago.  This was my first chance to see him since his return.  This evening’s concert was testimony that he is in excellent form, despite a rather uneven concert overall.

The first half of the concert featured the music of Maurice Ravel, and began with the Rapsodie espagnole.  Having just returned from Spain three weeks ago, the work brought back happy memories.  Daniel and I sat in row H, closer than usual.  From this vantage point, the orchestra sounded less burnished than we are used to.  But this resulted in greater clarity and, during the Rapsodie’s more extroverted sections, a brilliance that never crossed the line into harshness. 

The next work was Ravel’s Piano Concerto in G major, with soloist Seong-Jin Cho.  This was my first time hearing Cho, who won the 2015 International Chopin Competition.  I’ve heard the Ravel played locally by a number of pianists, from Jean-Efflam Bavouzet to Víkingur Ólafsson.  Whatever Cho’s competition credentials and media hype, his performance of the concerto was a disappointment, both to me and to a knowledgeable young pianist of my acquaintance with whom I conversed at intermission.  It wasn’t a question of technique: the piano part was struck off with amazing clarity – there were aspects of the piano writing that I’d never heard before.  But there was no narrative through-line due to the excessive attention to detail and pianistic micromanaging.  In the end, Cho was a soloist, not a collaborator.  Welser-Möst and the orchestra provided an appropriately saucy and jazzy yet polished accompaniment, but the final result was less than the sum of its parts.  Despite that, the audience responded with enthusiasm and Cho played an encore, the middle movement from Ravel’s Sonatine.    

Following intermission, Welser-Möst returned to lead the orchestra in Tchaikovsky’s Symphony No, 4 in F minor, Op. 36.  A recording he made with the orchestra was recently issued, but I found this weekend’s performance to be even more convincing.  It came down to pacing and balance.  The opening movement was propulsive until the lyrical section, where Welser-Möst backed off and let the music breathe.  The second movement exuded a restrained nobility, far removed from the hardware, schmaltzy Tchaikovsky that blights too many concert halls.  But the best was yet to come: the third movement, marked Scherzo, featured a relatively relaxed pace and exquisite pizzicatos from the strings, played pianissimo, with higher dynamics during the wind dominated central section.  This set the stage for a finale which was off the charts exhilarating.  One of Welser-Möst’s strengths is his understanding of structure, which Tchaikovsky needs.  Another strength is Welser-Möst’s ability to built a climax without losing control.  The coda of the work was an example, where the conductor accelerated the already headlong tempo driving the symphony to a stunning conclusion that brought the audience cheering to its feet.

Welcome home, Franz!

One week in Spain

Daniel and I recently undertook a one-week trip to Spain.  Owing t0 some unanticipated and expensive home repairs, this will be our only major trip this year.  We spent several days in Barcelona, with a trip via high-speed rail to Madrid for the remainder of our time there. 

Based on scheduling and layovers, it made more sense to use different airlines for our departing and return flights.  We took United Airlines to Barcelona, connecting in Newark.  As the overnight flight is seven hours long, I booked United’s Premiere Plus seats so we would have enough room to sleep.  All was not as expected.  Along with several other travelers, our in-seat monitors wouldn’t play any entertainment despite the crew rebooting the whole system.  We could only view the flight map.  Fortunately, the plane’s Wi-Fi worked, and I watched “Saturday Night” on my phone.  When the time came for our meal, they only had one chicken dinner left, so I let Danny have it while I had the vegetarian meal - a cauliflower dish that was quite good.  This proved to be fortuitous for me as I ate a lot of meat during the following week. 

View from our in-flight monitor...

Our flight landed in Barcelona on time.  Border control at BCN is very efficient and professional.  The airport is clean, modern, and well laid out.  Wanting to avoid the expense of a taxi, we took the Aerobus to Plaça de Catalunya, which was just a few short blocks from our hotel.  We had no agenda for that day.  So, after dropping off our luggage at the hotel, we decided to wander freely. 

Barcelona is mostly laid out on a grid pattern and very walkable.  Although we did purchase passes for the local Metro, we only used them a few times.  On that first day, our wanderings took us to the Banksy museum; his work runs the gamut from amusing, to witty, to thought-provoking.

At the Banksy museum...

Later that afternoon, we returned to Hotel Indigo and were delighted to learn that our room had been upgraded to a larger space with a patio.  Our Spain trip marks the third and fourth times I’ve stayed at Indigo properties and I have never been less than pleased. 

Appropriately for a Sunday, our morning trip took us to Sagrada Familia, architect Antoni Gaudi’s crowning masterpiece – finally nearing completion some 142 years after ground was broken and a century after the architect’s death.  Words simply fail me in describing this structure, so I will let the photos below speak for themselves.

That afternoon we traveled to Park Guell via bus where we chatted with some American students before walking through the park. 

Monday we saw two more of Gaudi’s well-known works: Casa Batlló, and La pedrera (Casa Milà).  The former of these was a single-family home, the other an apartment building.

On Tuesday we did more free association as we walked La Rambla all the way through the Gothic Quarter to the waterfront and back, stopping into various shops along the way.  That evening, we attended a flamenco show which was a highlight of the trip.  The intoxicating melodies, sensuous harmonies, and bracing rhythms left me mesmerized and inspired.  I’ve spent the week since our return noodling Spanish flavored melodies at the piano.

At the Rambla's southern point...

In both Barcelona and Madrid, we enjoyed numerous and varied culinary delights.  Tapas is the thing in Spain and none of our selections were less than very good.  Even fast-food staples like McDonald’s and Burger King were on a higher level than in the US.

McDonald's in Spain is superior to its American 

counterpart, but no match for Tapas.

Wednesday morning, we took a short Metro ride to Barcelona Sants railway station for the high-speed rail trip to Madrid on IRYO.  This was our first experience with high-speed rail – although I used the commuter rail when living near Boston.  Rail in Europe is the superior alternative to air travel when travelling moderate distances – say, under 500 miles.  Think of it this way: if you’re in a city and want to fly somewhere, you need to go to the airport – which is usually in the outskirts of town; then there’s security which can take an hour; you board the plane about a ½ hour before departure; then you fly and land in your destination, get your luggage, and commute to your destination city.  But with our trip via rail, the train stations were right in the middle of town, security was quick, we were on the train and off in a flash – plus the seating options are far more affordable and comfortable than when flying.  We look forward to more inter-Europe travel via rail.    

Our high speed meal on IRYO.

 

Barcelona and Madrid have similarities but many differences as well.  In both cities, we saw same-sex couples holding hands or walking arm in arm without being harassed or even particularly noticed.  Both cities are dog friendly – although people in Barcelona are more diligent about picking up after their dogs than in Madrid.  While both cities are highly walkable, Barcelona is more easily navigable due to the grid pattern layout as opposed to Madrid’s winding alleys.  Madrid, being Spain’s political capitol and financial center, has a busier atmosphere and the kind of bustling city crowds one associates with New York. 

Both cities have airports that put their American counterparts to shame.  Border control at Barcelona airport was efficient and the border personnel were friendly.  Madrid’s airport is beautifully designed, with many restaurants and duty-free shops. 

Terminal 4 at Madrid's gorgeous airport

As with our flight to Barcelona, our return on American Airlines was in that carrier’s Premium Economy section.  The experience was comparable and our in-seat monitors worked this time. 

Arriving in Charlotte after our eight-hour flight was an exercise in exasperation:  It took over 45 minutes to retrieve our luggage because the conveyor that carries baggage from the plane to the truck was broken.  By the time we had it, we undertook a mad rush to recheck it, go through security, and get to our gate.  By the time we landed in Cleveland, we were exhausted and more than ready for bed.    

One term

There have been 14 Presidents who have served exactly one term.  They were John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, James Polk, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush, Donald J. Trump (who has inexplicably been elected to another term which will likely be at least as disastrous as his first), and Joe Biden.  

I have no doubt that Joe Biden will be judged by future historians as among the greatest of these.

This is not based on sentiment, but on objective reality. None of the above listed one-termers inherited the disaster that Biden had to face. 

Lincoln faced a massive crisis when he took office, the collapse of the union and rise of the Confederacy.  He ended the Confederacy with the bloodiest war in our history, and he ended slavery.  He was elected to a second term, but was assassinated only six weeks into his second term.

Franklin Roosevelt took office at the depth of the Great Depression, and led the nation through a halting, uneven recovery.  Then he rose to the occasion and led the US to the brink of victory in World War II – tragically dying twelve weeks into his fourth term, and a mere three weeks before Germany surrendered.

Barack Obama inherited the worst economic downturn since the Great Recession.  His policies rescued two of the big three automakers and turned the economy around.  He also passed comprehensive health care reform, something which had eluded FDR, Harry Truman, and Bill Clinton.

Joe Biden faced not one, not two, but three crises when he took office: Pandemic, Recession, and Insurrection.  He slew them all.  That fight, along with the other battles and tragedies of his life, took a lot out of him.  Though it took some prodding, ultimately he showed the wisdom to pass the torch to a new generation – something which Franklin Roosevelt was unwilling to do. 

Joe Biden is a true public servant who will be fondly remembered by those of us who have actually studied American history.  

Americans would do well to heed the warnings 

President Biden made in his Farewell address.

French and American music with Denève and Banks at Severance

Guest conductor Stéphane Denève led The Cleveland Orchestra in a program of 20^th and 21^st Century music which highlighted the cross-pollination between the French and American musical scenes.

The concert began with Darius Milhaud’s ballet La création du monde (The Creation of the World), Op. 81, written after the composer traveled to the United States and encountered Harlem Jazz.  The work was written for a small ensemble, heavy on winds, brass, and percussion – with very few strings.  In six brief sections, the work evokes a variety of moods, including not merely jazz but a Cakewalk, and even a military march by Schubert. 

Saxophonist Steven Banks joined the Denève and the orchestra for A Kind of Trane (Concerto for Saxophone and Orchestra) by Guillaume Connesson.  The work, in three movements, fuses not only jazz, but minimalism, techno, popular elements and brief moments that recall film noir scores.  Banks, using both soprano and alto saxophones, put forth a stunning virtuoso performance that captured each musical strand and mood – however fleeting.  Denève and the orchestra furnished more than an accompaniment, but a seamless collaboration so polished that it belied the fact that this week’s performances constituted the Cleveland premiere of the work.  The audience leapt to its collective feet at the work’s conclusion, and Banks performed Malotte’s “The Lord’s Prayer” as an encore.

 

Banks and Denève after the Concerto.

 Following intermission Denève returned to conduct the Suite from Francis Poulenc’s 1924 ballet “Les biches” (The Does).  It has long seemed to me that Poulenc was the early 20^th Century’s answer to Franz Josef Haydn – wit, surprise, and quicksilver moods concealing subtle depths.  Although the composer had not yet visited the United States when this ballet score was composed, there are still hints of America in the work – not least in the work’s central Rag-Mazurka which, despite the dance form implied, doesn’t sound the least bit Polish.  Astonishingly, this weekend marks the first time The Cleveland Orchestra has performed all but the first movement of the suite.

George Gershwin’s An American in Paris has become so popular over the near century since it was composed that too many performances tend to sound alike and routine.  This performance was anything but.  Denève brought a marked sense of rhythmic freedom which served as a reminder that Gershwin once described the work as a rhapsody.  Each section segued seamlessly into the next with lilting freedom – with the exception of the “Charleston” section which sounded appropriately lock-stepped. 

Tonight’s concert was a magnificent reminder that just as there is Fusion cuisine, so can there be music which fuses different styles including classical, jazz, and popular.  None of these styles suffer when mixed – rather they are enhanced.  In music, as in much of life, overweening puritanism is a dead end.