Vladimir Putin - TIME Person of the Year - baby boomer and more…
Although I don’t usually comment on politics in this blog, I’m always interested in what’s going on in the political world. Chris Erb (from Doing Biz Abroad) and I have been asked to comment on the most influential politician in the world today. The person we thought was most interesting is certainly Vladimir Putin, who in December was named Person of the Year by TIME magazine.
I’m not sure it’s correct to use the term “Baby Boomer” to describe someone not born in the U.S., but his age (birthdate October 7, 1952) places him square in the era of current president Bush and the Clintons. At 55, he is certainly primed to be in a leadership position in Russia for many years. He is an extremely popular man in Russia.
In a radio broadcast in October of 1939, Winston Churchill said, I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.”
That thought is still true today. On the one hand, Putin has initiated many projects for the improvement of Russian society and the economy, with major initiatives in health care, housing, education and agriculture, and he has reformed the judiciary. A stable Russia is certainly not a bad thing for the world. On the other hand, he has stifled free speech and rigged and cancelled elections. Sounds like a return to the old Russia we remember.
Max Hastings in the Daily Mail called him the “new Tsar” and “Stalin’s spiritual heir.”
Putin says he is creating a “sovereign democracy” which sounds like an oxymoron to me.
(The choice of Putin as Person of the Year has been criticized by many, including Garry Kasparov, who reminds us that Hitler was named TIME Man of the Year in 1939.)
The word is “influential.” Hitler is my choice for “most influential” person of the 20th century. And Putin is shaping up to be an influential politician in the 21st.
Related Stories
POSTED IN: Boomer Talk, Politics
22 opinions for Vladimir Putin - TIME Person of the Year - baby boomer and more…
Charlie Crystle
Jan 14, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Putin is not a boomer, despite his age. The boomer phenomena didn’t happen in the USSR; it’s about culture, not age.
Bob Turek
Jan 14, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Jean, Jim and Chris (I’ll check your post out too)- the thing that disturbs me about Russia is the underlying lack of freedom- something that sets us apart from the rest of the world. I can’t help but think that there are some extrememly nasty things going on underneath that society- and people are ignoring them because of the “success” they appear to be having. It’s like a country without a soul.
Mary Emma Allen
Jan 14, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Very interesting analysis, Jean. Whether we like a leader or not, they can have great influence in their country and the world….for good or for bad.
Miki
Jan 14, 2008 at 7:39 pm
I don’t think that our news is spun, too, that’s why my friends in Washington DC all watch/listen to the BBC.
For another view, my Russian business partner provided a great two part commentary on http://www.leadershipturn.com/what-leaders-do-putin-part-1/ from the viewpoint of a thirty-something Russian entrepreneur.
Jean
Jan 14, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Thanks, ME: When I told someone that I thought Hitler was the most influential person of the last century, he was appalled…until he thought about it a while. Hitler’s aggression was one of the main causes of WWII, and that certainly was the defining event of the century. “Influence” has no value judgment associated with it.
Jean
Jan 15, 2008 at 8:00 am
Thanks, Charlie. I was hesitant to name him a Boomer, for that reason. He is part of an era, and he is a “contemporary” of the US president and other top world leaders.
Isaac
Jan 15, 2008 at 3:49 pm
russians really dont have any identity with the country of russia except that they all want it to be big and strong. there are so many different ethnicities in russia that they dont have very much in common except for that fact and this is what putin has done, he has made russia stronger
Jean
Jan 16, 2008 at 7:07 am
Thanks, Isaac. A strong leader is important for a diverse country like Russia.
Miki
Jan 16, 2008 at 11:04 am
“so many different ethnicities” and “dont have very much in common” applies just as well to the US. The folks I know in Russia have a very strong national identity and deep love of their country, as do the disparate elements in the US.
Isaac
Jan 17, 2008 at 12:43 am
You are probably right, I was talking out of my rear end. One thing that I am interested in though, is what do russians think their country stands for or what defines Russia to them. And back a little more on subject has’nt it been historicaly true that russians have sacrificed democracy for strong authoritarian leaders that make their country stronger even, somtimes, at the unnesesary expense of their own peoples lives
Jean
Jan 17, 2008 at 5:51 am
Isaac, your observation sounds right. I think each country (USA and Russia included) has its own “ethos” (group spirit). I had a hard time figuring out what word I wanted to use to explain this phenomenon. I’m saying that each country has evolved to think collectively in a certain way, because of history, culture, etc.
Nick
Jan 19, 2008 at 2:11 am
Isaac, as a Russian, I’d say that the key thing that defines Russia is Russian culture - defined quite vaguely, but as well quite widely. Speaking of sacrificing the lives - indeed key XX century events, like WWII, have lead to Russian sacrificing way too much of their lives - 10 to 20 millions, by different calculations. But it is also true that aside of that sacrifice (by the way, we in Russia call that war the Great Homeland War) every country have been loosing to Germany and Japan. I wouldn’t deny though that Stalin was an authoritarian leader (13 members of my familty have been unlawthfully prosecuted during his reign, including my grandfather) or that Russia (actually, Soviet union) have grown much stronger and influential at that time.
Miki
Jan 20, 2008 at 12:11 pm
I just reread Isaac’s comment and had a heretical thought. Considering the growing poverty levels and lack of health-care access, I think you could also say that there have been many US leaders “that make their country stronger even, somtimes, at the unnesesary expense of their own peoples lives.”
Isaac
Jan 21, 2008 at 11:55 pm
You could argue that but it is not quite the same as the youre leader killing millions of youre own countrys population.
Ren Garcia
Jan 24, 2008 at 6:41 pm
In many cases, it’s not a case of making the country stronger, but making the control of those in power stronger so that they can stay in power longer.
What makes a country strong? GNP? Balance of Payments? Its currency vis-a-vis other currencies? These are more easily managed under a quasi authoritarian leadership.
How about freedom of the press? Human Rights? The Gini ratio (percent poor vs percent affluent)? Most often negative under an authoritarian leader.
b5media - Move over Felix and Oscar: There’s a New Odd (Blog) Couple in Town.
Jan 28, 2008 at 8:32 am
[…] Who is the most important political or national leader currently serving in the world? Doing Biz Abroad Small Business Boomers […]
Isaac
Feb 1, 2008 at 6:06 am
True, but in Vladimir Putins case, I think that generaly he wants to make his country stronger even if he also wants to hold on to the reins of power for as long as possible. Plus without his country becoming more powerful, neither he nore any of his sucessors will have much influence and power in the world wich is somthing that they most obviously want.
Isaac
Feb 1, 2008 at 6:10 am
As to whoes the most influential leader in the world today i would like to say that President Bush was but than I dont really know.
Miki
Feb 1, 2008 at 11:55 am
Show me a head of state (I refuse to call them leaders) who doesn’t want to make his/her country stronger, more influential, more everything than it is currently. If the US didn’t have a term limit on the Presidency Bush, like Putin, wouldn’t be stepping down any time soon, nor would have many of his predecessors.
People in the US love to think that it wields the same power and influence as it did after WWII, but it doesn’t. Bob says, “I cant help but think that there are some extremely nasty things going on underneath that society- and people are ignoring them because of the “success” they appear to be having. It’s like a country without a soul.” Well, sad to say, from my perspective that applies to the US, too. There is more intolerance, bigotry, hate and poverty here than most people will admit. For every two steps forward we seem to take at least one step backwards.
I think we need to get off our high moral horse and clean up our own problems before we sit in judgment of the rest of the world.
Jean
Feb 1, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Miki, it makes you wonder if they are doing it “for the good of the country” or their own good. I know President Reagan was very reluctant to give up the presidency at the end of his 2nd term.
Miki
Feb 1, 2008 at 1:09 pm
LOL, thanks, Jean, I needed a good laugh. “for the good of the country” hasn’t been around since the Ideologues took over
(www.leadershipturn.com/leaders-who-dont-politicians).
E-sniper » Blog Archive » Move over Felix and Oscar: There’s a New Odd (Blog) Couple in Town.
Feb 8, 2008 at 2:00 pm
[…] Who is the most important political or national leader currently serving in the world? Doing Biz Abroad Small Business Boomers […]
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: