by Alexander Zuyev with Malcom McConnell
Captain Alexander Zuyev’s book Flanker highlights his famous (and successful) 1989 defection attempt from the Soviet Union at the brink of its collapse. Zuyev, disillusioned with Gorbachev’s glasnost and perestroika political and economic reforms, flew his state-of-the-art MiG-29 fighter jet from his base in Georgia to Turkey, an American NATO ally. Although the fighter was released back to the Soviets, Zuyev himself was granted political asylum in the US, delivering an unprecedented view of not only the Soviet Union’s military readiness at the end of the Cold War, but also of the suffering of the Soviet people in their every day lives. Overall, Zuyev would argue that it was not his lack of patriotism that led him to defect. Rather, Zuyev points out that defection was his own personal rebellion against a system that only served to benefit the ruling elite at stark contrast to the Union’s espoused Socialist ideals.
At its core, Fulcrum (named after the NATO reporting identifier for the MiG-29) is the tale of one man’s confrontation with a fundamental choice: whether to put up with and accept a system that one believes to be unjust (and hope for gradual change), or to strike out and take a stand that could be potentially ruinous (and not just to the individual). Indeed, Zuyev himself admits that once he decided to defect, “my life was no longer balances on a tochka opori, a fulcrum. The balance had tipped. I had made a decision” (Zuyev, 299).
I suppose it was timely that I finished this book on the same week of what I am sure will be known to history as the infamous Capitol Hill Insurrection of 6 January 2021. Regardless of the reader’s opinions as to the merits of the rioting and murder of a Capitol Policeman (Spoiler: It was super wrong), the rioters themselves would have likely found common cause with Zuyev beyond both of their avowed pledges to stand against Socialism (with the scary capital S). The rioters, egged on then-President Trump, viewed themselves as being presented with a choice: accept the results of the 2020 election, or stand and fight to remove the sitting members voting not to prolong the election drama with an objectively unjustified audit.
The crowd’s response was wrong, but it was not un-American. The United States is perhaps the most ideologically individualistic country in the world. With only a few exceptions (looking at you France), the United States has the citizens with the greatest willingness to turn out and join a demonstration. Racial (Ferguson/BLM), economic (Occupy), social (women’s), environmental (climate change), and political (unite the right) have garnered significant turn out and media attention within the United States in recent years. Perhaps this phenomenon is due to the rise of social media or political polarization or increased “wokeness” or delusion. Perhaps it is due to billionaire conspiracies or foreign influence campaigns. Perhaps we are all now, more than ever, looking for something to join, to be a part of. Something that makes us feel like we matter in a world that is getting faster and faster and leaving more and more of us behind.
Regardless of the root cause, the average American today faces the fundamental “Zuyev decision” on a nearly daily basis. For each cause or fight that pops up in a Reddit thread, newsfeed, or FOX NEWS ALERT!1!!! each American asks themselves “will I stand up against this?” I wonder what the effects of such constant buffeting of our moral compasses will be in the long term: Will Americans be more introspective and conscientious, ready to fight for what they believe? Or will Americans become fatigued, over-stimulated, and more than ever willing to sit down in the face of (perceived) gross injustices if it just meant they could get back to their regularly-scheduled lives. I’d argue for the former, although I’m not so certain it is necessarily a good thing.
To determine if it is or not, one should consider the benefits of having increasingly active Revolutionary and Reactionary political activists. Does increased pressure from the wings (however justified one’s cause might be) make for a BETTER United States? That answer depends on what one’s definition of “better” is. More stable, more free, more equal, more powerful? Ask a thousand people and you get a thousand different answers. Another lurking, more seemingly un-American question to ask is if more people passionately involved in political causes is a good thing. Can the common (wo)man be relied upon to be guided with an informed mindset? Or is it more likely that with increased participation comes an increase in the amount of people who are manipulated and swayed by unreasonable passion/emotion?
The Founding Fathers were concerned about this very issue and were largely pessimistic in this regard. A fundamental tenant of our Republic is an inherent distrust of a “mob” and rushes to progress. Instead of a Democracy, they argued, the larger decisions should be made by learned gentlemen who are trusted the Republic’s political establishment/elite to be capable make such choices for the Greatest Good. However, this concept was abruptly ruined by the populism and corruption of Andrew Jackson within 50 years.
So what to do? Clearly, the United States has jumped all over the political compass (https://www.politicalcompass.org/) and will continue to do so in the future with ever greater participation and passion from the extremes which, combined with statistically-proven increasing polarization, will lead to greater volatility.
So how did we move from discussing a book about the theft of an advanced Soviet fighter and the defection of a pilot to discussing the broad movements of political thought in the US today? The answer lies in each of our fulcrums–how and what will make us pivot depends on hundreds of considerations unique to each of us. But truth be told, its a safe bet to assume that all of us will have our fulcrums tested in the coming years.
Thoughts? Please comment below!
Adam's Fathoms 