A revealing breakfast with Russians

Taking breakfast in a cozy Italian pensione a decade ago, my wife and I were joined by a Russian couple from Moscow.

“Good morning,” we said, eager for a cross-cultural chat over cappuccino. While they spoke English, we didn’t get so much as a dobroe utro in return.

Hadn’t the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991?

Ignoring the Siberia-like chill, we played the diplomacy card and détente prevailed. Mrs. Moscow got the ball rolling when she described then-President Barack Obama as — and I quote — “evil.”

Evil? Tyrants like Stalin were evil. But Obama?

Counter question: Should Vladimir Putin be president-for-life? Mrs. Moscow cast an enthusiastic “yes” vote; Mr. Moscow (a lawyer) was a nuanced “probably.”

Putin was making Russia great again, they said.

How? By reasserting Russian power in the post-Soviet era. By providing security and a patriotic response to western abuse. Vladimir might be dictatorial and heavy-handed, but he was a patriot, their patriot. The West was weak and declining.

As for “evil” Obama, Mrs. Moscow acknowledged that Russia's media could be involved.

“I suppose,” she mused, “we only know as much about these things as the media tells us.”

Isn’t that the truth? we thought, especially in Russia, where pro-Putin propaganda flows from state-owned media like lava from Mount Etna. What did our fellow travelers know of Putin’s brutal oppression of political dissidents, for instance?

We parted on good terms, grateful that America’s independent journalists who asked tough questions were not harassed, jailed, or exiled as “enemies of the people.”

In the America we thought we knew, any wannabe “Putin” would be kneecapped by court rulings, congressional oversight, and public blowback. We were committed to the rule of law, not the rule of man.

That was then, this is now. Daily we see a president acting as if he has a mandate to save America from the shackles of constitutional democracy by centralizing power in the White House.

Funny thing about kings and monarchs, though. Our founders hated the rule of man. So they came up with a brilliant plan for three coequal branches of government — legislative, executive, and judicial — each acting as a buffer against the excesses of the other.

To his credit, I suppose, America’s wannabe monarch isn’t exactly denying his attempts to reshape democracy into a hollow shell of its former self. Putting himself first is a lifetime pursuit that landed him in the White House, where being president apparently isn’t good enough. Anybody who disagrees, including legislators in his own party, can fall in line or pay a price, or so it seems.

If that sounds unfair, ask yourself why, despite economic alarm bells going off all over the place, Congressional Republicans have not thrown a monkey wrench into the president’s reckless rush to impose self-destructive tariffs.

Or found a way to protect our (former) friends and allies instead of watching them being shoved aside, with Russia poised to reap the whirlwind? Exactly who do they think will stand beside us the next time there’s a 911 attack or an international conflict?

Why are masked federal agents snatching students off sidewalks, apparently because of newspaper opinion pieces they wrote or protest movements they helped lead?

Since our visit to Italy in 2015, it’s remarkable to consider how little has changed inside Putin’s Russia and how much America is aligning itself with Putin’s worldview.

Would Mr. and Mrs. Moscow be pleased? Probably.

Patriotic believers in American democracy, not so much.

Michael Sondergard is the former city editor of a community newspaper and a retiree from the University of Iowa.