Yo, Vova!

by CKR

Returning to one of my pet peeves...

"Vladimir--I call him Vladimir--" has been invited now, by President Bush, to visit the Bush family compound at Kennebunkport and to send his generals to examine the US missile defense system, maybe even buy one themselves from the US contractors that are currently taking in only nine billion dollars a year on that scam. Maybe they could do the same for the Russians...?

The protocol, until this guy with the cowboy hat showed up, has been to refer to foreign leaders by their titles. So in a press conference, a president of the United States would refer to Prime Minister Blair or Chancellor Merkel or President Putin. A head of state speaking as head of state about other heads of state owes them a bit of respect; at least that's how I see it.

With Mr. Putin (or any Russian) the lack of protocol is compounded by President Bush's lack of understanding of how Russians use names. "Vladimir Vladimirovich" might have sounded less bizarre in the above context, although it's still a bit too cozy for my understanding of protocol. First name plus patronymic (the -ovich name) is an everyday usage by Russians. If Mr. Bush is truly close to Mr. Putin, a diminutive like Vova (childish, I'm told, although I know an adult Vova) or Volodya or Vlad would be what he would call him or the way he would refer to him among close friends.

It could be that by referring to world leaders by their first names, Mr. Bush is trying to show us his closeness to those leaders. Or it could be a manifestation of his reported bullying, or a mindless submission to the false intimacy that causes call-center operators to ask me if they can call me Cheryl. Speculation about these subtexts is the reason for the protocol: when a head of state speaks, none of this should be included in the message. Avoiding error is useful in these situations. Mr. Bush's usage is striking enough that both the Washington Post and the Guardian have quoted it two days in a row.

In a tense situation such as that occasioned by the Bush administration's usual lack of consultation, it's better to avoid the needlessly annoying. If Mr. Bush were truly friendly with Mr. Putin, he would learn how Mr. Putin prefers his name used in public. Even the call center operators have the courtesy to ask for their false intimacy.

Picture credits
Bush driving
Putin driving

Comments

[patricia kushlis]

Maybe he can't pronounce Vladimir?

[Elizabeth D. Dyson]

I enjoyed this discussion of the puerile use of Vladimir Putin's first name by Mr. "Vladimir,I call him Vladimir" Bush. But I have a different explanation for this outrageous nomenclature--and the faux intimate tone in which it was delivered. I think President Bush speaks down to the American people as though they were infants and needed to be wheedled and cajoled into listening to him. Why don't more people call him on this sickening approach to the discussion of serious, indeed, life and death issues?

[zenpundit]

Well...Bush might use the affectionate diminutive if he and Putin had some kind of intimate moment in the gymnasium shower but that's going to sound a lot stranger.

I have another theory: In the old school, old money, environs of the Bush family it is normal "jocular" discourse for men to use that kind of informaility with other powerful men of the same class who were peers ( not with elders or juniors). Most likely this habit
was picked up from his father

[CKR]

But his father referred to other heads of state by their titles in his official speech.

I've had another thought: the addition of more to interpret, by the use of "Vladimir," is very similar to the rightwing noise machine's constant churning out of stuff that sounds like it might mean something. So Bush gets a twofer: diminish "Vladimir" by calling him something un-Russian, the closest he can get to his enjoyment of nicknaming the Americans around him, while distracting from his substantive blunders and other negative actions by throwing out something for people like me to be annoyed by.

[zenpundit]

"But his father referred to other heads of state by their titles in his official speech."

True but Bush sr. was of a different generation and temperment than " W". Even so, Bush the elder was also, I recall, remarkably less formal in his style than his immediate predecessors in the Oval Office.

I think you are reading too much in to this because you find Bush viscerally irritating. I don't think there are very many Americans, and I think we can count the president among them, who know or care much about the proper usage of Russian patronymics.

American presidents, especially those from Texas tend to offend foreign audiences - recall LBJ administering a bearhug to the King of Thailand whose personage in Thai eyes is considered too sacred to be touched.

[CKR]

What I find viscerally irritating is the misuse of people's names. It may be just that I was brought up in a family where we addressed each other by our full names, no nicknames, but I think that courtesy and respect demand that we call each other by the names each of us has claimed as our own. So one learns that the Russians use patronymics and many Asians put their "last name" first if one is going to interact with them. Wasn't President Bush claiming to have read War and Peace? He must have thought there were three times as many characters as there actually were!

For a head of state, there are other constraints. It's one thing if Paris Hilton murmurs about "Vladimir." It's quite another for the president of the United States. (I heard "Romano" from the guy with the cowboy hat yesterday - ugh.)

The point of diplomacy (and the president has plenty of advisors who know this) is not to offend unnecessarily.

I wasn't advocating that the president use the patronymic, but that he use the impersonal official title, which fits this requirement.

I do think you have one thing right, Mark. The president is playing to his base, who don't know or care much about the proper use of Russian patronymics and find such courtesy an affectation. We'll show them uppity furriners!