In Trump era, conservatives must be extra careful how they talk about Putin

“Vladimir Putin respects two things: strength and consistency. In the last eight years, President Obama has shown neither,” the group said in a tweet. That note was accompanied by a video criticizing the commander-in-chief for not acting sooner against Russian provocations.

The Washington Examiner article aimed to accomplish two things: To draw attention the emerging narrative that the Right is fond of the former KGB-goon, and to scold certain right-leaning groups for speaking in a way that could be interpreted as pro-Russian.

The post didn’t sit well with certain Heritage associates. Some responded by denouncing the article as “complete rubbish.” Others called the Washington Examiner article “fake news.” Others maintained simply that the Putin tweet was “crystal clear,” and that it was everyone else who was wrong. And so on.

First, contrary to Heritage criticism, the article didn’t accuse the think tank of being pro-Putin. Rather, it criticized the group for speaking carelessly about the Russian president, and for making an unhelpful contribution to the narrative that the Right is sweet on Putin.

Criticizing Heritage for being careless is really the whole point. With the election of Donald Trump, a man who harbors a troubling admiration for Putin, everyone on the Right, especially foreign policy wonks, should speak carefully.

In 2016, Trump was not considered the candidate most representative of the conservative ideology of the past 25 years. His selection as the GOP nominee and subsequent support of top party leaders has had repercussions for the identity of the movement. For example, the 2016 GOP platform was amended significantly to “soften” its language against Russia, and Trump’s team reportedly led the charge.

Conservative groups that have been around for far longer than the Trumpism phenomenon need to understand they’re now under greater scrutiny. Are they adopting Trumpism and going along with the party line, or are they holding on to their more traditional conservative bona fides?

Second, Heritage should not build up the leader of a hostile foreign government just so it can tear down President Obama. This is an even worse idea when the president is finally taking some action against the Putin regime, and when such language appears to muddy Heritage’s own longstanding record on Russia.

As one of the Right’s premier think tanks, Heritage has a responsibility to represent conservatism in a thoughtful and prudent fashion. The group’s online behavior obviously influences how it is seen by the general public. Heritage shouldn’t rely on its policy papers for those outside its immediate sphere of influence to understand the context of its remarks on social media. Heritage shouldn’t expect casual observers to research its policy positions in order to divine the meaning and context of things like the weird Putin tweet. A social media consumer will take the group’s remarks at face value.

Poorly worded notes, and needlessly trollish tweets like this one, undermine Heritage’s ability to stick to its mission to, “formulate and promote conservative public policies.” People who are not already in the fold will be drawn to the group and its ideas based on how it conducts itself in public. If that public persona offers little more than your average #MAGA account, no one except for Trump fans will be interested.

Lastly, as to the question of whether the Putin tweet was actually poorly worded, the answer is: Yes. I’m clearly not alone in saying this, as the relatively bipartisan criticism thrown in Heritage’s direction shows:

Tweets about https://twitter.com/Heritage/status/814825241541283840 filter:verified

//

Tellingly, the think tank’s own social media account issued a note later clarifying that it is not, in fact, a fan of Putin:

If your Putin tweet gets a flunking grade from an honest-to-God Russian dissident and human rights activist like Garry Kasporov, chances are you screwed up.