The End of the Beginning
Breathless talk of the End of Times has been a feature of right-wing America for some time, especially during the Obama years. Now the left is joining in. Many of us imagine stiff-armed seig-heils, swastika banners, and white hoods lining Pennsylvania Avenue on January 20. We cannot bear the image of Donald Trump occupying the office of Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt and Kennedy. We certainly did not support George W. Bush, but most of us did not literally fear his possession of the nuclear codes, nor did we need to fear his gleeful embrace by the Klan and the Kremlin (he didn’t have it); we did not literally fear for our Muslim friends and neighbors; we did not have to explain to our daughters that they matter as human beings, that the whole nation isn’t a continental misogynist playground; we did not worry about Secretary of State Chachi.
Hillary Clinton’s loss augurs a turning point in this nation’s relationship with its own citizens and with the world. I will not argue the challenges away in my attempt to bind up my own emotional wounds inflicted by this election. Many are now grasping for solace in many corners — from claiming the constitutional system will balance out the new president’s power (meaning presumably that Republican members of Congress will suddenly display a sober penchant for governing they have been concealing for the last eight years during the presidency of a man they were determined to destroy), to delighting in the prospect of regular work for Alec Baldwin.
But the truth is, for now at least, there is no silver lining. There is no positive spin. Many of us are astounded and angry at otherwise seemingly responsible people only too willing to embrace racism, misogyny and bigotry so they could secure another tax break. In fairness, we are equally frustrated by a system that has left so many people economically adrift that they, too, were willing to overlook a clear threat to our Constitutional system in the hope of a decent job.
The President said on Monday that history zig-zags. Well 2016 was certainly a zag. I’ve written before about the historical underpinnings of liberal democracy, and why they are under threat now. But history also shows that progress never moves in a straight line. After the Civil War, a few years of Reconstruction and progress toward creating a multicultural society was stymied by a century of Jim Crow. Action, reaction. What we are now going through is similar. The dangers are palpable. Here at home, there is much about which to be anxious. Many of us are focused on the home front, and that’s understandable. People are frightened and the winners of this election cycle need to understand that not everyone will tolerate a new century of Jim Crow. Many people, including
in my own hometown are writing about how to organize and resist the rollback of civil rights, Constitutional protections and, for that matter, the Enlightenment.
But it’s a big world out there and it is getting more dangerous. A new world order is emerging, with nativist politics on the rise in much of the West and authoritarianism surging. Brexit, Trump, right-wing nationalist movements in France and even Germany are upending liberal democracy. Less than a week after the US election, a pro-Russia white supremacist regime won the presidency in Moldova, giving the Kremlin another pressure point on neighboring Ukraine.
The Kremlin, having successfully influenced the US elections seems likely to now focus its attention on the French presidential elections in the Spring. If Russia can help to elect Marine Le Pen president of France, it will likely have compliant regimes in both Washington and Paris. This is key for several reasons. France in the hands of Le Pen would mark the end of the European Union and the beginning of a new period of disarray in the West, making unified European action against Russia far more difficult. Moscow appears bent on recapturing its old imperial (and later Soviet) sphere of influence in Eastern Europe and/or simply annexing the bits it really wants, as in Crimea. A weak, or nonexistent, European Union makes this task much easier, as does a divided NATO. NATO military action is based on decision by consensus, effectively giving members veto power on the use of force. Throughout the Cold War, it was understood that any attack on any NATO member would mean war with all members, a result of the alliance’s Article 5 collective defense commitment, itself based on the right of individual and collective self-defense guaranteed by Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This threat of collective defense held Moscow and its allies at bay. But with pliable governments in America and France, either or both of which might veto military action, the Kremlin has a freer hand.
It’s not an idle threat. Last month, state-controlled Russian media announced the addition of two Buyan-class warships and nuclear-capable Kalibr cruise missiles to its Baltic Fleet base at Kaliningrad. NATO has been moving forces into the area also, in an effort to dissuade Moscow from carving up the Baltic states (all three Baltic nations are NATO members and formerly part of the USSR) the way it has Ukraine. Russia is using the same time-tested tactics it used in Ukraine, and were once used by Hitler to carve up Czechoslovakia, swallow Austria and eliminate Poland. Expect therefore to hear more stories of a persecuted ethnic Russian minority in these countries, and angry demands from Moscow that something be done about it, similar to the language the Kremlin used in the lead up to its annexation of Crimea.
Some think Russia will move against the Baltic states, or perhaps what remains of Ukraine even before the new administration is ensconced in Washington, but I doubt it. I expect they will have a stronger hand to play after the French elections, and so we have six months or perhaps a year to see if war breaks out between Russia and members of the NATO alliance. If it does and the US fulfills its treaty obligations, we have a land war in a Europe bristling with nuclear weapons.
If the US does not act, if Washington allows Moscow to dismember its Baltic neighbors and American allies, then we can expect trouble elsewhere. China may seize the opportunity to press its position in the South China Sea and test America’s commitment to Japan, though I expect she would act more tentatively than Russia. Despite a massive military buildup, China is not quite ready for open conflict with the United States.
As much as we need to be vigilant about undermining our Constitutional system at home, Americans need to pay far more attention than we typically do to foreign affairs. The world is a more dangerous and unpredictable place than it was just a few years ago — and that’s only counting the major powers. Demagogues and dictators often use foreign conflicts to shore them up at home and distract from domestic matters we should be paying attention to.
America, it’s time to pay attention. The years since the Cold War marked the beginning of a new era, but history may view them as more of a transition. We have already entered a new era — a different one than we had imagined — with economic, political, technological and media forces having laid the groundwork for the possibility of a new global authoritarian dystopia. As Churchill once said (in a far more triumphant context), “This is not the end. This is not even the beginning of the end. But it is perhaps the end of the beginning.”
It is possible to master all these dangers. But to do so, Americans will have to demonstrate an appetite we have lacked for decades. We must pay attention to what matters, discern fact from fiction, and act.