Grand Old Hypocrisy

I'm going to make some disclaimers before formally starting this post that are aimed at mitigating any sort of anti-Republicanism that my respected colleagues might garner from reading what is below. I'm a registered Democrat. My values and politics are aligned most strongly with that party more so than with the Republicans.

This is so even in the face of the fact that I grew up in Ohio, had friends that owned guns, and have voted Republican in the past. Yes, you heard that right. On top of that, I voted for George W. against John Kerry. What makes me Democrat is that I don't cling to religion very strongly and I'm a minority (which some may argue shouldn't matter, but it does realistically).

So, in essence, I'm not some bleeding heart liberal who detests George W. Bush because it is the popular thing to do. Think of me more as a pragmatic center leftist who believes in social equality and the power of the free market. I am, despite my self loathing(but accepting my fate as time progresses), more Bill Clinton than Ted Kennedy. What I am not is some self indulgent populist who thinks the Republicans are evil and should be vanquished across the River Styx.

All that being said, the GOP, for all its tradition and successful leadership of the past (during the Cold War, not the past 8 years) has become a hub of hypocrisy in American politics.

They are the party that has convinced the American people that the Democrats are big government socialists who are willing to take away your rights, mainly Second Amendment ones, at the drop of hat. However, they are the same party that has increased government spending, bloated the deficit, and has overseen the biggest truncation of civil liberties in the history of the United States with the Patriot Act. They allow possession of firearms but allow the authorities to arrest you under charges of terrorism and tap your phone conversations with no evidence.

What choice to the Democrats want to take away from the American people? What rights are they curtailing? If the possession of firearms are on the same fundamental plane as the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, then the people of this nation have a lot more introspection to do. If conservatives want to control the media, then its all right as long as people in rural American can keep their guns? Is it also alright, then, to limit the choice a woman has during an unwanted pregnancy? Is it in the spirit of Democracy to say that a victim of rape or failure of contraception MUST have the child?

And isn't it impressive that the party that always seeks to maintain its images as the one that protects America is the party that has lead to a policy that makes us seem weak and feeble? Sure September 11th was a national tragedy on an unprecedented scale. And sure the war in Afghanistan was completely warranted. But what about the rest of our foreign policy decisions during the Bush years? We've acted more like a cowering bully who was finally confronted by the kid he was oppressing. We took our bloody nose back to our house, cried to our mommy, and came back with a blinding fury.

Hardly appropriate for the nation which claims to be the great savior of a superpower in a troubled world. The "beacon of light" against an "axis of evil", if you will. All this has led to continuous unilateral action that has alienated our nation on the international scene and diminished our relevance in international affairs. Bush's policies have completely ignored history and turned our nation into a tyrant in the eyes of the world instead of the gentle giant that Kennedy, Kissinger, and Reagan had built.

The Republican hypocrisy goes further than policy making. It goes into election battles as well. Why is it alright for Republicans to question the service of a Democratic candidate when their own candidate dodged a draft? And why is it that only Republican presidents would be strong enough to lead in the face of adversity. Both World Wars were presided over by Democratic presidents and during the hottest flash point of the Cold War, a Democrat went toe to toe with the Chairman and bought the world from the brink of nuclear war. Hell, the only nuclear weapons ever detonated in battle were ordered by a Democrat.

They shouldn't have a monopoly on national security because they didn't do anything to earn that reputation. Reagan was a great speaker but his policies were hardly responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union. The United States knew, in the 60s with the Long Telegram, that the Soviet model for economic development was unsustainable. Therefore, all that needed be done was contain the empire. But somehow the Republicans ride this false legacy, and the Second Amendment, into making the American people believe in their supposed machismo.

John McCain is running for president on the fact that he was a soldier in the Vietnam war and was held in captivity for five years. The Democrats are too soft to attack this platform (with the exception of General Clark) and the Republicans have become masters at pulling the strings for this type of candidate. Let me ask you conservatives this: what does being a POW bring to the table in terms of being the president of the United States? I'll answer that for you: very little. Sure we should honor his service and sympathize with his imprisonment, but does that mean we should give him the most powerful executive position in human history?

Simply put, getting shot down in battle is not a ticket to the White House. It doesn't give him any of the executive experience he claims to have. Senator Obama doesn't have much executive experience either, but I'd say he has as much as McCain does. But the Republicans always try to bolster these macho attributes in their candidates because they lack any other back story. McCain can't even use the Internet. He has admitted to not knowing anything about the economy. Would it be appropriate, then, to elect him the leader of the free and globalized world? Yes, the Republicans would say, because he spent 5 years in the Hanoi Hilton about 40 years ago learning how to govern his cellmates.

So, America, if you want to be duped again in to voting for the "most qualified candidate," vote McCain. He knows nothing about economics, doesn't know how to use 21st century technology, and still thinks the Cold War is active. But, he'll let you keep your guns, was a POW for 5 years, cut taxes for everyone making over $200,000 a year, and recreate the Cold War for nostalgia's sake with his League of Democracies.

I mean, who wants a top tier Ivy League graduate with a degree in law and international relations who turned down potentially millions of dollars from Wall Street to dedicate his life to service as their president anyway?

Russia One Year Ago

The following is an essay I wrote on Russia and her relationship with the West in June of 2007. Will this be enough to get me into SAIS? Please? S'il vous plait? Min fadlak?

Global Cooling

The United States and a More Assertive Russia

With the Group of 8 Conference in full swing, the majority of public focus is on the issue of global warming. However, perhaps some attention should be paid to the cooling relations between two of the world’s largest military powers. Although the rivalry between the United States and Russia has turned into an uneasy friendship since the end of the Cold War 16 years ago, the two nations have seen their already tenuous relationship take a turn away from progress in recent years. Perhaps this is the effect of Russian assertiveness that has resulted from a recent economic boom or a newfound confidence from a leadership that has seemed to secure domestic power indefinitely. Regardless, the United States and its allies must take affirmative steps to integrate Russia into the global community in an effort to help Russia grow and bring stability to a region of the world that desperately needs it.

The Russian economy has fared well recently due to the increase in the global demand for fossil fuels. This economic success has led the Kremlin to become more aggressive in its foreign policy. Specifically, the Russian government has made a recent push to reestablish its influence in former Soviet bloc areas. Russian military movement in the former Soviet republics is frequent and rarely questioned. For example, Moldova and Georgia have requested that Russian forces be removed from their borders without any action taking place. More concerning is the lack of international objection to the infringement on those nations’ sovereignty.

Yulia Tymoshenko, the leader of Ukraine’s parliamentary opposition, claims that Vladimir Putin is susceptible to outside criticism. He advises that Western leaders take advantage of this sensitivity and speak against developments that take Russia further away from democracy and towards regression. The United States and other Western nations are not doing any favors for the Russian people by abstaining to criticize the Russian government for its recent diplomatic tactics. In fact, by remaining silent, the West is effectively allowing Russia to pursue its imperialist ambitions unchecked.

The United States and its allies need to place counterweights on Russian expansion by helping foster relations between Russia and its European neighbors. The easiest way to accomplish this would be to bolster the independence of the former Soviet block states, such as the Ukraine, so that they may work together with Russia to form some sort mutually beneficial relationship. The more secure Russia feels with its neighbors, the less inclined it may feel to pursue its imperial ambitions. To complement this, Europe and the United States should welcome Russia into international agreements and talks to develop cooperation with the Kremlin. While trying to foster friendship, the Western powers should not be afraid to engage in dialogue with Russia that is frank and asserts the West’s point of view. By doing this, the West can show respect for the Kremlin that has not been seen since the days of the Soviet Union. The Russians will likely understand a policy based on respect rather than one that appeals solely to cooperation and friendship. This sort of policy can make the Russians feel like a respected peer instead of scolded teenager.

The West’s neglect of Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union has led to a nation that has been downgraded in the eyes of the community and as a result has become insecure in its place on the international scene. However, the West and Russia must realize that there can be a mutually beneficial relationship that will provide economic prosperity to both and desperately needed stability for the Kremlin. These two things, prosperity and stability, should focus the Russian government on domestic development rather than foreign conquests and provide the United States with a dramatically more subtle form of “containment” than that employed during the Cold War. Except this time, the United States may gain a powerful ally for the future instead of a crippled enemy left in the past.

Twenty First Century Realpolitik

Otto von Bismark used to quip that foreign policy should not be chained by the cumbersome constructs of ideology and morality. He believed in ruthless pursuit of foreign goals through any means possible. He was, in essence, a poster child for Machiavelli. And as a result, he led Germany to continental dominance in the mid to late 19th century.

Contrast this with the current Republican administration which relies heavily on the neoconservative school of governance. The Bush White House has dramatically shifted the foreign policy paradigm of their party to the other side. They are idealists. They believe in good vs. evil, and right vs. wrong. They split the world into "good" democracies and an Axis of Evil. Idealists fore go practical considerations in favor of value considerations (see Iraq War). This is a sharp break from the Republican tradition of Kissinger, Reagan, and elder Bush who conducted foreign policy based on cold calculation and protection of interests.

But now we have an old enemy turned new ally playing the geopolitical game of the 19th century. By retaliating against Georgian aggression in South Ossetia and pushing their forces into Georgia proper, the Russians are displaying the sort of Machiavellan intuition that led to the rise of Germany in the late 19th century.

Will they be the next troublesome world power? Probably not. But then again, Germany grew in a world utterly dominated by Great Britain, so there's no definite answer to that question.

However, we can draw certain historical parallels and place them in modern context to accurately judge how the United States should approach the problem of a more assertive Russia.

Honestly, it was only a matter of time before Russian petrodollars translated into military force. Many political scientists have recently started comparing post Soviet Russia to the Weimar Republic of the interwar years. Both nations had a shattered economy and a population that heavily resented the fall of their respective empires. Both nations then saw an authoritarian leader take power under the guise of democracy and lead them to economic prominence. It doesn't matter that Russia was more fortunate than Germany because of the high price of oil, all that matters for this comparison is that both nations rose to economic prominence seemingly out of nowhere.

What is even more interesting is that the invasion of Georgia parallels the Nazi takeover of Danzig and the Sudentenland. Hitler justified his actions by saying that he was merely protecting German peoples from prosecution in those areas. Sound familiar? The Russian autocracy's main justification for the use of force was that Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia were killed by Georgian aggression.

A bigger concern is that the citizens of South Ossetia and the breakaway Georgian province of Abkhazia hold Russian passports. Therefore any attack on them could provide a just war justification for the Russians. Sure that may give the Russians justification to drive the Georgians out of those regions, but not to push further into Georgia proper.

However, we're not dealing with a government that bases its decisions on morality. We are dealing with a government that sees the world through the eyes of 19th century power politics and realpolitik. The Russians saw their chance to put an end to a country that has been a thorn it their side for some time now. After this disastrous altercation, there is very little chance that NATO or the EU would risk granting Georgia full membership.

Mission accomplished.

But no. The Russians seemingly want to go further and topple the current democratic regime, not just prevent it from joining the EU and NATO.

So what is the West to do?

Traditionally, negotiating with a power that plays realpolitik and uses force to do so has been considered appeasement. Neville Chamberlain anyone?

Up to this point, the United States and EU have played a pretty even hand with Russia. They have diffused any potential situations be using diplomacy and cunning to keep the Russians content; mainly because they think they need Russian support on a host of world issues ranging from Iran to nuclear non-proliferation. However, this is probably one situation were diplomacy and carrots won't be as effective as some version of the stick.

However, is war with Russia an option?

The EU won't risk its short term energy future to fight Russia over Georgia.

The United States won't risk opening another front for its already battle fatigued forces.

However, the Western allies have to play a little power politics themselves to force Russia to stand down. The Russians currently have everything in their favor. Georgia is a small nation in the center of the Oil Road. It does not have any strategic allies in the region and cannot count on Western forces to aid it effectively due to geographical isolation. Soft power won't be enough to deter Russia.

All of this is setting a dangerous precedent for the region. If Russia can have its way with a neighboring country and effect regime change by brute force, then what's to stop her from pursuing that strategy in other nations. The Baltic states and Ukraine have the most to lose here. They are not only democratic institutions on the path towards EU membership, but also have been outspoken critics of Putin's administration. They have, so far, been an effective check on the territorial ambitions of the Russians. However, depending on how this war ends, they may become more timid in their accusations in the near future.

More important is the effect this aggression may have on the Russian political psyche. They have outmaneuvered the West completely in this conflict. We cannot do anything but sit, watch, and hope Moscow signs some sort of cease fire agreement. By not being able to pursue a military option, NATO has effectively been neutered in the Caucuses area and the United States' military limits have been exposed.

Most importantly, the Russians know that the West is unwilling to challenge them militarily or isolate them diplomatically.

So what is the solution to this mess?

Only time can tell.

One option includes extending NATO membership to Georgia and Ukraine as a deterrent to future Russian aggression. Russia would not dare attack a NATO member and incur the wrath of the entire alliance. And they would have the security of knowing that NATO could not launch a preemptive strike. After all, where would NATO member states get their oil from?

Another option includes defending the right of Georgia to exist. This means that the United States defend the the capital, Tbilisi and force the Russians to make a decision: either turn back or find themselves in open conflict with the United States.

Both of these paths pretty much pave the way for another Cold War. But if Russia favors becoming a 19th century power player over a 21st century global moderator, then there are very few options.

There are a few reasons diplomacy won't work in this situation. First, the Russians really don't offer the West much in the way of being effective world leaders. They've continually refused to place santions on Iran and even provide them with nuclear materials. They also refuse to impose any sort of incursion into Sudan to prevent the genocide in Darfur. So what do we bargain for? Apparently the status quo, and that's not much of a chip. Second, as explained above, the Russians have all the leverage in the situation and no incentive to negotiate.

Whatever happens though, one thing is certain: Russia has finally asserted itself in a manner that we thought extinct. They have resurrected the power politics of the 19th and 20th centuries that many pundits and experts thought long dead. We might be on the verge of witnessing the dangerous rise of twenty first century realpolitik from a nation that has once again found power and is eager to use it.