The GOP at a Crossroads: Is Russia Good or Bad?

The Party of Reagan embraces the Evil Empire.

Trump:
Russia really isn't so bad.  We can work with them.  They understand how to be tough and to lead and so do I.

Trump has said it was high time we re-think our relationship with Russia.   Trump said that Putin says nice things about me, and he will say nice things about him.   In Trump's book, Time to Get Tough (2011) Trump said: 

    "Putin has big plans for Russia. He wants to edge out its neighbors so that Russia can dominate oil supplies to all of Europe. Putin has also announced his grand vision: the creation of a 'Eurasian Union' made up of former Soviet nations that can dominate the region. I respect Putin and the Russians but cannot believe our leader allows them to get away with so much...Hats off to the Russians...Obama's plan to have Russia stand up to Iran was a horrible failure that turned America into a laughingstock."

Some dovish progressive Democrats voted for Trump for precisely this reason.  They considered Hillary Clinton to hawkish, too locked into cold war thinking that Russia needed to be "contained" and kept out of eastern Europe and the Levant.  Trump was open about it and in Trump fashion doubled down: we can work with Russia and it is time to rethink our policy, Trump said. 

 [See my post of November 2, 2016 in the archives.   Four days before the election I warned Hillary supporters that Trump might actually win in part because he was getting surprising support from the peace wing of Democrats.   Trump was saying that endless pushback against Russia was wrongheaded old-style thinking.  Trump would end the war with Russia.  Vote Peace, vote Trump.]

Stopping Russian imperialism used to be a bedrock principle of the Republican Party from even before World War II had ended.   Russia was a communist power, Russia was an ideological enemy, Russia was an expansionist empire that would spread across the world and turn the world dark as the glimmering light of freedom died, as Reagan would have put it.

Republicans from Taft through Reagan through Gingrich through both Bushes through Romney knew and spoke the harsh truth: Democrats were weak at Yalta.  Democrats lost China.  Democrats were weak on communism because soft leftist pinkos were half-communists or communist sympathizers themselves.  Bill Clinton had actually visited the USSR for a couple of days when he was a student at Oxford!  Romney in 2012 said Obama  underestimated Russia's expansionist desire to destroy democracy in its neighbors and around the world including right here in America.

Putin and Tillerson

Russia has been in the news lately, invading and annexing Crimea, invading eastern Ukraine.  It has become the prime player in Syria, backing Assad.  Our intelligence services say It did exactly what Republicans have charged for years, that they were intentionally attempting to damage American democracy itself, having worked to undermine the legitimacy of both presidential and House elections, according to our CIA.

Trump looked at Mitt Romeny for Secretary of State then chose instead   Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon, whose most visible experience in international relations was to be awarded the Medal of Friendship by Russian president Putin after arranging a deal with Russia to drill oil wells in the Arctic and to partner in shale oil development in the Black Sea.

The GOP leadership is at a crossroads.  GOP senators cannot mumble or hide out.  Either they vote yes or no on Tillerson as Secretary of State.   He is a businessman, which will get unqualified GOP approval, and his company is a fossil fuel extractor with a record of denial on carbon/climate change, recently softened by running ads which assert they are trying to be green and accommodate the law.  This is a safe "middle road" for Republican senators. 

  

But Tillerson is a symbol of a sea-change in orientation to Russia. Before it was just talk and posturing.  Tillerson as Secretary of State requires a yes or no vote and voting yes for Tillerson means they reverse a policy that has been in effect since at least 1945: Tillerson represents a tilt toward accommodation of Russia's interests.  It means the Trump view that Russia is someone we work with rather than push against is now American policy and the Senators will have enabled it.

If a Democrat has nominated Tillerson the howls of protest would be universal among the GOP leadership: Democrats are weak, they are appeasers, they are Neville Chamberlain.  But it is Trump's nominee and it represents the change in policy and it gives Republicans an action forcing decision.   Democrats can oppose the nomination because of climate change and as a protest against Russian intervention in the elections.  He will likely need the votes of nearly all the Republican senators.  John McCain and Lindsey Graham and others with decades of advocacy of Russian containment accept Tillerson and all the change he symbolizes?  Maybe they have been wrong all along.  McCain said he looked Putin in the eye and saw the cold stare of a KGB agent.  Tillerson and Trump saw somebody they could work with.

Meanwhile:  Democrats

Democrats, too, have decisions to make.  Thad Guyer says they need to change their message.   Quit talking about identity groups.  Say "Radical Islamic Terrorism" and go ahead and link the religion with the terror.  Say you support police not opponents of police. Say aloud that immigrants take jobs away from Americans.  Guyer says that Trump won because activist Democrats are out of touch with a great many Americans and they will either get in touch or continue to lose elections.   

Here is how Guyer puts it:    Will Democrats Chant “Tear Down the Wall” in 2020?

UpClose asked exactly the right "who" questions on leadership going forward.   Here are a few "how" questions for our longshot at getting back into the White House in 2020 or 2024.

Guyer

(1) Tear down the wall? That likely will be the central political litmus test of whether we retake the White House. It may also be the test of whether Democrats survive as a viable party. The answer seems obvious to me: Chant “tear down the wall” or “stop the wall”, and lose-- again. 

(2) How about describing radical Islamic terrorism as “radical Islamic terrorism”. Do you think that will be an issue in 2020? Obviously it will. Do you think Democratic primary contenders will be willing to say it? Either the answer will be yes or— we lose again.

(3) What about one on support for law enforcement? (I’ll spare you “extreme vetting” of Muslims): Will Democrats continue to embrace Black Lives Matter generalized rhetoric that white police are out of control in shooting blacks in the inner-city? Answer: Project as anti law enforcement and we lose again. Second only to the wall in popularity, “we love our police” was a powerful rallying cry for Trump.

(3) Here’s an easier one: Will Democrats be staunchly “anti globalist” in 2020? Again a no-brainer, non-Democrat Bernie proved that. Let’s make it a little harder: Will Democrats campaign on “ending the rip-off of our jobs by Mexico and China”, are Democrats capable of blunt talk like that? Obviously we are quite capable of stunningly offensive talk when we want—we called the opposition “deplorables” and “racists”. Let’s make it real hard: Will Democrats denounce the cheap imported labor component of globalism and decry “open borders”? Answer: Get tagged again as “open borders” and – no White House for us.

Ugly sounding questions, right? Maybe the answers can be euphemized and spruced up a bit, or maybe dodged or double-talked here and there. But these will be the core questions that determine whether we even get to the starting gate in 2020. Or—maybe Jennifer Palmieri, Hillary’s communications director, speaks for us: “I would rather lose than win the way you guys did!” Perfectly legitimate to lose with honor if that’s how you think political power should be granted or denied.

(4) So here’s the ultimate question: Will the Democratic party’s “identify politics” coalition denounce campaigning on “tear down the wall” (not to mention “sanctuary cities)”, calling “radical Islamic terror” by its name, enthusiastically supporting law enforcement, and saying no to globalist “open borders” and cheap immigrant labor that sustains globalism? The answer is undoubtedly yes. Our caucuses are proudly multi-racial, and include whites. And the truth is that our Hispanic caucus, our Black caucus, our immigrant amnesty caucus, our multi-culturist caucus, and our broader political correctness caucus, are unlikely to ever again vigorously support a “centrist” Democrat, i.e., a Bill Clinton, or the old Hillary Clinton, who even as Secretary of State was a confirmed pro-war, pro-globalist, anti-illegal immigration centrist. Centrists will surely emerge in our 2020 primary, and our caucuses will shout them down as racist, sexist, Islamophobic and xenophobic. Only a strong Sanders-like anti-globalist progressive promising free tuition, massive tax cuts, and military isolationism will have any chance of emerging as the nominee from our identity politics. We better get busy with that policy agenda. But if he or she proclaims “tear down the wall” or denounces Trump supporters as racists, he or she will win the blue states, but lose the electoral college.

Job vacancy: “Wanted, skillful politician or political outsider to lead major political party. No experience needed. Anti-hypocrisy policy: Need not apply, no matter how progressive you are, if famous from a family business or tech empire your spouse or kids still want to run.” 
                                                     #        #       #

[Note that this blog has some new tabs, making it easier to share a post.   Look for them on the left if you are looking at it full screen, or on the bottom if you are looking at this on a phone or i pad.]