2016 was rather difficult — especially the election of Donald J. Trump as president in the United States, a prospect greeted with alarm by many in the world. While not in office yet, Trump has already done a lot of harm.
America is extremely divided. While conflicts between the Republicans and Democrats have always existed, they have never manifested themselves as acutely as during these elections.
Trump not only insulted various minorities, but he also perceives his political opponents as personal enemies.
It has not escaped attention that Trump made numerous threats against independent media – up to the forecasts that some newspapers “will soon be closed,” and that he attempted to put pressure on large companies, and most importantly, attacked the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies only because he did not like their findings.
The perception of what is happening in the country through the prism of an eternal election campaign is not conducive to the national interests, and the threat to flood security services with his own people is considered by some as a direct threat to destroy the intelligence community from within.
With his antics, the president-elect has convinced a substantial part of the population that he represents a personal threat to them, which fuels protests.
Of course, in this perception, there is also an element of exaggeration – with fantasies about new bunkers and camps, but these aspects are always inherent in human nature. “Fear has many eyes.” The best way to not experience the effects of fear in practice is not to intimidate your own population.
Many ordinary Americans are worried by how enthusiastically Trump defends someone who considers America to be his main enemy.
Attempts to shield Russian President Vladimir Putin, contrary to all the facts and evidence, is improving Putin’s approval rating in America.
Some American media, including the Washington Post, have already expressed their concerns that the GOP has turned into the “Putin party,” and many congressmen changed their attitude toward modern Russia to please the new head of the White House.
However, the newspaper notes that among Democrats, the trend is opposite. I have personally witnessed how ordinary people in California, which is considered the most “liberal” state in the U.S., are now talking quite sincerely and anxiously about the Russian threat. Because this threat actually exists, and to discover it all you have to do is look closely at the actual Russian policy and propaganda over the past few years, the recognition of this threat by the American society is, of course, reassuring.
However, it in no way eliminates the harm that the increasing popularity of Putin among the GOP members is capable of causing.
Liberals, for the most part, are not fighters by nature and the destiny of their country cannot be solved in the public square. Thus, turning of public opinion against Russia from the “left” is unlikely to significantly change anything – in contrast to the changes from the “right. Indeed, if yesterday’s pacifists are now speaking about national security at the protest rallies, it’s a sign that something in the country went wrong.
In this regard, I am reminded of the example of Russia. Despite massive support by the overwhelming majority of the population of “krymnashizm” and the subsequent war in the Donbass, there was some influx of people into the dissident movement. Along with professional human rights activists, simple housewives, students and saleswomen began speaking out against the war.
On the other hand, those who had previously used the human rights movement only as a means of obtaining grants and internships abroad quickly disappeared from sight, not daring to raise a problematic “Ukrainian” theme.
In short, the persecution made the dissident movement in Russia cleaner and better than it was previously. However, even if the Russian dissidents had turned into saints, it was clear that they could not stop the war, and for the people dying in Ukraine or in Syria it was cold comfort that the prisons in the conditional Yekaterinburg were now filled with fewer crooks, and more saleswomen.
Moral purity, unfortunately, is poorly correlated with performance. And yet, despite all these problems, I see some hope in this situation.
Changes “on the left” should be considered more broadly than just recognition by a large group of people of the Russian intervention in the US elections. The recent rally in the capital of California revealed, in my view, a very important positive trend – the willingness of people of different origins, race, religion, color and, more important, differing views, to unite on the basis of common values.
This is exactly what attracted me in America in the past – a combination of values, which in Russia are considered to be mutually exclusive, the possibility of a harmonious combination of different identities in one person.
And the rally in California has shown that for many people in America the values of human rights, freedom, equality and, at the same time, patriotism, love of your country and willingness to defend it are not perceived as mutually exclusive, but go hand in hand, are valued equally, and are even placed above everything else. For example, it’s revealing that even Democrats implored their electors to vote for any Republican as a consensus candidate.
Of course, by itself, hope to change something at the stage of the electoral vote was naive and utopian, but the willingness to put the interests of the country (or the way people understand them) above their personal political sympathies seemed noble. I had a chance to interact with conservative Republicans, and I know that the main criticisms they have against the “liberals” are basically lack of patriotism, disrespect for national symbols, exaggerated concern for the minorities and “socialism.”
However, experience has shown that the propaganda clichés do not always work, and that the potential for uniting the nation really does exist. External threats and internal shocks become a good stimulus for the return of Western society to its core values: freedom, democracy, human rights and love for the country. And the fact that people are willing to put these important things above ideology and party affiliation is, of course, a reason to cheer. Let’s not forget that the aim of the “active measures” by the Kremlin, which were often discussed in recent years, is to divide society and pit people against each other, creating an illusion of irreconcilable differences.
The Kremlin actively supports radical movements both on the “right” and the “left,” openly promoting Trump. America can survive only if the people do not forget that the differences between them are not fatal, and that it is possible to disagree on some issues while still being united around the core values.
Especially now, this unity has a very constructive goal: regardless of political affiliation, to remain vigilant, to ensure that the American system of checks and balances is working properly, not allowing the government to establish a dictatorship, nor act in the interests of another state.
There is still a chance for it.
