29 July 2021
That Warm Glow of Friendship
By J.R. Thomas
There was a time when writing about US politics was simple. The Republicans were the red party and the Democrats the blue, and that could be confusing, but once sorted, everything was easy. The Republicans were conservative, mostly old fashioned, generally religious and in favour of marriage and children within marriage. They were more likely to be businesspeople or professionals, but also skilled workers, wanted taxes to be low and the state to be kept small and were in favour of private enterprise and self reliance. Generally they were mostly white, though as persons of colour, especially of latino heritage, became richer and rose up the social ladder, especially in the law, that was breaking down.
The Democrats were not exactly the opposite of all this, far from it. But they generally favoured a bigger state doing more and especially helping those at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, and higher taxes, at least on the rich, to pay for this. (Rich in this context means those who earn somewhat more than the average in the US, there not been enough billionaires to make much difference even if their pips be squeaked.) They were generally less religious, but sometimes more so, and often not so wedded to social propriety. Democrat voters were poorer than Republicans, on average. And they were the political party of choice among most ethnic minority voters. Oddly, the Democrats had traditionally their strongest support in the South among both white voters and black voters.
Both parties agreed on the Constitution – they were strongly in favour; showed the Stars and Stripes whenever possible; and saw America as a civilising force which should from time to time bring American values to unlucky folks in faraway places such as Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Iran and Argentina (sometimes more openly than on other occasions). The Democrats, perhaps unexpectedly, were always more inclined to be interventionist than the Republicans, something the Left in other lands has never quite grasped. This perhaps stemmed from having Democrat presidents during both world wars who intervened overseas successfully, but also from the Republican Party’s more isolationist (and frugal) roots. So it was Truman who intervened in Korea, and Kennedy and Johnson who stepped things up in Vietnam, and it was Nixon who tried to manoeuvre out of that hell-hole. President Clinton liked a foreign adventure or two (this is not a double entendre) although Bush W rather spoiled the pattern by his post 9/11 invasion of Iraq and places east, which Barrack Obama tried to reverse, though, as so often with Mr Obama, not very successfully. Donald Trump resumed normal service by trying to pull American troops out of many places (not strategic locations for American defence or obligations to allies such as Saudi), both on grounds of a fortress America policy and cost.
So how does Joe Biden fit the pattern? He has a strong interest in matters overseas, and is quietly strengthening the capabilities of America’s fighting forces. This being 2021, and the world being a changing place, that includes preparing for digital warfare with disruption to communications and command capabilities, and, so the Administration has recently announced, putting women soldiers on an equal footing with men, and warning that any future call up will call up women on an equal basis with men.
This does not mean the Biden Administration is contemplating large scale military adventures, but it does indicate an attitude of mind perhaps – that the USA is still prepared to go to fighting lengths to make the world safe.
Last week Joe met Angela Merkel in Washington as part of the German Chancellor’s grand farewell tour before she steps down this September. Mrs Merkel has upset some of her east European neighbours, particularly Ukraine and Poland, by making eyes at Mr Putin in the interests of getting the new high capacity NordStream 2 gas pipeline built from Russia into Germany, passing under the Baltic Sea. It is more or less complete and complements the existing but smaller capacity NordStream 1 pipe. It is controversial in Germany – popular with those who want cheaper power and heat, but very unpopular with the increasingly powerful Greens. It is also unpopular with Poland and Ukraine, even though they are being offered attractive bribes including, one cannot help but giggle, incentives to convert to greener energy.
What has this got to do with the United States? Especially a president whose credentials are pretty green, to the extent that he has cancelled a similar pipeline in the US? There is nothing that Mr Biden, an old fashioned Democrat, likes more than a bit of global strategizing. Joe does not like Putin (there is still a tendency incidentally among many Americans – not just Americans – of thinking of the Russians as “commies”) and does not want Putin’s Russia getting richer (or Mr Putin’s mates, more correctly, the pipeline is been built by a subsidiary of Gazprom), or more cogently, being able at some point to hold Europe hostage by cutting off a key energy source. On the other hand, Mr Biden wants a strong Germany by America’s side, standing up to Russia, and generally chivying up the rest of Europe to do the same. So he is willing to support Chancellor Merkel in her efforts to get the pipeline finished. Indeed, Mr Biden waived sanctions against those constructing it earlier this year.
Joe will now try to build greater friendships with Ukraine and Poland to assure them that any Russian influence over their internal affairs will be strongly resisted. The Germans will, as they sit in their over-heated homes, think fondly of an America that helped this happen, but with a warm glow that Uncle Sam is waiting behind the woodshed with a big stick in case the wolf gets into the house down the street. Russia will be shown the hand of reflected friendship, but also the curled fist of warning. And the rest of us may think “yeah, right” that any country in Europe will lift a finger to help Ukraine should the Russians decide to add to the part they have already grabbed (Crimea, remember?), and worry slightly about how the USA would deal with such an event.
Even the White House seems confused. A State Department spokesman said that the Administration was “opposed to the pipeline being built but it makes no sense to stop it”. The President’s press secretary said much the same thing, suggesting it was a threat to European security, but… and metaphorically shrugging his shoulders. Mr Biden suggested the pipe should have an “OFF” switch but Mrs Merkel declined, seeming to think it unnecessary.
This may not make much sense to readers; nor does it to us; nor to the Republican Party which is very anti-pipeline, or at least, this one. But Mr Biden takes the view that Angela wants it, and wants Angela to be his friend, so will encourage the completion. Then wait and see what happens next, sharpening his ploughshare. Meanwhile, those of us who have studied a bit of European history will be getting uneasy about agreements which are intended to fulfil two contradictory objectives at the same time, and involve the security of distant countries of which the State Department knows little or nothing.
But, hey, it’s nearly August, and when we return in September all may be clearer. Enjoy the summer!
