A referendum on despotism

It’s been a long time since questions of foreign policy played an important role in the outcome of a U.S. presidential election. George W. Bush’s quagmire in Iraq clearly figured heavily in Barack Obama’s 2008 victory. But before that, one probably needs to go back to Ronald Reagan’s campaigns of 1980 and ’84, or maybe even to the Vietnam era, to identify a time in which the debate surrounding America’s commitments and relationships overseas served to distinguish the major candidates – much less loomed large with voters.

Americans have a not-so-terribly proud history of insularity when it comes to such matters – see for example the Hitler-sympathizing America First movement that sought to keep the country out of World War II – so long as they remain comfortably detached and protected from conflicts and/or oppression.

And it’s also true that the demands of realpolitik have led presidents of both parties to accommodate and make deals with all kinds of distasteful leaders and regimes down through the decades. One of Reagan’s chief foreign policy advisors, the neocon godmother Jeane Kirkpatrick, even helped coin the acronym “MRAG” to describe the “moderately repressive authoritarian regimes” with which she said the U.S. should ally itself to combat communism.

All that said, it’s hard not to see the current foreign policy situation and, in particular, America’s relationship with one very repressive authoritarian government (a VRAG if you will) as critically important in the nine weeks that remain between now and Election Day.

At issue, of course, is Vladimir Putin. Indeed, if there is a single question that more clearly divides the two major candidates and the predominant approaches to U.S. foreign policy this fall it is “what to do with Putin?”

While one side seems to view Putin as just another political boss with whom the U.S. can partner and make mutually beneficial deals, the other sees the former-KGB agent-turned-dictator-for-life as the leader of a brutal and criminally corrupt regime – or, as the late John McCain put it succinctly, “a murderer and a thug” – whom we must oppose.

The facts certainly militate in favor of the latter assessment. Topping the list of Putin’s countless crimes against humanity, of course, is the murderous invasion of Ukraine.

No, Ukraine wasn’t and isn’t a perfect country. The former Soviet republic has gone through much internal struggle and strife in the 33 years since it declared independence. But it’s also indisputable that it has made great progress in moving to embrace a western, democratic form of government and a goodly measure of freedom and human rights. And it’s also clear that this reality played a key role in Putin’s decision to launch his invasion – a murderous and often chaotic blitzkrieg that has killed as many as a half-million people.

For Putin, conquering Ukraine is but the latest chapter in what is clearly an ongoing campaign to reestablish the Russian/Soviet empire with himself as de facto emperor. And it’s also key to his efforts to destabilize the rest of Europe, diminish American influence, and inspire other would-be autocrats.

Simply put, Putin operates like a Mafia don on steroids. Power is his objective and murder and terror are the tools he employs.

That’s why he has repeatedly killed and imprisoned Russians who challenge him – even when they live in exile.

That’s why he has revived phony elections reminiscent of the Soviet era.

That’s why he has ended any semblance of a free press and open debate in Russia and brought back a modern version of the gulag to imprison dissenters.

That’s why, like so many authoritarian dictators, he has made league with right-wing religious figures and persecuted women and people of different races, religions and sexual orientation.

All of which begs the question: what can Putin sympathizers in the U.S. possibly see as redeeming in this man or his actions?

Ninety years ago, when Americans of the left were briefly suckered in by Stalinist bloviations about a supposed commitment to building a better society, they at least had the excuses of having good motives and a lack of information.

Today, there are no such excuses.

Modern tyrants like Putin (and China’s Xi, North Korea’s Kim, Iran’s Ali Khamenei, and dozens of others like them around the planet) may still occasionally try to hide behind talk of broader motives like religion or nationalism, but as even the briefest honest look confirms, what really distinguishes them all is a commitment to maximizing their own power and privilege by limiting human rights and resisting modernity. And thanks to modern communication, most of their crimes are there for all to see.

And so it is that the 2024 U.S. election is in many respects, notwithstanding the debates over so many critical domestic issues, a momentous referendum on global despotism. Whatever choice Americans make – to reaffirm the nation’s longstanding resistance to Putin and his ilk or to abandon it — will send a powerful message to the rest of the world that will redound for decades. One can only pray that the majority of voters will grasp what’s at stake.