Counterintuitive Insights: GOP Attacks on Obama as Evidence that they Realize Putin Poses No Threat

In light of events from this past week, I would like to bring together three things, in a perhaps unlikely unity: Putin’s purported invasion of the Ukraine, the GOP rhetorical and widely publicized attacks on Obama’s handling of foreign policy, and the overwhelming impact of money on democracy in the United States.

First, Putin is an idiot. Despite the sudden and surprising explosion of US news pundits who have apparently thrown in their lot with the Russians, Putin is neither poised to take over Europe nor start World War 3. There isn’t anything particularly new about Russian nationalistic aggression—Georgia, Chechnya, Dagestan, are all relatively recent attempts to exert control over the region. While the latter two are legally Russian jurisdiction, being part of the Russian Federation, they also have semi-autonomous status with their own Constitutions and Parliaments. The primary difference with Ukraine is that it’s a bit farther west than the previous aggressions in the Caucasus, and Ukraine is formally its own state.

Several factors make the Ukraine situation complex, the most important of which is the country’s internal political turmoil, being in the middle of a violent and widespread revolution. The most recently elected president, Yanukovych, has fled the country because of the violence, but apparently has asked Russia to help disperse the rebellion. That, of course, raises the fundamental legal question--is Russia’s actions in Crimea an “invasion” or an “invitation”? Putting aside that question, Crimea is unique in that it has a large population of Ukrainians who identify ethnically and linguistically as “Russian,” and a treaty allows Russia to maintain a large naval base on the southern coast on the Black Sea in Sevastopol. Russian action in Crimea isn’t necessarily a shocker after civil unrest incentivizes the government to invite Russian assistance—a Russian takeover of Kiev would be the signal of a fundamental and cataclysmic change in Russian foreign policy. Until that happens, or until the Ukraine declares war on Russia, talk of “invasion” seems premature and hyperbolic.

On the second issue, the GOP and media’s haste in blaming Obama for Russian actions, I don’t quite understand why otherwise intelligent people would go on TV and say things like:

• "It's almost as if Putin is brilliant, really — he's outfoxing Obama all the time,” from The Daily Beast’s Tina Brown.
• “Why do we care? Because this is the ultimate result of a feckless foreign policy in which nobody believes in America’s strength anymore,” Sen John McCain
• "If Americans said, 'look, all options are on the table. We have a lot of military assets. ... Putin will pay a price for this. ...' We are too quick to proclaim our own helplessness. ... You want [Putin] to be humiliated." Bill Kristol on Morning Joe, 3/4/14
• ”Every time the president goes on national television and threatens Putin — or anyone like Putin — everybody’s eyes roll, including mine. We have a weak and indecisive president that invites aggression.” Sen Lindsey Graham

Here is where I state my counterintuitive insight: the GOP leadership and media critiques of Obama are merely hubristic posturing, and that such rhetoric is actually proof that they know Putin poses no geopolitical threat to US interests. My rationale, is that, I believe the GOP sincerely loves the United Staets, and they recognize that if US interests were really threatened by Putin’s fumblings in the Ukraine, they would rally around the President and portray a unified front of patriotism for the Commander-in-Chief. They recognize as well as anybody that a house divided against itself falls, and if the US were actually being threatened, it would be the time to come together, not start attacking each other while an external threat loomed.

So, recognizing that the GOP loves the US, and are not idiots, what can explain their anti-Obama speeches? That’s my third point—money and votes. Ironically, this issue may be the most complex of the issues raised here, and may also be the biggest threat to democracy—greater than terrorists, greater than Putin, greater than heated political rhetoric. Several issues converge to create a toxic political climate in the US today. Arguably the umbrella issue that brings everything together is money—the love of which, is the root of all evil. In this case, I’m not going to argue that politicians’ love of money is causing them to give partisan speeches, but the fact that they are on a 24-hour, 365-day a year political campaign, which drives them to see every moment as a fundraising opportunity. With the capitalist-driven media creating a constant news cycle, every word is an opportunity for political points, or on the flip side, an opportunity for their political opponents to “snag” them—opponents on their left or right flanks. While historically most politicians could safely be centrists, the GOP especially has the worry now of being primaried on their Right by Tea Party folks, funded by large donors such as the Koch Brothers and Heritage Foundation.

Here is where I state my counterintuitive insight: I believe that the GOP leadership and media critiques of Obama are merely hubristic posturing, and that they know that Putin poses no geopolitical threat to US interests. My rationale, is that, as I stated above, I believe the GOP loves the US, and that they recognize if US interests were really threatened by Putin’s fumblings in the Ukraine, that they would rally around the President and portray a unified front of patriotism for the Commander-in-Chief. They recognize as well as anybody that a house divided against itself falls, and if the US were actually being threatened, it would be the time to come together, not abandonment, like rats from a ship going down.

So, recognizing that the GOP are not intentionally trying to bring down the United States, and nor are they idiots who simply don't know what they are doing, what can explain their anti-Obama speeches? That’s my third point—money and votes. Ironically, this issue may be the most complex of the issues raised here, and may also be the biggest threat to democracy—greater than terrorists, greater than Putin, greater than a simple matter of heated political rhetoric. Several issues converge to create a toxic political climate in the US today. Arguably the umbrella issue that brings everything together is money—the love of which, is, of course, the root of all evil.

In this case, I’m not going to argue that politicians’ love of money is causing them to give partisan speeches. However, the motivating fact is that they are on a 24-hour, 365-day a year political campaign, driving them to see every moment as a fundraising opportunity. With the capitalist-driven media creating a constant news cycle, every public word is an opportunity for political points, or on the flip side, an opportunity for their political opponents to “snag” them—opponents on their left or right flanks. While historically most politicians could safely be centrists, the GOP right now especially has the worry of being primaried on their Right by Tea Party folks, funded by large donors such as the Koch Brothers and the Heritage Foundation.

Not only is the media incentivized to create hyperbolic, simplistic, and titillating narratives about serious political issues, like complex domestic and foreign problems, and politicians feel obliged to feed that machine, but the Citizens United decision opened the door for mass amounts of money to fundamentally corrupt the democratic process. With House members operating on a 2-year election cycle, there is very little way for representatives to survive politically unless they spend the majority of their time campaigning, which means fund-raising. As clarified by retired GOP congressman, Rodney Alexander,

”that's an unfortunate part of the business that we're in. But it's the main business, and it's 24 hours a day raising money. It's not fair. It's not fair for the member, not fair for constituency to have to be approached every day or two or week or two about campaign contributions. So it's just a grueling business and I'm ready for another part of my life.”

So does McCain really believe that Obama is “feckless”? Does Graham really believe that Obama is “weak and indecisive”? Is Bill Kristol really a patriarchal, abusive grunt, who believes that violence solves all of our problems, and that the only way to evoke good behavior from people is to “humiliate” them into submission? I hope not. I hope we have evolved beyond such notions.