Trouble has come from the unexpected
The liberal public in the United States and beyond perceived the coming to power of a Democratic administration led by Joseph Biden as a long-awaited “return to normality” (an expression often used at the beginning of 2021 in the American and generally Western press), as the end of Trump’s “chaotic rule” and a sign that order would soon be restored in Washington and thus in the entire Euro-Atlantic community.
These hopes were reinforced by the fact that the Democratic Party of the United States had all the power in its hands – they also gained a majority in both houses of Congress in the 2020 elections. The Supreme Court remains conservative, but it is expected to be resolved as soon as possible by expanding its membership and filling it with liberal judges.
The Republicans, of course, expect to fight for Congress in 2022, and have even constructed their own, fairly coherent strategy for such a fight (more about that some other time). But the electoral reform intended by the Democrats, the absolute loyalty of the mainstream media, and of course the good old-fashioned US postal service seem to nullify any attempt to somehow shake the unstoppable march of the liberal establishment to lead the united West into a “happy tomorrow.
Trouble has come from unexpected places. It turned out that there is no consistency, no tactical clarity and no balance in White House policy under Biden. Not only that, but four warring clans with different interest groups have emerged in the administration. And the entire global liberalism has not only turned out to be beset by systemic internal contradictions, but there is also no basic order in government.
At one time, the media used to lambast Donald Trump for frequently changing his advisers and top officials – secretaries of state, defense ministers, chiefs of staff, and so on. It is true that there was quite a bit of turmoil in the Trump White House. The former head of state had serious problems with the Congress, the press, the liberal opposition, and even with his own party. He has been prevented from carrying out many of his plans. But at least the 45th US President did not put up with insubordination and did not tolerate fundamental disagreements in his government. He has openly and sometimes sharply, at the edge of rudeness, denounced his opponents on Capitol Hill through the media and social media, making it clear to the American people what he wants and who is in the way.
Biden’s situation is fundamentally different. It is not a team of like-minded people, a charismatic leader or even a party with a clear programme that has come to power. Yes, the US Democratic Party behaved in a solidary and very disciplined manner during the Trump presidency and the rise of the so-called populist wave in the West and later, during the 2020 election campaign. But the cracks were noticeable even then.
The fact is that any electoral victory for liberals in the United States (whether achieved in a fair fight or with the shameless use of administrative resources) is always a coalition victory. Liberalism, especially globalist liberalism, is not and cannot be the ideology of the majority; it does not express its interests and almost always contradicts them. Therefore, a coalition of voters – a motley and divided community that has been persuaded to vote a certain way at a given moment – must be in place if liberals are to win. And a coalition of pressure groups who have agreed to act together. And also a political coalition united by some tactical goals.
Sometimes such tactical alliances are quite strong. Despite whatever internal divisions, the coalition not only survives but also achieves some success. Barack Obama’s presidency is a prime example of this. Everyone who has bet on the first black White House master has been largely satisfied with their choice – the federal bureaucracy, intelligence services, digital giants, financial megacorporations, various minorities, white campus professors, people of post-industrial professions, and a large part of the youth.
It was only towards the end of Obama’s second term that there were signs of a split between the left wing of the Democratic Party, which wanted to move forward on the path of radical liberal change, and the party establishment, which gravitated towards the centre. The latter emerged victorious in the internal debate, but lost out to the right-wing forces led by Trump.
In 2020, the debate resumed, but almost immediately “drowned” in the inclusive figure of Biden. Not personally Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. but the image that political PR and media have quite professionally created for him. The broadest coalition of “all good vs all bad” has developed around him. To be more precise – against national populism for a united liberal West. It is no coincidence that Vladimir Putin started using the term “united West” after Biden came to power. The program for building the Alliance of Democracies announced by the current administration also makes sense – the global liberal world order should finally acquire a form and ideology that are clear, precise and cannot tolerate any free interpretations.
But what form, exactly? And what ideology? Inclusiveness was good at the stage of overthrowing Trump. And when power was already in hand and there was an opportunity to hold that power for several decades without sharing it from time to time with the Republicans, serious disagreements arose. They touch on almost all aspects of foreign and domestic policy, but for us the most interesting disagreement is on foreign policy tactics.
The left-wing faction of the Democrats in Congress was the first to come alive. It was left-wing grandees such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren who criticized the White House. They were followed by a group of implacable young congresswomen led by New York diva Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Somali immigrant Ilhan Omar. There have been constant attempts to involve Vice-President Kamala Harris in the left-wing front.
But the case has not been limited to the Congress. More than five hundred incumbent administration and federal employees, Democratic National Committee functionaries and professional political consultants who worked on Biden’s campaign staff have written an open letter to the president criticising the head of state’s Middle East policy and calling on him to “hold Israel accountable”. They suggest the hitherto unthinkable – cutting off military aid to the Jewish state and even imposing sanctions against it.
There is more. Senior active serviceman, Marine Corps general, head of the U.S. Central Command (the fourth position in the military hierarchy after the Joint Chief of Staff and his deputies), J. Mackenzie, has opposed the plans, which were officially announced by the White House. Frank Mackenzie. It was done in the most fronting manner. The general made his statement during the official inspection tour of the Middle East in the presence of regional allies, American servicemen and journalists. According to Mackenzie, the United States should not withdraw troops from Afghanistan because “the vacuum would be quickly filled by China and Russia”.
At other times, the mainstream media would have tried to silence the demarche of a high-ranking military official or, at least, downplayed his remarks by posting the event on the back pages of newspapers and in the furthest reaches of Internet news feeds. But not now. The Associated Press published a long article on the general’s thoughts on the front page of its website, and the news spread to the rest of the media.
This is not the first time the mainstream press has fuelled conflict within the Biden administration. Take, for example, the participation of the previously very servile The New York Times in the promotion of the scandal around the White House climate emissary John Kerry! And this scandal would not have been possible without the participation of another important part of the Democratic coalition – the US intelligence community. That is, it, too, is now playing its own game.
There is another very unpleasant story for the White House. In 2020, Joe Biden and his campaign staff flatly refused to take seriously the version that the coronavirus was leaked from a Chinese biological laboratory in Wuhan. When Trump pointed to the high probability of such an event, he was called the most offensive words, and the version itself was just another conspiracy theory. The world was told about a certain bat that was eaten by a snake and afterwards people got infected in a so-called wet market from contact with this snake.
But today the mood has changed. The Hill, a Washington-based publication, has devoted a major analysis to the “laboratory version”, which immediately went viral on social media. The gist of the publication is this: the previously announced conspiracy theory is beginning to look increasingly reasonable and credible. The article refers to a number of reputable scientists who can in no way be called charlatans or supporters of ex-President Trump.
Thus, too, the scientific community, previously considered Biden’s staunchest ally, is putting the White House administration in an uncomfortable situation, to put it mildly. That said, the loyalty of the Democratic Party does not appear to be in question. There are simply different opinions within the party itself now, and the word of the president is no longer considered law.
The eagerness of various groups to push their own agenda and weaken the influence of other groups is clearly visible behind all this. It seems that everyone who contributed to the election of Biden in 2020 now considers himself the winner, that he came to power and not the coalition partners, cabinet members or the president himself. And they are pulling the blanket over themselves. This is roughly how the coalition that brought Jimmy Carter to power in the late 1970s, who had spent only one term in the White House, fell apart. One would expect the brass to get its act together now and get the house in order. But here’s the snag: who can be considered the bosses now?
I think that very soon the hitherto silent political “bison” of the administration – John Kerry, Susan Rice, Dennis McDonough and others – will finally have their say. The same can be expected from the numerous “watchdogs” of the “Big Dig” led by Chief of Staff Ron Klein. But where is the guarantee that they will be listened to? Or that they won’t squabble amongst themselves?
This is how Biden’s coalition, recently considered unsinkable and monolithic, began to fall apart before their very eyes. So for now, it is extremely premature to consider the current administration both victorious and consistent in its decisions. This is important and not good news for those who have to negotiate with this administration.
Dmitry Drobnitsky, VZGLYAD