Our ’round the world survey of global reaction to the new U.S. political landscape continues with this article from Russia’s Gazeta. Columnist Fyodor Lukyanov offers a detailed analysis of why such things as the Tea Party and wild swings in the political climate occur in the United States – and what the foreign policy ramifications might be, particularly for Russia and the New Start treaty that was recently signed by Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev.
For Gazeta, Fyodor Lukyanov writes in part:
Such a convincing defeat of Democrats wasn’t expected even a few months ago, but the reasons are explainable. Barack Obama has collided with the other side of his incredible popularity: the depth of frustration is directly proportional to the scale of expectations. Two years ago, commentators unanimously warned that no politician is capable of satisfying the expectations that U.S. society attached to the ascension of its first non-White presidential nominee. But aside from the objective trap within which the man who promised to change America has found himself, there is also a personal factor. Even the lips of the most staunch Obama supporters are enunciating criticism of his failure to intelligibly explain to the nation what he’s doing and why.
There is another aspect of the change: the sharp polarization of American society that began under Bush, has worsened under Obama. The country is at a crossroads in its development – economically, politically and socially. At the same time, different social groups have diametrically opposing ideas about what to do. The “Tea party” movement, which emerged at the start of the midterm campaign – is the flip side of the Obama phenomenon. Two years ago, people fatally disappointed in their leaders voted for a candidate that was different from the other Washington insiders – even visually. Now their sympathies have swung in the opposite direction toward every kind of radical conservative coalition, many of which hold differing views, and which are cemented exclusively by antipathy toward the status quo.
On the whole, this increases the volatility of American politics and promised new sharp turns – disappointment in “simple” conservative prescriptions may come as fast as it did for Obama’s “complicated” ones.
On the foreign policy front, positive changes are not to be expected. The “free hand” period for the administration is over. It will have to look to its opponents, who take a tough (and in the worst case, obstructionist) position on most issues. The list of people who will determine the foreign policy agenda in Congress gives a sense of the likely mood. … Playing a leading role in the upper house are Jon Kyl, who says he is inclined to ratify the New START treaty only if a whole list of additional conditions are met, Jim DeMint, a categorical opponent of New START, and John McCain, whose views on Moscow are well known. The likely majority leader in the House of Representatives is Eric Cantor – a well-known advocate of Israel and, accordingly, a representative of the most rigid wing in respect to countries that have ties to Iran, Syria, etc. A number of other figures in the Congressional leadership are associated with the traditional “power” line that adheres to the notion of non-negotiable American dominance.
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.
Founder and Managing Editor of Worldmeets.US