In the American Mirror

All of the apocalyptic scenarios of the situation in America, which were recently an actively-discussed part of the Russian press, turned out to be complete nonsense (as expected). Barack Obama became the president of the U.S., with a large lead over his Republican opponent.

The notorious “Bradley effect” — which was a topic in hundreds of Russian articles, but practically unknown in the U.S. — did not come into play. Despite numerous Russian prophecies, Obama was not killed. There were no demonstrations with thousands of American skinheads and white nationalists protesting the coming to power of a representative of the African-American minority. President George W. Bush has already given an order to create a personal transition team, to help Obama’s transition team prepare for the middle of the day on January 20, 2009, when the new U.S. president will be able to fully begin his difficult duties. Until then, Bush will retain full authority, because in America there is always only one president.

The leading Russian media paid considerable attention to the election in the U.S. Articles appeared daily, sometimes on several subjects in one issue of the newspaper. There was an obvious, direct correlation between the reputation of the newspaper and the quality of the articles. Numerous intelligent, informative, and objective articles appeared in various newspapers. However, the quality of the majority of the published material frankly left much to be desired. It seemed to me that Russian interest in the U.S. election exceeded a reasonable level.

Most of the coverage in the Russian media was either about some individual aspects of the election, or had the frankly speculative, critical nature of propaganda — as if its purpose was not to inform readers about the campaign, but rather to further strengthen the negative image of America as a whole, while the election was only a new excuse for doing so. One part of the press had a sort of lenient, condescending, almost protective approach to the American election, as though it was a theatrical farce. For another part of the press, all information on the situation in the U.S. was very dramatic, and almost apocalyptic in nature. The authors predicted a further collapse of America and its currency, or even the beginning of a civil war.

A large number of published articles plainly misinformed readers about the candidates’ views, their teams, the election’s mechanics, the situation in the country, ordinary Americans’ views of the situation, etc. — I do not know whether that was done intentionally or unintentionally. And almost every article raised the crucial question: which candidate’s victory would be better for Russia. That sounded like a direct contradiction to the anti-American content of the article. At times it seemed as if Russia was looking at the American election in a mirror, which reflected Russia’s own, albeit not yet recognized, problem.

Senator Barack Obama’s victory was a response to the needs of the American public for the type of political leadership that could replace the politics of Reagan and Neo-conservatism. Obama’s victory was accompanied by great expectations and hopes, both within the U.S. and throughout the world. Many consider his win a real opportunity to rebuild and renew the American political system; make the system more appropriate by taking into consideration the realities of the new century, new ideas and doctrines, and modern understanding of the role and responsibility of government in a democratic society. They consider his win a favorable foundation for the search for new ways out of a large-scale economic crisis, and even a recession, which the world’s largest economy is currently experiencing.

People outside of the U.S. had even greater expectations after Obama’s victory. They considered it a real opportunity for America to understand its role and responsibilities in the world in a new way, to immediately start work on fixing the mistakes of the previous period, and to stop blatantly and stupidly seeking self-gain in international relations. They saw it as a chance for Washington to move away from America-centrism, and its attempts to force dominance of the world; a chance to move away from the widespread use of military force to solve all global problems; move away from an overly superficial, primitive understanding of national interests, to a foreign model, which once made America the most powerful country in the world. That is, they saw it as a chance for the U.S. to shift from dominance to leadership on a new level. Everyone understands that doing so will be difficult. Many believe that it’s already impossible. They say that the era of American leadership is over.

The exaggerated expectations brought by the election of the new American president will inevitably lead to great disappointments. Obama and his supporters must be ready for this. It will be very difficult to overcome the amount of distrust that America now finds around the world. It will take a long time. But America lacks trust in the surrounding world as well. Will Obama be able to overcome phobias and skepticism toward the American establishment, which have become especially apparent in recent years? Until trust is rebuilt between the U.S. and other leading world powers, including Russia, one can hardly expect the success of any foreign policy innovations that the new Washington administration may offer. It seems to me that the problem of mutual distrust will be the main obstacle for many of Obama’s international initiatives. The “breaking distance” of George W. Bush’s foreign policy will leave a lasting effect on world politics.

This will affect Russia to a large extent. I’m not counting on any major changes in the bilateral relations. On the one hand, the rulers, as well as the public and the media in the U.S., have a significantly negative opinion of Moscow. The U.S. President will have to take these sentiments into account. There is no public demand in America to improve the relationship between Russia and the U.S. The U.S. doesn’t have a significant (in terms of size or influence) group capable of effectively pressuring the new leader in the White House to start spending his political capital, energy and high approval rating, in an attempt to overcome this negative consensus with respect to Russia. Moreover, Americans are well aware that Russia, too, lacks the demand for better relations with America.

Of course, as the entire U.S. foreign policy strategy changes under the new leadership of the country, so too will the Russian part of that strategy. This process will also be influenced by a need for all world leaders to quickly find the most effective ways to solve the current global economic crisis. It will certainly make great changes to the foreign policy practices of many countries, including Russia and the U.S. But until that happens, we will experience not only the hopeful phase brought on by Obama’s victory, but also a wave of disappointment in the new American leader. Above all, it seems to me that it’s necessary not to lose sight of what’s important, rather than go to extremes and dramatize the situation’s secondary factors, as well as our phobias and ambitions.

At least that’s how I see it from Washington.