After the Storm

On the evening of Jan. 6, the world was startled by the cadre that seized the U.S. Capitol building. The home of the U.S. Congress fell not before an enemy’s army, but before a crowd of its own citizens under “Make America Great Again” flags. This shocking spectacle crystalized quite quickly into two conclusions: Something unprecedented had occurred, and it is defining the future of the U.S. This reaction is on the whole understandable, but not quite justified.

Yes, in reality, the Capitol had not been stormed since 1814, when it was burned by the British. But at the same time, even the most recent U.S. history is filled with outbreaks of political violence, all considered unprecedented in their own time. In 1954, supporters of Puerto Rican independence armed with automatic weapons opened fire on the Capitol, wounding five members of Congress. In 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. In 2011, Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was seriously injured. In 2017, a left-wing activist injured the House of Representatives’ majority whip at the time, Republican Rep. Steve Scalise.

Yes, the assault on Congress was quite large scale, but it pales in comparison to the protests against the war in Vietnam and clashes connected to the African American fight for voting rights, or the summer protests under the slogan of Black Lives Matter. Yes, Donald Trump incited the attackers with his speeches, but his Republican predecessor Richard Nixon did not stop at breaking the law in order to gain a political advantage. The events of the past week can be called a perfect storm, but their reasons are of the same flesh as all American political life.

Polarization in the U.S. has always existed, but, if in the conditional 1960s, its leading edge passed in the Southern states and the leading motif was African Americans’ fight for their civil rights, in the 2020s such a group that feels as if its freedoms are being infringed upon has already become a part of the white majority. And although attempts by internet companies to block these groups’ manifestos from their platforms do not compare to Jim Crow laws, it is also unlikely that these issues will be resolved by unlawful unilateral pressure.

Essentially, the situation in the U.S. cannot be called peaceful or even stable. Rejected by the political elite, the outgoing Trump — who won 46.9% of the electoral vote — enjoys the support of a large part of the Republican Party, and the risks of political violence remain while changing demographics, as well as economic inequality, are increasingly becoming destabilizing factors.

Nevertheless, for more than 200 years, the U.S. has survived a multitude of arduous moments, including the Civil War and the assassinations of four presidents, without changing the foundations of its governing system, which speaks to an enviable supply of resilience. American politics is notable for its flexibility and capacity for learning. Despite the system’s “built-in” advantages for Republicans, Democrats won the presidency, having now wrested a second term away from an incumbent president for the first time since 1992, gaining the majority in the Senate and retaining control in the House of Representatives. On Jan. 20, Joe Biden will be sworn into office. It is difficult to say where this pendulum swing will take the country. But control over the executive and legislative branches for the next two years will be with the Democrats, which will allow the new president to carry out his own agenda.

If one asks about what is occurring in the U.S. and what it means for the rest of the world, the answer is even less inspiring: nothing. Foreign politics, with a few exceptions, does not play a noticeable role for Americans. And even in those cases when the preferences of voters are quite unambiguous, politicians may easily ignore them. Barack Obama and Trump were elected promising to finish the never-ending military operations overseas. The former began military operations in Libya, and the latter stood on the verge of war with North Korea and Iran for his whole term and did not evade conflict for lack of trying.

Besides that, foreign policy is not an important factor in elections; foreign relations are carried out directly by a distinct class of professional bureaucrats and experts in national security who run the usual course between the government, Washington research centers and consulting agents. Even the most outsider-oriented Trump failed to “drain the swamp.” The approaches to different questions can change depending on party affiliation, but the acknowledgment of U.S. exceptionalism and the need for ensuring American superiority in the international arena remain common, including in the military sphere.

The sole thing Republicans and Democrats in Congress managed to agree on after first overcoming a veto by Trump at the beginning of 2021, was to approve a defense budget of $740 billion, one which surpasses the military expenditures of the next 10 countries’ military expenditures combined. Popular demonstrations in the U.S. may be a factor in foreign policy, distracting government leadership, for example. But we must note that the emergence of the Occupy Wall Street movement did not affect the pace of the U.S. operation in Libya.

In the last decades, the U.S. led professed wars of choice, ones not connected directly with securing its own safety. It is still impossible to imagine an enemy landing in the U.S., so any potential conflicts which could arise in places from Taiwan to Syria before the Biden administration takes office will determine how important these issues are for politicians in Washington, D.C., U.S. allies and the global image of the U.S.

As the new Democratic administration takes office, the U.S. faces many problems, from restoring the economy to fighting COVID-19, from the revival of arms control to countering climate change. But it will inherit from Trump an uncomfortable peace with China and Russia, and a well established system made of broken alliances and sanctions. The Biden administration will search for its path in this world, but it will also look to orient itself primarily toward U.S. interests, which often diverge from the interests of even its nearest allies, not to mention Moscow or Beijing.

The new administration in Washington will certainly differentiate itself from the previous one in reducing dysfunction,. Biden is diligently selecting his team. During the Trump presidency, one repeatedly had to hear how weakened U.S. influence and the absence of clear policy in Washington played into Russia’s hands. Looking back at what lies in the ruins of Russian-American relations, which have not yet been compensated for by breakthroughs in other areas of Russian foreign policy, I would like to say that this is not worth regretting.