Neo-McCarthyism and Olympic Politics as More Evidence of a New Cold War

Neo-McCarthyism and Olympic Politics as More Evidence of a New Cold War

Neo-McCarthyism and Olympic Politics as More Evidence of a New Cold War

McCarthyism was a characteristic feature of the preceding Cold War, but now it is coming from liberals, even from the Clinton campaign.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

Nation contributing editor Stephen F. Cohen and John Batchelor continue their weekly discussions of the new US-Russian Cold War. (Earlier installments are at TheNation.com.)

Having entered academic Russian Studies in the late 1960s, Cohen recalls that even then the field was still afflicted by remnants of the self-censorship bred by the McCarthyism of the 1940s and 1950s. Cold War brings with it this kind of limitations on free speech, so he is not surprised that it may be happening again as a result of the new Cold War with “Putin’s Russia,” only that it is coming this time from longstanding liberals who purported to protect us against such abuses at home.

Many liberals (and their publications) have recently branded Donald Trump as Putin’s “puppet” (Franklin Foer), “de facto agent” (Jeffrey Goldberg), “Kremlin client” (Timothy Snyder), and would-be “man in the White House.” New York Times columnist Paul Krugman spells out the implication that Trump “would, in office, actually follow a pro-Putin foreign policy, at the expense of America’s allies and her own self-interest.” These disgraceful allegations are based on little more, Cohen argues, than a mistranslation of a casual Putin remark about Trump, Trump’s elliptical suggestions that he may favor détente with Moscow and tacit endorsement of Obama’s refusal to escalate the military conflict in Ukraine, and Russian business relations of Trump’s “associates” of the kind eagerly sought since the late 1980s by many American corporations, including Exxon Mobil and MacDonald’s.

This is, of course, an ominous recapitulation of McCarthy’s accusations, which seriously damaged American democracy and ruined many lives. Still worse, this Putin-baiting of Trump is coming from the Clinton campaign, which most of the liberals involved evidently support, as reflected in a page-one New York Times story headlined “A Trump-Putin Alliance.” Clinton, it seems, intends to run against Trump-Putin. If so, the new Cold War can only become more dangerous, especially if she wins and if this McCarthyite tactic reflects her hawkish views on Russia, and the wildly demonized Putin in particular.

Perhaps not unrelated, Obama’s proposal for a US-Russian alliance against the Islamic State in Syria, with its potential for easing the conflict in Ukraine and NATO’s buildup on Russia’s borders, which Cohen and Batchelor have discussed in recent weeks, is now being openly opposed by Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter. As a result, Cohen thinks, the original proposal to Putin was withdrawn for one that would subordinate Moscow to longstanding US policy in Syria, particularly to the removal of Syrian President Assad. Not surprisingly, it was rejected by Putin, though Secretary of State John Kerry has resumed negotiations with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov, expressing hope for a positive outcome. Neither Cohen nor Batchelor can understand where the silent President Obama stands on this vital issue.

Finally, Cohen and Batchelor briefly discuss the failed coup in Turkey, which is certain to bring President Erdogan back to a cooperative relationship with Moscow, with important consequences for NATO and for the war in Syria, none of them to Washington’s advantage. And recalling the role of Olympic politics during the 40-year Cold War, Cohen thinks this recapitulation involving Russia may have more to do with politics than doping, though, as with the Turkish coup, we are likely to learn more in the days and weeks ahead.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read, just one of the many incisive, deeply-reported articles we publish daily. Now more than ever, we need fearless journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media.

Throughout this critical election year and a time of media austerity and renewed campus activism and rising labor organizing, independent journalism that gets to the heart of the matter is more critical than ever before. Donate right now and help us hold the powerful accountable, shine a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug, and build a more just and equitable future.

For nearly 160 years, The Nation has stood for truth, justice, and moral clarity. As a reader-supported publication, we are not beholden to the whims of advertisers or a corporate owner. But it does take financial resources to report on stories that may take weeks or months to properly investigate, thoroughly edit and fact-check articles, and get our stories into the hands of readers.

Donate today and stand with us for a better future. Thank you for being a supporter of independent journalism.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x