New ideological Cold War

There is much debate about a new “cold war” between Russia and the US, but one tactic illiberal politicians on both sides of the Atlantic agree on is embracing “traditional values” to cover up their own failings. Far-right demagogues from Moscow to Texas increasingly incite moral panic to stir up tensions and deflect from domestic troubles. 

In late October, forever Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered his annual speech at the Valdai Discussion Club. Despite the pandemic entering its deadliest phase in Russia, he did not address public health measures and instead chose to rail against “cancel culture” and gender-segregated bathrooms in the West. 

Putin’s speech is part of a deliberate, tried-and-tested playbook, both at home and abroad, to consolidate power and distract from governance failures by inflaming social tensions. It cannot be brushed aside as simply theatrics because it has real implications for an alignment of authoritarian tactics and manipulation of values across borders.

Since Russia introduced its 2013 law banning “homosexual propaganda,” it has become an enthusiastic exporter of conservative ideologies, sometimes to the least expected places. During the 2018 anti-government protests in Sudan, Russian so-called “political strategists” with ties to Yevgeny Prigozhin, a nefarious oligarch close to the Kremlin, instructed the Bashir regime to plant pro-LGBT flags among demonstrators to undermine their credibility.

Reinforcing its image as a normative counterweight to the West, the Kremlin can secure access to other authoritarian states and their resources. 

In fact, the US Defense Department is much more energized by the China threat than by the Russia one. It considers China, with its nimble ability as a rising technological power—unencumbered by America’s own glacial bureaucratic oversight—to catch up and perhaps surpass the United States in 5G networks and digital battle systems. (Silicon Valley is simply never going to cooperate with the Pentagon nearly to the degree that China’s burgeoning high-tech sector cooperates with its government.) China is the pacing threat the US military now measures itself against.

This American refusal to yield blue water territory to China is championed by liberal hawks who will likely staff any incoming Democratic administration’s Asia portfolios, to say nothing of the Republicans—both pro- and anti-President Donald Trump. As for the so-called restrainers and neo-isolationists, when you boil it right down, they are really about getting American ground troops out of the Middle East, something that may actually strengthen the US position against China. And as for left-wing Democratic progressives, when it comes to a hard line on trade talks with China, they are not too far away from Trump’s own economic advisors. Remember that the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton was forced to publicly disown the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement because of pressure from her own party. The fact is, since President Richard Nixon went to China in 1972, US policy toward the Pacific has been notably consistent whatever party has held the White House, and the turn against China has likewise been a bipartisan affair—and thus unlikely to be dramatically affected by any impeachment or presidential election.

Regarding the trade talks themselves, what really riles both the Trumpsters and the Democrats (moderates and progressives alike) is the very way China does business: stealing intellectual property, acquiring sensitive technology through business buyouts, fusing public and private sectors so that their companies have an unfair advantage (at least by the mores of a global capitalistic trading system), currency manipulation, and so on. Trade talks, however successful, will never be able to change those fundamentals. China can adjust its business model only at the margins.

And because economic tensions with China will never significantly lessen, they will only inflame the military climate. When a Chinese vessel cut across the bow of an American destroyer, or China denied entry of a US amphibious assault ship to Hong Kong—as happened last fall—this cannot be separated from the atmosphere of charged rhetoric over trade. With the waning of the liberal world order, a more normal historical era of geopolitical rivalry has commenced, and trade tensions are merely accompaniments to such rivalry. In order to understand what is going on, we have to stop artificially separating US-China trade tensions and US-China military tensions.

Republican Governor Greg Abbott of Texas is faithfully using the same tactics of distraction. In the lead up to next year’s midterm and gubernatorial elections, he has managed to shift the conversation away from his mishandling of the pandemic, chronic energy supply problems, and growing voting rights restrictions, towards divisive social issues. 

Last week he signed the controversial House Bill 25, which bans transgender children from participating in sports. Earlier this year he championed Senate Bill 8, now before the Supreme Court, banning abortions before most women know they are pregnant and holding criminally culpable those who “aid and abet” abortions.

Rather than occupying opposing sides of a new ideological Cold War, Republicans and global authoritarians around the world — who may come from different political, cultural and social contexts — use alarmingly similar tactics. They are manipulating ‘traditional values’ narratives, which serve as a cultural cudgel to incite the population, and cause real harm, especially to women, LGBTI people, and other minorities. And the damage is not just local. Globally, authoritarians are aligning to disrupt multilateral spaces and undermine democratic values by creating shadow, parallel systems. 

A week after Putin’s Valdai speech, Russia signed the Geneva Consensus Declaration — an anti-abortion document, initiated by the Trump administration, that unites a coalition of largely authoritarian governments with abysmal records on women’s rights and human rights. On that same day, both the US Senate and House Republicans introduced a resolution celebrating the declaration›s first anniversary.

The consensus’ grandiose name provides cover for a toothless anti-abortion manifesto. Despite the fact that it carries no political weight, is not legally binding, nor provides mechanisms for government accountability, boosters are presenting it as a normative document that commits signatory countries to anti-abortion policies. 

It is telling that the Russian government did not even bother to put out a press release or champion its signature in state media.