Will the "Red Menace" Work in the 21st Century?

During the Cold War, conservative politicians could always be relied on to trot out the “red menace,” accusing opponents of being soft on communism. It was usually good for a few votes—in the U.S. for many votes. It was, of course, just a version of one of the oldest and most reliable political strategies—exploiting an enemy, or if necessary creating one, to draw voters around yourself as defender of the faith.

Communism, particularly Soviet communism, was a reliable enemy. However the Cold War has now been over for 30 years, Soviet communism is dead and Chinese communism has been subsumed by capitalism, so we might think that particular enemy would have lost its value.

But judging by the Trump administration's railing against China these days, one can't help but wonder if the eastern giant, capitalist-modified though it may be, isn't being revived as the red menace. In the tradition of accusing enemies of being soft on communism, the Trump campaign increasingly accuses Joe Biden of being soft on China.

Trump has laid responsibility for his country's COVID-caused misery at the door of China, with the World Health Organization thrown in as aider and abettor. People around Trump promote the antagonism and his most anti-China hawk Peter Navarro steadily gains in stature. Trump was of course engaging in China-bashing well before CORVID. The bug has now added a new element to his diatribes.

As to whether or not the strategy will work, the odds are favourable. Polls indicate that Americans overwhelming blame China for the pandemic and are deeply angry with the Chinese government. Certainly Congress is on side, introducing a number of bills that would direct the manufacture of critical supplies away from China. Various states are even seeking ways to sue China for their COVID costs.

Trump may not be quite as enthusiastic about making China-bashing central to the campaign as some of his advisers. It could cost him a multibillion-dollar trade deal, and then there's his apparent admiration for Xi Jinpeng. Trump never met a dictator he didn't like. Nonetheless, the audience for an anti-China message is there. The strategy looks good.

The rest of us should hope he doesn't pursue it too vigorously. Two superpowers engaged in escalating hostility, when the leaders of both are fervent nationalists, could lead to catastrophe, even of the nuclear variety. The coronavirus pandemic is providing more than enough catastrophe at the moment.

Democracy Amid COVID

As COVID-19 advances around the world, political opportunism is not far behind. This is to be expected. The pandemic, like all crises, presents a combination of circumstances that is ripe for exploitation. As fear escalates, people look for leaders to bring calm and maintain order. And with publics constrained by social distancing, authoritarians in particular are in a position to exploit the crisis.

They are even using the pandemic itself to legitimize power grabs. Hungary’s Viktor Orbán gained the extraordinary right to rule indefinitely by decree, dutifully granted him by the country's legislature. New restrictions on journalism that the government deems harmful to the coronavirus response have made it harder to report on the scale and his handling of the pandemic. Vladimir Putin, in the midst of revising the constitution to in effect let him rule Russia indefinitely, has used COVID-19 as a reason why there needs to be stability at the head of government. His government has also increased its surveillance capabilities using the rationale of enforcing a quarantine. Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte trotted out his infamous answer to the drug problem, threatening that those opposing coronavirus directives could be “shot dead.”

Various illiberal populists exploit the pandemic even though some initially dismissed its seriousness, even calling it “fake news.” Indian author Arundhati Roy observes “One of the greatest crises that's faced any of us, certainly in the modern Western world, comes at a time where the most toxic, low-IQ, totalitarian men are in power.” She specifically referenced Donald Trump, Narendra Modi and Viktor Orbán. Fake news or not, some authoritarians have come to realize its political possibilities.

Democracy, however, has not been entirely missed out on the rewards. Wednesday's national assembly election in South Korea had the highest turnout of any parliamentary election since 1992. Millions of Koreans, wearing masks and standing at least one metre apart, moved slowly into polling stations to vote in the first national election to be held since the pandemic began.

Prime Minister President Moon Jae-in's left-leaning government had been down in the polls prior to COVID with the PM's approval rating falling to a low of 30 percent. However, South Korea has been one of the most successful countries in tackling the pandemic, and the electorate showed their appreciation for the government's efforts by giving Moon's party and its smaller affiliate the biggest majority since the country transitioned to democracy in 1987. That tens of millions of citizens would brave the bug to exercise their rights is a testament to the strength of democracy in the face of crisis.

Support for the Moon government was due is no small part to its transparency during the crisis and its responsiveness to the people. South Korea drew on its strengths as a liberal democracy to deal with the pandemic, a powerful comparison to early days in China which were characterized by evasion and cover-up.

Here at home, democracy is holding its own. When the Liberals first proposed Bill C-13, the COVID-19 emergency legislation, certain sections, such as that giving the finance minister at least 19 months of extraordinary legislative powers, were referred to by opposition parties as a “power grab.” They dug in their heels and the bill was dramatically pared back. Furthermore, all 13 premiers firmly rejected implementing the federal Emergencies Act when queried by the prime minister. Such is the behaviour of a mature democracy, or perhaps the behaviour of a democracy with a minority government. In any case, despite ominous developments in too many places, democracy is by no means folding in the face of the bug.

So Long Bernie, It's Been Good to Know Ya

So Bernie Sanders has packed it in. As someone whose views commonly fall within the ambit of social democracy, I could have easily voted for Bernie—if I was a citizen of his formerly great nation. The U.S. is desperately in need of some of his views, especially on growing inequality and the domination of wealth in politics, but there is a bigger challenge than even these. That, of course, is getting rid of the world's most dangerous man, he of the orange hue, and I feel, like most Democrats apparently, that Joe Biden, good old reliable, mainstream Joe, is a better choice for that job.

Bernie was always a risk for the party. Many of his views are definitely not mainstream and he would have been a major target, and an easy one, for the big money that's corrupting America. Now much of that wealth and its attendant power may very well swing behind Joe.

And I don't find Biden that hard to take. Just the fact he is a decent human being makes him a huge improvement over the incumbent. And his climate platform, the most important policy area, isn't half bad, in contrast to the suicidal policies of Trump. Greenpeace gives Biden's platform a B+. They gave Bernie's, which of course included the Green New Deal, an A+.

So the big race is now on. Politics is rarely a simple choice between good and evil, usually more a matter of degree, but this election gets pretty close. If it isn't between good and evil, it's at least between pretty good and evil. The future of all of us rests heavily on the shoulders of Joe Biden, and I believe he has the shoulders to carry the load, but I will always feel a little wistful about Bernie's political potential.