Being Ukrainian has never been easy. It’s especially difficult in a time of rapid political change. We Ukrainian Americans find ourselves in the midst of a most unusual election campaign. On the global level, Ukraine is in an awkward position. These national and international predicaments are related. Who is really on our side?
There are several ways to look at the U.S. presidential candidates. Some look at personality. Some look at looks. Those too busy – or lazy – to analyze the issues just vote by party. But let us consider the candidates’ programs and policies. Can Ukrainian Americans, as immigrants or descendants of immigrants, support a candidate who openly discriminates against ethnic and religious groups and wants to build a wall to keep them out? Can they support an admirer of Vladimir Putin? On the other hand, as a culturally conservative people steeped in traditional morality and ethics, can they favor a candidate who would further the judicial erosion of the family, dismiss the religious-liberty claims of those conscience-bound to oppose it, and insist on a “woman’s right” to destroy developing human life?
Naturally, many of us will choose the candidate with the best record of support for Ukraine. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has consistently defended Ukrainian sovereignty and independence. But thoughtful voters will not confine themselves to a single issue, even one close to their hearts. Thus, some will question Mrs. Clinton’s advocacy of U.S. intervention in places where we have no legitimate interests – though free-trade enthusiasts, who see globalization as ultimately beneficial to all, will support her. Others may share Mr. Trump’s dislike for big government, federal intrusion into state affairs, and over-regulation of business. Still others, drawing on Ukrainian traditions of democracy and egalitarianism, have been attracted to Bernie Sanders’ social-democratic principles. Economic protectionists, as Fareed Zakaria recently argued, will find themselves in agreement with both Sanders and Trump. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-obvious-trump-running-mate-bernie-sanders-of-course/2016/06/30/3fa6c198- 3f02-11e6-80bc-d06711fd2125_story.html)
Such contradictory preferences are echoed on the global level. The Trump rebellion – a populist revolt against rule by liberal elites – mirrors Brexit – a nationalist revolt against rule by an alien bureaucracy imposing its liberal values on a sovereign state. That in turn echoes a string of anti-European Union and anti-liberal movements on the Continent seeking to restore national values in the face of not only the Brussels bureaucrats, but the socio-economic and cultural threats of Third World immigration. Vladimir Putin’s Russia has forged ties with these movements, which reflect its turn to nationalism and tradition, chiefly because they challenge the neo-liberal globalism represented by Brussels and Washington. Like the charismatic demagogues of the first half of the twentieth century, Mr. Putin has drawn on this “revolt of the masses” for his own purposes, to weaken Euro-American hegemony.
But these mass movements do not represent merely the ignorant or half-educated. It is always a mistake to underestimate one’s adversaries. There are intelligent reasons for Britons and Europeans to reject the tyranny of the unelected Eurocrats, just as there are legitimate reasons for Americans to resent the dictates of unelected federal judges and unassailable bureaucrats. “Populist” is another word for “democratic.”
The conflict between grassroots “rightist” movements and the liberal establishment is awkward for the many Ukrainians who espouse liberal principles yet regard nationalism and tradition as the very guarantees of their survival. They cannot help noticing that their archenemy’s critique of Western weakness and decadence is not far off the mark. But because they aspire to “European values” and because America is their protector, they find themselves on the side of free-market liberalism and Euro-integration, blithely ignoring some of their more disturbing socio-economic, cultural and political implications. Anything, after all, is better than falling into the Russian orbit.
If Ukrainian preferences fail to fall neatly on either side of the traditional liberal-conservative divide, it is perhaps because that paradigm has outlived its usefulness. What, after all, is so “conservative” about Americans who favor military intervention around the world, or unbridled global capitalism in its wake? True conservatives – those in the tradition of Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk – shun foreign entanglements and distrust the power of money. Yet one American “conservative” argues that “the only workable form of conservatism in modernity” is market-oriented liberalism. (Francesca Aran Murphy, “Is Liberalism a Heresy?” First Things, June/July 2016, pp. 39-45.) Conversely, what is so “liberal” about pervasive federal intrusion into areas of life like health, education, commerce, and even marriage? Surely one of liberalism’s key tenets is limited government.
Given the breakdown of the old categories, it is no wonder that Ukrainian American voters may feel disoriented. They may also feel betrayed by an electoral system that has given them such a poor choice. They probably share the sentiments reflected in a June 21-27 Quinnipiac University survey of 1,610 registered voters nationwide. While Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump received similar levels of support on a range of issues, 57 percent of voters polled described themselves as having a “somewhat unfavorable” or “strongly unfavorable” opinion of each. (http://www.qu.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2363)
Why, then, must we have to choose between two candidates of whom most of us disapprove? Although many Americans would support a broadly based third party, no such viable alternative has been offered (the Greens and Libertarians are too narrowly focused). By supporting a centrist candidate with executive experience, devoted to the “common man” and the common good, representing the best of both Democratic and Republican ideals (John Kasich comes to mind), the American people would at least send a signal that the current two-party system is not serving their interests.
In the absence of an acceptable choice, some may vote for none. Such a protest, it is argued, could tip the balance to the “greater evil.” But strategic voting (for the “lesser evil”) works best in direct elections. Under our electoral system, those voters living in a state where the electoral votes are not in doubt can afford to vote their conscience. It won’t change the result, but it will register their discontent.