13 March - Cold War ideology and connections to today

One of skills we want to work on in history is the ability to see and explain connections between the past and the present. This is possible to do with all the different issues we have discussed, but it is probably easiest with the Cold War. As I was listening to the radio and podcasts this past Friday morning, I heard a variety of issues discussed that could easily be seen to be tied to discussions we’ve been having in class.

Freedom of the Press

We discussed the need for a free (independent) press in a functioning democracy. One of the top stories on P1 Friday morning was the attack against Swedish Russian correspondent Maria Persson Löfgren (along with three others) last week in the southwest region of Russia, in the republic of Ingushetia. (Yes, pretty much everyone had to run to an atlas for this obscure republic.) Ingushetia is near Chechnya, which has been a region plagued by human rights abuses and conflict with the Russian state for decades. (Recommended reading: Masha Gessen’s The Man Without a Face.)

The journalists and human rights workers were badly beaten and their van set on fire. No one was killed. But this incident led to a story on Friday on P1 about the importance of ensuring the safety of journalists for the establishment and perpetuation of democratic processes. When journalists fear for their lives, then stories don’t get reported. When governments control the news media, then abuses are easily hidden—or they presented in a manner that excuses them and justifies them. At the most, only one version is heard.

The role of the media—as well as that of independent courts—is a key part of Cold War debate. And both of these issues are relevant in discussing the development governments (and political and economic alliances) today. As you try to analyze past CW issues, you should be building up skills that allow you to analyze current issues as well. (And this, in turn, should make it possible to reflect upon the importance/significant of these issues for the future.)

Free Trade

While listening to an interview with former Secretary of State (utrikes minister) and current Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, there was a discussion about trade with China. Clinton was talking about the problem of China dumping cheap steel in U.S. (and European) markets. And she was arguing that while China has embraced certain elements of a free-market economy, it isn’t truly a free market. (Google “China dumping steel” and you’ll find plenty of articles about this.)

Last week we (Sa2) were discussing different issues regarding free trade and some of the potential problems with making trade easier. One problem is illustrated in part by this example. If a government subsidizes (subventionerar) a particular industry (for example, steel), so that companies can sell products at cost (or even lower), then there is an unfair advantage to that industry in a market with few trade barriers. The companies getting government help can gain a foothold or dominance in a particular market, and thus knock out the competition. If it goes on long enough, the competitors will go bankrupt because they cannot not compete with the cheaper, subsidized products.

This is an issue where some cases seem pretty simple to figure out. But while China subsidizing steel seems clearly wrong, there are certain agricultural and cultural products that just can’t compete in a completely free market—in part because the skills needed to become proficient in, say, making a certain kind of cheese or playing a certain instrument just can’t economically compete with cheap cheese and Melody Festival style music. So are government subsidies always bad? And how do we draw the line?

Democratic Systems

Another story I listened to had to do with the Supreme Court vacancy in the United States. Last month a justice (judge) on the U.S. Supreme Court died. According to the U.S. Constitution, this is how vacancies are filled: the president nominates a new justice; the Senate then has the role of reviewing the qualities of the nominee, holding public hearings as a part of that review process, and voting on the nominee. But Republicans (who currently are in the majority in the U.S. Senate) are saying that they will not participate in the process of appointing a new justice to the Supreme Court. They want to wait until after the election and after the new president has been sworn in. (The election is in November; the new president will be sworn in in January 2017.)

There is nothing in the Constitution that supports this strategy. So what happens when the different branches of the government start making up their own rules? What might this mean for the future of democratic systems in the United States?

Senator Elizabeth Warren gave an impassioned speech last week about the need for the Senate to fulfill its constitutional role. And she discussed the issue of the legitimacy of the elected officials. It's an issue that resonates in other times and places as well.