It seems that the results of the 2006 congressional elections in the U.S. bode well for America????????s ability to influence Russia????????s political direction toward democracy, though they may come to late to be of much real utility. Not that the newly empowered Democrats will necessarily be vigorous in that regard (although they may prove to be) but because the election will free those Republicans who are inclined to do so, such as senators John McCain and Charles Grassley, to be much more active in opposing the Bush administration????????s policy of accommodation towards the regime of Vladimir Putin.

President Bush, either because he simply does not care about the issue of democracy in Russia or because he believes America cannot afford to alienate Russia as it struggles against other enemies across the globe, has been a leading factor in the rise of dictatorship in Russia under Vladimir Putin. Bush????????s famous remark that he ???????looked into the eyes??????? of Putin has given rise to many editorial cartoons of Putin showing his pupils replaced by the hammer and sickle of the old Soviet flag even as Putin has reinstalled the music of the old Soviet anthem as Russia????????s national hymn.

In the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attack, Putin cagily manipulated the tragedy to send the message that America needed Russia, or at least the absence of Russian obstruction, in it????????s ???????war on terror.??????? He convinced Bush that America should sell Russia????????s democrats down the river in exchange for limiting Russian actions in support of international terror, including most especially guaranteeing the flow of Russian energy resources to the West. Seemingly to provide reminders of what Russia might be capable of, he supplied financial support to the terrorist Hamas regime in Palestine and the rogue regime in Cuba, weapons to anti-American forces in Venezuela and Hezbollah, and even large-scale nuclear technology to Iran.

Meanwhile, Russia was rewarded with a G-8 summit meeting and the possibility of admission to the World Trade Organization even as Putin abolished the election of local government officials like governors and mayors, crushed criticial voices on national television and instigated a new wave of nationalization in Russia????????s energy sector which included sending his main political rival, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, to jail in Siberia. Putin went further, obliterating opposition parties in the national parliament and rigging his own elections, while the Bush administration toed the sand and looked the other way.

Both Republican and Democratic critics of Putin????????s increasingly neo-Soviet behavior found themselves hard put to oppose the Bush line on Putin in the early going. Psychologically speaking, it????????s a lot to ask that the American public recognize yet another enemy regime even as it was asked to focus on an international war on terrorism, and Bush????????s high level of support in public opinion polls created a clear political risk ???????? to say nothing of being seen to undermine America????????s ???????united front??????? against terror as well as party loyalty.

But the fact remains that Putin is a proud member of the KGB, an organization which was dedicated for most of its existence to America????????s destruction. How reasonable was it for anyone to think that simply because the USSR lost the Cold War to the USA Soviet patriots would simply give up their antipathy towards the US and embark upon a new path sympathetic to American interests? If Americans had lost the Cold War, would they have blithely abandoned their belief in freedom and democracy in favor of the Soviet model? And how can Americans stand idly by watching the creation of a neo-Soviet state?

To say the least, the elections indicate that Bush is no longer the formidable political force he once was. Ongoing tribulation in Iraq has caused the public to lose faith in his leadership, and cost his party control of both houses of Congress, strengthening resolve on an issue, Russian autocracy, where many Democrats and Republicans can find common ground in the absence of strong White House pressure. Seeming to sense that its window of opportunity was closing, the Bush administration announced just days after the election results were in that it was seeking to accelerate Russia????????s WTO admission process, which had stalled at the St. Petersburg summit as McCain and Grassley applied strong pressure on Bush to demand significant concessions from Russia in the area of pro-democratic reform. The Chicago Tribune reported on November 10: ??????????????We have an agreement in principle and are finalizing the details,???????? said U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab, the chief U.S. negotiator in WTO talks with Russia. ???????This agreement will mark an important step in Russia attaining membership in the WTO.???????? Schwab said the agreement is slated to be signed next week at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum in Hanoi, a summit that both President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin are scheduled to attend.??????? Russia can????????t gain admission even with U.S. support until it wins the agreement of Moldova and Georgia, both of which have blackballed Russia in the wake of Russia????????s recent confrontation with Georgia following Georiga????????s allegation of a Russian-sponsored coup d????????etat against its pro-Western government, now in the final stages of joining NATO. The Tribune notes:

The Bush administration does not need congressional approval to seal the bilateral agreement. However, Bush still must ask Congress to grant Russia “permanent normal trade relations,” a designation that allows U.S. farmers and businesses to benefit from Russia’s WTO membership. The newly elected Congress, which convenes in January, is now controlled by Democrats, who may be more critical of trade pacts with Russia. Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who is in line to assume the chairmanship of the Senate Finance Committee, pointed to “unacceptable levels of piracy and counterfeiting” in Russia and said in a statement released Friday that the country “must take additional steps to earn a welcome into the WTO.”

Thus, greasing the skids for Russian admission to the WTO may be the parting shot of the pro-Putin camp, not unlike John Adams attempting to stack the judicial deck at the eleventh hour before Thomas Jefferson assumed the presidency. As the Iron Curtain descends once again across the continent in Russia, it seems the tide has turned across the Atlantic strongly against those who would facilitate its descent. Whether this has come too late to be of much use to the vestigial pro-democracy forces in Russia remains to be seen. A second cold war may be in the offing, perhaps two: one between Russia and America, and one between the White House and Capitol Hill.

That being said, the election results really are far from a catastrophe for the Republican Party. Aside from helping the Party to see where its priorities ought to lie, all Republicans need to regain control of the Senate on any issue is for conservative Senator Joseph Lieberman, ostracized by the Democrats and elected as an independent, to cross the aisle. It????????s quite normal for the president????????s party to experience losses in off-year congressional elections, not a signal of a sea change. In fact, given the unpopularity of the Iraq war and the personal antipathy Bush has generated, the Republican peformance is really quite impressive.

And then there????????s the issue of perspective. Democrats can hardly take much solace in electing people like Heath Schuler, former NFL quarterback and evangelical Christian. Schuler is far more conservative than defeated so-called ???????Republican??????? Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island. In fact, if one were to ask ???????Who was the greatest Republican president of the Twentieth Century???????? one could make a strong case that it was Bill Clinton. After all, he (a) delivered the House to the Republicans for the first time in fifty years, (b) abolished federal welfare and (c) balanced the federal budget. These could easily be said to have been the top three policy objectives of Ronald Reagan when he was elected, but Reagan didn’t achieve any of them. Clinton actually did. In other words, to judge from their ravings in the press, the Democrats seem to be happy with nominal “victories” that actually abnegate their policy agenda — the Republicans can probably live quite happily with that. Clinton, it should be remembered, lost the House in his first off-year, while Bush held both houses until his second, and, unlike Bush, Clinton didn’t manage to go on to win reelection with a majority of the popular vote. Bush????????s performance, in this regard, exceeds that of Clinton.

Finally, these results bring a woman to position of House Speaker for the first time in U.S. history. It????????s hard to quarrel much with that result, since while woman are over 50% of the population they still make up less than 15% of Congress. Perhaps, if the Republicans had had the foresight to make a woman speaker when they took the House, they would have avoided the recent scandal that plagued Dennis Hastert and performed better in these elections.

Kim Zigfeld publishes the Russia blog La Russophobe