The Demise of the USSR-Could the USA Be Next?

Some readers may dismiss the title of this essay as silly and hysterical, but I think the question-absurd as it may sound-is work considering.

As I was growing up in the Cold War, it seemed a set fact of life that our chief adversary, the Soviet Union, was a fact of life that was here for the long haul. It was hoped that the Cold War would never end in a nuclear war, which was considered a real possibility.

Then, suddenly, the Soviet Union imploded under the weight of its inner weaknesses. Welcome as it might have been, it was shocking. Within a few short years, the USSR saw its client states in Eastern Europe break away, followed by their own non-Russian republics.

Only a handful of years later, having had the chance to visit many of the former Soviet Republics with DEA's International Training section, I was inspired to write a book on the languages of the former USSR. (The Languages of the Former Soviet Republics-Their History and Development). It required a lot of research, not only into the various languages, but also the history of the region itself. What I learned, in my opinion, is worthy of review since it could be relevant to what the US is going through today.

Prior to the Russian Revolution, the area was under the centuries-long control of the Russian tsars. When Lenin came to power, he became a cult-like figure, in whom the masses placed great hope. Lenin had grown into adulthood as an opponent of the tsars. He was expelled from Kazan University for his agitation activities while his own brother was executed by the tsarist regime for his alleged role in a plot to assassinate the tsar. Of course, one of his first acts was to order the execution of the Tsar Nicholas and his entire family, who had been kept in custody after Nicholas' forced abdication.

Yet, in the history of the Soviet Union, Lenin was something of a reformer when compared to his successor, Stalin. Lenin declared an end to ethnic discrimination including that against the Jews, who had been severely restricted under the tsars, subject to occasional pogroms while being forced to live in the western fringes of the Russian empire (Pale of Settlement). Under Lenin, discrimination against Jews was ended-a development that led many Jews to embrace the new government. All were considered equal in the new nation.

In the non-Russian republics of the newly-created Soviet Union, native languages and cultures were encouraged under the policy of korenizatsiia or indiginization. Within those republics, the native languages were emphasized. Local leaders were placed in charge of the republics.

Of course, we also know that things like education and health care were all controlled by the government-for better or worse.

After Lenin died, Stalin, his eventual successor, gradually ended korenizatsiia in favor of Russification. Centralization in Moscow became the norm. Of course, that was the least of Stalin's changes as he became one of history's worst dictators.

Then, as we know, under Gorbachev, the USSR collapsed under the weight of its own weaknesses and the desire of many non-Russians (especially the Balts) to be independent.

So is there a parallel to be drawn with recent events in the US? There is no question that our new president has big changes in mind. It would seem that the country, in electing Obama and solidifying his Democratic support in Congress, has chosen to try the road of greater governmental control. It has to be assumed that the electorate has opted to turn to government to help them get through life. There is a price to be paid for that. One fact must be kept in mind by those who have chosen to place their economic well-being in the hands of government; that requires something in return. For example, more money has to go to government, and more power has to go to government. Do most people in the US really want the government to take over things like health care and the economy? Is the public really in favor of income redistribution that would bring most of all of us in the same economic class? Given the election results, it would seem that they do.

It could also be argued that Obama's charisma and speaking skills, aided by a compliant press, have elevated him to something of a cult figure. Will that continue once he becomes president? Or will events and his lack of experience bring him back down to normal level? What will the media do when Obama makes errors? Will they criticize him? Will they investigate scandals? Or will they ignore his shortcomings? Now that the media has the government it wants, will they play the role of watchdogs, of which they are so proud? The answer remains to be seen.

So, is it so preposterous for conservatives like me to fear that our government is poised to take greater control over our lives-in the name of serving us? At the risk of angering some of my fellow conservatives, I would argue that the establishment of the Soviet Union was based on mostly good intentions in the interest of the people. However, it went terribly wrong.

The collapse of the USSR demonstrates that what seems to be stable in the world can suddenly collapse given the right conditions. Could it also happen to us, say within my own lifetime? Here are my fears:

The US becomes increasingly socialist in nature, which I feel would destroy the economy as well as our culture of free market capitalism and individualism that made our country great in the first place. To borrow a line from someone (I don't know who), we are going from "Ask not what your country can do for you..." to "Demand what your country can do for you". This attituide is not what made America the greatest nation in the world.

I also fear that we will gradually lose certain freedoms incrementally until we wake up one day and realize that we are no longer the freest nation in the world. If that seems crazy to you, consider the so-called Fairness Doctrine applied to talk radio and the card-check system being planned for labor unions. Consider what was done to Joe the Plumber by state officials in Ohio. Consider the damage done to our electoral process by ACORN. Consider the suspicious senatorial election re-count being done in Minnesota as we speak.

I also fear that the US will unilaterally disarm to the point that we are no longer the world's only superpower. There is little doubt that Obama will cut military spending-according to Barney Frank (who himself has done so much damage to our economy), we can expect a 25% reduction in military spending. The same thing happened under Carter, and the same thing happened under Clinton. The implications of all this are terrifying since who would stand against tyranny and terrorism if not us? That is not to say I want us to be the policeman of the world-I don't-but at a certain point, you have to have a free, democratic superpower that will stand up to the Hitlers, Stalins and now, Islamic fascists who would take away everyone's freedoms. Say what you want about our use of the military over the last several decades. Were it not for the US, and specifically, the US Military, how many nations would be living in freedom today?

None.

Another fear I have is that under the incoming government, the US will shift its favor from Israel to the Arab nations and increasingly radical Muslims that want to destroy our greatest ally-and only democracy in the Middle East. Indeed, the pressure is growing to the point I fear that within 20-25 years, Israel may cease to exist. We already have reached the point that we have more Muslims in the US than Jews. Unfortunately, many young Muslims are increasingly militant and devoted to the destruction of Israel. Obama will be under pressure from the left to favor the Palestinians at the expense of Israel-which I fear he is inclined to do anyway.

I also fear that the US will now defer more and more to the inept and corrupt United Nations, an organization which, in my view, has outlived its usefulness.

At home, I also fear that the new administration will only increase and feed the growing feeling of tribalization that exists in our society. Obama has convinced many that he is the one man who will bring together black and white. Yet, he comes from a church where the pastor has achieved notoriety for his outbursts against whites and America in general. I am not convinced that anyone coming out of that church is going to bring anyone together.

I also fear that Obama's election is resulting in overblown expectations about our racial issues. With all due repect to the emotions of African-Americans at seeing a black man elected as president, this does not cure the myriad of problems that exist in inner city communities. It does nothing to reduce a 70% illigitimate birth rate among African-Americans. The inner city, crime-ridden slums are still there. What happens when people wake up to the fact that symbolism aside, the realities of life have not changed? How many American cities (Detroit, Washington DC, Philadelphia) have we seen that are now solidly entrenched in black city governments, but have done nothing to change existing problems? I hear white voices already that say Obama's election should mean the end of any excuses for black underachievement. I can only partially agree with that statement. But the question begs; what will an Obama presidency really mean for black Americans. We shall see.

During the election, voters chose to overlook the long history of associations that have formed Barack Obama's life from Jeremiah Wright, to Tony Rezko to William Ayres. Yet, here was charismatic figure who promised "change", notwithstanding the fact that he came up in politics from the old Chicago machine, arguably the most powerful and corrupt in the nation. Here was a young man also seemingly influenced by the philosophy of Saul Alinski. Yet millions of voters have placed their trust in him. For many of us, suspicion as to Obama's inner mind still exists.

Eventually, I suspect that the whole issue of gay marriage, which has only arisen in the last decade or so since we began to recognize that gays should be treated as human beings, will be resolved in their favor. I am against it since I think that marriage, an institution that has endured for thousands of years between a man and a woman, is being turned on its head without much thought. Nevertheless, with the current mood in the country and the courts-especially the judges that will be appointed by Obama will push it through in short order.

The issue of judges is another fear since I saw first-hand the damage liberal, activist judges appointed by Carter and Clinton did to federal law enforcement efforts in the courts. As much as Obama may pose as a centrist, watch who he appoints, and watch the judges he puts on the bench.

So now, the great American experimentation with the Left begins. Hopefully, the public, after four or even eight years of Obama's changes will turn in revolt against him at the polls. Whether the Republican Party will be viable at that point is open to question. They have to find their own way. As we speak, the party is divided between those who want to chart the conservtive course as a matter of principle and those who want to compete with the Democrats as to who will give the people more goodies. There is doubt they can even be competitive in the next decade. Do we benefit from having only one viable party? Ask Mexico. Ask Russia.

Things are changing fast in America and in the world. I may sound crazy, but why couldn't we collapse just as suddenly as that other superpower?