By Garry Kasparov
Saturday, November 02, 2024
Like millions of others who lived behind the Iron
Curtain, I grew up in the Soviet Union viewing America as a beacon of hope. The
difference between free and unfree was readily apparent to me as a young player
on the international chess scene, and I began to use my platform to protest
repressive practices back home. When I retired from professional chess in 2005,
I channeled all of my energy into preventing Russia from sliding back into the
hands of the KGB, the Soviet Union’s secret police and most sinister spy
agency. Unfortunately, those efforts were unsuccessful: Vladimir Putin
consolidated power and rebuilt an authoritarian state in the image of the
Soviet regime under which I was born. Facing imminent arrest, I was forced into
exile and have lived in New York since 2013. I never thought I would need to
warn Americans about the dangers of dictatorship.
Donald Trump has been breaking down the guardrails of
American democracy for nearly a decade now. Generations to come will reap the
consequences. His presidency—and his three campaigns for the office—have
demonstrated that the institutions so many of us took for granted are, in large
part, based on custom and tradition, not written law. As Ronald Reagan famously
said, freedom is “never more than one generation away from extinction.” The
political system we hold dear is deeply fragile, and depends on our constant
commitment to uphold it.
Trump hasn’t even won the election yet—and his victory is
far from assured—but we are already seeing signs of preemptive obedience that
should look familiar to many refugees from repressive regimes like me. Both the
Washington
Post and Los
Angeles Times canceled endorsements of Vice President Kamala Harris
earlier this month at the behest of their owners, a de facto silencing of two
major national newspapers. It should come as no surprise that business owners
are careful to avoid upsetting someone who has frequently called for his
detractors to be locked up, or in the case
of Liz Cheney, have guns “trained on her face.”
Given my experience, I am not willing to stand idly by
and watch the beacon of hope that I am grateful to now call home slide into the
authoritarianism of my childhood. This election is a choice between a candidate
who has vowed to fight for America’s institutions, and one who is deeply
dangerous—a candidate who I believe will bring total mayhem and destruction to
this country.
I want to speak, now, more specifically about Kamala
Harris.
I have never been shy about criticizing administrations,
regardless of party. I harshly condemned Barack Obama’s foreign policy—from his
fecklessness in Syria to his dangerous Iran deal—as well as George W. Bush’s
naivete when he
claimed to have seen Putin’s soul after peering into his eyes. My criticism
of both Trump
and Joe
Biden has been far from quiet. Only 28
percent of Americans today believe the country is moving in the right
direction, and I understand their frustrations. While the situation at home
certainly raises concerns, the geopolitical landscape is disastrous; the worst
I have seen in my living memory. America’s prestige abroad is disintegrating.
No wonder, then, that Trump’s hate-filled rhetoric is finding purchase.
But the role of the president and the vice president is
not the same. With the notable exception of Dick Cheney (and perhaps Mike Pence
when it counted
the most), no vice president in recent memory played any meaningful role in
setting policy. They do not hold the same responsibility as their boss for the
direction the country takes. Biden essentially functioned as Barack Obama’s
messenger, because his main task as vice president for eight years was to carry
out and effectively communicate Obama’s vision—not his own. The same has
been true of Kamala Harris for the last four years; her job has been to further
Biden’s agenda, not her own. Consequently, J.D. Vance’s constant
refrain—as vice president for nearly four years, Harris owns Biden’s
policies—doesn’t make sense. It wasn’t Harris’ job to put her ideas into
practice. And while she initially hewed
closer to the administration’s
stance, she has since stepped out from her boss’s shadow, making clear in
interviews and on the campaign trail that she will not just follow in Biden’s
footsteps. The policy proposals she is offering, whether you agree with them or
not, are her own.
In an area particularly close to my heart—foreign
policy—Harris’ agenda would represent an improvement from the status quo. Biden
has spent many of his 40 years in government during a time when the threat of
nuclear war was high, and that experience has undoubtedly informed his approach
to foreign policy as president. Harris, on the other hand, doesn’t carry the
same Cold War baggage, and has
said that she would not allow Ukraine to succumb to Russian aggression. I
don’t believe her administration would continue the Biden administration’s policies
of betrayal when it comes to Ukraine—and Trump and Vance have obviously made
no secret of their plans to essentially give in to Putin’s desire to
swallow Ukraine.
Because Harris hasn’t been on the foreign policy scene
for decades, my prediction is that she will hew closely to public opinion,
which is currently oriented around a consensus that America should stand up to
dictators. And on the domestic front, as a new president interested in being
reelected—and likely constrained by a divided Congress and conservative Supreme
Court majority—Harris would be unlikely to make waves and institute radical
progressive policies.
Were Harris up against a Republican other than Trump,
disagreements over her limited price controls, tax policy, or stance on social
issues might constitute strong arguments against electing her. In this race,
however, these arguments are moot. If you disagree with her policies, start
challenging her the day after the election. I certainly will.
This election is bigger than policy, as the long list of
prominent Republicans who are willing to stand up and support Harris
demonstrates. Former Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter, Liz; former
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger; former Sen. Jeff Flake; several
members of Trump’s
own administration, including some of the most
senior. Many still align with Republicans on policy issues—some, in the
case of Reps. Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, even voted for Trump in 2020. Unlike
sycophantic outcasts
like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who made the reverse journey from the
Democratic Party to endorse Trump, these are true, dyed-in-the-wool
Republicans.
Legally, we have a choice in this election, but morally,
the answer is clear: If we want to preserve America’s institutions and its
standing on the world stage, we must elect Kamala Harris on November 5.
Ultimately, I am cautiously optimistic about a Harris
presidency. She has the opportunity to normalize a deeply fractured political
climate, to bring together the center-left and center-right under a banner of
creating real opportunity for all Americans. I look forward to challenging her
when we disagree, which I imagine will be often. But if her opponent is
elected, the very institutions and traditions that guarantee our right to
freely disagree would be under threat. Anyone who has lived in the Soviet Union
or in Putin’s Russia will tell you what it’s like to fear publicly condemning
the government. In Trump, I hear echoes of Soviet leaders past and Russian
leaders present. Kamala Harris’ election is the only way to preserve democracy,
at home and abroad. She may not be the best choice. But on November 5, she is
the only one.
No comments:
Post a Comment