The current economic crisis entered the political stage as a scene-stealer.  Demanding immediate and prolonged attention, the U.S.’s eyes shifted from foreign affairs to the domestic, spurring introspection on our spending habits, lifestyle, and values. 

While some soul-searching certainly was and is necessary in dealing with the economic malaise, the U.S. faces ever greater threats abroad and an increasing inability to respond.  With press attention focusing on the struggling automotive industry, Obama’s healthcare plan, and whether Anita Hill and Sonia Sotomayor’s experiences are different (Ba-duh), international developments have taken a backseat.

Political scientists and commentators have predicted the end of an era of U.S. hegemony, yielding power to four vastly expanding economies–Brazil, Russia, India, and China.

While Barack Obama’s election may have helped relations with American allies tired of Bush’s “suck it” diplomacy, Russia and China remain largely impervious to President Obama’s conciliatory overtures. Recent developments show that Russia is rising.

Putin’s invasion of Georgia last August signaled the end of Russian dormancy.  The Soviet Union may have fallen in 1989, but twenty years later Russia has re-emerged as a force in the region.  Controlling the pipeline to Western Europe’s oil, the economic interdependence of East and West is indelible, even as political ideologies remain antagonistic.  Russian President Dmitri Medvedev’s appointment of the despotic Ramzan Kadyrov to lead Chechnya further demonstrates the country’s turn away from liberalization toward tyranny.  Kadyrov’s opponents are mysteriously disappearing and human rights activists have been killed or kidnapped.

Political and economic developments have bolstered Russia’s position and hindered the United States.  Industries in Eastern Europe are crumbling, leaving citizens jobless and causing some to wonder whether liberty and free markets was a good trade for the security Soviet management brought.  Right-wing politicians are gaining ground and political infighting in the Ukraine among President Viktor Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko has paved the way for a candidate favorable to the Kremlin.  Meanwhile, the Obama adminstration’s focus on fixing the mess inherited from the Bush years leaves them with a foreign policy toolbox devoid of hefty loans and military threats.

What should be done?  President Obama needs to take a more active stance on foreign policy with Russia. The Cold War is over.  The world is no longer entangled in an ideological battle between socialism and capitalism.  However, threats from an illiberal state persist.  While Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and North Korea warrant attention, and the Russian threat may not be the most pressing issue currently, it will provide a formidable obstacle to peace in the world if the U.S. remains disengaged.

With the death of Michael Jackson, who will emerge to steer us through the tough times, cheer us in our challenges, and lull us to sleep with his soft comforting voice?

Ah, sorry. I was talking about Walter Cronkite, the celebrated CBS news journalist who chronicled the civil rights movement, the Vietnam War, and Watergate among other major shifts in American history and politics. Cronkite, who people named “the most trusted man in America” in a 1972 poll, died this week at the age of 92. While he may have receded from public view in recent years, Cronkite’s legacy continues to affect American political culture.

Cronkite’s report on the Tet Offensive, the Viet Cong’s surprise and devastating attack against U.S. troops in 1968, turned many Americans against the Vietnam War.  Then, Watergate. Americans started to believe they couldn’t trust their government and instead placed faith in cultural icons who shared their values.  Cronkite was admired for his objectivity, straightforwardness, and doggedness as a reporter, qualities people stopped ascribing to the government.  Motivated only by respect for the story and rendering its subjects and complexity accurately, the public trusted Cronkite.  In later years, as disdain for politicians continues, people adopted other non-governmental figures to trust.  Whereas respect for Walter Cronkite did not indicate detachment from issues, however, our contemporary heroes are honored for their lampooning of the entire system.

More people in the 18-32 range get their news from Jon Stewart than any other late night news show.  While Stewart does a great job of bipartisan bashing and actually covers political issues well, people’s engagement with him exclusive of many other substantive media personalities who seek to inform before they seek to entertain indicates a dangerous shift in our political culture.  Valuing the entertaining before the informative shows that people would rather laugh at our political system than hold it accountable, like those who trusted Cronkite seemed to desire.

The United States lost a good friend with the death of Walter Cronkite.  He brought us some of the most important stories of the twentieth-century and carried with him the sense of responsibility that comes with being a public servant.  With his death, we should reflect on who we trust and value.