Skip to main content

Russiagate Part 2: When it's Easier Than Helping Voters

In Part 1 I made the point that the Mueller indictments were being conflated to essentially cloud the possibility that Hillary Clinton lost the election as legitimately as is possible in our broken electoral system. I also make the point that whether or not the hacking was representative of typical cyber-intrusions between nations the information released showed the actual Machiavellian efforts of the party to ensure that Hillary was the nominee. Although Nancy Pelosi and others have made a point of saying the Democrats are more focused on winning the mid-terms than on Russia that seems counter to what the majority of party figures are talking about. The DNC has even pointlessly sued the Trump campaign, Wikileaks, and Putin, essentially everyone they consider responsible for "disrupting" the election. All of it seems to be aimed towards the implication that the whole thing could lead to impeachment, ignoring that he has already committed impeachable offenses, and even if we somehow shamed the Republicans into impeaching we'd be left with a theocrat who's somewhat more competent as an executive. When it comes down to it, everything from the Democrats around Russia seems performative; it has an air of the magicians sleight of hand about it. Looking at their actions closely, it's clear they don't take it as seriously as their performance would seem to demand. They don't seem to be focused on securing our elections and protecting us, for closing the window, they seem focused on shaming the thieves.

The one commonality between the David Klion quote beginning this post and the Katie Halper quote opening Part 1 is the cognizance that the current response is a reaction that requires to some degree being ignorant or apathetic to our interference in other nations' elections. One response to me casually pointing out our history of interference was essentially a paean to our exceptionalism, 'yes, but this time it's about us.' However, putting aside our history of assassinations to secure governments we prefer, the death and destruction left in the wake of our machinations in Russia were exponential to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor. This is not to say that the interference is justified, but it should certainly be expected. After all of the breathless screaming about Russia, the repeated accusations of Russian sympathizer that anyone questioning our rush to call the "attacks" infamous has received, looking at the Manafort case makes it clear that it's all bullshit. Any money invested by anyone in Russia towards any intent in our elections is a pittance next to the money actively gathered from other foreign governments. If Democrats are serious about this unwelcome flow of money influencing our laws obviously you can imagine the strength of their outcry if a nation to whom we'd given billions used that money to lobby our government for both more money and to create a law that contravenes our First Amendment to jail US citizens for protesting that country. Me neither.


I shared the recent Gallup polling on most important problems on the wrong thread in a conversation on Russiagate. I removed it because it seemed somewhat tangential to the topic at hand. In retrospect, it was central and essential. The friend was talking about the hack more or less without context, in the binary of did it happen or not. He felt that polling was irrelevant. I didn't argue the point at the time but I would now. While public opinion should not determine your perspective for you, it does speak directly to the concerns that are most relevant to people and offers a possible framework for connecting them to what you consider important. In a sense, if Democrats were serious about Russiagate and the fear that Trump is a double agent their actions would be focused on stopping him and their message would be focused on drawing a line between Russia and the problems confronting citizens. The fact that the Russians have nothing to do with our most pressing issues makes that difficult. Instead Democrats seem to be using Russia to distract from their unwillingness to move beyond the strategies that culminated in the ascendance of a senile white supremacist to the white house while empowering him to be the existential threat they warned about.

It's almost as if they'd prefer another 4 years of Trump to abandoning their failing neoliberalism.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Making the White Supremacist Argument in Blackface

What are the stakes that people imagine to be bound up with demonstrating that capitalism in this country emerged from slavery and racism, which are treated as two different labels for the same pathology? Ultimately, it's a race reductionist argument. What the Afro-pessimist types or black nationalist types get out of it is an insistence that we can't ever talk about anything except race. And that's partly because talking about race is the things they have to sell. Adolph Reed Jr. If it's not clear already, it's worth thinking about the ways in which the history revision of the 1619 Project is less about understanding history than it is using history to justify a specific approach to defining and dealing with racism in the present. It serves the same purpose as all of the moral idealism pretending to represent justice-- identity politics, intersectionality, reparations-- that exist in the discourse to deter economic redistribution generally, and specifical

Anti-racism - Class = Status Quo: The Neoliberal Argument Against Coalition

I was approached a few months ago around the idea of collaborating to make the progressive case for reparations. I've said before that while the idea of reparations is morally appealing I don't believe in them as an immediate political project. It's not clear to me that it's possible to build a coalition around a reparative justice focused on just 13% of the population. Encouraged by a recent Twitter conversation that included economists Sandy Darrity and Darrick Hamilton where they suggested that saying reparations will never happen is cynical I've begun trying to think of them as an eventuality and lay out the steps to reaching them. Doing this has made clear that our understanding of reparations as a form of compensation to the descendants of the enslaved is not the reparative justice that we think it to be. If we were living with the kind of understanding of justice that made reparations possible we would not be a nation where war, healthcare, education, and cr

Is Cynicism More Disqualifying Than Ignorance?

I was somewhat reluctant at the time to ascribe any specific intent to Elizabeth Warren's DNA stunt, just focusing on what it said about her political instincts. In retrospect, because of subsequent choices, I see it as craven cynicism. I get that, "I have a plan for that!" is supposed to be her new brand, but obviously, a working plan isn't a central part of that. Her brand should actually be "Pandering Cynic". I now find myself wondering if even she thinks the policy she offers will do what she says it's intended to do. I've been saying in my head that I feel irrational anger towards her, but it's actually quite rational and specific. My posting schedule has been off because I've been playing with the idea of submitting pieces for publication. I've been thinking a lot about how we talk about disparities and how the conversation is used as a cudgel against universal policy. The closest to a good faith version of this argument is