Sean Hannity (Sean Hannity) or newt Gingrich (Newt Gingrich) do not protect the principle and his patron. Still they were the radical “hawks”. Now, when the question arose about the Russian intervention in elections in 2016, they have become radical “doves.” The only thing that is important to them, to support their ally in the White house.
On the contrary, the left like max Blumenthal (Max Blumenthal) or Glenn Greenwald (Glenn Greenwald) the thing — ideology. And Blumenthal, Greenwald can’t stand trump. However, an aggressive foreign policy they don’t like even stronger. Therefore, to counteract the fact that they believe a new cold war, they underestimate the Russian intervention in the elections.
This is a truly principled position. The problem is that the principles force them to close their eyes to the facts.
On Tuesday in the program of Tucker Carlson (Tucker Carlson) Blumenthal spoke out against the “hysteria around Russia” progressivist positions. He began with the fact that, fixated on Russia, the Democrats are missing the chance to offer the country a truly progressive alternative to the Trump. “Sold out to the corporate establishment that is not able to formulate a full-fledged economic policies and opposes single-payer [healthcare], it’s very convenient, as they can deal with trump, not doing anything even slightly progressive,” said he.
This is not so. Although politicians-Democrats and liberal politicians really spend a lot of time discussing the scandal around Russia, not to say that they didn’t do “anything even slightly progressive.” By contrast, Democrats in Congress oppose initiatives trump more than they opposed the initiatives of the Reagan or George W. Bush. In 1981 for the Reagan tax cuts in the House of representatives voted with 48 Democrats and 37 Democrats in the Senate. In 2001, the same measure Bush has supported in the House of representatives 10 Democrats in the Senate — 12. All the Democrats in the House of representatives voted against the first major bill trump, cancels and replaces Obamacare. If this bill reached the Senate, Senate Democrats also likely would oppose it unanimously.
The same applies for approval of candidates to the Supreme court. In 1986, all the Democrats in the Senate voted for Scalia Antonin (Antonin Scalia). In 2005, half of Senate Democrats supported John Roberts (John Roberts). This year for Gorsuch Neil (Neil Gorsuch) voted only three senators-Democrat. Of course, this is partly due to the polarization of society. Now from conservative States and districts, elected by fewer Democrats than before. But the point is that Democrats in Congress are now more focused on his liberal electoral base. In 2001, the Senator from California Dianne Feinstein (Dianne Feinstein) voted in favor of the Bush tax cuts. Now it is impossible to imagine that the California Democrat used the same measures of trump.
Blumenthal is right that the Democrats are not “full-fledged economic policy.” But this is not primarily with the Russian scandal. The party was not in power, rarely keeps a clear program. It is difficult to establish a clear policy when the party has no obvious leader. Policy is determined in the course of the presidential campaign. Apparently, progressive theme, which last year promoted Bernie Sanders (Bernie Sanders)-single payer healthcare, free higher education, the minimum wage to $ 15 per hour — will be in 2020 to have in the Democratic party is more weight than in 2016.
The second argument Blumenthal is that anti-Moscow line, which is now carried out Democrats, bind them hand and foot. “The political establishment will take advantage of this trend,” and as a result, “any left who disagree with the ongoing war or corporate freetraders, will portray a Russian puppet”. Something like this involves and Greenwald. On Monday, he criticized the new foreign policy organization — the Alliance for the defence of democracy, which unites prominent supporters of Clinton with the “neo-cons” like bill Kristol (Bill Kristol). “The song about Russia and Putin, which is now sung by the Democrats, writes Greenwald, wrote the neocons many years ago. Related rhetorical tactics —a charge anyone who wants to improve relations with Moscow, Putin, lack of patriotism, disloyalty, etc. — also was used for decades in nikonovsky and libellous campaign”.
This fear has some justification. In the past the Democrats made dangerous mistakes, trying to be to the right of the Republicans in foreign policy. For example, in 1992, bill Clinton criticized George Bush for what he is not overthrown Saddam Hussein. He helped lay the foundations of the desire for regime change in Iraq, which ten years later led to the Iraq war (mistakenly supported me).
However, those who diminish the significance of Russian intervention in the elections out of fear to strengthen militarism, evading the key question of how dangerous the intervention. In this case, progressives like Blumenthal behave exactly the same as many conservatives on the issue of climate change. Conservatives fear that progressives will use global warming as an excuse to increase regulation of the economy. The result of their rejection of the decisions they are beginning to prove that there is the problem.
Evidence that Russia intervened in last year’s elections, looks quite convincing — as proof of climate change. The CIA, FBI and the NSA believes “with high confidence” that “Russian President Vladimir Putin organized in 2016 campaign” aimed at “undermining public faith in the American democratic process.” The CIA and the FBI also believes “with high confidence”-and the NSA “with relative certainty” — that Putin was trying to ensure the victory of trump. In their opinion, for that the Kremlin, in particular, stole and leaked correspondence of the Democratic national Committee and senior functionaries of the Democratic party. He also “received and supported access to elements of a number of American electoral commissions of the state level or the local level.”
Of course, you can say that again us intelligence agencies were wrong when they talked about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, progressives should not believe them in this case. However, the situation now looks very different. In 2002, intelligence agencies are constantly pressured White house of George W. Bush and the Pentagon, which is needed for the weapons projects of Saddam Hussein looked like a possible threat. However, the same political pressure aimed at the secret services exaggerated the seriousness of the Russian intervention in the elections, not now.
Moreover, French and German officials also claim that Russia was trying to undermine the electoral process in their countries. And in his letter to Donald Trump, Jr. (Donald Trump Jr.) Rob Goldstone (Rob Goldstone), to organize his meeting with relatives of some of the Kremlin figures attorney, wrote about “supporting Mr. trump’s Russia and its government.” Blumenthal may be plenty to ridicule “podhalimskaya press and podhalimskaya kind of the liberal opposition, who are ready to believe all the intelligence services”. Now, however, the conclusions of the intelligence check the special Prosecutor Robert Mueller (Robert Mueller) and four committees of Congress. At the end of their investigations, the Americans will be much more complete picture of the Russian intervention in last year’s elections, than they had before the Iraq war about weapons of mass destruction.
From Blumenthal and Greenwald has some sort of ideological problem. In foreign policy they oppose interventionism. Walter Russell Mead (Walter Russell Mead) calls this position “jeffersonianism”. In their opinion, the American Empire is dangerous not only for peace and justice abroad, but for freedoms in the country. They want the United States ceased to defend its Imperial borders in Eastern Europe, in South and East Asia, and the middle East, because these efforts take American money and American lives and in addition they give rise to enhanced control, making American citizens less free.
It is quite legitimate point of view. According to the foreign Ministry, jeffersonianum, in the sense of — was John Quincy Adams (John Quincy Adams), and Walter Lippmann (Walter Lippmann), and George Kennan (George Kennan). Now jeffersonianum belong to Andrew Bacevich (Andrew Bacevich) and Ron Paul (Ron Paul). American foreign policy dominated by inter-party interventionist elite could be useful criticism with jeffersonians positions. Giving ordinary Americans a continuation of the endless and almost hopeless war in Afghanistan? Why does the United States think about NATO expansion, if it actually means that we promise the price of American lives to defend the country, which many in America have never even heard?
However, not wanting to protect the American Empire, and not wanting to defend America itself — are two different things. Interfering in elections in 2016, Russia threatened to America as such and not the American influence in Afghanistan, in Ukraine or in Syria.
The heart of American democracy is the idea that the leaders of America should select the American citizens, not foreign governments. Apparently, Russia has challenged this principle by starting a massive covert campaign to elect a particular candidate. Even worse, that the candidate whom it helped to defeat itself is a serious threat to the rule of law in the United States.
What did Russia, already weakened American democracy. If Moscow questioned the legitimacy of future American elections by hacking the voting machines or circulating defamatory election results misinformation, it can cause more damage. Once Blumenthal and Greenwald are outraged by the attempts of Chris Kobacha (Kris Kobach) (Secretary of state of Kansas and Vice Chairman created by trump’s Presidential Commission on fair elections which is suspected that she wants to remove some voters from the election — approx. transl.) to prevent the Americans to choose their own leaders, they should resent such attempts on the part of Vladimir Putin.
In his interview with Carlson Blumenthal criticized the democratic Senator from Maryland Ben Cardin (Ben Cardin), who called Russian intervention “political pearl Harbor”. However, in a sense the analogy is quite appropriate. Until 7 December 1941, the conflict between America and Japan unfolded away from American shores. Tokyo attempted to obtain in East Asia sphere of influence. It was a sort of Japanese Monroe Doctrine. The United States, in turn, was not willing to allow Japan to achieve hegemony in China, Indochina, the Dutch East Indies and the Philippines. They fought for the Imperial borders. Then, on December 7, Japan suddenly struck across the Pacific, the attack on the United States itself. Suddenly even jeffersonianum had to admit that Japan poses a threat.
Similarly, last year the United States participated in a proxy conflict with Russia in such places as Ukraine, Syria and Afghanistan — that is too far away from American shores. Jeffersonians have every right to consider that our struggle for influence in these countries does more harm than good.
But last year, Russia suddenly attacked the United States itself, causing real damage to ordinary Americans. The desire not to allow Russia to do so again nobody makes neither a hawk nor an imperialist. Even the most vocal opponent of intervention in the Affairs of other countries should defend their own country.
Blumenthal and Greenwald are not required to respond to Russia’s support for NATO expansion or military intervention in Syria. However, jeffersonians have to say, as, in their opinion, the United States should defend their choices. Maybe they think that it requires treaties and international organizations, rather than sanctions and arms supplies. May be, in their view, America should promise to limit its foreign cyberattacks. All of this is a valid point of view. Now America desperately needs in discussion with representatives across the political spectrum — on the question of how we can protect American democracy from new external threats born of technological development.
Jeffersonians can play a key role in finding answers to this problem. But if they are afraid of the possible answers that deny the very existence of the problem, nothing good will come of it.