I must confess that liberals and the liberal press are amusing me to no end over their heated and exuberant reaction to the Trump-Russia meddling “scandal.” I find the whole controversy to be absolutely hilarious.
A question that stands out in all this: What’s wrong with an American politician “colluding” with a Russian politician to win an American election?
“Treason!” the liberals and the liberal press cry. But doesn’t treason entail giving aid and comfort to the enemy? How can Russia be considered an enemy when the United States isn’t at war with Russia? And puhleeze don’t hit me with “It’s another Cold War, Jacob!” because the first Cold War wasn’t a real war either (just as the war on terrorism or the war on drugs aren’t real wars either). A real war entails armies, invasions, attacks, bombings, troops, deaths, and destruction (like what the U.S. government did to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam). There is nothing like that going on between Russia and the United States.
Liberals and the liberal press respond, “But everyone knows that Russia is a ‘rival,’ an ‘opponent,’ an ‘adversary.’”
Really? What do those terms mean? That’s just classic empire talk. Whenever an empire encounters a foreign regime that is not sufficiently subservient and compliant, those are the types of terms that are applied to it. The imperial adjectives “assertive” and “independent” oftentimes come into play here too.
If American politicians “colluded” with British officials to win an election, would anyone say anything? Of course not! That’s because ever since England lost her imperial possessions after World War II, she has been America’s poodle, loyally serving the U.S. Empire in the hopes of having some of its imperial glory rub off on England. So, if an American politician and a British politician got together to strategize to help the America politician win an election, no one would bat an eyelash.
But, oh, put Russia into the equation and suddenly everyone goes ballistic. I’ll even bet that Netflix is suffering a massive over-rental problem with The Manchurian Candidate.
Searching desperately for some law against “colluding” or strategizing with Russian politicians to win an American election, one mainstream reporter suggested that the Justice Department should investigate whether Trump is guilty of failing to register as a foreign agent. That law dates back to the Franklin Roosevelt administration, which, ironically, ushered in America’s era of socialism with the advent of the welfare state and regulated economy. In any event, I fail to see how strategizing with a foreign politician on how to defeat the U.S. national-security establishment’s candidate, Hillary Clinton, would convert Trump into an agent for a foreign power.
Speaking of FDR, he himself did plenty of colluding with Joseph Stalin, the communist dictator of the Soviet Union who murdered even more people than Hitler did and who FDR called “Uncle Joe.” In fact, it was a result of FDR’s collusion with Stalin that Eastern Europe was delivered into the clutches of the Soviet Union (which later formed the basis for the Cold War). That’s in fact why Eastern Europeans never celebrate “victory” in World War II, as Americans do. Unlike Americans, the Eastern Europeans believed that being liberated from Hitler only to be delivered to Stalin was no victory for them.
How come no one talked about prosecuting FDR for colluding with the Soviet communists?
In fact, speaking further about FDR and commies, wasn’t there a time when liberals and the liberal press were openly singing the praises of the Soviet Union and the communist “experiment” in Russia?
In fact, I find it extremely funny that liberals and the liberal press are now playing the role that conservatives and the Birchers played during the Cold War, when the latter were exclaiming against the commies and even suggesting that President Eisenhower was an (unregistered) agent of the Reds.
Let’s not forget what cost Salvador Allende his job as the democratically elected president of Chile. He reached to the Soviet Union in friendship, clearly ignoring the fact that the Soviet regime was a “rival,” an “opponent,” or a “adversary” of the U.S. Empire. It took 3 years for the CIA to oust him from power, but oust him it did in 1973.
He wasn’t the only one. Jacobo Arbenz, the democratically elected president of Guatemala, also reached out to the Soviet Union in a spirt of friendship. The CIA ousted him from office in 1954.
Mohammad Mossadegh, the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, suffered the same fate for appearing a bit too communistic or socialistic. The CIA ousted him in 1953.
After the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy announced that the Cold War was bunk and that he had decided to reach out to the Soviet Union, Cuba, and the rest of the communist world in a spirit of friendship and peace. He was assassinated in 1963. (See FFF’s ebook JFK’s War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated by Douglas Horne.)
I wonder if Trump realizes the thin ice he is walking on if he keeps talking about friendship with Russia. The U.S. national-security establishment has never looked kindly on that sort of thing, especially since it meddles with its plans for an ever-growing U.S. military-industrial-intelligence establishment.
While we are on the subject of U.S. regime-change operations, both foreign and domestic, a question naturally arises: If Russian “meddling” in U.S. elections is considered to be a bad thing, then why does the U.S. government meddle in elections and other domestic politics in other countries?
In fact, notice something important about the Trump-Russia controversy: Never do the liberals and the liberal press ever bring up U.S. interventionism in other countries when they lament the possibility that Russia meddled in the U.S. presidential election.
Why not? If it’s a bad thing for a government to meddle in foreign elections, then why are the Pentagon, CIA, USAID, State Department, and other elements of the U.S. national-security establishment doing it in other countries and why have they been doing it for decades?
And don’t forget: When we talk about U.S. meddling in the political affairs of other countries, we aren’t talking about just “colluding.” We are also talking about bribery, kidnapping, assassination, sanctions, embargoes, coups, invasions, and occupations and lots of death, destruction, suffering, and corruption. Just ask the people of Cuba, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, Chile, Guatemala, Congo, Yemen, Libya, Syria, and, well, lots of other countries around the world that have been at the receiving end of U.S. meddling in other countries.
Indeed, let’s not forget the fairly recent U.S. regime change operation in Ukraine. You know, the one that just coincidentally led to a big crisis with Russia, which then led to increased budgets for the Pentagon.
Maybe — just maybe — the Trump-Russia controversy will cause more Americans to do some serious soul-searching over the meddling in which the U.S. government has engaged in Eastern Europe, Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and yes, even Russia. Maybe — just maybe — the Trump-Russia controversy will cause Americans to question why their government is now based on the principles of empire, a national-security state, and foreign interventionism.
In the meantime, let’s just enjoy the entire amusing and hypocritical spectacle.