Someone is Meddling

Once again, the New York Slime reports that the Russkies are "meddling" in our elections, yet again.  Although "Russia’s interference measures and their intensity remain murky"  (oh those pesky details!)  Nevertheless,

"Russia’s interference on behalf of both Mr. Trump, the dominant force in the Republican Party, and Mr. Sanders, a stalwart of the left, underscores its efforts to sow chaos across the political spectrum. Undermining the democratic system remains at the core of Russia’s effort to raise its own stature by weakening the United States..."

Chaos... is that what the Slime calls democracy? 

Let us assume for the sake of argument that Russia is "interfering" on behalf of Mr. Trump and Mr. Sanders.  Whatever the murky details which have not been disclosed we can reasonably infer that Russia is doing something to boost Trump's chances while at the same time doing something else to boost Sander's chances.  That's what "on behalf" implies. 

What might this mean in practice?  Well... it would mean that Russia is taking out ads which praise Mr. Trump while attacking Mr. Sanders.  At the same time, it is taking out ads or funding bots that praise Mr. Sanders while attacking Mr. Trump.

So fucking what?   Is it suggested that in an election contest between Mr. Trump and Mr. Sanders either will not take out ads attacking the other?   The only thing Russia will have done is save Trump and Sanders some money.  In all events, Russia will have done no more than promote a vigorous contest.  How in the fuck does that undermine democracy?

Well, it might be said, Russia promotes nasty ads.  Of course since murky details have not been disclosed we have no idea what quality of ads Russia has promoted.  But suppose they are of the nasty sort. As if American elections needed tutoring in nastiness and gutter tactics from Russia?  Oh puleeze.

What would the Slime prefer?  The subtext of its complaint is that contentious political elections weaken the United States.  That is an axiom adopted only by tyrants and oligarchs.

In 1933 Hitler made a campaign speech excoriating the fact that Germany had 30 competing parties.  In a rhetorical tour de force he went through each of the parties ridiculing their platforms and narrow self interests.  Then, after noting that the leaders of these parties had accused him of not working with them, he said: "These gentlemen are right.  I am intolerant.  I have given myself one goal: to sweep these thirty political parties out of Germany!"  No more squabbling.  No more backbiting.  No more disunity. No more chaos. Nothing that will weaken the German State!

No doubt the pundits and pharisees of the Slime will taken the greatest offence and umbrage at being compared to that monster.   But, I ask, what else is the implication of their complaint that sowing chaos across the political spectrum is a tactic that weakens the United States?

For over two hundred years the assumption across the spectrum has been that the American democracy is stronger for the chaos.  Ours is an adversarial political system.  It is an adversarial judicial system .  And it is an adversarial economic system.  Competition and conflict is integral to what America is. 

In his famous Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison discusses precisely this issue.  He notes that it is the nature of democracies to be riven by political factions.   He notes further "The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man" and behind the factions is "the human propensity to fall into mutual animosities, such that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts."  Sounds pretty chaotic to me. But listen to Madison's answer:  

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.   It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.   The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise.

It is evidently the second expedient which the Slime would conveniently prefer, allowing it to be the arbiter of what opinions can safely and unchaotically be held.

Madison's constitutional system was designed to blunt the effects of faction through an institutional system of checks and balances.  Chaotic, emotional, violently passionate liberty would be preserved but no one party or faction would ever get the sole upper hand.  That system has served its purpose well enough.  It does not need the Slime to impose  acceptable orthodoxies on the public in the name of "clean and orderly" elections.


If anyone is subverting American democracy it is the Slime.

However, behind the subversion (as behind all subversions) there lies a partisan interest.  Mr. Sanders himself alluded to it.  According to the Slime article,

Mr. Sanders said he was briefed about a month ago. Asked why the disclosure came out now, he said: “I’ll let you guess about one day before the Nevada caucus. Why do you think it came out?”

Why do you think?  Did Russia leak the information?  Not likely.  Did Trump?  Also not likely since he "called the disclosures a hoax and part of a partisan campaign against him."   Did the Sander's campaign leak the information?  Obviously not.   Who then?  Qui bono?

Gee.  Let me see if I can figure out this brain-cracker of a puzzle. 

Sanders is leading in Nevada.

A news story in effect calling him a Russian dupe or asset is leaked.  

The expected effect of this libelous bombshell would be....?

The beneficiaries of the leak would be....?

Hmmmm.   Something in the back of my mind....  What is it? Ah yes!  Russian asset.  Where have I heard that before.  Seems to me someone else was recently accused of being a Russia asset.


Ja!  The shadowy claws of Hillary Clinton and her centrist, corporate demawhores.   Once again the DNC unleashes its Russian Troll Bullshit to undermine the opposition and preserve its power, privilege and prestige.

Once again the the New York Times obediently does the sliming.

Defence de cracher, svp. 

©wcg, 2020