12 September 2016 (Milos, Greece) – By choice, I do not have a TV on my small island. I scan the news via my Twitter feed and (occasionally) watch a few news clips. I have read a stream of stories, analysis, letters, etc. about the Trump-Putin love fest (although Trump seems to be backing down a bit) and it all had me puzzled. But then I stepped back, sat down …
… and thought about it. It all became clear:
On one side, some express puzzlement over the spectacle of right-wingers — the kind of people who used to yell “America, love it or leave it!” — praising a Russian regime. On the other side, a few people on the left are anti-anti-Putinists, denouncing criticism of Mr. Trump’s Putin-love as “red-baiting.” But today’s Russia isn’t Communist, or even leftist; it’s just an authoritarian state. As Paul Krugman noted in a recent column “it is a cult of personality around its strongman, that showers benefits on an immensely wealthy oligarchy while brutally suppressing opposition and criticism”.
Putin’s attractiveness from the reactionary right is based, in large part, as a reaction to Obama. Obama: no drama, no swagger, no macho war rhetoric, no “bad guys versus good guys”. Many Americans don’t want an Obama presidency … they want strong, they want decisive, they want heated rhetoric. And they want a president who is entertaining, and so we have Trump, an exact opposite, a caricature, a macho man who swats at Clinton’s experience, and denigrates Obama’s restraint, and so Putin is the model for the reactionary right — a truly sad state of affairs.
Republicans want a return of George W. Bush with his Yosemite Sam personality. His “Bring it on” speeches which showed “real leadership”. Well, at least until, of course, the enemies “brought it on”.
But I completely agree with Donald Trump’s remarks that Vladimir Putin is a “stronger” leader than President Obama in that he exercises more control over Russia than Obama does over the U.S. Of course he does. He’s a dictator. The same would be true of Stalin or Hitler or Mao. They’re all “stronger” leaders than Obama. That’s why dictators are sometimes called “strong men.” They control every facet of life in their countries. In fact, these dictators — and lots more — were “stronger” leaders than any American President, be it Obama, FDR, Reagan or Lincoln. Because all our presidents are constantly reined in by a powerful system of checks and balances which compels them to share power with the legislature, the courts and the governments of the individual states.
Republicans love leaders who do something, anything, no matter how misguided it might be. They have no use for leaders such as Obama who will thoughtfully analyze a situation before taking action or who may decide no action is the best action. Putin takes action and the GOP just loves it.
So Trump is right about who is stronger, but his quarrel is not with President Obama. It is with the U.S. Constitution. Trump wants free reign, just like Putin. The hell with a system of checks and balances. He wants Russia-style!
So the Russian bear is pushing at an open door. Trump is the first US presidential nominee to invite a foreign power to leak material that would damage his opponent. Trump officials purged language from the Republican platform which had urged support for the Ukrainian government against Russia. It came just four years after Mitt Romney, the then Republican nominee, had described Russia as America’s “number one geopolitical foe”.
So all Putin needs to do to cause trouble is to sow doubt about the integrity of the US electoral process. Large numbers of Americans already suspect the November result will be rigged. If ever US democracy was vulnerable to skulduggery that time would be now.
What chance does it have of succeeding? It has. If you can, watch Putin’s Bloomberg interview (aired last week here; not sure when it was taped). Putin offered a blatant “non-denial denial” that Russia carried out the recent Democratic National Committee hacking episodes:
“To do that you need to have a finger on the pulse and understand the specifics of domestic political life in the US. I’m not sure that even our foreign ministry experts are sensitive enough.”
All said with a knowing smile. He might as well have winked at the camera. NOBODY … from the cyber security firms looking into the hacking of US political outfits, to the FBI, which is investigating them … doubts Russian intelligence agencies were behind the breaches.
Except Trump who said :
“I think it’s probably unlikely. Maybe the Democrats are putting that out.”
And he said that last week to Russian television (yes, you read that correctly).
Over the weekend Edward Luce of the Financial Times put it like this:
“Mr Putin is a far wilier operator than Mr Trump. In his early career he trained in the “active measures” wing of the KGB, which specialised in political warfare. Its goal was to generate disinformation that would disrupt other countries’ politics. Mr Trump has given the Russian leader a golden chance to tarnish the US democratic model with the far more sophisticated tools now available. Mr Trump’s victory would not necessarily be in Mr Putin’s interests. Damaging the world’s faith in the US system is. Mr Putin is also a savvier tactician than Mrs Clinton. When Mr Obama came to power in 2009, he and Mrs Clinton tried to create a split between Mr Putin and Dmitry Medvedev, Russia’s then president. It failed. In 2011 Mrs Clinton backed Moscow demonstrators against Mr Putin’s allegedly rigged presidential election. This also backfired. Washington gave critical help to those supporting the 2014 overthrow of the pro-Russian government in Ukraine. Mr Putin responded by annexing Crimea. What sweeter revenge than to meddle in a US election?”
The bar is not that high. No vote rigging need occur — assuming it was even possible. All Putin needs to do is contaminate the results in people’s minds. Trump and his media backers would do the rest. Sound improbable? It should not. Putin is a past master at setting cats among democratic pigeons. He knows well that propaganda works best when there is a receptive audience. Forget America’s global reputation. Look at how it sees itself. With some justification, many Americans believe their political system has been captured by the rich and powerful. It explains why so many are taking a desperate gamble on Trump. Their horse will probably be beaten (I think it is Clinton’s election to lose).
Putin, on the other hand, is enjoying a lucrative day at the races.