The Bad Losers
(And What They Fear Losing)
By Diana Johnstone
December 19,
2016 "Information
Clearing House"
- "Counterpunch"
- If
the 2016 presidential campaign was a national disgrace,
the reaction of the losers is an even more disgraceful
spectacle. It seems that the political machine backing
Hillary Clinton can’t stand losing an election.
And why is
that?
Because they
are determined to impose “exceptional” America’s
hegemony on the entire world, using military-backed
regime changes, and Donald Trump seems poised to spoil
their plans. The entire Western establishment, roughly
composed of neoconservative ideologues, liberal
interventionists, financial powers, NATO, mainstream
media and politicians in both the United States and
Western Europe, committed to remaking the Middle East to
suit Israel and Saudi Arabia and to shattering
impertinent Russia, have been thrown into an hysterical
panic at the prospect of their joint globalization
project being sabotaged by in ignorant intruder.
Donald Trump’s
expressed desire to improve relations with Russia throws
a monkey wrench into the plans endorsed by Hillary
Clinton to “make Russia pay” for its bad attitude in the
Middle East and elsewhere. If he should do what he has
promised, this could be a serious blow to the aggressive
NATO buildup on Russia’s European borders, not to
mention serious losses to the U.S. arms industry
planning to sell billions of dollars worth of
superfluous weapons to NATO allies on the pretext of the
“Russian threat”.
The war party’s
fears may be exaggerated, inasmuch as Trump’s
appointments indicate that the United States’ claim to
be the “exceptional”, indispensable nation will probably
survive the changes in top personnel. But the emphasis
may be different. And those accustomed to absolute rule
cannot tolerate the challenge.
Bad Losers On the
Top
Members of the
U.S. Congress, the mainstream media, the CIA and even
President Obama have made fools of themselves and the
nation by claiming that the Clintonite cabal lost
because of Vladimir Putin. Insofar as the rest of the
world takes this whining seriously, it should further
increase Putin’s already considerable prestige. If
true, the notion that Moscovite hacking could defeat the
favorite candidate of the
entire U.S. power establishment can only mean that the
United States’ political structure is so fragile that a
few disclosed emails can cause its collapse. A
government notorious for snooping into everybody’s
private communication, as well as for overthrowing one
government after another by less subtle means, and whose
agents boasted of scaring the Russians into re-elected
the abysmally unpopular
Boris Yeltsin in 1996, now seems to be crying
pathetically, “Mommy, Vlady is playing with my hacking
toys!”
Of course,
Russians would quite naturally prefer a U.S. president
who openly shies away from the possibility of starting a
nuclear war with Russia. That doesn’t make Russia “an
enemy”, it is just a sign of good sense. Nor does it
mean that Putin is so naïve as to imagine that Moscow
could throw the election by a few dirty tricks. The
current Russian leaders, unlike their Washington
counterparts, tend to take a longer view, rather than
imagining that the course of history can be changed by a
banana peel.
This whole
miserable spectacle is nothing but a continuation of the
Russophobia exploited by Hillary Clinton to distract
from her own multiple scandals. As the worst loser in
American electoral history, she must blame Russia,
rather than recognize that there were multiple reasons
to vote against her.
The propaganda
machine has found a response to unwelcome news: it must
be fake. The Washington conspiracy theorists are
outdoing themselves this time. The Russian geeks
supposedly knew that by revealing a few Democratic
National Committee internal messages, they could ensure
the election of Donald Trump. What tremendous
prescience!
Obama promises
retaliation against Russia for treating the United
States the way the United States treats, well, Honduras
(and even Russia itself until blocked by Putin). Putin
retorted that so far as he knew, the United States was
not a banana republic, but a great power able to protect
its elections. Washington is loudly denying that. The
same mainstream media who brought you Saddam’s “weapons
of mass destruction” are now bringing you this
preposterous conspiracy theory with straight faces.
When
intelligence agencies become aware of the activities of
rival intelligence agencies, they usually keep the
knowledge to themselves, as part of the mutual spook
game. Going public with this wild tale shows that the
whole point is to persuade the American public that
Trump’s election is illegitimate, in the hope of
defeating him in the electoral college or, if that
fails, of crippling his presidency by labeling him a
“Putin stooge”.
Bad Losers
On the Bottom
At least the
bad losers on the top know what they are doing and have
a purpose. The bad losers on the bottom are expressing
emotions without clear objectives. It is false
self-dramatization to call for “Resistance” as if the
country had been invaded by extraterrestrials. The U.S.
electoral system is outmoded and bizarre, but Trump
played the game by the rules. He campaigned to win
swing States, not a popular majority, and that’s what he
got.
The problem
isn’t Trump but a political system which reduces the
people’s choice to two hated candidates, backed by big
bucks.
Whatever they
think or feel, the largely youthful anti-Trump
protesters in the streets create an image of hedonistic
consumer society’s spoiled brats who throw tantrums when
they don’t get what they want. Of course, some are
genuinely concerned about friends who are illegal
immigrants and fear deportation. It is quite possible
to organize in their defense. The protesters may be
mostly disappointed Bernie Sanders supporters, but
whether they like it or not, their protests amount to a
continuation of the dominant themes in Hillary Clinton’s
negative campaign. She ran on fear. In the absence of
any economic program to respond to the needs of millions
of voters who showed their preference for Sanders, and
of those who turned to Trump simply because of his vague
promise to create jobs, her campaign exaggerated the
portent of Trump’s most politically incorrect
statements, creating the illusion that Trump was a
violent racist whose only program was to arouse hatred.
Still worse, Hillary stigmatized millions of voters as
“a basket of deplorables, racist, sexist, homophobic,
xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it.” These remarks
were made to an LGBT rally, as part of her identity
politics campaign to win over a clientele of minorities
by stigmatizing the dwindling white majority. The
identity politics premise is that ethnic and sexual
minorities are oppressed and thus morally superior to
the white majority, which is the implied oppressor. It
is this tendency to sort people into morally distinct
categories that divides Americans against each other,
every bit as much – or more – than Trump’s hyperbole
about Mexican or Islamic immigrants. It has served to
convince many devotees of political correctness to
regard white working class Americans in the “fly-over”
regions as enemy invaders who threaten to send them all
to concentration camps.
Terrified of
what Trump may do, his opponents tend to ignore what the
lame ducks are actually doing. The last gasp Clintonite
campaign to blame Hillary’s defeat on “fake news”,
supposedly inspired by The Enemy, Russia, is a facet of
the growing drive to censor the Internet – previously
for child pornography, or for anti-Semitism, and next on
the pretext of combating “fake news”, meaning whatever
goes contrary to the official line. This threat to
freedom of expression is more sinister than
eleven-year-old locker-room macho boasts by Trump.
There will and
should be strong political opposition to whatever
reactionary domestic policies are adopted by the Trump
administration. But such opposition should define the
issues and work for specific goals, instead of
expressing a global rejection that is non-functional.
The hysterical
anti-Trump reaction is unable to grasp the implications
of the campaign to blame Hillary’s defeat on Putin. Do
the kids in the street really want war with Russia? I
doubt it. But they do not perceive that for all its
glaring faults, the Trump presidency provides an
opportunity to avoid war with Russia. This is a window
of opportunity than will be slammed shut if the
Clintonite establishment and the War Party get their
way. Whether they realize it or not, the street
protesters are helping that establishment delegitimatize
Trump and sabotage the one positive element in his
program: peace with Russia.
Adjustments in the Enemy List
By its fatally
flawed choices in the Middle East and in Ukraine, the
United States foreign policy establishment has driven
itself into a collision course with Russia. Unable to
admit that the United States backed the wrong horse in
Syria, the War Party sees no choice but to demonize and
“punish” Russia, with the risk of dipping into the
Pentagon’s vast arsenal of argument-winning nuclear
weapons. Anti-Russian propaganda has reached extremes
exceeding those of the Cold War. What can put an end to
this madness? What can serve to create normal attitudes
and relations concerning that proud nation which aspires
primarily simply to be respected and to promote
old-fashioned international law based on national
sovereignty? How can the United States make peace with
Russia?
It is clear
that in capitalist, chauvinist America there is no
prospect of shifting to a peace policy by putting David
Swanson in charge of U.S. foreign relations, however
desirable that might be.
Realistically,
the only way that capitalist America can make peace with
Russia is through capitalist business. And that is what
Trump proposes to do.
A bit of
realism helps when dealing with reality. The choice of
Exxon CEO Rex W. Tillerson as Secretary of State is the
best step toward ending the current race toward war with
Russia. “Make money not war” is the pragmatic American
slogan for peace at this stage.
But the
“resistance” to Trump is not likely to show support for
this pragmatic peace policy. It is already encountering
opposition in the war-loving Congress. Instead, by
shouting “Trump is not my President!” the disoriented
leftists are inadvertently strengthening that
opposition, which is worse than Trump.
Avoiding war
with Russia will not transform Washington into a haven
of sweetness and light. Trump is an aggressive
personality, and the opportunistic aggressive
personalities of the establishment, notably his
pro-Israel friends, will help him turn U.S. aggression
in other directions. Trump’s attachment to Israel is
nothing new, but appears to be particularly
uncompromising. In that context, Trump’s extremely
harsh words for Iran are ominous, and one must hope that
his stated rejection of “regime change” war applies in
that case as well as others. Trump’s anti-China rhetoric
also sounds bad, but in the long run there is little he
or the United States can do to prevent China from
becoming once again the “indispensable nation” it used
to be during most of its long history. Tougher trade
deals will not lead to the Apocalypse.
The
Failure of the Intellectual Establishment
The sad image
today of Americans as bad losers, unable to face
reality, must be attributed in part to the ethical
failure of the so-called 1968 generation of
intellectuals. In a democratic society, the first duty
of men and women with the time, inclination and capacity
to study reality seriously is to share their knowledge
and understanding with people who lack those
privileges. The generation of academics whose political
consciousness was temporarily raised by the tragedy of
the Vietnam war should have realized that their duty was
to use their position to educate the American people,
notably about the world that Washington proposed to
redesign and its history. However, the new phase of
hedonistic capitalism offered the greatest opportunities
for intellectuals in manipulating the masses rather than
educating them. The consumer society marketing even
invented a new phase of identity politics, with the
youth market, the gay market, and so on. In the
universities, a critical mass of “progressive” academics
retreated into the abstract world of post-modernism, and
have ended up focusing the attention of youth on how to
react to other people’s sex lives or “gender
identification”. Such esoteric stuff feeds the publish
or perish syndrome and prevents academics in the
humanities from having to teach anything that might be
deemed critical of U.S. military spending or its failing
efforts to assert its eternal domination of the
globalized world. The worst controversy coming out of
academia concerns who should use which toilet.
If the
intellectual snobs on the coasts can sneer with such
self-satisfaction at the poor “deplorables” in flyover
land, it is because they themselves have ignored their
primary social duty of seeking truth and sharing it.
Scolding people for their “wrong” attitudes while
setting the social example of unrestrained personal
promotion can only produce the anti-elite reaction
called “populism”. Trump is the revenge of people who
feel manipulated, forgotten and despised. However
flawed, he is the only choice they had to express their
revolt in a rotten election. The United States is
deeply divided ideologically, as well as economically.
The United States is threatened, not by Russia, but by
its own internal divisions and the inability of
Americans not only yto understand the world, but even to
understand each other.
The memoirs
of Diana Johnstone’s father Paul H. Johnstone, From
MAD to Madness, are soon to be published by Clarity
Press, with her commentary.
The views
expressed in this article are the author's own and do
not necessarily reflect Information Clearing House
editorial policy. |