At The Economist: ‘Russian hacking’ as ‘grave assault’ on American Political Virtue. A comment by Political Cynic

Recall that old saw ‘think like a lawyer’? Its an invitation to the exercise of self-serving mendacity, at the very least. Here is the center  of the case that The Economist makes for believing the lawless operatives of the American National State.

In language as blunt as it is startling, the assessment, written by the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Security Agency, declares that this crime is no whodunnit. Though the declassified report does not make public its sources or supporting evidence, it declares the “high confidence” of American spy chiefs that they know the culprit. It finds that: “Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign… to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.”

The descriptor ‘high confidence’ is the rhetorical place holder for the actual evidence, that is so secret that it can’t be used in a public document. That lack of ‘evidence’ is the product of  National Security State rampant paternalism.

Some of the readers of this newspaper are old enough to recall Joe McCarthy’s waving around his ‘List of Names’. This is the purest hyperbole, to match this:

‘AMERICAN democracy has suffered a grave assault…’

The Trinity of American Exceptionalism, American Hypocrisy and American Mendacity comes together in the notion that ‘grave assault’: American innocence besmirched by a kind of abstruse Russian revanchism?

The record of American interference in the domestic affairs of other countries, since the promulgation of the Monroe Doctrine of 1823,  even to the point of invasion and occupation, the disappeared facts of the case. Call it American Stalinism i.e. the attempt to erase the inconvenient facts of history, allied to the branding of dissidents as ‘deviationists’. In the Age of the Internet, those dissidents to the Party Line are named ‘trolls’ who are by rhetorical prestidigitation the 5th Column from another age.

Call this moment in American History 1952 Redux. Except that the role of Inquisitor is continually shifting from Republicans like the Neo-Con McCain to New Democrats like Neo-Liberal Schumer.  While the role of Paul Ryan, as Trump apologists, casts him in the role of a Hubert Humphrey to his Lyndon Johnson. Ryan’s burning political ambition renders him a comic figure, without a trace of the pathos, that can humanize even the most unsympathetic comic bungler.

Political Cynic

About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.