For the record, I don’t have any objection to countries trying to influence each others’ elections, but I still prefer that it not be done to us. This is not an inconsistent position: By way of analogy, I have no objection to baseball players hitting grand slams, but I prefer it not be done by players playing against the Indians.
At the very least, when there is evidence that another country is trying to influence our elections, it is perfectly right and appropriate for Americans to be aware of that fact, to consider that country’s motives, and to adjust their voting accordingly.
That said, not all influences are legal or appropriate. I do have an objection to countries hacking into the e-mails of citizens of other countries for purposes of influencing their elections. I don’t know of any specific examples of the US doing this, but I wouldn’t be in the least surprised to learn that examples exist, and I object to that, too.
I’m neither surprised nor angry about Russia trying to influence the US Elections. To me that’s just the politics of powerful countries - if they can, they will (and the US has in past). I don’t want them to succeed, because they’re not “on my team” but I think moral outrage would be hypocritical. I mean, I don’t agree with when the US does it, but I admit I don’t get outraged then, either.
Wait. Are you suggesting that the Republic2016 guy did independently come up with the idea to doctor Blumenthal’s email so it looked like Eichenwald’s words were his? :eek:
Russia has “troll factories” to bombard social media with messaging; remember that affecting just 2% may be enough to swing a close election. The Hillary-Sanders fight was exacerbated by Russian trolling. Since weakening the European Union is a high Russian priority, they even deliberately affected the Brexit voting.
If by “doctor” you mean take one paragraph out of context then yes. Have you seen the original email? The entire thing is nothing but one big cut and paste of the Eichenwald article. So it doesn’t even have to be deliberate. Republic2016 was doing a text search on Benghazi and he pops to the middle of the email, entirely misses the header that says it’s from Newsweek, thinks he hits pay dirt and quickly puts it up on Twitter. Hours later looking it over or maybe a friend points out the header at the top so he deletes the tweet. So maybe Sputnik saw his tweet and slapped together a story or independently made the same mistake.
We can debate whether the prior actions of American political meddling rises to the level of the currently alleged offenses committed by Russia. What cannot be debated is that the United States is applying economic and political pressure on a foreign regime. That may or may not be ‘wrong’ but it has consequences. The United States applies pressure to countries assuming that it has moral, economic, political, and tactical superiority and leverage. But countries have weapons of their own. We have money and political power that the Russians don’t. But they have the ability to manipulate information and we are a society that depends heavily on good information in order to function properly. In any case, the United States assumed that it had leverage that it apparently does not have.
Both Russia and the United States need to find a way out that can allow both sides to save face without further escalating tensions. My fear with Clinton is that her track record indicates that she believes in the American neo-colonial status quo, which would escalate tensions further, perhaps to the point of serious conflict. My fear with Trump is that he really wouldn’t have any understanding of the situation, and he would be reduced to relying on his impulses, oscillating between under-reaction to overreaction. That would be even more dangerous.
Of course it has consequences: We wouldn’t be doing it if it didn’t. The question is just whether the positive consequences outweigh the negative ones.
How far is the United States willing to go? And for what purpose? Russia has no problems escalating, and they seem to know what their purpose is. What’s ours - the preservation of NATO? Preservation of American political power in Eastern Europe?
If our security agencies are truly convinced, 99%, that the Russian government caused, aided or abetted the hacking of American accounts, isn’t it about time to demonstrate that their systems are not secure? How about shutting down all the sewage treatment plants in and around Moscow?
It could simply be that it would be politically bad for his campaign to admit that Russia is engaging in activities that seem to be aimed at his opponent; or it could be something more. Given other evidence I lean towards “something more” but who knows.
I would argue that with regard to Russia there are (at least) two different things going on here:
#1 - as said here and elsewhere, Trump’s pro-Russia rhetoric and his general cluelessness would make this blithering simpleton the perfect useful idiot for Putin. And the similarities in character between the two (except for the rather vast difference in intelligence) makes them practically a two-man Mutual Admiration Society. Conversely, Hillary would be a formidable hardliner on foreign policy. So Russia has much to gain from a Trump victory.
#2 - it serves Russia’s interests both domestically and internationally to try to expose American democracy as fundamentally broken, regardless of who wins this election:
… if Vladimir Putin is indeed pulling the strings in this U.S. election, the Russian president is likely less interested in propping up Donald Trump’s candidacy than in trying to expose American democracy itself as a farce … Beyond embarrassing the U.S., distracting the country from dealing with policy, and deepening political rifts, a cyberattack that raises questions about the legitimacy of American democracy could prove a point from the Kremlin’s perspective. The official party line disparaging collusion in America could carry a lot of weight in Mother Russia … “They might say, ‘Look what they’re doing in their own country,’” Graham says. “‘Why does the U.S. think that it should tender election monitors and determine what’s free and fair?’”
… Henry Hale, a George Washington University professor who lectures on Russian politics, argues that by weakening faith in American democracy, Russia would be able to challenge the wisdom of exporting democracy abroad … The message? “Don’t bother pushing for democracy at home … It’s bad over there, too.”
Trump’s ridiculous “rigged election” rhetoric is enormously damaging to the US from the standpoint of #2. He is already playing the useful idiot much to Russia’s advantage and the detriment of his own country. Bigly.
I agree with all of this. I’d only add that, from Trump’s perspective, his monumental narcissism means that he apparently simply does not care how much damage he inflicts on American democracy or foreign relations - that doesn’t weigh in the balance against feeding his ego.
But it is. Never before has an American candidate for president aided a country in trying to influence our elections. It is unheard of for a U.S. presidential candidate to be so cozy with Russia or any other country that considers us an enemy. Even if, as we suspect, he’s not helping out intentionally, it still a big deal. (Heck, it’s worse, since we’d never had a presidential candidate that this stupid.)
It is also unheard of for there to be a massive hack by another country that is then being leaked to try and influence an election. This is cyber warfare, and a kind we’ve not seen before.
Just because you can come up with somewhat similar situations that the U.S. has been a part of doesn’t change whether this actual specific situation is surprising and/or outrageous. And just because we aren’t outraged by bad shit that happened in the past doesn’t make us hypocrites. I think atomic bomb was an immoral action–I think they should have bombed an abandoned location–show the devastation without killing civilians. But it’s history, and outrage is pointless.
Still, that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t be outraged if someone were to set off a nuclear bomb now.