As in "Russia is meddling in our
elections!" As in even the
coolest news outlets. PBS. Yamiche Alcindor must have used it
thirty times Monday night. It was
her only word for Russia's fault. It's
the alt's, it's the mainstream's, it's the commentariat's main word. My wife walks in on a program late and
picks up only the outrage.
"What have the Russians done now?" she asks. Meddled in our
election. Still. "Indicated meddling... established
meddling... denied meddling... meddle, meddle, meddle."
We've got to find another word if we're going to
maintain our outrage. Which is the
purpose of it all, isn't it? I
mean, how can you win an election in America unless you can say your opponent
is insufficiently outraged by Russian behavior? How can you save your newspaper, how can you sell your
newsmagazine, how can you give your program an edge, if you don't maintain
outrage? The habits of young
people can take you only so far, you know.
How we forget the lessons of the past. Do we think George W. Bush could have
gotten us behind his invasion of Iraq if he hadn't kept the picture of its outrageously
cruel dictator before us, the third in a veritable triumvirate of evil. Evil, man. If you're not outraged by that you don't deserve to live in a Christian country.
Unless you're outraged by communism, evil enough to
do the job without theological support. How could you, I ask you, how could you let the CIA land its
nut cases unless it's on the shore of evil ninety miles away. Not to mention letting Lyndon Johnson
land the Marines on that farther shore.
The trouble with "meddling in our
elections" is there's a limit on how long it can work. Sooner or later somebody in the warm commentariat
is going to notice or remember what somebody in the cool commentariat has said
about meddling, that we meddle too. As busily as the Russians. All the way.
Bags of cash delivered to a Rome hotel
for favored Italian candidates. Scandalous stories leaked to foreign newspapers
to swing an election in Nicaragua. Millions of pamphlets, posters and stickers
printed to defeat an incumbent in Serbia.
The long arm of Vladimir Putin? No, just a small sample of the United
States’ history of intervention in foreign elections.
That's
Scott Shane, in the Times (2-17-18). He quotes Steven L. Hall, CIA chief of
Russian operations, 30-year veteran: “If you ask an intelligence officer, did
the Russians break the rules or do something bizarre, the answer is no, not at
all,”
Loch
K. Johnson, an academic and sworn to cool, says Russia’s 2016 operation was "simply
the cyber-age version of standard United States practice for decades. 'We’ve been doing this kind of thing
since the C.I.A. was created in 1947....We’ve used posters, pamphlets, mailers,
banners — you name it. We’ve planted false information in foreign newspapers.
We’ve used what the British call "King George’s cavalry": suitcases
of cash.'”
So
then the dawn comes and the word crashes. We need something that refers to actual lawbreaking. "Indictable"? "Criminal"? That's what the FBI is supposed to
investigate isn't it, crimes? Not
reprehensible behavior.
Mueller
got something specific on the twelve Russian agents, hacking into a computer
network, but the words for this, "breaking our laws," lacked flame. Nothing like "meddling in our
elections." It remains to be
seen how many of Mueller's other charges will stand up. So far the exposure is not producing
many outrage bytes, and doesn't seem likely to.
"Outrage? You want outrage?" Oh, oh, one of our guys is heating
up. "What the hell's the idea
of taking up our time with all these non-issues? God Almighty there's a whole planet heating up under us. Russian meddling my ass. Get real."
No comments:
Post a Comment