America? Russia? Can You Tell Which Is Which?

And now, sadly, on to what is only the second-most important story of our time.

During the Cold War, and for a long time after its unofficial end in 1989, Americans could take pride not only in its "hard power," as defined by its military strength, but also in the "soft power" of its ideals, and its willingness to pursue making this ideals a reality.  It's fairly safe to say that much of the social progress that has been made in this country, especially in the area of civil rights, came about as a consequence of that willingness, at least in part.  How, after all, could we lecture the rest of the world about freedom and equality if we as a people ourselves were neither truly free or equal?

Unfortunately, that question is now a haunting one.  Because, under the current occupant of the Oval Office, much of that social progress is not only beginning to unravel, but is seemingly being thrown into reverse.  In truth, much of this reversal has been going in slow motion for quite a long time, beginning with the Reagan era.  But those of us on the progressive side of the fence has always maintained the faith that democratic processes, and a commitment by all political sides to abide by them, would be enough to eventually set this country headed in the right direction.

In fact, the end of the Cold War itself seemed to validate that point of view.  So did the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency, after a period of manufactured warfare and bankrupt economics.  American ideals, during the Bush years, had been put to the ultimate test, and had proved to be enough to vanquish a serious attempt to thwart them.

But, as it turned out, the ultimate test was yet to come.

In 2016, the nation elected, and swore into office, a man whose victory had come about despite credible reasons to believe that a major foreign power, Russia (the functional successor to the Soviet Union) made massive, direct attempts to intervene in the outcome of the election and manipulate that outcome for its own benefit.  And, although a few fingers were lifted against this horror in the form of demonstrations and legal challenges, the weight of public opinion leaned in the direction of those who believed that "our system" was strong enough to survive any attempt to thwart it.

For myself, however, and for many others, my weight shifted in the other direction.

I have long believed that the modern conservative movement, as launched in the post-World-War-II era, understands words like "freedom" and "democracy" in a very narrow sense.  Specifically, the freedom to be a conservative, and to insist that democracy only be allow to promote conservative points of view.  I have seen the truth of this in its willingness to promote right-wing dictatorships over legitimate democratic movements that were deemed to be "too leftist," in its insistence on "balanced" coverage from supposedly "liberal" media (while allowing the conservative counterparts to be as "unbalanced" as possible), and in its willing to promote an authoritarian perspective on faith under the twin guises of "tradition" and "religious freedom."

The tipping point, however, occurred for me even before Election Night 2016, courtesy of  Mitch McCONnell, the Republican leader of the Senate.  (I'll use his name, since a little manipulation allows me to tweak it in order to properly reflect his character, but will deny him the respect of pretending he leads a "majority.")  Fresh from his successful denial of Merrick Garland the proper respect that a Supreme Court nominee deserves, in the hope that a Republican successor to Obama would get to fill a Court vacancy, McCONnell refused to cooperate with Obama's pre-election plan to share with the public what was then known about Russian plans to sabotage the election.  He baldly stated his intention to denounce any such attempt as "partisan" in nature.

Sadly, Obama folded, as he did with the Garland nomination.  That's on him, and I have no reservations about calling him out for it.  In fact, Obama's penchant for folding in the face of Republican opposition, even when that opposition may have been little more than bluffing, is mirrored in a sad tendency by Democrats generally to put too much faith in the good intentions of the other side.  That history, to some extent is recapped here.  We have been constantly affronted with Republican disrespect for democracy, and then constantly been told, in the immortal words of Antonin Scalia, to "get over it."  And, by doing so, we have enabled the present moment (myself included) to a far greater degree than any of is probably care to admit.

But make no mistake:  McCONnell put Obama in that position with regard to the intelligence about the election.  It was McCONnell who, faced once again with a choice between country and political chess, chose chess.  Because that is what not only McCONnell, and the party that will follow him anywhere, do.  They are not interested in building a better America, only in the acquisition of power, by any means.  And let's be as clear as possible:  they have not been stopped for a minute by the fact that the current President has a long history of association with Russia that makes plausible the possibility that he is not truly an American President, but a Russian asset.

How much plausibility should you give to that thought?  Or, for that matter, to the idea that conservatives would chose conservatism over democracy?  Take the words of a leading conservative, David Frum, who served in the Bush Administration:  “If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.”  Again, his words, not mine.

Or, don't take his words at all.  Take a look at what is going on around us.

The banning of a reporter from the White House press pool, and the Presidential denunciation of reporters as "bad people."

The use of employer's rights to restrict freedom of speech for their employees, forcing people to choose between their beliefs and their ability to survive.

The restriction of the rights of the poor to public benefits, for no other reason than to assert who's "in charge.

The caging of human beings who are guilt of nothing more than the desire to flee unsafe countries, in conditions that cannot even be called decent.

The willingness of the current Administration to go to war not for the defense of the nation, but to use warfare as a public relations tool to pump up support for said Administration (here we go, "wagging the dog" again).

And finally, at least for now, the unwillingness of the current Congress to spend any money, or otherwise take any precautions whatsoever, to ensure that our elections are free from foreign--specifically, Russian--interference.

Is it any wonder that Putin wanted the current occupant of the Oval Office to be that occupant?  He's getting exactly what he wants:  a clone of his own country, one nominally led by a man who is easily susceptible to flattery.  As has been pointed out recently, that's the hold that Putin, or anyone, can have over our "President," the only one that's really necessary.  Flattery.  Infinite amounts of it.  That's how you hold on to a world-class narcissist.  You don't need "pee tapes."  You don't need "Playboy tapes."  You don't need any tapes at all.  You just need to keep petting him on the head and say "Good boychik.  Good boychik.  Now go do what I want."

And is it any wonder that Republican members of Congress spent the past Fourth of July not here, but in Russia, doing who-knows-what?  It's enough to remind one of the chilling last lines of George Orwell's "Animal Farm," in which an idealistic rebellion by farm animals against a drunken farmer degenerates into an autocracy led by pigs, who increasing act like the animals former master.  At the book's end, the pigs host and toast their human neighbors, while the rest of the farm animals look on in horror: 

Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

One wonders if a glimpse of that July 4th meeting would have produced a similar response to the viewer.

This is why it's essential  to vote, and to get others to vote, this coming November.  But, no matter what happens in this election (and a fair outcome is by no means certain, under these circumstances), it is not enough to vote.  We must, sadly, fight the people we have long regarded as our fellow countrymen (and women) on whichever battlefield is necessary.

For they are no longer our fellows.  They are the enemy.  And, for the sake of true democracy, no quarter can be given.