It is de rigeur for the left and the press these days to bash President Trump for his dealings with Russia. In general, the theme is some kind of "too soft on Russia" tune, which is supposed to complement the narrative that "the president was elected because the Russians hacked the elections in cahoots with the Trump campaign."
Now, we know to this point -- primarily because if there were any evidence of any of that, it would have leaked months ago -- that there is zero evidence of collusion with Russians on the part of the Trump campaign, and that there is zero indication that the Russians were in any way successful in changing a single vote. The tried, they failed, if changing votes were their goal.
They were, of course, successful in what you, me and the president know they were trying to do, which was stir up mistrust in the American electoral system, by poking around and pitting one side against the other. They really didn't give a crap who got elected, you see -- if anything, they'd have wanted the same Hillary Clinton who sold them tons of our uranium, after all. They just wanted to stir up domestic waves, and they certainly did.
Since the election, in order to keep that narrative going, it has been necessary for the leftist-dominated, anti-Trump-dominated media to have a Russian thread, meaning that anything this Administration does in regard to Russia has to be spun as if it helps Russia.
That means that the narrative has to position Russia as a big, bad adversary that we should be strong like bull against (said best in a Boris Badenov voice). That way it can be said that Trump is "thanking" them for making him president. OK, the narrative is loopy, but it's all they've got, what with the booming economy, the diminishing tensions with North Korea, the zeroing unemployment rate and all. And it means ignoring the fact that President Trump is pushing the heck out of NATO to spend more defending against its main adversary, which is the same Russia that Trump is supposed to be protecting. And now we've reached agreements with the EU to sell them natural gas that they were otherwise buying from ... Russia. Not good for Putin. Go figure.
So ... if Russia and all it stands for are so evil, then why has the Democrat leadership, at least the DNC chair, multiple Democrat senators and the new spokesman, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (who to this point has done exactly nothing, including winning a job in an election) practically embraced the failed economic model of Russia?
The Democrats' line is, right now, Russian economic model "good", Russia "bad." Again -- go figure.
The thing that Democrats don't get -- OK, the 144th thing that Democrats don't get -- is that all the evil associated with Russia, which is its dictatorial government, need to invade other countries, embrace of other dictators, all that they hate, are all associated with its failed economic system, which Democrat socialists are trying to impose on the USA.
They don't get it. Socialism is not innately "evil", it is simply unworkable and universally unsuccessful, and on top of that requires an evil, iron-fisted dictatorship to keep it in place. Think Stalin, Castro, Mao, Kim, Kim and Kim. No, I mean it -- think about those guys, because unless the Democrats find a non-socialist platform, they're going to be trapped into supporting that very model.
It won't look good for them in November.
Copyright 2018 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at
www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning
to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship
and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on
Twitter at @rmosutton
No comments:
Post a Comment