New McCarthyism Targets Trump


ABOVE IMAGE: HISTORICAL BACKFIRE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT’S PRESSTITUTES.
horiz grey line

tgplogo12313

By John V. Walsh / Crosspost with Consortiumnews.com, a fraternal site


Dateline: January 4, 2017

Official Washington’s New McCarthyism is painting President-elect Trump as almost a “traitor” for seeking détente with Russia, a moment when peace-oriented Americans face a complex choice, says John V. Walsh.

When President Obama expelled Russian diplomats over the hysterical and unproven accusation of Russia “hacking the election,” Russian President Vladimir Putin refused to be drawn into a petty squabble, saying he would delay any response until Donald Trump assumed office. Instead Putin invited American diplomats and their families in Moscow to join the official holiday celebrations in the Kremlin.

Then came the shock that shook Official Washington: President-elect Trump, in the form of a tweet heard round the world, wrote: “Great move on delay (by V. Putin) – I always knew he was very smart!”

And just to be sure that everyone saw it, Trump “pinned” the tweet which means it is the first thing seen by viewers of his account. This was a first use of “pinning” for Trump. And to be doubly sure, he posted it on Instagram as well. This was no spontaneous midnight outburst but a very deliberate action taken on Friday noon, Dec. 30, the day after Obama had issued his retaliation order.

The implications of this move are, arguably, breathtaking. Trump treated Putin as his ally, not as a hated adversary. And he treated Obama and the bipartisan foreign policy elite of Washington as his adversaries, not his allies – a move that makes perfect sense if Trump’s desire is to rein in the War Party’s New Cold War and to strive for a New Détente with Russia.

If the main enemy is those who are stoking the New Cold War and risking worse, then Trump has placed himself squarely against these war hawks. And stop to consider for a moment who these folks are. Besides President Obama and Hillary Clinton, they represent a full-blown armchair army: neocons, liberal interventionists, the mainstream media, various Soros-funded “non-governmental organizations,” virtually all the important think tanks, the leadership of both major parties, and the CIA and the other U.S. intelligence agencies. This array of Official Washington’s power elite has been working 24/7 at demonizing Putin and stoking tensions with nuclear-armed Russia. Trump took on all of them on with his tweet!


Putin as Ally Against the War Party

As Trump looks for new allies in pursuit of a New Détente and a relaxation of U.S.-Russian tensions, Putin is foremost among them. Thus, in the struggle for peace, Trump has drawn new lines, and they cross national borders. Not since Ronald Reagan embraced Mikhail Gorbachev or Richard Nixon went to China have we seen a development like this. In this new battle to reduce tensions between nuclear powers, Trump has shown considerable courage, taking on a wide range of attackers.


If the main enemy is those who are stoking the New Cold War and risking worse, then Trump has placed himself squarely against these war hawks. And stop to consider for a moment who these folks are. Besides President Obama and Hillary Clinton, they represent a full-blown armchair army: neocons, liberal interventionists, the mainstream media, various Soros-funded “non-governmental organizations,” virtually all the important think tanks, the leadership of both major parties, and the CIA and the other U.S. intelligence agencies. This array of Official Washington’s power elite has been working 24/7 at demonizing Putin and stoking tensions with nuclear-armed Russia. Trump took all of them on with his tweet!


Later that afternoon, Maya Kosoff writing for Vanity Fair put out an article entitled “Twitter Melts Down over ‘Treason’ After Trump Praises Putin.” The first batch of such tweets came from “journalists and other foreign policy experts,” the next from Evan McMullin, the former CIA officer who tried to draw off Republican votes from Trump in the general election, who tweeted: “To be clear, @realDonaldTrump is siding with America’s greatest adversary even as it attacks our democracy. Never grow desensitized to this.”

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry listens to Russian President Vladimir Putin in a meeting room at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, at the outset of a bilateral meeting on July 14, 2016. [State Department Photo]

Finally came the predictable rash of tweets calling Trump’s words “treasonous” or “seditious.” In response, Team Trump refused to issue a “clarification,” saying instead that Trump’s words spoke for themselves.

As stunning as Trump’s tweet was in many ways, it was in other ways entirely predictable. Despite the mainstream media’s scorn and Hillary Clinton’s mocking him as Putin’s “puppet,” Trump has held firm to his promise that he will seek peace with Russia and look for areas of cooperation such as fighting terrorism.

So, even when Trump’s Russia comments appeared to cost him politically, he stuck with them, suggesting that he believes that this détente is important. The rule of thumb is that if a politician says something that will win votes, you do not know whether it is conviction or opportunism. But if a politician says something that should lose her or him votes, then you can bet it is heartfelt.

Trump was bashed over his resistance to the New Cold War both during the Republican primaries when many GOP leaders were extremely hawkish on Russia and during the general election when the Clinton campaign sought to paint him as some sort of Manchurian Candidate. Even his vice presidential candidate Mike Pence staked out a more hawkish position than Trump.

Trump stood by his more dovish attitude though it presented few electoral advantages and many negatives. By that test, he appears to be sincere. So, his latest opening to Putin was entirely predictable.


A Choice of Peace or War

What is troubling, however, is that some Americans who favor peace hate Trump so much that they recoil from speaking out in his defense over his “treasonous” tweet though they may privately agree with it. Some progressives are uncomfortable with the mainstream’s descent into crude McCarthyism but don’t want to say anything favorable about Trump.

After all, a vote for President is either thumbs up or thumbs down – nothing in between – though voters may like or dislike some policy prescriptions of one candidate and other positions of another candidate. And progressives could list many reasons to not vote for Trump.

But a presidential administration is multi-issued – not all or none. One can disagree with a president on some issues and agree on others. For instance, many progressives are outraged over Trump’s harsh immigration policies but agree with him on scrapping the TPP trade deal.

In other words, there is no reason why those who claim to be for peace should not back Trump on his more peaceful approach toward Putin and Russia, even if they disdain his tough talk about fighting terrorism. That is the reality of politics.

What I’ve discovered is that many progressives – as well as many on the Right – who oppose endless war and disdain empire will tell you in whispers that they do support Trump’s attempt at Détente 2.0, though they doubt he will succeed. In the meantime, they are keeping their heads down and staying quiet.

But clearly Trump’s success depends on how much support he gets – as weighed against how much grief he gets. By lacking the courage to defend Trump’s “treasonous tweet,” those who want to rein in the warmongers may be missing a rare opportunity. If those who agree with Trump on this issue stay silent, it may be a lost opportunity as well.


 SELECT COMMENTS


Josh Stern
January 4, 2017 at 7:44 am
An excellent editorial – kudos to Mr. Walsh.
“But a presidential administration is multi-issued – not all or none. One can disagree with a president on some issues and agree on others. For instance, many progressives are outraged over Trump’s harsh immigration policies but agree with him on scrapping the TPP trade deal.
In other words, there is no reason why those who claim to be for peace should not back Trump on his more peaceful approach toward Putin and Russia, even if they disdain his tough talk about fighting terrorism. That is the reality of politics.”
Perhaps he or some other commentators have practical suggestions for helping the nation’s less tuned-in observers to stay abreast of what is really going on in a range of different policy categories, including the ones he mentions. That sort of useful summary might be one piece of the puzzle to helping the US out of its tweedle-dum tweedle-dee politics.
Joe B
January 4, 2017 at 9:09 am
Exactly right. The Reps may not care for humanity, but they don’t like paying for war, so Trump must be given credit on that point over the Dems, so corrupted by Israel/KSA/MIC oligarchy.
There is a strong progressive majority which is being deliberately fragmented by the Clinton oligarchs. The Clinton supporters must unify both with the critics of warmongering for Israel and KSA, and the Trumpers who simply want economic security in a rapacious oligarchic state. Clintonites will have to admit their mistake in backing an oligarchy shill with no platform beyond the fashionable identity issues of the upper middle class.
 
natoistan
January 4, 2017 at 9:17 am
Republicans/Democrats Utilize Public Mistrust of Trump to Legitimize Russia Lies.
Republicans and Democrats alike are utilizing legitimate distrust of Donald Trump to give credibility to their own lies. If we are buying the Russia narrative, we are buying one of the most cynical manipulations we have seen in recent political history.
https://youtu.be/GEXXIHlVnZY
 
Sam F
January 5, 2017 at 8:14 am
Yes, the anti-Russia nonsense is indeed “one of the most cynical manipulations” of all time, intended to cover up the fact that the Dems are agents of foreign powers Israel and Saudi Arabia. It shows the contempt of oligarchy for the intelligence of the people.
Destroy the oligarchy and restore Democracy!
 
Andre
January 4, 2017 at 11:54 am
I wouldn’t say that they turned to the right. In may pieces that are anti-war (and therefore supportive of Trump’s position) the authors acknowledged many issues with Trumps proposed policies, his bigotry, and rashness. While I’m quite concerned about the longterm implications of Trump’s proposed domestic agenda, I would very much like to see more constructive dialogue with Russia, China, and other foreign adversaries. At the same time, the entire apparatus of the US government is so huge and complex, that I don’t have very high hopes for a major change.
In 2016 election I could not cast my vote for either Hillary or Trump, but for completely orthogonal issues. The media overall seemed to be unfairly pro-Hillary even during the primaries, and the articles that I’ve seen here were relentlessly pointing out that neither candidate was setting a good example as a future president.
 
exiled off mainstreet
January 4, 2017 at 1:41 pm
Not Consortiumnews [or this site] but erstwhile “progressives” have turned “right.” A true leftist position would not countenance a war which threatens our survival. I’m sick of former “progressives” who have jumped the interventionist shark and are looking at destruction as the end result.
Gregory Herr
January 5, 2017 at 12:00 am
The support for Trump in the article and in comments certainly isn’t wholesale or uncritical. We have to deal with the situation at hand and deal with a broad range of issues at home and globally. The prospect of cooperation in lieu of conflict with Russia is important. I’m as concerned as you are about Trump and Congress on the domestic front, but that shouldn’t stop me from supporting avenues of peace.

NOTE: ALL IMAGE CAPTIONS, PULL QUOTES AND COMMENTARY BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS • PLEASE COMMENT AND DEBATE DIRECTLY ON OUR FACEBOOK GROUP CLICK HERE

John V. Walsh, an anti-war activist, can be reached at John.Endwar@gmail.com 


Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience. 

horiz-long grey

uza2-zombienationWhat will it take to bring America to live according to its own propaganda?


black-horizontal

black-horizontal

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable
Please see our red registration box at the bottom of this page

If you appreciate our articles, do the right thing and let us know by subscribing. It’s free and it implies no obligation to you—ever. We just want to have a way to reach our most loyal readers on important occasions when their input is necessary. In return you get our email newsletter compiling the best of The Greanville Post several times a week.

horiz-black-wide
REMEMBER: ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.




black-horizontal

Share This:

2 thoughts on “New McCarthyism Targets Trump

  1. As Rob Urie very astutely has described in an article called ‘Resistance’ on CP, the political choices we are offered are designed to tie us tighter into false alternatives that are being presented to us as freedom of choice. Denunciations of Trump are not manufactured to release us from more drudgery, but to give us the choice to descend deeper into semi-bondage. It is the basis for a clever two-party system that affords only a binary yes or no reply, ensuring no break in control by vested interests. The question if a Trump or a Clinton are worse for our economic and physical security is inconsequential where the true structure is that of a political self regenerating machine while they are its handlers. Of course the state is not seen as such a machine by the citizens because they have been thoroughly conditioned by Bernay’s propaganda to feel free to make one of two choices and to proclaim that it designates freedom, but democracy means a spectrum of choices and control over one’s own body and mind. The consequences of the US political system is that salesmanship directs the manner in which the state is observed while hiding its true modus operandi with the fiction that it needs only a few adjustments so now and then to become serviceable and beneficial to all. Ideologically enchained the population veers intermittently between alternative choices, both deleterious to their true interests.

  2. The bane of the US republic are its so-called ‘news’ media. With the improved communication techniques of television in particular it allows for a vast network of disinformation by the vested interests, often not even coming from the government itself. Seldom in recent history have journalists disguised as commentators had such influence that even office holders have to comply and pay lip service to a powerful non-governmental entity. It probably is a result from the forces that advertising holds over the nation, snake-oil salesmanship transferred to paper and screen. Accustomed to being lied to, the public will swallow any falsehood that is clad in attractive colors and accepts that the usually ignorant announcers have full authority to pronounce on a host of matters, in which they have only a spurious insight but of which they claim full knowledge. The smarter and therefore more dangerous news announcers will bring to the screen (in the case of television) those prejudicial “intellectuals’ who are primed to reinforce whatever is being presented as the truth and only as the truth. It has become in fact a totalitarian system of the first grade and it would have been envied by many Third Reich propagandists. Listening to television ‘news’ or reading the dailies one is apt to forget that whatever is reported is but one side of reality and that in most cases the distortions are so severe that it is hard to distinguish between sheer fantasy and any true reportage (of which there is a shameless scarcity). Thus it is no wonder that the US public perceives world events and internal affairs from the dense cloud of smoke blowing information services. Thus each television cable ‘news’ channel pushes its own agenda as do the ‘news’ papers, dictated by the interests of their big stock holders and the cacophony of opposing voices would indeed be a democratic right to differ in opinion were it the case that these were representing the voice of the people, which they do not. On the contrary the dissonance is but a direct reflection of the establishment’s internecine wars which are fought over and beyond the will of the people.

Comments are closed.