Who’s More Anti-American, Russia Today or the US Director of National Intelligence?

English: Visiting the Russia Today television ...
English: Visiting the Russia Today television channel’s offices. With Editor-in-Chief of Russia Today Margarita Simonyan. Русский: Посещение телекомплекса «Russia Today». С главным редактором телеканала «Russia Today» Маргаритой Симоньян. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Someone should take US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper aside for a talk. He desperately needs to be told that when you’re deep in a hole, the first step toward getting out is to stop digging.

Clapper’s been in such a hole since 2013, when he got caught lying to Congress about the National Security Agency’s surveillance of and data collection on Americans. Oops.

On January 6, he fired up a backhoe and dug himself six feet deeper when his office issue a report on alleged Russian hacking in relation to the 2016 US presidential election.

Like previous such reports, this one — “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections” — offers no actual evidence of Russian state cyber warfare on America’s election systems or political parties. If any such evidence exists, it remains a state secret. Most of us have hopefully learned by now that when the US intelligence community says “trust us,” that’s the very last thing we should do.

In lieu of the missing evidence, the report offers definitions of foreign propaganda that should chill any any freedom-loving American to the bone.

The ODNI report takes on Russian state media — specifically, Russia Today, the Putin regime’s global television equivalent of US propaganda outlets like Radio Free Europe and Radio y Television Marti.

A few excerpts from the report’s criticisms of RT:

“RT ran numerous reports on alleged US election fraud and voting machine vulnerabilities, contending that US election results cannot be trusted and do not reflect the popular will.”

Oddly, this seems to be precisely what American mainstream media have been telling us for the last two months … and blaming the Russians for!

“In an effort to highlight the alleged ‘lack of democracy’ in the United States, RT broadcast, hosted, and advertised third party
candidate debates and ran reporting supportive of the political agenda of these candidates. The RT hosts asserted that the US two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a ‘sham.'”

So Russia Today does what American media mostly refuse to do: It allows third party candidates to be part of the public discussion. And this is a bad thing exactly how?

“RT’s reports often characterize the United States as a ‘surveillance state’ and allege widespread infringements of civil liberties, police brutality, and drone use …”

Does anyone seriously doubt that characterization or those allegations?

Most Americans are presumably politically savvy enough to understand that media financed and/or operated by governments will support those governments’ agendas. Of course we should be skeptical of Russia Today … and of National Public Radio. But not as skeptical of either as we should be of the Office of the  Director of National Intelligence.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION HISTORY

Term Limits: Painkiller, Not Cure

Ballot

US president-elect Donald Trump called for congressional term limits during his campaign. He’s not yet been sworn in, but Congress is already back in session and answering that call. On January 3, US Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) — one of Trump’s opponents in last year’s GOP primaries — and US Representative Ron DeSantis (R-FL) proposed a constitutional amendment limiting Senators to two (six-year) terms and Representatives to three (two-year terms).

Term limits are incredibly popular. Voters enact them whenever given the opportunity to do so at the state level. In an October poll conducted by Rasmussen, 74% of likely voters supported congressional term limits, with only 13% opposed, and with super-majority support across party lines and among independents.

Are term limits a good idea? Sure. I personally hope this amendment gets the required 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress and is ratified by 3/4 of the states’ legislatures.

But don’t mistake term limits for a panacea.

As some wags would have it, we already enjoy term limits. They’re called “elections.” Voters are free to send politicians home at the end of any term (provided those politicians have election opponents, which is usually although not always the case). But they seldom do so. US House and Senate re-election rates bottom out at about 80% in a bad year for incumbents.

Two favorite arguments in favor of term limits are that they will replace the corruption and careerism of incumbency with wholesome “citizen legislators” who labor briefly in the political vineyards before returning to private life. But will that really work out?

Sure, a term-limited congressperson can’t leverage the power of seniority to reward backers and cronies with government favors like a “congressperson for life” can. On the other hand, a term-limited congressperson might just sell out more quickly and completely, making as much hay as possible while the sun briefly shines.

And in the face of term limits, the forces of corruption may focus more on the “farm team” strategy of shoveling graft at up-and-coming city council members and state legislators so that they arrive in Washington already primed to play ball after years of doing just that.  Pre-corrupted, so to speak, before they even begin their maximum six years  in the house and 12 years in the Senate, which is pretty much a career anyway.

Limit terms? OK. But don’t expect miracles. An expiration date may help, but it’s no substitute for sending politicians home for bad behavior.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION HISTORY

New Boss(es), Same as The Old Boss(es)

English: Aerial view of the White House in Was...
English: Aerial view of the White House in Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Donald Trump ran for president in part on a promise to “drain the swamp” that is Washington, DC. He positioned himself as a political outsider, beholden to no one and capable of bringing sweeping  changes to a federal government set in its ways. But as Inauguration Day approaches, it’s becoming increasingly clear that the fundamentals aren’t going to change much.

While Trump’s cabinet picks do reflect the usual party line changing of the guard, they’re hardly “outsiders” by any conventional definition.

So far Trump has named three sitting members of Congress to head up executive branch departments: US Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) for Attorney General, US Representative Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) to run the Office of Management and Budget, and US Representative Tom Price (R-GA) for Secretary of Health and Human Services.

His Secretary of State designee, Rex Tillerson, is putatively a private sector type as CEO of ExxonMobil. In reality he’s the consummate political insider. He’s a frequent speaker at Council on Foreign Relations events and sits on the board of the Center for Strategic and International Studies; these are two of the most “establishment” organizations on the block. Over the years he’s donated around half a million dollars to Republican candidates and PACs.

Secretary of Labor nominee Andrew Puzder is national co-chair of the wholeheartedly establishment American Enterprise Institute.

Incoming Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao is a former Deputy Secretary of Transportation, a former Secretary of Labor, and the spouse of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

Speaking of McConnell, even if Trump wanted to clean house he would have to deal with Congress. McConnell remains Senate Majority Leader; the Democrats have a new Senate Minority Leader (New York’s Charles Schumer), but only because Nevada’s Harry Reid retired. On January 3, Republicans in the US House of Representatives were nearly unanimous in re-electing Paul Ryan as Speaker, as were Democrats in retaining Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

So far, the incoming Trump administration looks a lot like George W. Bush’s fifth term (the third and fourth were served by the supposedly “transformative,” hope-y, change-y Barack Obama, who gave us eight years of business as usual), with a Congress to match.

That might actually be the best outcome we can hope for. But I suspect Trump’s most devoted supporters will be sorely disappointed.

If 2016 was The Year of Trump The Outsider, 2017 looks set to be The Year of Sorry, Trump Was Only Kidding.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION HISTORY