Exactly 200 days before the
crucial midterm election that will determine whether Republicans maintain
control of Congress, the Democratic National Committee filed a 66-page lawsuit
that surely cost lots of money and energy to assemble.
Does the lawsuit target
purveyors of racist barriers to voting that block and deflect so many people of
color from casting their ballots?
No.
Well, perhaps this ballyhooed
lawsuit aims to ensure the rights of people who don’t mainly speak English to
get full access to voting information?
Unfortunately, no.
Maybe it’s a legal action to
challenge the ridiculously sparse voting booths provided in college precincts?
Not that either.
Announced with a flourish by
DNC Chair Tom Perez, the civil
lawsuit—which reads like a partisan polemic wrapped in legalisms—sues the
Russian government, the Trump campaign and operatives, as well as WikiLeaks and
its founding editor, Julian Assange.
It’s hard to imagine that many
voters in swing districts—who’ll determine whether the GOP runs the House
through the end of 2020—will be swayed by the Russia-related accusations
contained in the lawsuit. People are far more concerned about economic
insecurity for themselves and their families, underscored by such matters as
the skyrocketing costs of health care and college education.
To emphasize that “this is a
patriotic—not partisan—move,” Perez’s announcement of the lawsuit on April 20
quoted one politician, Republican Sen. John McCain, reaching for the hyperbolic
sky: “When you attack a country, it’s an act of war. And so we have to make
sure that there is a price to pay, so that we can perhaps persuade the Russians
to stop these kind of attacks on our very fundamentals of democracy.”
Setting aside the dangerous
rhetoric about “an act of war,” it’s an odd quotation to choose. For Russia,
there’s no “price to pay” from a civil lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York. As the DNC well knows, any judgment
against such entities as the Russian Federation and the general staff of its
armed forces would be unenforceable.
The DNC’s lawsuit amounts to
doubling down on its fixation of blaming Russia for the Democratic Party’s
monumental 2016 loss, at a time when it’s essential to remedy the failed
approaches that were major causes of Hillary Clinton’s defeat in the first
place. Instead of confronting its fealty to Wall Street or overall failure to side
with working-class voters against economic elites, the Democratic National
Committee is ramping up the party leadership’s 18-month fixation on Russia
Russia Russia.
After a humongous political
investment in depicting Vladimir Putin as a pivotal Trump patron and a mortal
threat to American democracy, strategists atop the Democratic Party don’t want
to let up on seeking a big return from that investment. Protecting the
investment will continue to mean opposing the “threat” of détente between the
world’s two nuclear superpowers, while giving the party a political stake in
thwarting any warming of the current ominously frigid relations between Moscow
and Washington.
In truth, the party’s Russia
fixation leaves significantly less messaging space for economic and social
issues that the vast majority of Americans care about far more. Similarly, the
Russia obsession at MSNBC (which routinely seems like “MSDNC”) has left scant
airtime for addressing, or even noting, the economic concerns of so many
Americans. (For instance, see the data in FAIR’s
study, “Russia or Corporate Tax Cuts: Which Would Comcast Rather MSNBC
Cover?”)
But even some of the
congressional Democrats who’ve been prominent “Russiagate” enthusiasts have
recognized that the lawsuit is off track. When Wolf Blitzer on
CNN asked a member of the House Intelligence Committee, Jackie Speier,
whether she believes that Perez and his DNC team “are making a big mistake by
filing this lawsuit,” the California congresswoman’s reply was blunt: “Well,
I’m not supportive of it. Whether it’s a mistake or not we’ll soon find out.”
Speier called the lawsuit “ill-conceived.”
The most unprincipled part of
the lawsuit has to do with its targeting of Assange and WikiLeaks. That aspect
of the suit shows that the DNC is being run by people whose attitude toward a
free press—ironically enough—has marked similarities to Donald Trump’s.
Early in his presidency, Trump
proclaimed that news media are “the enemy of the American people.” Of
course, he didn’t mean all media, just the outlets providing information and
analysis he doesn’t like.
What Perez and the DNC crew
are now promoting via the lawsuit is also harmful, though more camouflaged. The
lawsuit’s key arguments against WikiLeaks are contrary to the First Amendment,
and they could be made against major U.S. newspapers. Unauthorized disclosures
are common, with news outlets routinely reporting on information obtained from
leaks, hacks and various forms of theft.
Just as the government’s
criminal prosecutions for leaks are extremely
selective, the DNC position is that a media outlet that’s despised by a
powerful party could be sued for potentially huge sums.
But—unless it’s functionally
shredded—the First Amendment doesn’t only protect media outlets that powerful
interests believe are behaving acceptably. That’s why the Nixon administration
was unable to prevent The New York Times and Washington Post from publishing
the Pentagon Papers in 1971.
Now, the DNC lawsuit’s
perverse “logic” for suing WikiLeaks could just as easily be applied by any
deep-pocketed group that wants to strike back at a publisher for revealing
“stolen” information that harmed the aggrieved party.
In view of the national
Democratic Party’s deference
to corporate power, we might see why the DNC is taking the current
approach. It would be a much steeper uphill challenge to actually champion the
interests of most Americans—which would require taking on Wall Street, a key
patron of both major political parties.
Nor would it be easy for the Democratic
Party to advocate for U.S.-Russia détente that could reduce the risks of
nuclear conflagration. Such advocacy would enrage the kingpins of the
military-industrial cartel complex as well as most of the corporate-owned and
corporate-advertised news media.
How much easier it is to make
some political hay by targeting Russia with a civil lawsuit. How much more
convenient it is to show utter
contempt for the First Amendment by suing Julian Assange and
WikiLeaks.
A loud and clear message from
the Democrats’ 2016 election debacle is that hoping for working-class votes
while refusing to do battle against corporate exploiters of the working class
is a political dead end. “The mainstream Democratic storyline of victims
without victimizers lacks both plausibility and passion,” says an independent
report, “Autopsy: The Democratic Party
in Crisis.” Six months after the release of that report (which I
co-authored), the DNC still is unwilling to polarize with elite corporate
interests, while remaining extra eager to portray Russia and WikiLeaks as
liable for the 2016 disaster.
So, unfortunately, this
assessment in the “Autopsy” remains all too relevant: “The idea that the
Democrats can somehow convince Wall Street to work on behalf of Main Street
through mild chiding, rather than acting as Main Street’s champion against the
wealthy, no longer resonates. We live in a time of unrest and justified
cynicism towards those in power; Democrats will not win if they continue to
bring a wonk knife to a populist gunfight. Nor can Democratic leaders and
operatives be seen as real allies of the working class if they’re afraid to
alienate big funders or to harm future job or consulting prospects.”
Willingness to challenge Wall
Street would certainly alienate some of the Democratic Party’s big donors. And
such moves would likely curb the future earning power of high-ranking party
officials, who can now look forward to upward spikes in incomes from consultant
deals and cushy positions at well-heeled firms. With eyes on the prizes from
corporate largesse, DNC officials don’t see downsides to whacking at WikiLeaks and
undermining press freedom in the process.
No comments:
Post a Comment