Noam Chomsky vs. Thomas O. Melia push opposite lines on whether America is worse or better than Russia in terms of interference with elections. Chomsky points out that, in addition to electoral manipulation efforts by the CIA and others, America just overthrows countries and replaces their whole governments sometimes; Melia says much of what people like Chomsky are pointing to are efforts to improve democracy, and shouldn't be put in the same category as the CIA's activities (which he admits occur).
Chomsky dodges the fact that Russia also replaces governments it doesn't care for if it can, and has for decades; and just conquers nearby territories, sometimes, if it wants to do so. But there is a basic point here about which Melia is right that goes beyond that. America still has an ideology to push, which is liberty -- personal freedom, democracy, and the economic freedoms of capitalism. We'll see if that agenda survives the American Left's response to the Trump administration, but for now it is still what America does. Russia used to have an ideology when it was the Soviet Union; now it is just a gangster state trying to take for itself what it can. (Ironically, given the facts of the Communist ideology, this represents a substantial improvement in the character of the Russian state.)
America probably does interfere with other countries governance more often than Russia, and to a greater degree. It does so, however, in pursuit of a vision of the good. Is that adequate to excuse its violations of the sovereignty of other nations? That's a question that would require a lot of groundwork to explore.
7 comments:
Hadn't thought of this before, but the question is akin to 'is conversion by the sword actually effective?'.
There are good arguments that it is not.
Just a quick first impression.
I'd like to see us do whatever is necessary in the way of espionage to protect ourselves from attack. I'm also comfortable with a lot of skullduggery if necessary to bust people out of a prison state like North Korea, or like the former Soviet bloc. Beyond that, I'd rather see us foster democracy by opening our borders as much as possible (to immigrants who would be firmly expected to assimilate) and by providing an attractive example. Iraqis and Venezuelans should be thinking, for instance, "I wonder why we have all this oil but can't keep the lights on? Is there something about our system that needs to change, since the problem clearly isn't an unfair lack of material resources?" So if we nefariously infiltrate societies with true information about how things are done in other countries, I'm good with that.
I can't honestly say I'm outraged when another country hacks our political databases and exposes true information about that, either. If they'd done it to the GOP instead of the DNC, and I'd been horribly embarrassed by some awful exposed secret, I hope I'd be taking my lumps patiently. Now, if I caught anyone domestic or foreign fiddling with the vote counts, I'd throw them under the jail if I could. But straight propaganda, or even simple leaks? Just can't get that excited. Nor do I call it "collusion" if Trump signals that he'd be tickled pink if Russia or China got hold of Clinton's emails. You don't do "collusion" on national TV.
On the whole, I'm with T99 on this. I'd as soon have seriously sealed borders, with border crossing facilities every mile for those who want to enter legally to do so, and I'd as soon lose the immigrant quotas. The only requirements should be that they demonstrably want to assimilate, have skills--including just a willlingness to do unskilled/low skilled labor--that are useful to us, and pass background checks.
I'm more outraged by the ease with which our enemies (and our friends) hack our systems than I am by the fact that they try. The ease, in fact, in many cases demonstrates a real give-a-s** attitude concerning security. There's a school of security that says we should have none, let our enemies know everything; that way there'd be no guesswork about what they know about us, and we'd be better able to predict what they'll do. It's a bankrupt school.
We need, badly, to step up our own skills in espionage, sabotage, information dissemination skills.
Eric Hines
As a reminder, it is axiomatic that 'the end NEVER justifies the means.'
We may debate which 'means' are seriously immoral; e.g., may we stuff 1,000 or 100,000 votes into a ballot box? Is that immoral? Seriously immoral? On the other hand, assassinations are simply out of the question.
May we use "little white" lies? Or is un-truth forbidden? What about purchase of votes with the Democrats' tool, "walking-around money"?
I think you're on solid ground regarding our support for non-Communist governments during the Cold War. Since then? Maybe not so much. Iraq falls under 'you broke it you bought it' but Clinton in Serbia? W's interventions in the FSU? Obama meddeling in Isreal? I'm inclined to side with Chomsky, much as I dislike to.
There may not be a straight line justification, but ends and means are certainly related. The end of victory in a just war opens up a lot of means that are off the table in peacetime.
W's interventions in the FSU? Obama meddeling in Isreal? I'm inclined to side with Chomsky, much as I dislike to.
Chomsky's not completely wrong here even from my perspective. I do think that the left conceives of Israel as an apartheid state, or very close to it; as such, interference with them (insofar as it is aimed at improving the lot of the Palestinians) would fall under this heading for them. For those of us who think reasonably well of Israel, and believe that a Jewish state is appropriate and proper given the history, the case looks quite different.
Post a Comment