The Soviet tsar and Crazy Man Flynn — an exercise in manufactured delusion

© 2017 Peter Free

 

16 February 2017

 

 

The process of American governance is like an unending trip inside an LSD tripper's head

 

Nothing much there is connected to reality. Yet the imaginary landscape's hallucinations seem so real.

 

 

Consider the Mike Flynn episode

 

You know, the guy who was National Security Advisor for 24 days. And then got bounced because he had the allegedly "traitorous" effrontery to talk to the Russians before Republican Boss Trump was inaugurated.

 

Had Hillary Clinton Democrats done this, they would have considered the conversation(s) good transition planning.

 

But since Democrats did not have the opportunity to call across the seas in the name of Imperial America — given wannabe queen Hillary's campaign ineptitude — her Democrat courtiers (and their toadying CIA) decided months ago to float the (triple no proof) idea that:

 

 

(a) the Russians manipulated and stole the American election from "Kill Em Dead" Hillary Cee

 

and

 

(b) gave it to Donald "Banana King" Trump

 

and further that —

 

(c) Tsar Vlad was running Puppet-Boy Donald from his Kommie Kavorting Kremlin.

 

 

"OMG!"

 

Where is Smearin' Joe McCarthy when we need him?

 

 

And so

 

When Mike Flynn turned out to have spoken to the Rooskies without permission from the outgoing Emperor of High-Pocrisy (President Barack Obama) — perhaps the last of his Harvardly sad line — it was a seee-ri-ous matter indeed.

 

Traitor-ship in the White House?

 

Double OMG.

 

 

Now, think about this

 

This Russian influence thing has gained a life of its own. You will recall that no substantive proof of Russian election hacking has been released. Much less any indication whatsoever that whatever was (or was not) done influenced anybody to do (or not do) anything.

 

But even in this absence of proof, most Americans have accepted that Tsar Vlad is now running Donald of Orange's Administration.

 

 

The alleged proof of this delusion's accuracy?

 

Why that's easy. Former General Mike Flynn was hobnobbing with those unreformed Soviets, even before King Trump took the reins of power. Gosh knows what he might have been telling them.

 

 

None of this makes much sense, of course

 

General Flynn, unrepentantly abrasive and arguably foolish person though he is reputed to be, is obviously not a traitor.

 

Donald of Orange certainly is not either.

 

The fact that the President does not want to lose his Russian wealth connection is different than wanting to sell America out. Just because the President (wisely in my opinion) does not see the Russian Federation as a geopolitical Adversary from Hell does not make him unfit for office.

 

But instead of more generally dealing with the conflicts of interest that wealth generates in those holding political office — our entire Public is now consumed with the specific idea that Soviet-stench-wearing Rooskies have somehow puppet-ized the Trump Administration.

 

President Trump's opponents have seized on the "Russians did it" issue to slime the Administration before there is much substance to slime it with.

 

 

Leaving aside, of course, President Trump's probable megalomaniacal narcissistic character flaws. Which are, in my historically and mildly medically educated opinion, not all that dramatically more pronounced than some other American presidents have possessed. The non-Trumps just concealed their personality flaws more skillfully.

 

 

President Trump's widely scattered assets probably influence him no more than those belonging to the previous oligarchical spawn who have occupied the White House.

 

Instead of Saudi Arabia, for example — à la the Bush Dynasty — some of President Donald's important assets just happen to be associated with Russia.

 

If we were to consider the overall negative effect that Saudi Arabia and the Russian Federation have had on objectively assessed U.S. national interests, Saudi Arabia might easily come out as the bigger (objectively considered) pain in the ass.

 

The core problem then is not loyalty, but globally scattered wealth and the judgment-impairing conflicts of interest that those predictably fuel. But, again, which recent American president can we fairly say has been free of those?

 

If we contemplate the hold that Plutocracy has on the Office of the Presidency, we can fairly conclude that no occupant is genuinely free to consider the United States' objectively assessed well-being. Instead, presidents' self-interests go where the Oligarchy points them.

 

 

Oh my, Pete, such annoying complexity of thought!

 

Let's just go back to those malevolent Russians and give our tiny brains a rest.

 

It is so much easier — and enormously more emotionally satisfying — to see the Russian Federation as the incarnation of that portion of evil left over after Islamic terrorists are subtracted out.

 

 

The moral? — Democrats made something out of pretty much nothing and look where it went

 

Adios, General Flynn.

 

The Donkey People's manufactured delusion caught you up. Maybe we can get a war out of it now. Won't that be fun?

 

 

Note

 

If you want blow by blow specifics — showing how these world-shaping fantasies are created — read (for example) two of Thomas Frank's books.

 

The first exposes the Republican Party's historically pro-Robber Baron anti-democratic bias and the myths they generate to tear legitimate democracy down:

 

 

The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Ruined Government, Enriched Themselves, and Beggared the Nation (Metropolitian Books, 2008)

 

 

The second book does the same for Republicans' mostly pretend adversaries, the Democrats:

 

 

Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?(Metropolitan Books, 2016)

 

 

The battle between the two American political parties is much more about who gets the chance to loot, than it is about any philosophically principled disagreement regarding social structure and governance.

 

Indeed, a key to recognizing that a political scam is in progress is to realize that the more overtly philosophical the terms used are — the less likely anything true or substantive is being said.