Nikolay Pakhomov on Russia as a topic of US election campaign
Anti-Russian Consolidation of American Establishment
03.11.2016
Nikolay Pakhomov
Both American and foreign observers regardless of their political preferences and area of specialization almost unanimously say that the current American presidential campaign demonstrates general crisis of the US political system. Any crisis means that a system does not function properly, so a search for a solution starts. From this point of view, it is highly interesting to follow what is happening in America now, especially taking into account the fact that this political crisis has exposed the problems of Russian-American relations. For instance, as a consequence of the crisis the reasons for these problems have become clear.
The storyline of the electoral campaign is already well-known: Donald Trump declared himself a candidate going against the establishment. This step provided him with solid support of the voters. It is no wonder that during the campaign different American elites ranged themselves against the billionaire and rallied around Hillary Clinton. It is also obvious that with the existing alignment of forces Clinton expresses the stance of the establishment on this or that issue. In this connection it is particularly interesting to observers in Russia that American elites declared Trump “Putin’s puppet” and try to frighten voters with the fact that Russia stands behind the billionaire.
Posing the question this way provides an enormous study area for experts analyzing the perception of Russia in the United States. There is much data for study – from the remaining since the Cold War Era Soviet/Russian image of a rival, to stand against which national solidarity is needed, to some certain problems of Russian-American relations. Discussions of these relations in the USA are taking odd shapes: last week Russia faced chargers not only for interfering with the American electoral process, but also for allegedly cherishing an idea to organize a “color revolution” in the United States.
Deficit of common sense in this electoral campaign is not surprising, but even taking this into account posing the question this way is quite odd. This approach with any rendering differs significantly from the official American stance on “color revolutions”. It seems that adherents of this vision, blaming Russia and Putin, regard “color revolutions” as a negative phenomenon and this differs dramatically from both official American position and prevailing in the West experts’ definitions. But here comes a nuance: at the moment the point is that “color revolutions” in the former Soviet Union were genuine, democratic, but Russian president does not understand this and wants to carry out an “inadequate color revolution”.
This odd logic can hardly be worth close examination, but the fact is that it exposes the ongoing process of anti-Russian consolidation of the establishment. So, it should be given careful examination. To begin with, whatever – “adequate” or “inadequate” – “color revolutions” in the former Soviet Union were, it turns out that there are reasons to associate them with Washington. And this is obvious even in the United States.
What is more important, to prove the existence of Russia’s plans to carry out a “color revolution” in the USA and the same revolutions in the post-Soviet space they compare current American situation with the realias of the former Soviet republics. So, alleged Russia’s plans rest on real US problems and protest moods provoked by these problems (an idea to call these problems a part of the Russia’s plan does not come even to the most heated brains of American op-eds authors).
In other words, it is not Putin or “Russian hackers” who convinced Americans that there is widespread corruption in the USA (according to Gallup, 75% of Americans think that their authorities are corrupted), that politicians are unreliable (only 20% of Americans trust the authorities), that there may be irregularities in the vote count. Commenting on the probability of these irregularities formerly candidate for presidency, mayor of New York City, United States attorney and accomplished lawyer Rudy Giuliani, now supporting Trump, noticed that while assessing the probability of the electoral fraud in some regions of the country as high, he was guided by his experience as an elective politician and attorney, investigating these frauds. Giuliani is not the only one who is apprehensive about the frauds at the upcoming elections. Needless to say that these apprehensions, founded on experience, have nothing to do with Russia’s actions whether they are real or made-up by anti-Russian campaigners in America.
Meanwhile, ordinary voters have enough reasons for protests even without alleged intrigues of Moscow. Clinton supporters and Democratic Party functionaries in every possible way try to avoid the issue of Clinton team’s email correspondence released by WikiLeaks, explaining that, firstly, Russia is behind the leaks, so, discussing the topic is unpatriotic, secondly, some of the emails are falsified. Both arguments are fallible: first, even the US intelligence cautiously go on Russia’s involvement, saying that there are reasons for suspecting Russia, but providing no evidence, second, nobody has explained exactly which emails and in what way were falsified. However, all suspicions of Russia’s involvement in creating negative image of Hillary Clinton can be taken off the table: information provided through legal channels that for sure have no connections with Russia is enough. For instance, now Republicans are spreading information gathered by journalists without WikiLeaks about the time when Clinton hold office of the Secretary of State and gave contracts to rebuild Haiti to companies that previously sponsored Clintons’ charity.
These and many more examples show that, put it mildly, Russia’s intrigues can hardly account for the current protest moods in the USA that secure Donald Trump’s support. The billionaire built up his campaign around the anti-establishment rhetoric, as a consequence, one can observe consolidation of the American elites regardless of their political preferences around Hillary Clinton. Anti-Russian rhetoric is just one more way of consolidating elites. Mass media popularize this rhetoric (it is remarkable that today Clinton’s supporters blame journalists citing WikiLeaks for contributing to “Russia’s plan” aimed at undermining the US democratic system). Mass media present Russia as a rival, whose intrigues can account for everything.
In the nearest future it will become clear whether this image will be popular after the elections. According to the pre-election dynamics, Clinton’s victory is the most likely outcome of the elections. Taking into account confrontational and heated rhetoric of the campaign and Hillary Clinton’s personal rating that is not so high, experts predict difficulties with legitimacy and forming coalitions, necessary to take and implement decisions. In other words, her immediate success as president is doubtful. From this perspective, anti-Russian rhetoric is likely to be resorted to even later on to distract citizens’ attention from real problems and to explain difficulties, especially in foreign policy, with Russia’s intrigues. Time will show whether Clinton will win and how long the anti-Russian card will be played in American politics. However, even today it is already possible to say that during this electoral campaign American political leaders and mass media have promoted an image of Russia as a rival and to stand against this rival national solidarity is needed.
Originally published http://rethinkingrussia.ru/en/2016/11/anti-russian-consolidation-of-american-establishment/
Nikolay Pakhomov on Russia as a topic of US election campaign
Anti-Russian Consolidation of American Establishment
03.11.2016
Nikolay Pakhomov
Both American and foreign observers regardless of their political preferences and area of specialization almost unanimously say that the current American presidential campaign demonstrates general crisis of the US political system. Any crisis means that a system does not function properly, so a search for a solution starts. From this point of view, it is highly interesting to follow what is happening in America now, especially taking into account the fact that this political crisis has exposed the problems of Russian-American relations. For instance, as a consequence of the crisis the reasons for these problems have become clear.
The storyline of the electoral campaign is already well-known: Donald Trump declared himself a candidate going against the establishment. This step provided him with solid support of the voters. It is no wonder that during the campaign different American elites ranged themselves against the billionaire and rallied around Hillary Clinton. It is also obvious that with the existing alignment of forces Clinton expresses the stance of the establishment on this or that issue. In this connection it is particularly interesting to observers in Russia that American elites declared Trump “Putin’s puppet” and try to frighten voters with the fact that Russia stands behind the billionaire.
Posing the question this way provides an enormous study area for experts analyzing the perception of Russia in the United States. There is much data for study – from the remaining since the Cold War Era Soviet/Russian image of a rival, to stand against which national solidarity is needed, to some certain problems of Russian-American relations. Discussions of these relations in the USA are taking odd shapes: last week Russia faced chargers not only for interfering with the American electoral process, but also for allegedly cherishing an idea to organize a “color revolution” in the United States.
Deficit of common sense in this electoral campaign is not surprising, but even taking this into account posing the question this way is quite odd. This approach with any rendering differs significantly from the official American stance on “color revolutions”. It seems that adherents of this vision, blaming Russia and Putin, regard “color revolutions” as a negative phenomenon and this differs dramatically from both official American position and prevailing in the West experts’ definitions. But here comes a nuance: at the moment the point is that “color revolutions” in the former Soviet Union were genuine, democratic, but Russian president does not understand this and wants to carry out an “inadequate color revolution”.
This odd logic can hardly be worth close examination, but the fact is that it exposes the ongoing process of anti-Russian consolidation of the establishment. So, it should be given careful examination. To begin with, whatever – “adequate” or “inadequate” – “color revolutions” in the former Soviet Union were, it turns out that there are reasons to associate them with Washington. And this is obvious even in the United States.
What is more important, to prove the existence of Russia’s plans to carry out a “color revolution” in the USA and the same revolutions in the post-Soviet space they compare current American situation with the realias of the former Soviet republics. So, alleged Russia’s plans rest on real US problems and protest moods provoked by these problems (an idea to call these problems a part of the Russia’s plan does not come even to the most heated brains of American op-eds authors).
In other words, it is not Putin or “Russian hackers” who convinced Americans that there is widespread corruption in the USA (according to Gallup, 75% of Americans think that their authorities are corrupted), that politicians are unreliable (only 20% of Americans trust the authorities), that there may be irregularities in the vote count. Commenting on the probability of these irregularities formerly candidate for presidency, mayor of New York City, United States attorney and accomplished lawyer Rudy Giuliani, now supporting Trump, noticed that while assessing the probability of the electoral fraud in some regions of the country as high, he was guided by his experience as an elective politician and attorney, investigating these frauds. Giuliani is not the only one who is apprehensive about the frauds at the upcoming elections. Needless to say that these apprehensions, founded on experience, have nothing to do with Russia’s actions whether they are real or made-up by anti-Russian campaigners in America.
Meanwhile, ordinary voters have enough reasons for protests even without alleged intrigues of Moscow. Clinton supporters and Democratic Party functionaries in every possible way try to avoid the issue of Clinton team’s email correspondence released by WikiLeaks, explaining that, firstly, Russia is behind the leaks, so, discussing the topic is unpatriotic, secondly, some of the emails are falsified. Both arguments are fallible: first, even the US intelligence cautiously go on Russia’s involvement, saying that there are reasons for suspecting Russia, but providing no evidence, second, nobody has explained exactly which emails and in what way were falsified. However, all suspicions of Russia’s involvement in creating negative image of Hillary Clinton can be taken off the table: information provided through legal channels that for sure have no connections with Russia is enough. For instance, now Republicans are spreading information gathered by journalists without WikiLeaks about the time when Clinton hold office of the Secretary of State and gave contracts to rebuild Haiti to companies that previously sponsored Clintons’ charity.
These and many more examples show that, put it mildly, Russia’s intrigues can hardly account for the current protest moods in the USA that secure Donald Trump’s support. The billionaire built up his campaign around the anti-establishment rhetoric, as a consequence, one can observe consolidation of the American elites regardless of their political preferences around Hillary Clinton. Anti-Russian rhetoric is just one more way of consolidating elites. Mass media popularize this rhetoric (it is remarkable that today Clinton’s supporters blame journalists citing WikiLeaks for contributing to “Russia’s plan” aimed at undermining the US democratic system). Mass media present Russia as a rival, whose intrigues can account for everything.
In the nearest future it will become clear whether this image will be popular after the elections. According to the pre-election dynamics, Clinton’s victory is the most likely outcome of the elections. Taking into account confrontational and heated rhetoric of the campaign and Hillary Clinton’s personal rating that is not so high, experts predict difficulties with legitimacy and forming coalitions, necessary to take and implement decisions. In other words, her immediate success as president is doubtful. From this perspective, anti-Russian rhetoric is likely to be resorted to even later on to distract citizens’ attention from real problems and to explain difficulties, especially in foreign policy, with Russia’s intrigues. Time will show whether Clinton will win and how long the anti-Russian card will be played in American politics. However, even today it is already possible to say that during this electoral campaign American political leaders and mass media have promoted an image of Russia as a rival and to stand against this rival national solidarity is needed.
Originally published http://rethinkingrussia.ru/en/2016/11/anti-russian-consolidation-of-american-establishment/