By David French
Friday, January 06, 2017
It’s a sign of our hyper-polarized times that we can’t
seem to sort through the simplest of controversies. Yes, the debate over
whether Russia used WikiLeaks (and other means) to attempt to influence the
2016 election is important, but that doesn’t make it remotely complex.
Factually and conceptually there is ample ground for consensus. Let’s start
with four key truths.
First, WikiLeaks is not our friend. As Jonah Goldberg
relates in his piece today, it’s been astonishing to watch attitudes shift on
Julian Assange & Co. When it was busy engineering and facilitating the
largest intelligence leaks in American military history, WikiLeaks was praised
by fringe figures on the left and universally reviled on the right. Now it’s
reviled on the left and praised on the right.
This is unconscionable. WikiLeaks is not suddenly under
new management, and Assange has not had a change of heart. He has targeted the
American government time and again. He’s placed American allies in mortal danger.
He opposes the U.S. and is sympathetic to its enemies. It’s obvious every time
he opens his mouth, and every time he dumps reams of damaging information into
the public square even as he spares authoritarian regimes such as Russia and
China the same embarrassment. If you dance with WikiLeaks, you dance with the
devil.
Second, Americans should unite in opposition to foreign
attempts to influence election outcomes. It’s fair to ask whether Russia did in
fact attempt to influence American public opinion through illegitimate means.
It’s one thing for foreign leaders to publicly criticize candidates. It’s
another thing entirely to steal information, plant fake stories in the media,
and otherwise use deception and subterfuge to influence our Democratic process.
We can’t be afraid of the truth. There has to be a
complete and (to the extent possible without disclosing vital intelligence
assets) transparent public investigation of Russian intelligence activities in
2016. We have to examine actions and
intentions. We have to examine the extent of the damage, if any, and gauge as much
as possible the impact on our politics. This is a matter of national defense.
It’s vital that we protect our constitutional structure from foreign enemies.
In the weeks since our intelligence agencies accused the
Russians of meddling in the election, however, it seems like parts of the GOP
have been transplanted to the Berkeley quad circa 1971. There’s anti-government
paranoia (“This is all a conspiracy against Trump!”) and moral equivalence (“So
what? America interferes with foreign governments all the time”). That’s the
power of polarization. The quest for victory transforms you into the very thing
you once claimed to hate.
Third, politicians, including the president-elect,
shouldn’t publicly attack intelligence agencies simply because those agencies
reach disagreeable conclusions. No, the U.S. intelligence community isn’t
perfect. Yes, there have been times when intelligence was not just flawed, but
politicized. But it is unprecedented for the president-elect of the United
States to cast aspersions on intelligence conclusions before he’s seen the evidence.
No good can come of this development. It places pressure
on eager-to-please bureaucrats to tell the incoming president what he wants to
hear. It antagonizes hostile bureaucrats, incentivizing conflict between the
Oval Office and our intelligence agencies. And in so doing, it makes the
already-difficult job of obtaining and evaluating intelligence that much harder
at a time when the stakes are extraordinarily high.
Fourth, there is still no evidence that the Russians
changed the outcome of the election. It is true that Julian Assange is
anti-American. It’s likely true that the Russians worked to disrupt and
influence American public debate, and it’s possibly true that they did so to
elect Donald Trump. But it’s still wildly speculative to claim that Russian
actions were decisive.
The Russians didn’t hack voting machines. They didn’t
change vote tallies. Any “fake” news stories were lost like tears in the rain
of news. The WikiLeaks revelations were but one small part of an election cycle
that sometimes seemed to feature not just a scandal per day, but a scandal per
hour. One of America’s most well-known celebrities ran against one of America’s
most well-known politicians. After billions of dollars worth of earned and
purchased media, after millions of words of coverage, both candidates ended up
where they began —disliked by a majority of Americans. Indeed, Trump won
despite being more disliked than Hillary. His unfavorability rating was a
stunning 60 percent. Hers was “only” 55 percent.
In a world where both Clinton and Trump were
controversial figures for decades, are we really to believe that John Podesta’s
e-mails tipped the balance? It’s implausible, at best.
As with so many pre-inauguration controversies, the hype
is worse than the substance, and the hype causes even good people to say and do
foolish things. Now is not the time to reevaluate clear truths about WikiLeaks
and Russia simply because you may like the consequences of their improper actions.
Nor is it the time to cast election results into doubt absent compelling
evidence. It’s the time to investigate — not hyperventilate.
No comments:
Post a Comment