FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE 2.0: AMERICAN DEMOCRACY, AUTOCRACY, PLUTOCRACY, OR FACISM?

American intelligence agencies have confirmed Russian interference in the 2020 United States presidential election. They recently advised the House Intelligence Committee of their conclusion Russia wants to do again what most believe it did in 2016 - help tip the scales in President Donald Trump’s favor. A consensus exists that Russian social media activity, other forms of disinformation, and computer hacking helped Trump in 2016.   By talking with Congress, the intelligence briefers provoked Trump’s ire. He reacted by firing Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire. Trump reportedly raged that Democrats will use the reports of meddling against him.  The interference disturbs us, especially since the nation was warned this was coming, and precious few precautions have been taken against its possible effects. In his congressional testimony during the summer of 2019, former Special Counsel Robert Mueller emphasized his belief the Russians were meddling, “as we speak.” With it now established the Russians are at it again, the question of why we should care arises. American Elections for Americans We wouldn’t have thought we’d need a rationale for eliminating foreign interference in our elections. Sanctity of the ballot enjoys a treasured place in American democracy. Having the ballot means much less if citizens can’t depend on a secure electoral system and campaigns free of foreign meddling. In many contexts, American history shows the value democracy places on voting. Much of the civil rights movement concerned voting rights. Lyndon Johnson  thought giving blacks the vote would level the playing field in the South where they suffered under the spell of Jim Crow. Before he ran for president, Barack Obama expressed the view that advocates for social progress should focus on elections as a way of winning rights and power, not litigation, reasoning that what courts can give, they can take away. Once a majority of Americans have spoken through their ballots, elected officials are less likely to go a different direction.   From the beginning, the nation’s leaders took steps against foreign interference in America’s internal affairs. The constitution’s framers, for example, included an emoluments clause that keeps foreigners from buying influence with U.S. officeholders. Congress enacted legislation, like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and a the ban on foreign campaign contributions, aimed at limiting outside influence on the American government. Managing our own affairs, including voting and elections, without foreign interference occupies a sacred place in American democracy.       Results v. Process Despite this seemingly obvious rationale for elections decided without fake Facebook ads Fake Facebook ads posted by Russians per Intelligence Committee and flyers containing falsehoods composed by Russian operatives, we know some Trump supporters who accept such interference because the 2016 meddling produced the right outcome. The result, they say, justifies the means.   They note the strong economy, Trump’s immigration policies, his judicial appointments, and other aspects of the incumbent’s tenure they like. They can overlook the process, so long as they get their desired result. The three of us view process as imperative. Are American campaigns and elections run fairly and on a playing field that gives everyone a fair chance? Has an unseen force, like Russian operatives, placed a thumb on the scale, corrupting the process? With campaigns and elections run fairly and without interference from outside our borders, we think democratic principles have prevailed and we can live with whatever outcomes such elections produce. With a fair process, Americans more likely trust results that ensue. What Goes Around Comes Around We’d prefer believing no Democratic president would behave as Trump has or accept foreign help in getting elected. Sadly, we could no more guarantee that than we can perform magic tricks. Of course, a future Democratic president could engage in his or her own set of deplorable acts. Take Lyndon Johnson, the 36th President, to whom we referred earlier. Johnson’s most 36th US President Lyndon Johnson significant biographer, Robert Caro, wrote in the preface to his 1982 book, The Path to Power, the first volume in his series, The Years of Lyndon Johnson, that the more one follows Johnson’slife, “the more  apparent it becomes that alongside the thread of achievement running through it runs another thread, as dark as the other is bright, and as fraught with consequences for history: a hunger for power in its most naked form, for power not to improve the lives of others, but to manipulate and dominate them, to bend them to his will.”   Caro further argued that “if during the long evolution from a ‘constitutional’ to an ‘imperial’ [p]residency there was a single administration in which the balance tipped decisively, it was the [p]residency of Lyndon Johnson.”  Caro’s observations on Johnson make chillingly clear a Democrat capable of Donald Trump’s excesses is quite possible. It’s so possible, it’s already happened. Perhaps only the details differ. So, we remind Trump supporters who see results they’re getting from the current presidency and, therefore, support anything that keeps it in place, that American politics runs in cycles. A president you don’t like will hold the office someday, perhaps a president who advocates forced abortions or wants confiscation of firearms. Are you really comfortable with THAT president getting help from foreign governments?     America stands at a crossroads. Do we stay with democracy  and keep working out its imperfections or do we toss it onto the scrap heap of history and try fascism, autocracy, plutocracy, or some other form of government? The current occupant of The White House shows little interest in strengthening democracy and its institutions. Rather than take our word for it, we again recommend former State Secretary Madeleine Albright’s  insightful Fascism: A Warning. She makes the compelling case that our current president takes his cues from a long line of leaders who were popularly elected but turned their countries into autocracies, plutocracies, or fascist states. We feel compelled to sound the alarm.