“We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.”
Your average mass media pundit regularly decries the fact Americans no longer have trust in the country’s institutions, yet simultaneously refuse to take any sort of responsibility for the situation. Government bureaucrats and other assorted supporters of our decrepit status quo tend to do the same thing. As is typically the case, I’ll take the other side.
Not only do I think it’s completely sane for Americans to have zero faith in their institutions, including but certainly not limited to the three-letter agencies, Congress and the Federal Reserve, I’ll take it a step further and argue we as citizens remain far too naive and trusting for our own good. If nothing else, the recent Justice Department Inspector General’s (IG) report on the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server should underscore the point.
First, there’s the now infamous text exchange between between Peter Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page. The following excerpt is from the Executive Summary of the IG report:
We were deeply troubled by text messages exchanged between Strzok and Page that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations. Most of the text messages raising such questions pertained to the Russia investigation, which was not a part of this review. Nonetheless, when one senior FBI official, Strzok, who was helping to lead the Russia investigation at the time, conveys in a text message to another senior FBI official, Page, “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it” in response to her question “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”, it is not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects.
This isn’t merely an expression of bias from some low-level agent, these are the words of a very senior employee of the FBI (who played a leading role in the Clinton email investigation and the Russia probe) implying that he, and presumably others, were willing to interfere in the political process to ensure Trump wouldn’t become president.
Things get even more interesting when you take a look at some additional texts between Strzok and Page highlighted in the IG report:
There are two key takeaways from the Strzok-Page texts. First, we see that the lead FBI investigator on both the Clinton email and then the Russia probe expressed a willingness to act in order to prevent Trump from becoming president. Second, we see that this same person also expressed enormous contempt for Bernie Sanders as well as Jill Stein and Gary Johnson. This is something both Sanders and Trump supporters understand all too well.
Namely, that there’s a very powerful and well connected contingent of rabid Hillary Clinton obsessives who would basically do anything, including lie, steal and cheat in order to ensure her place on the iron throne. Sanders supporters saw it crystal clear during the rigged Democratic primary, and everyone else saw it during the general election with the unabashed media bias. We saw it again post-election with the emergence of an endless series of unhinged Russia collaboration accusations and narratives.
Simply put, this subset of crazed Clinton ideologues don’t believe in the will of the people. They decided it was Clinton’s turn and anyone who stood in her way had to be stopped. This is why Clinton cultists showed nearly as much intense hatred for Sanders as they did Trump. These sorts genuinely feel they’re more qualified to decide on who should be president than the average voting pleb, and they predetermined that Hillary was the correct choice. The Strzok-Page texts proved what many of us had already assumed. That such people not only hold positions at the highest levels of our three-letter agencies, but they’d be willing to take action (according to Strzok’s own words) to ensure their desired political outcome is realized.
Moving along, while the above is unquestionably significant, there’s a much larger lesson to be learned. If all you take away from these controversies is a partisan lesson of pro-Trump vs. anti-Trump, you’re missing the bigger picture. Which is that highly secretive and extremely powerful institutions are inherently dangerous to a free society and will attract and promote the most sociopathic individuals amongst us.
One day it could be pro-Clinton people, the next it could be pro-Trump or pro-Sanders types. Unethical humans willing to do whatever it takes to advance their own agendas exist across the political spectrum. As such, if we truly care about freedom and self-government, our goal should be to demand as much transparency in our government organizations as possible in order to reduce the potential for systemic abuses of the American public. In contrast, if such abuses are easy to achieve and continually go unpunished, of course they’ll occur regularly.
The sad truth of the matter is that we as a people have been too propagandized and too naive to admit how corrupt and vicious our government has become, irrespective of who resides in the oval office. Our current problems are deeply systemic and therefore cannot be solved by obsessing over the symptoms and switching out a president. We need to face reality before we can recover as a society, and to do this we must admit certain uncomfortable truths.
Most significantly, we need to come to terms with the dangers of allowing extremely secretive and all-powerful agencies to multiply and grow to the extent they have. When well-documented abuses from the NSA, CIA and FBI go on for decades with little to no accountability, what do you think’s going to happen?
Meanwhile, superficial pundits and hack politicians are out there telling us about how great the FBI is, yet historical facts point to the opposite conclusion. That this is an agency that’s always been more focused on protecting the status quo than protecting the people. Are we supposed to pretend that the FBI didn’t write a letter to Martin Luther King Jr. telling him to kill himself? Are we supposed to pretend COINTELPRO didn’t happen?
All people tell themselves myths about who they are and what their nation-states represent, and Americans are no exception. Many of us still actually believe the U.S. military takes action for humanitarian purposes or to spread democracy, despite ample evidence to the contrary. Likewise, many Americans continue to naively assume three-letter agencies are there to protect them as opposed to protect the status quo, despite ample evidence to the contrary.
These and other myths remain deeply and intentionally engrained in our cultural consciousness and they make us weak and easily manipulated. Until we face reality and confront the dangers that result from the existence of powerful and secretive institutions, true progress will remain out of reach.
Justin Amash said it perfectly the other day.
Government—including the FBI, NSA, and other agencies—is full of people with biases and bad judgment. They’re no different from people anywhere. Yet Rs and Ds keep reauthorizing unconstitutional legislation like the #PatriotAct and #FISA702. Stop giving government so much power!
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) June 14, 2018
This is the real lesson to be learned. Freedom and self-government require transparency and a willingness to see things as they really are.
If you’re willing to outsource decision-making to shadowy intelligence agencies you’ll end up with the sort of lawlessness, corruption and endless abuses of power we see today. It’s not a partisan thing, it’s a power thing.
If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron, or visit the Support Page to show your appreciation for independent content creators.
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G
Follow me on Twitter.
As always, your total right on Michael.
There will always be shadowy, swampy elements of our government who operate below the radar of We The People. What I find appalling is how easily 50% of The People are so willing to dismiss such shamelessly unconstitutional actions and intentions when they are brought to light. It’s OK when *my* team does it, but treason when the other team does it. Or something.
When Watergate broke open there were few apologists defending what went on. Back then we shared a healthy mistrust for what was a much smaller and less omnipresent (and omnipotent) government to contend with.
I guess I would have one simple question. Would you submit to questioning by the FBI without a lawyer present?
I have to admit I would not. Looking at the history from J. Edgar onward, I am of the opinion that this is a very dangerous and duplicitous agency. I would recommend that congress shut it down, I am sure that august body of righteous souls would probably not listen.
If one reads any of the REAL histories of the ‘Security State’, it is crystal clear what their aims are… to support the ‘status quo’ that serves the plutocrats (who, at the richest levels, are the FIRE economic segment). There is no question about this…. however, we all believe what we want to be true…. what makes us feel comfortable.
(Perhaps only FDR actually had the common good in mind – and also saving capitalism from communism – and the pluto faction has been working to destroy his accomplishments since day one. Just compare the U.S. to the rest of the industrial world… it is a stark contrast. So how can 50% of us be so self-destructive… ? There are answers… possibly starting with bomb-thrower Newt Gingrich in the 80’s…)
Oh, also… you should include the Supreme Court in your list of venal institutions. ‘Rule of Law’…??
For a long time, America suffered from astounding lack of skepticism. It’s starting to creep into consciousness in politics, but people still suspend disbelief far too often (Trumpian 9D chess, anyone?). Sooner or later the general population will lose faith in the red/blue teams individually and as a duopoly.
I read the book “Bad Blood” cover to cover yesterday, detailing the rise and fall of Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos. It’s appalling how easily one woman was able to swindle so many people (especially wealthy investors) in just three easy steps:
– wear a black turtleneck every day, channeling Steve Jobs
– Fix your gaze on people when you speak and blink as little as possible
– Make your speaking voice as deep as you can to sound more dominant
Sure, artificially low interest rates from the Fed encourage fiascos like Theranos (all that money has to flow somewhere to chase yield, right?) but historians will marvel at how badly people want to believe lies. A sociopath like Holmes can make mincemeat of well intentioned buffoons.
America coasted for a long time on its reputation as the shining city on a hill. As our structural problems become more apparent, let’s hope people come to their senses before everything crumbles around them.
The most revealing thing about this farce is how utterly dismissive these elites were of the voter. They really did not think the voter mattered anymore. Yet, after the blue blood Rs and the Ds and the military industrial complex and the unions and the big corporate media ALL combined into one monstrous hulking behemoth to force Hitlery down every one of our throats — they lost. Voters chose the other guy.
Since then, the behemoth has been working hard to make sure that never happens again, and new Google/Facebook algorithms *promise* that they can carpet-bomb users ans swing an election any way they want.
Obviously, these arrogant elites learned absolutely nothing in the last election.
Hansa, you saw the last election as I did. The entire establishment had both thumbs on the scale and lost anyway. Blindsided, they worked furiously to negate the result with numerous schemes that all failed. Finally, unable to overturn the election, they decided to put Trump in a box by poisoning his legitimacy and normalization plans with the “Russia hacked the election” narrative.
Consequently, you can be sure that every election control measure is now being put into place so that it never happens again.
@Hansa & Maxwell- Sure, but the real question comes once Americans realize they cannot vote their way out of this mess. Trump is no savior, not by a long shot. It’s impressive that he circumvented the establishment by a combination of skilled showmanship and middle America talking points, but that’s where his abilities end.
Things will start to get interesting once Americans start expressing themselves outside the polls. It’s inevitable, but the million dollar question is when it will finally happen.
Tengen, I couldn’t agree more. Years ago I came to the conclusion that the system was rotten beyond repair, and I shudder to think of what might replace it once the unraveling starts. I saw Trump as more of a “middle finger” to the establishment, while many in his base truly believe in the MAGA slogan.
Further to that, cite the cases of American University history professor Allan Lichtman and Stony Brook University political science professor Helmut Norpoth, whose models predicted Trump’s victory (and his predecessors) without recourse to polls but rather long-term sentiments of voters in key states. And yet, the BEHEMOTH imagines its almighty algorithm will triumph over any reality voters might face in everyday life. Its arrogance unbound.
Special interests will always nominate and fund candidates they believe will offer favorable legislation and “access”, regardless of whether the candidate has the experiential or ethical qualifications to hold office.
There is nothing inherently wrong with that, it simply is the way it is and it makes sense… every single person is their own special interest, when you drill it down, and everyone has the right to nominate their own candidate, themselves included, to promote their own special interest.
The fundamental purpose of a free election is to find commonality among all of those special interests. In theory, the candidate that convinces the greatest number of people that they will best represent their interests will win the election.
Of course, we all know that there is a certain amount of sausage-making that goes into producing the desired outcomes the candidates put forward, which most people find repulsive and is best done somewhere other than the public square.
But when you take the sausage-making indoors, well, who knows what is going to go into the sausage, right? If the sausage is tasty and doesn’t make you sick, then, hey they’re doing a pretty good job, maybe.
Of course, we all still know what is going on in there, right?
And there are some concerns: you’ll have to trust they aren’t feeding you people-meat and that the animals are decently treated and such.. and that the process is affordable and sustainable… don’t want them adding caviar or selling their own pigs to the factory at inflated prices to use as filler… or killing all of the pigs at once with nothing to use next year, etc.
To allay those concerns, you don’t throw the doors to the sausage factory wide open… you set up an appropriate level of oversight via mechanisms such as showing you the books, answering some questions about sourcing, touring the facility once a quarter, stuff like that… but too much oversight is deleterious as you don’t want them spending all their time on making sure you feel good about the sausage-making process when they should be in there making sausage!
So you seek to elect sausage makers that have two qualities:
1. they know how to make sausage
2. they are responsible people that can be trusted to act appropriately with minimal oversight
A rational constituency would understand this and would refrain from electing unqualified candidates.
And no special interest would spend resources to nominate and promote a candidate when they know said rational constituency will simply reject, out of hand.
Unfortunately, our constituency is not in possession of the two qualities of a rational constituency: moral conviction & the capacity for critical thought.
Therefore, it is fascinating to see such outrage in the wake of what can only be considered an inevitability: an unqualified constituency will elect unqualified candidates.
Yet, we blame the candidates,
and the special interests,
and the voters who didn’t vote with us,
and foreign countries (wow…),
and corporations,
and, blaaah-bluh-blaaah, bluh-blaah-blaah-blah…
when the answer to our problem is quite obvious:
Unqualified should be disenfranchised.
How ludicrous is it that the vote of the sagest village elder can be negated by handing the village idiot a lollipop and a ballot?
Who’s in charge of deciding who is an “idiot”. and who is not an idiot?
That is a very slippery and subjective path.
Ahh the most common rebuttal. And yet, the most appropriate, by far…
Indeed… Who decides???
The answer is quite obvious:
ME… and people like me: white, heterosexual, land-owning Protestant males, born on America soil, of sound mind and good social standing.
Pop, pop, pop (the sound of heads exploding in Berkeley, just over the hill from where I sit, as their wildest dreams finally come true…)
Just kidding.
Yes, Genaro, I agree… wholeheartedly… very slippery, indeed.
The answer is: I don’t know…
I DO know this: the United States was not founded under the premise that every single person (or citizen for that matter) should have the vote because the founders understood that only qualified minds merit such participation in the political process.
They set minimum ages for various elected offices for these very reasons, yet no one is screaming ageism, right? No, because it is prudent to require a certain amount of experience, even if it merely having breathed for a certain number of years.
Yes, those guys were wealthy, white, racist, misogynistic, jackasses in wigs and knickers that were interested in elevating and sustaining themselves. But they were mere human beings with a shared culture, and I think most would agree that when they got together to forge a new government, the most radical elements were tempered and, for the most part, what we would today call injustices reflected the societal norms and generally-accepted beliefs of the time.
So how does one decide who enjoys the vote?
Originally, it was based on age, race, gender and property ownership.
Obviously, race is not an appropriate qualification… nor is religion, sexual preference or gender (of which there are only 2, btw).
Some possibilities (obviously not exclusive):
Minimum Age (higher than 18)
Positive net worth
Minimum Reportable Income
Non-receipt of government assistance
IQ/Basic Skills test (GIVEN IN ENGLISH ONLY) to establish both literacy and numeracy
Minimum provable education
These may be terrible ideas… However, the fear of failure should not discourage us from discussing a change when the current ‘solution’ is utterly inadequate.
And the “everyone gets to vote” has brought us to where we are today.
And the threat of some unjust tyranny is not a real fear, if we are truly living in one today, yes?
At the very least, citizenship and eligibility to vote, even under current laws, must be provable via reasonable means (no more difficult than buying a fucking beer) at the polling place prior to submitting a ballot. That’s just common sense.
Anyone who asserts it is racist to require proof of eligibility IS the village idiot.
Corroboration:
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/06/19/remember-america-free-country/
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/government_eyes_are_watching_you_we_are_all_prisoners_of_the_surveillance_state
I have long thought, that we are sliding gradually into a major crisis over the last x years. This country is not the one I grew up in in a moral sense, and the citizenry is just out to lunch. As for lthe media, contempt.