Five Media Lies
-
@jolly said in Five Media Lies:
Ok, TDS sufferers. Are you reading the article at George's link?
OK, now read Frum:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/trump-russia-senate-intelligence-report/620815/
-
Well, David Frum disagrees. But you would expect that of The Atlantic.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/trump-russia-senate-intelligence-report/620815/
-
A response to Frum:
https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2021/11/letter-to-editor-responding-to-david.html
26 November 2021
The Atlantic
letters@theatlantic.comRE: David Frum, ‘It Wasn’t a Hoax’ The Atlantic (25 November 2021, 7:00 AM ET), https://tinyurl.com/ymsjzx7j.
Dear Editors,
David Frum is dead wrong. The issue is not now and never has been: Did Trump have contacts with Russians? Of course, he did: this was known by one-and-all during the campaign. The issue was whether Trump’s contacts were criminal—or otherwise sufficiently suspicious that they should have resulted in the FBI and the U.S. security services’ investigating candidate Trump. The answer to that question is no.
Frum’s answer is yes. Frum writes:
At crucial moments in the 2016 election, Trump publicly took positions that broke with past Republican policy and served no apparent domestic political purpose, but that supported Putin’s foreign-policy goals: scoffing at NATO support for Estonia, denigrating allies such as Germany, and endorsing Britain’s exit from the European Union. (emphases added)
First, “scoffing at NATO,” “denigrating allies such as Germany” and “endorsing Britain’s exit from” the EU—all are First Amendment protected speech. Indeed, they are core First Amendment protected political speech. Such expressions of opinion can never form a permissible basis for investigating a citizen. To allow the expression of political opinion form a basis for investigating a citizen chills speech, drives policy-making discussions out of the public realm, and most importantly, empowers the security apparatus, in effect, to put its thumb on the scale of our elections. It is telling that Frum faults Trump for “publicly” expressing his views.
Second, a candidate’s breaking with past policy choices is precisely why new candidates come forward and why we have elections. A candidate’s having a public position at variance from prior policy can never form a permissible basis for investigating a citizen. To allow the expression of novel political opinion form a basis for investigating a citizen ends meaningful democracy. That’s why we have elections: to choose between competing, different policies.
Finally, Trump’s views were quite mainstream among rank-and-file Republicans. “Scoffing at NATO.” Ambassador Jean Kirkpatrick expressed the view—years and years ago—that should the Soviet Union’s occupation of Eastern Europe end, then NATO and its Atlantic-focused mission would end with it. The United States’ traditional goal for NATO (and our other international security commitments) was to help democracies, and nations on their way to establishing democracy, oppose world communism. It was not to oppose Russia as a mere regional power. “Denigrating allies.” Many mainstream Republicans took and continue to take the view that Germany and other NATO members free ride on our defense establishment. Germany has consistently failed to meet its 2% GDP defense spending target. “Brexit.” As to the United States’ position in regard Brexit: British voters voted for it. So Americans, including Trump, get to support it too. It is called standing with democracy.
Frum’s position amounts to this. If you express the wrong political views in public—by which he means, political views he disagrees with—that is a reason for the government to investigate you. Frum is not embarrassed by his position. Millions of Americans agree with Frum. He and they are entirely wrong. And the continuing viability of American and Western democracy depends on changing the hearts and minds of those millions.
Sincerely,
Seth Barrett Tillman
-
@george-k said in Five Media Lies:
If you express the wrong political views in public—by which he means, political views he disagrees with—that is a reason for the government to investigate you.
Let's all remember this come 2023, when the House and Senate become Republican controlled.
I look forward to all the investigations of democrats, potential impeachment proceedings against Biden, digging deeper into Hunter's business dealings etc.
Surely there will be a run on popcorn in 2023.
-
Two sides to every story and the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
(Note to add: I have not followed this story so closely so dont have an opinion on one side or the other).