In truth, the party's Russia fixation leaves significantly less messaging space for economic and social issues that the vast majority of Americans care about far more. Similarly, the Russia obsession at MSNBC (which routinely seems like "MSDNC") has left scant airtime for addressing, or even noting, the economic concerns of so many Americans. (For instance, see the data in FAIR's study, "Russia or Corporate Tax Cuts: Which Would Comcast Rather MSNBC Cover?")
"Ill-Conceived"
But even some of the congressional Democrats who've been prominent "Russiagate" enthusiasts have recognized that the lawsuit is off track. When Wolf Blitzer on CNN asked a member of the House Intelligence Committee, Jackie Speier, whether she believes that Perez and his DNC team "are making a big mistake by filing this lawsuit," the California congresswoman's reply was blunt: "Well, I'm not supportive of it. Whether it's a mistake or not we'll soon find out." Speier called the lawsuit "ill-conceived."
The most unprincipled part of the lawsuit has to do with its targeting of Assange and WikiLeaks. That aspect of the suit shows that the DNC is being run by people whose attitude toward a free press -- ironically enough -- has marked similarities to Donald Trump's.
Early in his presidency, Trump proclaimed that news media are "the enemy of the American people." Of course, he didn't mean all media, just the outlets providing information and analysis he doesn't like.
What Perez and the DNC crew are now promoting via the lawsuit is also harmful, though more camouflaged. The lawsuit's key arguments against WikiLeaks are contrary to the First Amendment, and they could be made against major U.S. newspapers. Unauthorized disclosures are common, with news outlets routinely reporting on information obtained from leaks, hacks and various forms of theft.
Just as the government's criminal prosecutions for leaks are extremely selective, the DNC position is that a media outlet that's despised by a powerful party could be sued for potentially huge sums.
But -- unless it's functionally shredded -- the First Amendment doesn't only protect media outlets that powerful interests believe are behaving acceptably. That's why the Nixon administration was unable to prevent The New York Times and Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers in 1971.
Now, the DNC lawsuit's perverse "logic" for suing WikiLeaks could just as easily be applied by any deep-pocketed group that wants to strike back at a publisher for revealing "stolen" information that harmed the aggrieved party.
In view of the national Democratic Party's deference to corporate power, we might see why the DNC is taking the current approach. It would be a much steeper uphill challenge to actually champion the interests of most Americans -- which would require taking on Wall Street, a key patron of both major political parties.
Nor would it be easy for the Democratic Party to advocate for U.S.-Russia de'tente that could reduce the risks of nuclear conflagration. Such advocacy would enrage the kingpins of the military-industrial cartel complex as well as most of the corporate-owned and corporate-advertised news media.
How much easier it is to make some political hay by targeting Russia with a civil lawsuit. How much more convenient it is to show utter contempt for the First Amendment by suing Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.
Still Unwilling to Confront Elite Interests
A loud and clear message from the Democrats' 2016 election debacle is that hoping for working-class votes while refusing to do battle against corporate exploiters of the working class is a political dead end. "The mainstream Democratic storyline of victims without victimizers lacks both plausibility and passion," says an independent report, "Autopsy: The Democratic Party in Crisis." Six months after the release of that report (which I co-authored), the DNC still is unwilling to polarize with elite corporate interests, while remaining extra eager to portray Russia and WikiLeaks as liable for the 2016 disaster.
So, unfortunately, this assessment in the "Autopsy" remains all too relevant: "The idea that the Democrats can somehow convince Wall Street to work on behalf of Main Street through mild chiding, rather than acting as Main Street's champion against the wealthy, no longer resonates. We live in a time of unrest and justified cynicism towards those in power; Democrats will not win if they continue to bring a wonk knife to a populist gunfight. Nor can Democratic leaders and operatives be seen as real allies of the working class if they're afraid to alienate big funders or to harm future job or consulting prospects."
Willingness to challenge Wall Street would certainly alienate some of the Democratic Party's big donors. And such moves would likely curb the future earning power of high-ranking party officials, who can now look forward to upward spikes in incomes from consultant deals and cushy positions at well-heeled firms. With eyes on the prizes from corporate largesse, DNC officials don't see downsides to whacking at WikiLeaks and undermining press freedom in the process.
This commentary was originally published on Truthdig.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
8
6
5
