Russian influence on our presidential election needs to be pursued for the sake of our democracy.
Yet this issue makes me uneasy. Why?
Because it’s not at all certain that it helps us. My favorite comment this week was from a woman who I spoke to who felt that Trump was terrible, a religious Pence would be even worse—and yet she felt her only hope was that libertarians could somehow run a decent candidate.
Egberto wrote a great diary the other day on this topic that stuck with me. Although this topic needs to be pursued, let’s talk about how and why we need to keep working on promoting what we stand for—and why.
What are the possible outcomes of the Russia investigation?
Looking at possible outcomes of the Russia investigation is the easiest way to look at why I feel uneasy. Here’s what we’re looking at:
1. Trump gets impeached and Mike Pence becomes president. Republicans will claim everything is fine now that Trump is gone—only it’s not. Mike Pence will push his vision of religious government with the backing of a full Republican-controlled Congress. That Congress will likely have more power after the Trump impeachment than Trump has now.
2. Nothing happens. Obstruction of justice is difficult to prove. Trump weathers the storm. This is also a very real possibility simply because Republicans currently have so much power within government and also so much media cover. Up to this point, this is why he’s been able to get away with so many other things no other sitting president has been able to get away with. The media echoes right-wing lies and the people in charge of investigating keep stalling, obfuscating, repeating alternative conspiracies, and generally covering for any of his mistakes.
3. Some subordinates get run over by the bus. This is what is most likely to happen. Links between former campaign manager Paul Manafort and former national security adviser Michael Flynn will be confirmed but any investigation will either fail to turn up evidence on Trump or obfuscate this evidence. Again, Trump survives.
Regardless, the point of this exercise is that none of these options is really great for us. It looks like the Democratic Party is banking on a backlash to Trump in 2018, the same thing we banked on during the 2016 election.
Hmmm.
What we’re likely missing—again—is connecting to what people really care about. Many are still willing to give 45 a chance because he spoke to everyday concerns, and they still hold out hope that he’s going to address them.
Do we really think Democrats are going to win as the party of national security?
The absurdity of this question illustrates the problem at the heart of this fight. As a friend of mine said recently, “I can’t stand Trump but it’s hard to be on the side of the FBI.”
In many ways, the Russia fight seems like it’s conservatives against conservatives.
Don’t get me wrong: we have to fight this fight. What’s hard to figure out is how it’s helping us define who we are and what we stand for when it comes to day-to-day issues people care most about.
Someone said the other day that we have to fight Trump so we can cut off the head. The problem is that the head isn’t a person. We hate Trump because of what he represents: Greed at any cost.
Conservatives have long talked about the loss of values and what we stand for in America. They’re right. We are seeing a loss of values in America. I just don’t agree with them on what values are being lost and why.
What is our why?
In Shattered, the post-mortem on the last election, the authors talk about how Clinton never figured out why she was running. Her campaign lacked a rationale. It was more a list of policies.
One of her top aides described it like this: “I would have had a reason for running or I would not have run.”
Having a “why,” a strong reason that people can get behind, can make a huge difference. It’s the reason why grassroots politicians can sometimes beat their more established and more monied rivals. One politician told me that it’s a 6-to-1 multiplier in terms of fundraising. That is, establishment politicians have to raise more than six times the money to be competitive with a strong grassroots campaign.
Bernie Sanders had no organization and no support inside the political establishment. All he had was a strong “why”—one that he focused obsessively on, and one that everyone could easily articulate.
His why: “How do we create an economy that works for all of our people rather than a small number of billionaires?”
What struck me about Egberto’s piece was that he’s seeing the same thing:
Nothing in the Russia story will improve the personal economies of working-class Americans. It will not give them good health care. It will not rebuild infrastructure to provide jobs. It will not educate our children. So while working-class America continues to suffer from subpar wages, while they continue to see their health care costs rise, they hear a narrative that's anathema to their reality.
Here’s how you can set this up (even with rabid Trump supporters):
People honestly care about Trump only so much as they think he’s going to change things for the better. It’s important to remember that what most people are really worried about are the everyday issues like jobs, their families, and health care.
All we have to do is acknowledge these concerns and have a better story about what we stand for, and why this will make things better.
While we need to get to the bottom of the Russia scandal, remember that people in America are still hurting—and what impacts their daily lives is what they’re most likely to care about.
David Akadjian is the author of The Little Book of Revolution: A Distributive Strategy for Democracy (now available as an ebook).