Politics is full of contradictions. Even if they are not expressed philosophically, party politics in particular exemplify inconsistency.
Take the recent resignation of Trump administration National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Presented by the Trump White House as a matter of eroding trust, the implications amount to what some have called a “political assassination.”
In a briefing on Wednesday, press secretary Sean Spicer consistently maintained that Flynn did nothing wrong when talking to Russian counterparts and stated that the conversations were not the reason President Trump asked for Flynn’s resignation, trust was.
“There is not a legal issue but rather a trust issue,” Spicer said. He also added that the revelations of Flynn’s talks with Russia created a “critical mass and an unsustainable situation.”
So why is this relevant for CopBlock.org readers? Well, because many in the police accountability movement see encroachments by agents of the state as being particular to a certain narrative. This narrative usually consists of rhetoric charged with overtones or explicit references to race or class.
It usually goes something like this: police take it upon themselves (often unnecessarily) to go out of their way in impoverished communities to oppress and relegate certain segments of population to a status beneath them. While this claim is debatable and is something I have tackled before, its really not pertinent here except to preface an additional question for readers.
What happens in the police accountability movement when the Deep State and entrenched political establishment do everything they can to subvert and undermine an insurgent president who defied all odds and predictions by getting elected to office on an America First platform? Well, apparently they applaud – or at least keep silent.
It appears that the Trump administration has many of the same enemies that CopBlockers do. Damon Linker writes for The Week:
The United States is much better off without Michael Flynn serving as national security adviser. But no one should be cheering the way he was brought down.
The whole episode is evidence of the precipitous and ongoing collapse of America’s democratic institutions — not a sign of their resiliency. Flynn’s ouster was a soft coup engineered by anonymous intelligence community bureaucrats. The results might be salutary, but this isn’t the way a liberal democracy is supposed to function.
Flynn’s calls were reportedly leaked by the FBI. Meanwhile, former highly ranked NSA official turned whistle blower, William Binney, maintains that his former agency is “absolutely” tapping President Trump’s calls.
Binney also seems to think that the NSA had a role in Flynn’s take down. In an exclusive interview with Brietbart News he stated the following:
If they weren’t behind it, they certainly had the data. Now the difference here is that FBI and CIA have direct access inside the NSA databases. So, they may be able to go directly in there and see that material there. And NSA doesn’t monitor that. They don’t even monitor their own people going into databases.
So, they don’t monitor what CIA and FBI do. And there’s no oversight or attempted oversight by any of the committees or even the FISA court. So, any way you look at it, ultimately the NSA is responsible because they are doing the collection on everybody inside the United States. Phone calls. Emails. All of that stuff.
So now, we get to those aforementioned “contradictions.” Following the leaks regarding Flynn, Trump took to twitter to express his dismay and chastise the “many illegal leaks coming out of Washington.”
This was the same Trump that had defended, only months prior, the revelations of Wikileaks – which despite Democrat Party posturing, likely also originated with U.S. intelligence sources, and not Russian hackers. Likewise, it is the same political operatives on the left that now applaud the leaking of Flynn’s telephone calls after decrying the DNC leaks.
In practical terms, party politics are not about consistency, they are about power. This is a consequence of being involved in the political pigsty. The sooner the more libertarian thinking among us conclude that utopian ideas about a future of nonaggression are all well and good but have little practical significance to the current political situation, the better.
During the election season, for anyone not severely inflicted with autism, the choice between the two major party candidates was clear. The libertarian case for a President Trump was coherently made. In fact its still being made, by Trump’s executive actions during his first several weeks in office.
Reviewing Wall Street regulations? Stipulating that for every new proposed regulation that two existing ones be repealed? Promoting school-voucher programs and charter schools (though I happen to agree with the Austrian view on school vouchers)? Cutting federal funding for sanctuary cities? Reducing regulations for US manufacturing? Instituting a hiring freeze for federal employees (except for the military)? Signifying the intent to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership? Taking on Obamacare? Proposed tax cuts?
In mere weeks, Trump has probably already done more to reduce the size and role of the federal government than any of his predecessors over the last 100 years. In fact, he may be the most libertarian President since Calvin Coolidge. Libertarians should be overjoyed. That’s why it is so disheartening to see such vehement opposition to the insurgent Trump among libertarian factions of the police accountability movement.
Individuals belonging to those factions should ask themselves a question: “Do I stand with the FBI, CIA, NSA, mainstream media, Democratic Party, globalist establishment etc. in their attempts to undermine Trump’s attempts (despite his failings) to Make America Great Again? Or am I so completely sick and tired of the cultural, economic, and social degradation of my society that I’m willing to take a chance by supporting this dark horse deal maker?”
I’m sure that my Objectivist friends would take great offense to the following statement, but in a way, Trump embodies many of the qualities of a Randian hero. Only a business man of this caliber could have been able to accomplish what The Donald has against such odds.
In the years to come however, the battle will be an uphill one against the political oligarchy. There are many perceived problems with Trump within the context of police accountability. It will be interesting to see exactly what occurs in that regard. In a future post, soon, I hope to address that specific issue in great detail.