There is an astounding double standard being applied to the US presidential
election result.
A few weeks ago the corporate media were appalled that Donald Trump demurred
on whether he would accept the vote if it went against him. It was proof of
his anti-democratic, authoritarian instincts.
But now he has won, the same media outlets are cheerleading the establishment’s
full-frontal assault on the legitimacy of a Trump presidency. That campaign
is being headed by the failed candidate, Hillary Clinton, after a lengthy softening-up
operation by US intelligence agencies, led by the CIA.
According to the prevailing claim, Russian president Vladimir Putin stole the
election on behalf of Trump (apparently by resorting to the US playbook on psy-ops).
Trump is not truly a US president, it seems. He’s Russia’s placeman in the White
House – a Moscovian candidate.
An assessment of the losing side’s claims should be considered separately from
the issue of who won the popular mandate. It is irrelevant that Clinton gained
more votes than Trump. For good or bad, the US has operated an inherently unrepresentative
electoral college since the 18th century. That has provided plenty of time to
demand electoral reform. Concern about the electoral college now, only because
it elected Trump, is simply ugly partisan politics, not political principle.
Launching last week what looked like a potential comeback, Clinton stepped
up the establishment’s attack on the result. She argued that Putin had personally
directed the hacking operation that lost her the presidency. He had sought to
foil the wishes of the US electorate in revenge for her claims in 2011, when
Secretary of State, that Russia’s parliamentary elections had been rigged.
“Putin publicly blamed me for the outpouring of outrage by his own people,
and that is the direct line between what he said back then and what he did in
this election,” Clinton told campaign donors at meeting in New York.