There's a built-in conundrum in the newest Republican "what about" line of defense regarding Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Trying to divert public attention from President Donald Trump's disastrous performance at last week's Helsinki summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Republican politicians and pundits have begun asking: What about the Obama administration's failure to halt the meddling when they knew it was happening?
The fact that the meddling continues even today, 18 months into the Trump administration, underscores the difficulty of addressing the problem domestically. The meddling occurs by flooding social media with divisive and often blatantly false information, and by hacking into voting databases in order to target specific population segments.
After Helsinki, some Republicans were quick to criticize Trump. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was among the most prominent critics, tweeting that Trump's tacit denial of Russian meddling was "the most serious mistake of his presidency and must be corrected - immediately."
But later on a Fox News opinion website, Gingrich echoed other prominent Republicans by blaming the entire meddling issue on Democrats. "The very people who have been loudest in attacking President Trump about his performance at the Helsinki summit are the people who failed to protect America from Russian meddling in 2016," he wrote.
The GOP critics are correct that the job of protecting America's election integrity was President Barack Obama's duty back then, as it is Trump's duty now. Yet neither administration achieved success.
Obama was constrained by concerns about appearing to interfere with the election process at the time. Obama would have been blasted, particularly by Republicans, if he had made a public accusation that Russia was meddling to boost Trump's chances. Efforts to organize a bipartisan statement of condemnation reportedly were blockedby Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Any attempt by the U.S. government to intervene on social media runs up against the cherished First Amendment right of free expression. Halting Russian propaganda bombardment via social media platforms necessarily entails censorship, and once America starts down that slippery slope, there's no turning back.
Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg recognizes the implications as his company contemplates restrictions on groups that post blatant misinformation, such as Holocaust denial or postings suggesting the 9/11 attacks were staged. Zuckerberg has had to backtrack on efforts to ban such postings, recognizing the dangers of censorship as a company policy. There are ways around it, such as allowing such posts but flagging with bold, red warnings.
As for a government response, nothing can substitute for a tough, unyielding stand against Putin, such as when Obama responded in December 2016 by expelling 35 Russian diplomats.
Trump responded by fawning over Putin in Helsinki and siding with Russia over his own intelligence services. On that front, there is no conundrum. Appeasement only serves Putin's interests — at America's expense.
REPRINTED FROM THE ST LOUIS POST DISPATCH
View Comments