Post-Modern Political Honesty: Part IV--Trump's Surreal Denial of Russian Hacking

As I said in Part III of this series, Donald Trump has raised Post Modern Political Honesty to new heights, or depths if you like. That is, to the level of surreal denial. 

Take, for instance, his continued refusal to admit that the Russian government hacked into the Democratic National Committee's computer network.

We have before us what has become a ubiquitous question. Why is Trump maintaining this position in the face of fairly convincing evidence to the contrary? Discarding the knee-jerk, albeit accurate, answer--because he's Donald Trump--we are left with the following answers. (None is exclusive of the others.) The POTUS-Elect is maintaining this position on Russian hacking because he is:

1. Espousing a neo-post World War II foreign relations approach
2. Apathetic about the potential implications of such a declaration
3. Subject to dramatically narcissistic perceptions about the 2016 election and Vladimir Putin

I'll talk about each of these in this, and my next, post.

A Neo-Post World War II Foreign Relations Approach

Mr. Trump is consistent (enough), in his infidelity to history in the name of opportunity, that his style can be categorized as a foreign policy approach. To begin defining what his neo-post World War II international relations approach is, let's consider what it is not. First, an approach is not a policy. Foreign policies are specific strategies to protect national interests and reach goals in the international space. Second, an approach is not a philosophy. Philosophy concerns itself with the fundamental nature of knowledge, truth, reality, and existence. This may seem impressionistic to some and a gratuitous shot to others--and both would be right--but the Donald just doesn't come across like someone who would be interested in this sort of thing.

So, what IS the POTUS-Elect's neo-post World War II international relations approach? Otherwise asked, which of the structures set in place at the end of WWII does Trump want to change? These are not difficult questions to answer. Germany has been reunited and the Iron Curtain was drawn. It is but the contest between the West's North-Atlantic-Treaty vision and the Soviet's post-Yalta expansionist vision that remains. The current iteration of this is the US and NATO versus Russia and its client states.

NATO Secretary General congratulates President Donald J. Trump on his inauguration

Trump's approach has revealed itself through his public commentary, on several occasions, in which he questioned whether the US should continue to honor its obligations under the Treaty. Specifically, he suggested that the US might not respond to the invocation of Article 5 by countries whose organizational dues are in arrears. Alternately phrased, the POTUS-Elect may not honor its promise to respond to an attack on any NATO country as if it was an attack on all member states. 

Non-participation by the US would neuter the last post-WWII boundary still in place.

At other points, the POTUS-to-be has wondered aloud about whether NATO's interminable mediocre performance, and unyielding biases, should result in its dissolution. Both non-participation by the US, and the dissolution of the Treaty, would allow Russian imperialism to continue-and exponentiate-unchecked. While NATO is, admittedly, flawed and has not prevented Putin's recent land grabs in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, it's the ONLY buffer we have at the moment. 

Dissolving the last post-WWII structure standing also virtually guarantees another world war.

In my next post, I'll explain the other reasons why Trump is denying the Russian DNC hacking. They are, that he is:

• Apathetic about the potential implications of such a declaration
• Subject to dramatically narcissistic perceptions about the 2016 election and Vladimir Putin

Post-Modern Political Honesty: Part II--How Did We End Up Here???

In Part I of this series, I suggested that honesty in political speech has crossed a threshold. Its moral value has been replaced with its argumentation value, resulting from continuously stretching the frequency and application of the same narratives to spin dishonesty. We have entered the era of post-modern political honesty.

How did we get here? From a macro perspective, globalization and technological advances have forced governments to become more transparent. The 1990s were years of foundational import in this regard. Mass use of the internet began-and exploded-during that decade, at the same time as Bill Clinton was leading the charge for globalization, most notably with the North American Free Trade Agreement.   (Much has been written on this topic by others.)


More transparency means, of course, that more can be questioned. And so it was. Initially, the United States' federal government responded to the increase in queries by digging in its heels (like most organizations would), also resisting change to the tropes that it typically employed to justify guarding information so closely. Politicians followed suit.

How easy the internet must have made it, for instance, for the media to collect - and confront Clinton with - ever more salacious details about his philandering. Yet he held fast to his denial. Of course, there was a bevy well-founded suspicion about the veracity of Clinton's claim of innocence. Added to the wave of on-camera 'gotcha' moments hitting many, the concern of most press secretaries - and even some politicians - was peaked. Their brainchild? Do more of the same; just increase the frequency and broaden the application. This shows considerable cognitive laziness, purposeful political cowardice, and a complete absence of creativity. For a while, if you were listening closely, thud after thud could be heard, as this 'approach' failed yet another spokesperson or politician.

The most well-known of these thuds came from Bill Clinton himself. The intensity of the media's investigation of his dalliances never abated, ultimately resulting in his infamous, syncopated, thumb-pointing, prime time denial of having 'sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinski'.

The public's response went something like this. How absurd; he's probably lying. The political response was, of course, his impeachment. Otherwise said, the technology facilitated 'gotcha game', as Clinton called it, caused him to have to make this absurd-yet plausible-denial.


Plausible Deniability: popularized by Bill Clinton but used as a springboard by Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

Musings on 5/31/16: The Real Donald Trump... T-shirt

An anecdote from twenty years ago.

Running into a colleague as I left the office one evening, I expressed frustration with my unsuccessful efforts to get through to a patient in the Borderline range of development (psychologically speaking). He smiled wryly, nodded knowingly, and said, remember, they all wear t-shirts that say ALWAYS THE VICTIM; NEVER RESPONSIBLE; AND REALLY ANGRY. This phrase has always stuck with me.
                                                                           ~

It also happens to describe Trump perfectly (which makes sense since narcissism is a variation of borderline personality). Think about it:

Trump is Always the Victim. The Donald's belief in his victimization can be seen in his perpetual pattern of perceiving people to have treated him unfairly. Indeed, this is his default explanation for loosing a primary or caucus, not winning an argument, and being outplayed politically. Examples abound.

Trump is Never Responsible. His primary method of responding to public approbation and confrontation by journalists, after another of his nauseating declarations, is denial. He flat-out denies saying what he said. This, even in the face of news outlets spending weeks airing video showing his denial to be untrue. Narcissists lean heavily on defensive denial. However, when the Donald is not using this primitive defense, he uses a conscious version of it, plausible deniability. See Musings on 3/4: Applied Clinton Speak for a complete explanation of this.

Trump is Really Angry. In 1,000 words...

That about sums it up.