FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

How Seriously Should the Left Treat Manafort’s Conviction? An Interview With Anthony DiMaggio

Photograph Source Voice of America | CC BY 2.0

Anthony DiMaggio is a political scientist at Lehigh University specializing in political communication. He is the author of Selling War, Selling Hope (SUNY Press, 2015) and The Politics of Persuasion (SUNY Press, 2017)

In this interview, Professor DiMaggio discusses how the left can engage in more thoughtful analyses, debate, and legitimate criticism in regards to President Trump and his dealings with Russia. DiMaggio’s insight and commentary help to contextualize Trump’s actions within the realm of progressive politics, while avoiding the common pitfalls of the establishment Democrats and the corporate media in their efforts to focus on Trump at the expense of tackling neoliberalism and harmful bipartisan foreign policy.

Daniel Falcone: Could you share with me your take on the latest news headlines regarding Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, etc.? Are there any parallels to Watergate?

Anthony DiMaggio: Manafort’s conviction is significant, but I don’t see a strong parallel to Watergate at all. His convictions covered various instances of fraud, related to taxes and domestic and foreign banking disclosures. The Manafort trial didn’t directly touch on any alleged connections between Manafort, Trump, and Russia. If Manafort had monetary connections to Russia that were related to an attempted collusion with Russia regarding the 2016 election, certainly none of that was discussed directly in this trial.

In contrast, Watergate was about a conspiracy that involved “the plumbers” or the burglars that broke into the Watergate to spy on the DNC, a conspiracy that went all the way to the top of government. That has been thoroughly documented at this point, with the smoking gun being Nixon himself talking to his aides and administration members about “hush money” to be paid to the burglars.

Daniel Falcone: What are your thoughts on how the left treats the topic of Trump in these regards? Some on the left seem to think it’s usually a waste of time to investigate such political matters since underlying issues and bigger crimes take precedent with US presidents historically. Have you noticed this trend? Certain aspects of Trump’s history being casually dismissed look very serious.

Anthony DiMaggio:  I think the “all presidents commit crimes and far bigger ones than this” trope is silly and parochial. I’ve heard many alleged leftists make it. The truth is that there is no prospect of presidents who engage in supreme crimes, such as unlawful use of force, illegal drone strikes, torture, etc. being prosecuted for those crimes. Tragically, both political parties agree that the “imperial presidency” should have these kinds of powers, so there is no accountability and no hopes of impeachment or imprisonment based on these transgressions.

There’s a saying, “kill one you’re a murderer, kill a thousand and it is called foreign policy.” In reality, I’m for [indicting] criminals, and if it takes going after them for lesser crimes, then so be it. Tax fraud, violations of election law, whatever it may be, no one should be above the law, and at least they are being punished for something. And as for the Trump administration, as related to tax fraud and what is essentially embezzling election campaign funds for payoffs, — these aren’t exactly insignificant issues. They are serious felony charges and convictions with real prison time. They speak to a Trump administration that has consistently demonstrated that it has financially corrupt people (with five now, under Trump, convicted of felonies for various financial improprieties).

In my view, the biggest financial transgression is probably the emoluments case going through the courts right now, which says that Trump’s business investments in hotels and the money he takes from foreign leaders is unconstitutional and just one example of financial shenanigans from this administration. That’s not even counting the many stories on Trump’s history of money laundering via real estate investments and his likely mafia ties.

Those who try to claim this is a “witch hunt” haven’t been paying much attention to the shady financial history of this president. His lists of dealings are quite extensive. I don’t know whether the Russia inquiry will find evidence of direct collusion between Trump and Russian agents (certainly it exists for his son, who tried to get “dirt” on HRC through a Russian proxy). But I have little doubt he has many countless and questionable financial connections with Russian mafia, government officials, proxies, and other oligarchs, which would explain why he’s essentially hell bent on shutting down this inquiry.

Part of the problem is that it’s hard to do anything but speculate on the full extent of his financial corruption, until this Russia inquiry, and a forensic IRS/Congressional inquiry, actually look into all his finances to see who he is financially linked to. Such an investigation is imperative because of his extraordinary deceit in hiding these things, which is unprecedented in modern history of the presidency. He withheld his tax returns precisely so no one would look into and discover these things. That seems evident at this point.

Daniel Falcone: What accounts for the lack of nuance? How can one have radical politics and at the same time resist Trump like a “predictable liberal?”

Anthony DiMaggio: There are several reasons why you have people on the left who shill for the right. Some of them may be convinced that dictators like Assad, and authoritarian types like Putin are anti-imperialist. Which is true, only in the case of resisting U.S. imperialism, otherwise, they are problematic leaders who are less than nice to their own people in terms of dealing with dissent. This penchant for apologizing for global authoritarian figures is nothing new. If you talk to Noam Chomsky about it, he’ll likely tell you about how he’s been dealing with that since the Cold War — with all those on the authoritarian American left who blindly defended the Soviets.

Also, the U.S. mass media has fueled the whole “Trump supporters are downtrodden white working class victims” narrative, which I have countered with extensive empirical evidence. This false narrative came directly from Trump himself and the Republican Party’s propaganda, which has long sought to portray the party as fighting for the underdog. That people on the left have fallen into this silliness is not surprising considering how prominent this narrative is in the corporate press, and even among some “leftist” sources.

There’s also a modern movement to link the far left and right, via a “red brown” alliance. It’s being led by media like RT, various pro-Russia political operatives and ideologues, drawing inspiration from their patron saint, Aleksander Dugin, who is more or less a fascist. This has been discussed to some extent on the left, with a number of people warning against such an effort. There are various figures on the American right who think they can normalize their bigotry and prejudices by allying with the anti-racist left. Those who unfortunately fall into this trap are in part fueling the pro-Russia, pro-Trump brown-red alliance trope. There are some good sourceson the condemnationsof the Trump apologeticsand attacks on the brown-red alliance.

On the issue of people attacking the Trump protesters for being liberal, yes there are liberals who participate in the movement. And there are many strongly progressive leftists as well. If you look closely at the national survey data on who attends these protests, which I do in a forthcoming book (next year), it’s clear that most of the protesters are far left in their political orientation.  It’s a large movement with many participants of different kinds, ranging from radical left to moderate to centrist liberals.

I don’t find it productive to simply dismiss protests because some of the people involved are liberal, but then again the US is notorious for its long intellectual decline over the decades, so even many self-designated leftists don’t have much perspective or insight these days. It would be much more effective if people were more nuanced and productive in their criticisms. Something like:

“Protesting Trump and creeping fascism is important, but we have to be careful of not falling into the liberal trap of simply protesting Trump, and returning a bankrupt Democratic neoliberal party to power. Our agenda has to be positive and pro-active, not just reactive in terms of simply opposing Trump. We need to build a progressive vision.”

But I don’t hear much nuance like that on the left overall, which seems happy to deal in simplistic rhetoric and in unnecessary binaries.

 

More articles by:

January 16, 2019
Patrick Bond
Jim Yong Kim’s Mixed Messages to the World Bank and the World
John Grant
Joe Biden, Crime Fighter from Hell
Alvaro Huerta
Brief History Notes on Mexican Immigration to the U.S.
Kenneth Surin
A Great Speaker of the UK’s House of Commons
Elizabeth Henderson
Why Sustainable Agriculture Should Support a Green New Deal
Binoy Kampmark
Trump, Bolton and the Syrian Confusion
Jeff Mackler
Trump’s Syria Exit Tweet Provokes Washington Panic
Barbara Nimri Aziz
How Long Can Nepal Blame Others for Its Woes?
Cesar Chelala
Violence Against Women: A Pandemic No Longer Hidden
Kim C. Domenico
To Make a Vineyard of the Curse: Fate, Fatalism and Freedom
Dave Lindorff
Criminalizing BDS Trashes Free Speech & Association
Thomas Knapp
Now More Than Ever, It’s Clear the FBI Must Go
Binoy Kampmark
Dances of Disinformation: The Partisan Politics of the Integrity Initiative
Edward Curtin
A Gentrified Little Town Goes to Pot
January 15, 2019
Patrick Cockburn
Refugees Are in the English Channel Because of Western Interventions in the Middle East
Howard Lisnoff
The Faux Political System by the Numbers
Lawrence Davidson
Amos Oz and the Real Israel
John W. Whitehead
Beware the Emergency State
John Laforge
Loudmouths against Nuclear Lawlessness
Myles Hoenig
Labor in the Age of Trump
Jeff Cohen
Mainstream Media Bias on 2020 Democratic Race Already in High Gear
Dean Baker
Will Paying for Kidneys Reduce the Transplant Wait List?
George Ochenski
Trump’s Wall and the Montana Senate’s Theater of the Absurd
Binoy Kampmark
Dances of Disinformation: the Partisan Politics of the Integrity Initiative
Glenn Sacks
On the Picket Lines: Los Angeles Teachers Go On Strike for First Time in 30 Years
Jonah Raskin
Love in a Cold War Climate
Andrew Stewart
The Green New Deal Must be Centered on African American and Indigenous Workers to Differentiate Itself From the Democratic Party
January 14, 2019
Kenn Orphan
The Tears of Justin Trudeau
Julia Stein
California Needs a 10-Year Green New Deal
Dean Baker
Declining Birth Rates: Is the US in Danger of Running Out of People?
Robert Fisk
The US Media has Lost One of Its Sanest Voices on Military Matters
Vijay Prashad
5.5 Million Women Build Their Wall
Nicky Reid
Lessons From Rojava
Ted Rall
Here is the Progressive Agenda
Robert Koehler
A Green Future is One Without War
Gary Leupp
The Chickens Come Home to Roost….in Northern Syria
Glenn Sacks
LA Teachers’ Strike: “The Country Is Watching”
Sam Gordon
Who Are Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionists?
Weekend Edition
January 11, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Richard Moser
Neoliberalism: Free Market Fundamentalism or Corporate Power?
Paul Street
Bordering on Fascism: Scholars Reflect on Dangerous Times
Joseph Majerle III – Matthew Stevenson
Who or What Brought Down Dag Hammarskjöld?
Jeffrey St. Clair - Joshua Frank
How Tre Arrow Became America’s Most Wanted Environmental “Terrorist”
Andrew Levine
Dealbreakers: The Democrats, Trump and His Wall
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Que Syria, Syria
Dave Lindorff
A Potentially Tectonic Event Shakes up the Mumia Abu-Jamal Case
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail