Greg Sargent wrote:
There is a certain type of Extremely Online supporter of Bernie Sanders who tends to dismiss the importance of Russian interference in our elections. (...) In other words, Sanders speaks to the threat of Russian interference not through the sort of neo-Cold War frame often derided by some of his online supporters, but through a frame that pits liberal democracies that share a common, if sometimes wobbly and ineffective, commitment to international institutions against a global movement of “oligarchic authoritarianism.”
Gee, you don't think???
Few things in this current manifestation of Occupy Lalaland have surprised and (I hate to say it) disappointed
me more than the near total blindness of "Extremely Online supporters of Bernie Sanders" in regard to Russia's determination to undermine the political effectiveness of western democracies and encourage right-wing populism. It reminds me of the points brought up by Russell Blackford concerning the way different groups of people react politically to stories and events based on certain preformed narratives:
As the philosopher Neil Levy has argued, the scientific topic of global warming was intensely politicized by organizations with vested interests in unrestricted capitalism. These hired the notorious “merchants of doubt” to propagandize against respectable science—the doubt merchants set out to debunk the whole idea of global warming and climate change. There was no deep reason such radical science denial should have become a shibboleth for right-wing orthodoxy, but it’s now the case in many circles. There is evidence that many right-wing or conservative citizens view acceptance of climate science as the mark of an ideological enemy—an ill-intentioned person who cannot be trusted and should not be given a hearing.
Free-market opportunists and fanatics have the most to answer for in this instance—they have acted cynically to damage the social fabric—but left-wing environmentalists have not always been helpful to their own cause or to the planetary future. In that respect, another philosopher (and environmentalist), Simon Keller, expressed something of a mea culpa in a book chapter published in 2015. Keller points out that the revelation of dangerous global warming, backed up by more and more research, was not a surprise to environmentalists, who already possessed values and a worldview that made them receptive to the message. The facts about global warming fitted well with environmentalists’ pre-existing understanding of the world, which included a critique of indefinite economic growth. For this group of people, news about global warming even seemed like a vindication.
Totally different reactions to the same event. Similarly, I think the association between the "Russians" and the Clinton campaign probably underlies much of the denialism concerning Putin's intentions. Left-leaning activists were never too fond (for good reason) of our intelligence agencies and the FBI, and they were pretty stoked by the Wikileaks and Snowden revelations. To see these government spooks trotted out to provide reasons for the results of the 2016 election that didn't lay the blame entirely on the Clintons and their forty year career of drug trafficking, paedophilia, and corruption really rubbed some people the wrong way. Every new revelation was condemned as part of the same MSM plot to rehabilitate HRC (and presumably insult Sanders). For some reason, Trump's overt admiration for Putin, his campaign's collusion with Russia, to say nothing of Russia's involvement in Brexit and in undermining European elections, never raised these progressive eyebrows.