The article does not accuse Clinton of lying.
On October 7, the Republican House Judiciary Committee cryptically tweeted, “Kanye. Elon. Trump.” The tweet was, predictably, ridiculed—especially after Ye (as Kanye West is now known), just days later, threatened “death con 3 on JEWISH PEOPLE” on Twitter. But, intentionally or not, the committee had hit upon a basic truth: The three are alike.
What unites these successful men—and, yes, Trump is successful—is their seething resentment toward a world that has rewarded them money and influence, but that still refuses to grant them the respect they think is their due. And if we should have learned anything since 2016, it is that resentment is perhaps the most powerful political force in the modern world.
In the late-19th and early-20th centuries, nationalism had its turn at spurring us to destroy ourselves; in later years, the struggle with monstrous ideologies killed tens of millions and brought us repeatedly to the brink of nuclear war. Today, however, social and cultural resentment is driving millions of people into a kind of mass psychosis.
I will leave aside Ye, who has his own unique problems (although I will note that his early career was marked by his anger at being shut out, as he saw it, from hip-hop and then the fashion world). Prominent and wealthy Americans such as Trump and Musk, along with the former White House guru Steve Bannon and the investor Peter Thiel, are at war not so much with the American political system, whose institutions they are trying to capture, but with a dominant culture that they seem to believe is withholding its respect from them. Politics is merely the instrument of revenge.
Don’t be fooled when such people protest that they hate the dominant culture and want no part in it. Trump has spent his life as the outer-borough mook with his nose pressed to the windows of midtown Manhattan, wondering why no one wants him there. He claims to hate The New York Times but follows it obsessively and courts its approval. Musk, for his part, has put people in space, but when Twitter users started impersonating him, mostly to show him how idiotic his new “verify everyone for $7.99” plan is, he blocked and suspended them. (As one Twitter wag noted, Musk’s acquisition of Twitter is like Elmer Fudd buying a platform full of Bugs Bunnies.) The great irony is that Musk’s other achievements might have vaulted him past perceptions that he’s a spoiled, rich doofus, but buying Twitter and making (and then deleting) jokes about self-gratification while telling people to vote Republican has pretty much obliterated that possibility.
Trump (and Bannon, Thiel, and others) is enraged, apparently, that his transition to elite-class status did not produce respect—or, at least, not the kind of respect he wants from the quarters of society from which he seems to crave it. Never underestimate the kind of anger that such insecurity can produce: Trump and those like him managed to get a ticket in the swankiest carriage on the train, only to find themselves sitting alone. And if that’s how it’s going to be … well, the only answer is to derail the entire thing, from locomotive to caboose, and make everyone suffer.
Even worse, the voters who do accept someone like Trump are people with whom Trump would never associate. Howard Stern, once a close friend of Trump’s, has said bluntly that the former president actually hates his own voters. Trump, Thiel, and many others have no interest in “the people” other than to use their votes as raw fuel for settling scores with other elites.
And in many cases, plenty of “the people” are just fine with that. As the British journalist Simon Kuper noted a few years ago, anti-system parties in the United Kingdom, Italy, and the United States are powered not by struggling workers, but by the “comfortably off populist voter” who has “never been invited into the fast lane of life: the top universities, the biggest firms, the major corporations.” The January 6 rioters were, by and large, not the dispossessed; they were real-estate agents and chiropractors. These citizens think that the disconnect between material success and their perceived lack of status must be punished, and if that means voting for election deniers and conspiracy theorists, so be it.
If you still doubt the power of resentment, remember this: Trump wasted his years as the most powerful man in the world whining about how no one respects him. Thiel has spent many millions propping up two candidates who are shameful buffoons. And Musk just lit $44 billion, with a B, on fire so that he could be a hero to an army of trolls that continues to goad him into doing even dumber things, as the Bonfire of the Dead Presidents roars away.
There is one more example of such resentment, and it’s a lot less funny. Russia is an entire nation seized with a massive inferiority complex, and the Russian regime is giving vent to that resentment in the continual murder of Ukrainians. Putin, an insecure thug, has his own bizarre reasons for the war, but the brutality of the Russians on the battlefield against their Slavic kin is very much rooted in resentment: Why do you live in freedom? Why are you living better than us?
And finally, look at the Republican campaigns across the nation. Few are about kitchen-table issues; many are seizing on resentment. Resentment sells. The GOP is running a slew of candidates who are promising that “we” will make sure “they” never steal an election again, that “we” will stop “them” from making your kids pee in litter boxes, that “we” will finally get even with “them.”
Voters in the United States and many other developed countries can lie to themselves and pretend that a one-year hike in the price of eggs is worth handing power to such a movement. Human beings need rationalizations, and we all make them. But voting as responsible citizens requires being honest with ourselves, and I suspect that we will soon learn that more of us are gripped by this kind of sour social irritation than we are by the price of gas.
Justin Trudeau has warned that China is “play[ing] aggressive games” to undermine democratic institutions amid reports Beijing actively interfered in Canada’s federal elections.
His comments on Monday came after a news report that Beijing had funded a “clandestine network” of candidates in Canada’s 2019 election and just days after the federal police force said it was actively investigating a secret network of illegal Chinese “police stations” in Toronto.
The allegations – which came on the same day that a close ally of Vladimir Putin said that Russia had previously interfered in US elections – are likely to intensify concerns about the scope of foreign intrusion in Canadian domestic politics.
“We have taken significant measures to strengthen the integrity of our elections processes and our systems, and we’ll continue to invest in the fight against election interference, against foreign interference of our democracy and institutions,” Trudeau told reporters on Monday afternoon. “Unfortunately, we’re seeing countries, state actors from around the world, whether it’s China or others, are continuing to play aggressive games with our institutions, with our democracies.”
The prime minister’s remarks followed reporting from Global News that Canadian intelligence had concluded Beijing worked to undermine the democratic process in Canada in multiple elections, including votes held in 2019 and 2021.
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) briefed the prime minister, as well as senior cabinet ministers, in January about China’s attempts, the report said.
The efforts are believed to include placing agents in the offices of lawmakers to influence policy in China’s favor, as well as attempts to “co-opt and corrupt” former Canadian officials in order to gain political power and influence in the nation’s capital.
It is unclear if CSIS, or the federal government, believe the efforts were successful.
David Mulroney, Canada’s former ambassador to China, said the allegations were “far more aggressive” than previously suspected.
“Just when you think some allegations against China are exaggerated, you find that they’ve in fact been understated.” he said. “These represent a malicious, dangerous threat to our democracy.”
Election interference attempts have targeted members from both the Liberal and Conservative parties.
“We had evidence of interference in the last general election through proxies that were spreading disinformation on Chinese language social media platforms, which interfered in a number of [electoral districts] with significant Chinese communities,” the Conservative MP Michael Chong told the Guardian.
He said a number of incidents of harassment against prominent Uyghur and Tibetan students at Ontario universities had been “coordinated” through Toronto’s Chinese consulate.
Staff in the red-brick building in a leafy, affluent enclave of the city are also alleged to have led the efforts to undermine Canada’s federal elections.
According to Global News, CSIS believes the consulate was behind a large financial transaction to at least 11 federal election candidates and Chinese government-affiliated operatives who worked as campaign staffers – C$250,000 (US$185,000) was allegedly transferred through a provincial Ontario lawmaker and the staffer to a federal election candidate.
The election interference efforts have been tied to the Communist party’s United Front work department, an organization in Beijing that monitors and attempts to influence Chinese nationals abroad. The United Front operations are also linked to a clandestine network of illegal police stations operating in Canada and across the globe.
Asked for comment on the allegations, the prime minister’s office said: “Protecting Canadians’ security is our top priority. Threats, harassment, or intimidation of Canadian citizens are unacceptable, and all allegations of interference are investigated thoroughly by our security agencies.
“As threats evolve, so must the methods used to address them. That is why the prime minister has given the minister of public safety the mandate to improve collaboration between Canadian security agencies.”
Mulroney pointed to failed attempts to implement a foreign agents registry that would deter Beijing from seeking to influence former Canadian officials.
“It would crimp China’s ability to enlist people, not just in the diaspora, but in business and in politics, who can be bought for a few thousand dollars,” he said. “I think we’re desperately in need of this, but the government has just not moved on it.”
The revelations about Beijing’s interference attempts, as well as the ongoing investigation into illegal Chinese police stations, come as Ottawa prepares to unveil its “China strategy” – a long-delayed series of policies aimed at formalizing its plan to counteract an increasingly aggressive Beijing.
Canada has a complex relationship with the economic superpower: even as diplomatic relations sour, exports have increased.
Canada recently ordered three Chinese companies to divest from Canadian mining firms over national security concerns. Last month, a delegation of Canadian lawmakers visited Taiwan, prompting outrage from Beijing that Ottawa was “grossly interfer[ing] in China’s internal affairs”.
In December, Canada will co-host Cop15, the global biodiversity conference, with China.
“Beijing always goes for the weakest link in the chain,” said Mulroney, adding that Canada is increasingly viewed by China target the United States. “We cannot afford to be in that position. We just can’t.”
Former special counsel Robert Mueller pushed back against U.S. President Donald Trump’s characterizations of his 22-month investigation, telling lawmakers on Wednesday that he did not evaluate “collusion” with the Russian government, and confirming that his report did not conclude that there was “no obstruction” of the probe.
“The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed,” Mueller told the House judiciary committee, adding that Trump could theoretically be indicted after he leaves office.
“We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term,” Mueller added. “Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.”
They have acted in a singularly authoritarian manner to impose these problems on the country and our population in pursuit of their radical goals, and doing so with singular ineptitude and lack of foresight in anticipating the real consequences of their actions.
Like progressives everywhere they're focused on the supposed merit and virtue of their preferred methods, as opposed to the generally awful results they actually obtain, and oblivious to the unilateral authoritarian character of the methods the use to impose their ill conceived "programs" on the public.
Election day is at hand and we'll know soon enough the magnitude of the mid term reversal reversal that will result. The general trend strongly suggests the Republicans will end up with majorities in both Housed of the Congress - a large 24 + seat majority in the House and a 1 - 4 seat majority in the Senate. In addition, also likely gains among State Governments.
Oddly the central theme of Democrat arguments has been the imagined "threat to our Democracy" that will occur if they lose their current absolute control of the Executive and legislative branched of the government. The real irony here is that the primary issues of real public concern; our shrinking economy; inflation; fuel and energy shortages; pervasive violent crime; the chaos at our southern border ( including mass illicit transport of fentanyl which is causing increasingly serious mortality among the young) , are all consequences of unilateral actions taken by our Democrat President and Democrat-controlled legislature. They have acted in a singularly authoritarian manner to impose these problems on the country and our population in pursuit of their radical goals, and doing so with singular ineptitude and lack of foresight in anticipating the real consequences of their actions. Like progressives everywhere they're focused on the supposed merit and virtue of their preferred methods, as opposed to the generally awful results they actually obtain, and oblivious to the unilateral authoritarian character of the methods the use to impose their ill conceived "programs" on the public.
It appears that a fast -growing segment of our, still very divided, country has come to understand these contradictions. The election results ahead will be a good indicator of the degree to which that understanding has spread.