Even if the US Congress moves on from Russiagate, the mainstream media have invested so much time and human resources into a perennially anti-Russian spin on news stories, it remains unlikely that they’ll give up on their investment any time soon.
Senator Joseph McCarthy was in office between 1947 and his death ten years later. During much of that time, his primary function was to accuse various people in the media, military, government and entertainment industries of being subversive pro-Soviet Communists.
But as early as 1954, he was censured by the Senate and from then on McCarthyism became a dirty byword for sensational accusations and witch hunts that had little basis in reality.
Even among anti-Communist Cold Warriors in the era of Eisenhower and Dulles, McCarthy was something of an embarrassment. In the decades after McCarthy’s death, the narrative of McCarthyism was used to demonstrate how America had overcome the paranoia of a generally drunk, conspiratorial Senator to remain the land of the free in spite of living with a ‘Cold War’.
The post-1950s narrative went something like turning McCarthy’s lemon into a post-McCarthy lemonade in America’s generally agreed upon narrative stating that McCarthy was a nut, but that nevertheless, American traditions of freedom of expressions were not ultimately stiffed under the guise of ‘fighting Communism’.
One of the reasons McCarthy ultimately failed is because he became increasingly unbelievable. He was the Senator who cried wolf, and ultimately thanks to a combination of actual journalism from Edward R. Murrow and McCarthy’s own lack of credibility, in short order, few people in America actually believed him.
Today’s MSM are reincarnations of Joseph McCarthy. Instead of Red Russians, they simply see regular Russians and they see them everywhere. Worse yet, even where Russians actual are, they see them as evil and dangerous rather than a part of the global community who offer peaceful opinions on current events just like people from Japan, Germany, Australia or Argentina do.
For all the talk of Russian subversion where there is no evidence and consequently, no subversion, the anti-Russian brigade in the MSM and Congress cannot articulate why hearing Russian opinions is any more dangerous than hearing any opinion from people outside of the United States. Why for example is a Russian man speaking about American politics on RT any more dangerous than a Canadian man speaking about American politics on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
There is no answer, because there is nothing dangerous about peacefully expressing an opinion. America pioneered this concept by offering a First Amendment which encourage a peaceful debate on any and all issues.
In this sense, a more accurate question is, ‘why do certain Congressmen and the MSM want to subvert the First Amendment’? Perhaps there should be Congressional hearings to unearth a satisfactory answer to this question?
Finally, the anti-Russian hysteria of today exposes how out of touch the Beltway boys and girls and those in the mainstream media are with ordinary Americans. Ordinary Americans truly care little about Russia. I defy all of the anti-Russian individuals in the US Congress to redact and publish their recent emails and letters from the people they represent. I would be willing to bet that the amount of letters complaining about Russia influencing American politics would be statistically negligible, even in places like New York and California where post-modern liberalism has yet to go out of fashion.
If anyone in Congress can prove otherwise, I am willing to objectively hear them out.
It really is time for these people to put up or shut up.