I posted this because somewhere, I saw the author's new book reviewed and
recommended. I don't know anything about her and I'm not sure I agree with
her basic point of view, but she makes some interesting points.
Miriam
Diana Johnstone considers the fun and games surrounding the possibility of a
disputed U.S. election result and concludes that the future is being planned
elsewhere, for instance at the next meeting in Davos.
President Donald Trump arriving in Ashville, N.C., Aug. 24, 2020. (White
House, Shealah Craighead)
By Diana Johnstone
in Paris
Special to Consortium News
A small number of very rich men are quite sure they know what is best for
the future of the world and have enough wealth and influence to believe they
can make it happen. They can be called oligarchs, but the term is
inadequate. They are a special category, the shapers of the Global
Governance destined to replace bourgeois democracy. I can name two: one who
is famous, notorious even, but very old, and another who is a generation
younger, not yet so well known or so rich but probably even more
influential.
The Global Governors
The old one is of course George Soros, who needs no introduction. He has no
doubt that the world should be one big Open Society in a word,
globalization in which borders and nation states dissolve into a
kaleidoscopic mix of cultural identities in which major decisions are taken
by brilliant financial oligarchs like himself.
The younger one is Nicolas Berggruen, the dashing 59-year-old Paris-born son
of a leading art collector. Berggruen enjoys double U.S.-German citizenship
and membership in the Council on Foreign Relations, the NYU Commission on
Global Citizenship, the Brookings International Advisory Council, the
Leadership Council at Harvards Kennedy School Center for Public Leadership,
the World Economic Forum and on and on. He helped get Emmanuel Macron
elected president of France and has friendly relations with Ursula von der
Leyen, head of the European Union Commission.
The billionaire has his own think and action tank, the Berggruen
Institute, to promote his interests which center on global governance. He
is particularly interested in technological ways to shape and guide the
world of the future. The future for Berggruen belongs to digitalization and
above all transhumanism. In a short video, he muses over whether or not the
digital age makes us less human.
Nicolas Berggruen, center, in 2017. (Financial Times, Flicker, CC BY 2.0)
We are all connected and less free but we are all part of something
bigger communities, families, friends
The digital world looks less
human but its still being created by us. (And who is us exactly?)
Berggruens model of the future family may be seen in his own choice: two
motherless children manufactured with donated ovules and born by two
surrogate wombs.
Like European-born Soros and Berggruen, the United States is above all the
current command and control center of the Western world still aspiring to be
the nucleus of a global empire. U.S. elections are important to these world
visionaries in staying the course of world transformation. For both of them,
President Donald Trump can only be an intolerable glitch in the screen.
This must be corrected in 2020. The entire liberal elite is in overwhelming
agreement.
The Transition Integrity Project
Rosa Brooks, center, in 2018, during a New America conference. (New America,
Flickr, CC BY 2.0)
So, it has been easy to arouse near panic in the Washington Establishment
and beyond over the notion that Trump might not be dislodged by the November
2020 election. Fear is being spread less that Trump might win the election
(too unthinkable to think) than that he will lose the election but refuse to
budge. This possibility received a big boost from a unique social event
organized by Professor Rosa Brooks of Georgetown University, a leading
champion of womens participation in the National Security State, and
historian Nils Gilman, a head researcher at the Berggruen Institute.
This well-connected pair easily enlisted dozens of power pointers to take
part in what The Boston Globe called a Washington version of Dungeons and
Dragons, on the model of Pentagon planners who form teams to imagine what
the U.S. and Russia might do in a nuclear war confrontation. They named
their fun and games the Transition Integrity Project (TIP), clearly
suggesting that the integrity of the anticipated transition from Trump to
Biden was their main concern.
Only a few of the 67 participants have been identified: anti-Trump
Republican Michael Steele, former President Bill Clintons White House Chief
of Staff John Podesta, David Frum (ghost writer of President George W.
Bushs Axis of Evil speech), and neoconservative political analyst William
Kristol.
On Aug. 3, the Transition Integrity Project issued its report, entitled
Preventing a Disrupted Presidential Election and Transition. This report
gave the results of the make-believe gaming scenarios, which provided
imaginary support to the growing liberal Democratic hypothesis that Trump is
determined to steal the November election.
Like many authoritarian leaders, President Trump has begun to lay the
groundwork for potentially ignoring or disrupting the voting process, by
claiming, for instance, that any mail-in ballots will be fraudulent and that
his opponents will seek to have non-citizens vote through fraud. It was
taken for granted throughout that Trumps fears and accusations are fake
whereas his opponents fears and accusations are soundly based.
The Transition Integrity Project report made a feeble attempt to appear
neutral: TIP takes no position on how Americans should cast their votes, or
on the likely winner of the upcoming election; either party could prevail at
the polls in November without resorting to dirty tricks a neutrality
consistently violated by the entire exercise.
The exercise comprised four scenarios: (1) an ambiguous voting result, (2)
clear victory by the Democratic challenger, former Vice President Joe Biden,
(3) clear Trump win, (4) narrow Biden win. The game was played by teams,
primarily Team Biden and Team Trump, but it is pretty clear that none of
the players were pro-Trump, including the players on Team Trump. But the
games claimed to show how Trump supporters would react in these
circumstances.
Team Trump was consistently more ruthless than Team Biden more willing to
ignore existing democratic norms, to make use of disinformation, to deploy
federal agencies to promote Trumps personal and electoral interests, and to
engage in intimidation campaigns.
But Team Biden was much nicer:
Team Biden generally felt constrained by a commitment to norms and a desire
to tamp down violence and reduce instability.
Team Biden often had the majority of the public on its side, and the
ability to mobilize resentment about the structural disenfranchisement in
the way we conduct presidential elections.
Russiagate intruded into the gaming in an odd and even ludicrous way: There
was quite a bit of speculation that Trump might [
] attempt to rally
nationalist feelings to himself, or placate foreign leaders to whom he may
feel beholden, such as Vladimir Putin. Huh?
Nobody Dares Lose
Campaign image of Kamala Harris and Joe Biden. (2020DemConvention, Twitter)
A particularly alarming and disturbingly credible assumption of the
Transition Integrity Project game is that in this election, neither side is
prepared to accept defeat. The scenario exercises revealed that for many
Democrats and key Democratic constituencies, this election represents an
existential crisis, the last chance to stop a rapid and potentially
irreversible U.S. decline into authoritarianism and unbridled nativism.
So, as much as Trump, many Democrats are ready to stop at nothing to win
this election for the best of reasons, of course.
Trump is depicted as equally desperate to win in order to avoid being
treated as a criminal. An underlying assumption of this story-telling is
that once out of office, Trump will be arrested and tried for unspecified
crimes. This would indeed be an incentive for him not to lose.
At this point, it is necessary to recall that democratic election of
national leaders depends on a degree of mutual trust that is being lost in
America. The United States regularly insists that all foreign countries
should elect their leaders by fair and free elections. But there are many
countries where, at some time of their historical development, this method
is not advisable because one party, or tribe, fears for its very life if a
rival party, or tribe, should take power.
In such states, peace depends on the rule of a king, a mediator, a dictator.
The United States can currently be seen to be regressing to just such a
degree of mutual hatred and distrust.
No Compromise
It seems to me that if the Democratic Establishment gave priority to a
peaceful election and transition, against the possibility that Trump might
reject the results, the smart and reasonable thing to do would be to
reassure him on the two counts which they suggest might incite him to balk:
postal vote fraud accusations and the threat of criminal charges against
him.
2000 presidential election recount underway in Palm Beach County, Florida,
Nov. 18, 2000. (Dtobias, CC BY-SA 3.0, Wikimedia Commons)
As to the latter: Participants in the scenario exercises universally
believed that self-preservation for President Trump and his family will be
Trumps first and possibly only priority if he is forced to concede
electoral defeat. So, it is a bit odd that the Transition Integrity
Project goes on to report that: During several of the TIP exercises, Team
Biden attempted to enter into negotiations with Team Trump about a pardon
and graceful transition, but those overtures were consistently rejected.
Since there were no Trump supporters on either team, these game results
merely reflect the intention of the Democratic Establishment to assume that
Trump will be charged with state crimes, as yet unspecified. No
compromise deal is desired.
As for postal balloting, it should be conceivable that Trumps misgivings
are justified. Trump is not against absentee ballots, which require
identification of the voter, comparable to going to the polls, but is
suspicious of mass mailings of ballots back and forth.
In an age when anyone can photocopy any document, when mails are slow and
when there are many ways in which ballots might be destroyed, such
misgivings are not far-fetched. Indeed, in the course of Game No. 1, a
rogue individual destroyed a large number of ballots believed to have
supported Biden. Why could the gamers imagine Biden ballots being
destroyed, but rule out destruction of ballots supporting Trump?
For the sake of domestic peace, why not try to find a compromise?
Democratic vice-presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) has
introduced legislation to generalize postal balloting. Why not, instead,
extend polling time, opening polls not only on the second Tuesday in
November but on the preceding Saturday and Sunday? This would provide time
to allow voters afraid of Covid-19 to keep distances from each other, as
they do when they go to the supermarket. It would reduce the number of
absentee ballots, the time needed for counting and above all the suspicions
attached to postal voting. But the more wary Trump is of postal voting, the
more Democrats insist on making it universal.
It becomes clearer and clearer that hatred of Trump has reached such a
pitch, that for the Democratic Establishment and its hangers-on, defeating
Trump at the polls is not enough. They are practically inciting him to
contest the election. Then they can have something more exciting and
decisive: a genuine regime change.
Preparing for Regime Change
The classic regime change scenario involves a contested election, mass
street demonstrations including civil disobedience and finally, military
intervention.
So, to start with, the gamers posit an authoritarian leader who wont step
down. Thats Trump.
Next, a show of numbers in the streets and actions in the streets may
be decisive factors in determining what the public perceives as a just and
legitimate outcome. In an interview
stressing the flaws in our electoral system, Transition Integrity Project
organizer Gilman said that what we need is for people to be prepared to
take to the streets in nonviolent protest if appeals to officials do not
suffice.
Weve learned over the last couple of months, since the Movement for Black
Lives protest really took off again in the wake of George Floyds murder,
that taking to the streets and showing commitment to a democratic process
beyond just the ballot box is a really important part of driving change.
The demonstrations must be nonviolent, Gilman stressed.
As the Transition Integrity Project report put it, the scale of recent
demonstrations has increased the stakes for the Democratic Party to build
strong ties with grassroots organizations and be responsive to the
movements demands. Certain of these grassroots organizations MoveOn and
Black Lives Matter have enjoyed financial support from Soros, as the
Democratic Party clearly tries to co-opt the protests.
George Soros. (georgesoros.com)
According to the scenarios, such protests could arise not only in case Trump
refused to recognize a Biden win, but also, in Game No. 3, in case of a
comfortable Electoral College victory for President Trump (286-to-252) but
also a significant popular vote win (52 percent for Trump, 47 percent for
Biden). The game play ended in a constitutional crisis, with threats of
secession, and the potential for either a decline into authoritarianism or a
radically revamped set of democratic rules that ensure the popular will
prevails (abolishment of the Electoral College
)
The Biden campaign retracted its initial concession, capitalizing on the
publics outrage that for the third time in 20 years a candidate lost the
popular vote but won the Electoral College. The Biden campaign encouraged
California, Oregon and Washington to secede unless Congressional
Republicans agreed to a set of structural reforms to fix our democratic
system to ensure majority rule. Congress supported Biden. It was unclear
what the military would do in this situation.
In reality, Democrats know that they have managed to keep the Permanent
State, including the military and intelligence agencies, on their side
throughout Trumps presidency. Where are the forces that could carry out a
pro-Trump coup détat?
Whose Coup?
Hillary Clinton addressing Democratic convention, July 2016. (Gage Skidmore,
Flickr)
During the exercises, the report notes, winning the narrative emerged
as a potentially decisive factor. Either side can expand or contract the
margin of contestation if they succeed in substantially changing how key
decision makers and the public view the facts, the risks of action or
inaction, or external events such as civil unrest.
Winning the narrative appears to be a main purpose of the Transition
Integrity Project, and it was quickly seconded in its efforts by top
Democrats.
Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances because I think this
is going to drag out, and eventually I do believe he will win if we dont
give an inch and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is,
Hillary Clinton said in an interview on Aug. 25.
A couple of days later, Al Gore, the former vice president and unsuccessful
2000 Democratic presidential candidate, chimed in. Trump, he said in a
particularly loaded image, is attempting to put his knee on the neck of
democracy by criticizing mail-in ballots. He seems to have no compunctions
at all about trying to rip apart the social fabric and the political
equilibrium of the American people, and hes strategically planting doubts
in advance.
People ask whether Trump will leave office next Jan. 20. Well, said Gore,
it doesnt matter because its not up to him. Because at noon on January
20th, if a new president is elected
the police force, the Secret Service,
the military, all of the executive branch officers, will respond to the
command and the direction of the new president.
The Bottom Line
Outside the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2020 in Davos-Klosters,
Switzerland, Jan. 24. (World Economic Forum, Mattias Nutt, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Meanwhile, Americans can listen to the extravagant rhetoric of the two enemy
camps, calling on them to choose between authoritarian white supremacy and
radical Marxist socialism while offering absolutely nothing in terms of
coherent public policy of benefit to the American people and the world. The
politicians cling to ineffective office, while the future is being planned
elsewhere.
Policy will be designed by the Global Governors, for instance at the next
meeting in Davos of the World Economic Forum which, according to its founder
and chairman Klaus Schwab, will lay out the Great Reset agenda for the
Fourth Industrial Revolution that is destined to reshape all our lives.
Nicolas Berggruen will be there with his ideas. So will other billionaires.
They will not be conspiring, but rather laying plans for what they
consider best for the world. There is no political system enabling us to
influence or even fully understand the projects they will sponsor. Surely
these projects deserve to be sharply debated. But the politicians
supposedly representing us are somewhere else, fighting furiously with each
other over contrived issues.
The Electoral College is not the most fatal flaw in American democracy.
Rather, its the monopoly of political discourse by a two-party system
fueled essentially by personal ambition, taking its cues from lobbies, the
military industrial complex, Wall Street and the Global Governors.
Diana Johnstone lives in Paris. Her latest book is Circle in the Darkness:
Memoirs of a World Watcher (Clarity Press, 2020).