Column: Whose election was it anyway?

Throughout most of the Trump Administration, there has been controversy over whether Russian interference in the presidential election gave our current president his victory over Hillary Clinton. Did the Russian government attempt to influence the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election? Almost certainly, given the evidence. Did this attempt at influencing the election have a significant impact? That’s more debatable. 

I would argue that Clinton’s loss had less to do with astroturfed Twitter-bots posting pictures of cartoon frogs and more to do with the fact that she refused to routinely campaign in the Midwest.

There is an interesting parallel to be drawn here, however, with past events. In 1996, the U.S. actively interfered in the Russian presidential election, working in conjunction with Russian oligarchs, to keep the extremely unpopular incumbent President Boris Yeltsin in power and prevent the election of Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov. 

The end of the Soviet socialism in Russia brought about an incredibly sharp drop in the standard of living, which resulted in a strong push to restore the economic stability and equality of the Soviet Union. 

The U.S. never even tried to hide its involvement; after the election, Time magazine proudly proclaimed on its cover that the U.S. government had actively worked to get Yeltsin reelected. 

Naturally, allegations of electoral fraud were thrown around, and in 2012 Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev even acknowledged, “There is hardly any doubt who won [that race]. It was not Boris Nikolaevich Yeltsin.”

Yeltsin’s second presidential term would be as incompetently handled and broadly unpopular as his first, leading to his resignation in 1999, effectively leaving power over Russia in the hands of his heir apparent, Vladimir Putin, bringing us full circle. 

In such a way, Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election can be indirectly traced back to U.S. electoral interference in the 1996 Russian presidential election. U.S. foreign policy had effectively normalized Russia’s actions.

Even beyond all that, Russian influence on U.S. elections has been relatively minimal compared to the amount of influence exerted by corporations. New York City hedge fund managers and Silicon Valley tech magnates have poured far more money and resources into the 2016 presidential election than the Russian government ever did. It might be said that the difference here is that these oligarchs are U.S. citizens, and thus, unlike the Russians, have a right to attempt to influence the democratic process. 

In response, I would assert that the democratic process must be based in the principle underlying the concept of “one man, one vote:" That is to say, a proper democracy means that all citizens should have equal political power. Our current system of campaign finance results, instead, in a plutocracy — the wealthier a citizen is, the more influence he or she is able to exert on politicians and legislature.

If we are alarmed by any subversion of the democratic process, then our primary concern should be to end the monopolization of political power by the capitalist class.