Skip to main content

THE FOX AND THE GRAPES




“The [Mueller] investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”  (From the Attorney General’s letter to Congress, 24.03.2019)

This statement has caused consternation, confusion, anger, and denial in some people.  I, for one, am very confused.  The first thing that confuses me in the sentence above is the word “establish.”  Does that mean that Mueller couldn’t prove conspiracy or coordination beyond a reasonable doubt—the standard for a criminal prosecution?  Or does it mean that there was actually no conspiracy or coordination at all---that all the help from Russia was all one-way?  I don’t know.  What I do know, is that I need to resolve my confusion and am turning to an Aesop’s fable and the theory of cognitive dissonance for some help.

In this Aesop’s Fable, a hungry fox sees some grapes hanging on a trellis just out of reach.  He tries repeatedly to grasp them but fails.  Finally he gives up and walks away, telling himself that he didn’t really want the grapes anyway because they were sour.  

The theory of cognitive dissonance explains the fox’s rationalization in psychological terms.  From Wiki:  

In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values.  When confronted with facts that contradict beliefs, ideas, and values, people will find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce their discomfort.

So the belief that Trump conspired or coordinated with Russia to win the election (the fox’s desire to reach the bunch of grapes) now uncomfortably shares my consciousness with the conclusion of the Mueller report (the fox’s inability to reach the grapes).  How am I going to deal with my psychological stress?  Not by harrumphing and walking away, saying, “Sour grapes.”  No, I want to see if I can resolve the contradiction and reduce my discomfort.  Here’s what I’m dealing with.    

Russia Just Threw the Election to Us.  Michael Flynn’s deputy, referring to sanctions, wrote in an email, “If there is a tit-for-tat escalation Trump will have difficulty improving relations with Russia, which has just thrown U.S.A. election to him.”  If this statement and Mueller’s conclusion are both true, then it must mean that either Russia threw the election without coordinating with Trump, or Mueller couldn’t prove the coordination.

Gift of Polling Data.  The Manafort indictment states that he gave polling data to a Russian intelligence agent.  If this statement and Mueller’s conclusion are both true,  then it must mean either that Manafort was acting on his own behalf for his own personal benefit, or that Mueller couldn’t prove that giving over the polling data was intended to help the campaign.

Trump Tower Meeting.  Donald Jr. took the Trump Tower June 2016 meeting with Russian agents to get dirt on Hillary.  If this fact and Mueller’s conclusion are both true, then it must mean either that the meeting really was inconsequential or Mueller couldn’t prove conspiracy among these meeting attendees.

Roger Stone and Wikileaks.  The Stone indictment says a senior campaign officer was directed to reach out to Stone to get more information on the Wikileaks release of hacked emails.  If this fact and Mueller’s conclusion are both true, then it must mean either that the Campaign did not aid and abet a computer crime, or that Mueller couldn’t prove it.

Everybody Lied.  Quite a few people connected with the campaign lied to Congress, the FBI, and/or the Special Counsel about contacts between the campaign and Russia.  If this fact and Mueller’s conclusion are both true, then it must mean either that none of the contacts had anything to do with conspiracy or coordination between the Campaign and Russia, or that Mueller couldn’t prove it.    

Some commentators, notably Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone, are blaming the Main Stream Media for creating our cognitive dissonance.  https://taibbi.substack.com/ What Taibbi means is that the main stream media hyped the Trump-Russia conspiracy to the same degree the Bush Administration hyped weapons of mass destruction.  In other words, fake news.  While I do feel a little gaslit by the reporting, I don’t feel angry so much as concerned about the “universal” distrust of the press Taibbi foresees:

For years, every pundit and Democratic pol in Washington hyped every new Russia headline like the Watergate break-in. Nothing Trump is accused of from now on by the press will be believed by huge chunks of the population, a group that (perhaps thanks to this story) is now larger than his original base.

I can’t claim to have resolved in my own mind what actually happened during the 2016 election.  I don’t know if it was all a big Nothingburger, or if Mueller just couldn’t prove conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.  But I have resolved the contradictions between the facts and the report and thereby reduced my cognitive dissonance anxiety.  Unfortunately, I’ve replaced it with anxiety over fake news.  

Keep it real!
Marilyn

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

I FEEL THE EARTH MOVE UNDER MY FEET

  I feel the earth move under my feet I feel the sky tumbling down, tumbling down I just lose control Down to my very soul.                                     Carole King, 1971 This is a very personal post--about a very personal apocalypse, one quite different from the Biblical one imaged above. Carole King's words come to mind because they describe how I feel about this upside down, ass-backwards moment in time.   While there are good things happening in the world, their scale when compared to the bad things that are happening seems to me pitifully dwarfed.  When you look at this short list of events and trends, can you tell me what's right with this picture?  Do these items upset your even keel and threaten to drown you in pessimism?  Consider... Russia and Israel are killin...
8 comments
Read more

THE BROLIGARCHS V. DEMOCRACY

Although not elected by the American people, the world’s wealthiest person, a South African businessman, is running the United States government with the blessing of its chief executive and without meaningful opposition from the legislature or definitive censure by the judiciary.   What is going on?   Has business trumped politics, and if so, doesn’t that raise an interesting question:        Is capitalism compatible with democracy? In pondering this, my research led me to an American billionaire; a German emeritus professor of political science at the Berlin Social Sciences Center; and a Dutch former member of the European Parliament, now a Fellow at the Stanford Cyber Policy Center, all of whom had quite a lot to say.     First, Peter Thiel, the billionaire. Peter Thiel’s Wiki bio says he co-founded PayPal with Elon Musk; he was the initial outside investor in Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook; and he co-founded Palantir, the big-d...
Post a Comment
Read more

NEW GAME, NEW RULES

Let me set the stage.   I am a U.S. citizen and a permanent resident of Germany.   In other words, I am an immigrant.   That status didn’t happen overnight and it didn’t come easily.   When we moved to Italy, it took me five years to convert my visa to a Permesso di Soggiorno.   When we subsequently moved to Germany, I had to surrender my Italian residency permit, and it took me another five years to obtain my Daueraufenthaltstitel .   In each country, I jumped through the hoops, produced the necessary documents, fulfilled the language requirements, attended the obligatory immigration appointments, paid my fees, didn’t attempt to work until I could do so legally, and counted the days.   In short, I respected the process and the law.   It has always been crystal clear to me that I live here at the discretion of the German government.   If I screw up, they can “ask” me to leave.   Therefore, I don’t have much sympathy for people who ju...
2 comments
Read more