Type to search

Columns Tom Baxter

Campaign tampering: Much more serious than a spy thriller

By Tom Baxter

When Richard Condon published “The Manchurian Candidate” in 1959, brainwashing was a popular but poorly understood subject of fascination and Communist China was more closed to the West than North Korea is today. The plot he spun, of devious foreign powers plotting to hijack a U.S. presidential election by programming a war hero to assassinate a candidate, seemed both chilling and distant in its plausibility.

We’ve come to a different place.

The Cold War has long since concluded, but an intelligence war ticks along on a dangerous course. Boundaries — as Donald Trump is always saying — have become more porous, and the enemies who might wish us ill are much closer than they used to be.

So news of the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s internal email system by groups close to Russian intelligence didn’t get the bombshell reaction it would have a few years ago. It just sound like the plot of an HBO or Showtime series from a couple of years ago. Nor has the suggestion — encouraged by his own careless statements — that Trump is somehow in cahoots with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

But the 2016 election isn’t a spy thriller, and the nation really can’t afford to let stories about possible foreign interference in an American election slide down to the news ticker and go away without getting to the bottom of some things.

It now appears the computer network used by Hillary Clinton’s campaign was hacked by the Russians,  as well as the Democratic National Committee’s. This is not so surprising, but it adds weight to the notion that the Russians are keenly interested in the upcoming election, and appear to have a favorite.

That we know of, there’s been no hacking of the Republican National Committee’s computer network, or the Donald Trump campaign’s. Whether this should be taken as a sign of contempt or respect is a matter of political persuasion.

Putin has a little history as a charmer of Republicans. In 2001, former President George W. Bush, seeking to normalize relations between their two countries, told reporters he had “looked the man in the eye…. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interest of his country.” This prompted a famous rejoinder from Sen. John McCain: “I look him in the eye, and I see three letters: K, G and B.”

But there’s no precedent for a major political figure waffling over the question of whether he’s ever met a foreign leader or not.

Trump has said in interviews that he has a good relationship with Putin, and that he has no relationship with Putin. If you watch some of the older interviews in which he appears to be referring to conversations with the Russian leader, the suspicion arises that he may have been pumping himself up back then, and is telling the truth, in his second time at bat, when he says now he hasn’t met him.

Or he can’t remember. Trump has made a lot of provocative remarks throughout this campaign, but his vagueness about whether he has actually met Putin raises questions that would not have occurred to Trump’s worst enemies. His praise for Putin, and his apparent softness with regard to the country’s obligations to NATO, only add fuel to the fire.

He has to get a lot more specific, or risk chaos if something more happens to suggest foreign interference. Cybersecurity expert Bruce Schneier has raised the scariest possibility yet: that hackers good enough to penetrate the DNC computer system are potentially good enough to hack electronic voting machines.

“There are other ways to attack our election system on the Internet besides hacking voting machines or changing vote tallies: deleting voter records, hijacking candidate or party websites, targeting and intimidating campaign workers or donors,” Schneier continues. “There have already been multiple instances of political doxing: ­ publishing personal information and documents about a person or organization ­ and we could easily see more of it in this election cycle.”

Those are not comforting words. Whatever side you’re on in this election, it matters crucially that the outcome not be in dispute.

Tom Baxter

Tom Baxter has written about politics and the South for more than four decades. He was national editor and chief political correspondent at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and later edited The Southern Political Report, an online publication, for four years. Tom was the consultant for the 2008 election night coverage sponsored jointly by Current TV, Digg and Twitter, and a 2011 fellow at the Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics at the University of Kansas. He has written about the impact of Georgia’s and Alabama's immigration laws in reports for the Center for American Progress. Tom and his wife, Lili, have three adult children and seven grandchildren.


You Might also Like


  1. Kathy Brooke August 4, 2016 10:38 am

    That is some scary stuff.Report

  2. Ellis Vener August 5, 2016 11:26 am

    I wish I did not have to be so cynical about my fellow citizens but Trump supporters just don’t care and more to the point since this is being reported by “the media” they choose not to believe it.
    Which is odd when you think about it, because Putin is an unreconstructed Communist and former KGB agent and as the rabid right wing propagandists and leaders they follow for decades have been telling them that the media are a bunch of fellow travelers with the Commies so you’d think “the media” would be in league with Putin by not reporting this story.Report

  3. Burroughston Broch August 6, 2016 11:12 pm

    The DNC have only themselves to blame for their hacking, as they were advised long ago about their vulnerability. If they hadn’t made all the incautious emails that conflict with their loudly proclaimed ideals, they wouldn’t have anything to cover up. Of course, their standard bearer Clinton hardly set a great example of IT security.Report


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.