51吃瓜

Although Nancy Pelosi is now just an ordinary Congresswoman after serving for the best part of the past two decades as either Speaker of the House or minority leader, loyal Democrats admire her for her unwavering support of the party and her ability to get things done. Even presumably less loyal members, reputed to be committed to challenging the party establishment, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have to her as Mama Bear and have found it convenient on most occasions to drift towards the party discipline enforced by Pelosi.

As she approaches her 84^th birthday, Pelosi, like President Biden himself,聽 represents the senior side of the Democratic party. It has become increasingly apparent that their generation is out of touch with America鈥檚 youth, a demographic traditionally counted upon to support Democrats. That sounds like bad news in an election year. Recent polls show the Democratic party鈥檚 taste for getting seriously involved in and committed to overseas wars has alienated a good portion of the younger generation from the Democrats. Biden鈥檚 resistance to calling for a ceasefire in the Gaza conflict appears to be a major factor in the of voters in the age range of 18 to 34.

Mama Bear won鈥檛 tolerate such flagrant indiscipline. last week on CNN鈥檚 鈥淪tate of the Union,鈥� she berated Biden鈥檚 critics. 鈥淔or them to call for a cease-fire is Mr. Putin鈥檚 message,鈥� she insisted. 鈥淢ake no mistake, this is directly connected to what he would like to see. Same thing with Ukraine. It鈥檚 about Putin鈥檚 message. I think some of these protesters are spontaneous and organic and sincere. Some, I think, are connected to Russia.鈥�

罢辞诲补测鈥檚 Weekly Devil鈥檚 Dictionary definition:

Putin鈥檚 message:

For establishment Democrats, any statement made by an American that varies from the orthodoxy of the party, especially if related to the question of military intervention in various parts of the world.

Contextual note

Some feel that Pelosi鈥檚 insistence on seeing Putin as the source of every idea that fails to conform to the party鈥檚 orthodoxy resembles a dangerous conspiracy theory. Others may say that it鈥檚 nothing more than an innocent reflex inherited from the great Russiagate campaign the Democratic party launched in its embarrassment to explain away Donald Trump鈥檚 2016 election.

鈥淧elosi Wants F.B.I. to Investigate Pro-Palestinian Protesters鈥� is the title NYT affixed to its article. Investigate, really? She must know that investigations cost taxpayer money. So, if she made such a request, she must have felt she was on solid ground. No responsible politician, especially a former Speaker of the House, would ever consider spending their citizens鈥� hard-earned money on trivialities, would they?

Pelosi is of course open-minded. We should admire her generosity of spirit when she conceded that 鈥渟ome of these protesters are spontaneous and organic and sincere.鈥� She can even imagine lost souls taking such a deluded position without having to consult the Kremlin or allow their brains to be programmed by Putin鈥檚 telepathic powers. 

Pelosi is right to focus on money as the obvious explanation. What else could explain such an aberration? Pelosi鈥檚 own life story demonstrates how rational people may do the most outlandish things when there is a prospect for making money. In their place, she herself would have taken the Kremlin鈥檚 money and placed it in a stock she had reason to think might soon be rising.

There鈥檚 another pragmatic reason to dismiss the idea that this is about Putin鈥檚 mind control of the protesters. Since the start of the Ukraine war, the US government has banned access to Russia鈥檚 privileged channels of propaganda. Two years ago, paid Kremlin agents brazenly presented their programs on RT, which had a license to broadcast in the US. Thanks to the Russian channel, Americans were free to have their minds programmed by propaganda spread by the likes of Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, satirical comedian Lee Camp and former governor of Minnesota,, among others. Pelosi understood that it was Putin who provided these professional entertainers with their scripts. The Biden administration effectively silenced those seditious voices.

With so little access to Putin鈥檚 political theology, money alone can explain the obedience of the protesters. It鈥檚 now up to the FBI to do what it鈥檚 generally good at (except possibly in the case of Hunter and Joe Biden): scrutinize in detail each of the culprits鈥� bank account.

Who in Washington better than Pelosi understands the role of money in politics? Just as ardently as she defends the Democratic party and its policies does she defend the sacred right of legislators of both parties to engage in 鈥渋nformed investing,鈥� which some abusively refer to as insider trading.

Historical note

American politics in the 2020s has taken on a character of d茅j脿 vu. The Democrats have taken more seriously than Trump the Donald鈥檚 slogan, 鈥淢ake America Great Again.鈥� Most people understood it to evoke a nostalgia for the conformist culture of the 1950s, with its crewcuts, tail fins, thin ties and button-down collars. But thanks to the Democrats, the real culture of the fifties has return with a full-throated revival of the spirit of the Cold War and even its iconic moment, McCarthyism. Pelosi鈥檚 wish to have the FBI investigate peace protesters is worthy of the most paranoiac excesses of Wisconsin Senator Joe McCarthy.

The only significant difference between McCarthy鈥檚 feverish campaign to root out American communists and Pelosi鈥檚 mission of exposing the Kremlin puppets populating the current peace movement is that McCarthy鈥檚 crusade was directed at preventing the damage wrought on the US by evil Marxists. Pelosi鈥檚 focus isn鈥檛 on preserving American institutions, but Israel鈥檚.

Under the Republican Eisenhower administration, McCarthy sought to shield the sacred institutions of American democracy from the universal communist threat. Pelosi鈥檚 modern patriotism is focused on protecting the administration of that great democratic leader, Benjamin Netanyahu and furthering Bibi鈥檚 noble cause of ridding his Middle Eastern nation of the troublemakers who have no business trying to survive in his holy land.

The Democrats of the 1950s vilified and eventually shamed and neutralized Joe McCarthy. In contrast, Pelosi demonstrates what Richard Hofstadter documented in a famous Harper鈥檚 Magazine from November, 1964 that ran with the title, 鈥淭he Paranoid Style in American Politics.鈥� The author developed the thesis that paranoia had always been a feature of style in the framing of political causes throughout US history.

In the year arch-conservative Barry Goldwater stood as the Republican candidate for the presidency, Hofstadter described the paranoid style as a feature of the right and occasional populist movements. No sane commentator identifies Pelosi with either the right or populism. They believe Democrats to be the party of the left. But Hofstadter insists that the paranoid style is neither right nor left. It is built around the belief in the threatening presence of an imaginary enemy. 鈥淪ince the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated鈥攊f not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention.鈥�

This appears to correlate with the way Pelosi and others in the supposedly 鈥渓eft-wing鈥� Democratic party think. Russia is clearly the enemy, just as it was in the good ole Cold War days. Its leader is 鈥渢otally evil and totally unappeasable.鈥� Those who share any so much as random thoughts with the devil are totally evil. Even those diabolical souls who claim to protest genocide.

Hofstadter adds another observation, about history itself. 鈥淭he paranoid鈥檚 interpretation of history is distinctly personal: decisive events are not taken as part of the stream of history, but as the consequences of someone鈥檚 will.鈥� 

Pelosi, but nearly everyone in the Democratic party and the modern security state has focused on Putin鈥檚 supernatural will that manifests itself in the most varied contexts: Trump鈥檚 2016 election, the Donbas, Hunter Biden鈥檚 abandoned laptop and most perversely among young Americans hypocritically claiming to be shocked by genocide.

In other words, Hofstadter was spot on when he observed that the paranoid style has been present throughout US history. But 60 years ago, back in 1964, he couldn鈥檛 have suspected that one day the paranoia might stretch across the entire mainstream political spectrum, embracing both major parties. Mama Bear has now made that entirely apparent.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil鈥檚 Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of 51吃瓜 Devil鈥檚 Dictionary.]

The views expressed in this article are the author鈥檚 own and do not necessarily reflect 51吃瓜鈥檚 editorial policy.