Bush & the Rise of 'Managed-Democracy'

[Guest guest]

<http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/021205.html>

 

Bush & the Rise of 'Managed-Democracy'

 

By Robert Parry

February 12, 2005

 

When conservatives talk of George W. Bush's " transformational " role in

American politics, they are referring to a fundamental change they seek

in the U.S. system of government in which the Republican Party will

dominate for years to come and power will not really be up for grabs in

general elections.

 

Under this vision of a " managed-democracy, " elections will still be

held

but a variety of techniques will ensure that no Democrat has a

reasonable chance to win. Most important will be the use of

sophisticated propaganda and smear tactics amplified through a vast

conservative media infrastructure, aided and abetted by a compliant

mainstream press.

 

This concept also might be called the " Putin-izing " of American

politics, where one side's dominance of media, financial resources and

the ability to intimidate opponents is overwhelming – as now exists in

Russia under President Vladimir Putin. Crucial to Putin's political

control is how the major Russian news media fawns over the Russian

strongman, a former KGB chief.

 

In the United States, the conservative/Republican consolidation of

power

is not yet complete. But it appears clear that the traditional checks

and balances, including the national press corps, are now so weak and

compromised that they won't present any meaningful resistance. That

means new strategies must be devised and new institutions must be

created if this one-party-state future is to be averted.

 

The rapidly expanding conservative news media already is an

extraordinary powerhouse, extending from TV to newspapers to talk radio

to magazines to the Internet. Nothing of a similar size exists on the

left side of the U.S. political spectrum.

 

So mainstream U.S. journalists intuitively understand that their

careers

require that they not get in the way of the conservative juggernaut.

CNN's chief news executive Eason Jordan, who resigned Friday night

after

coming under attack from right-wing bloggers for an off-hand comment

blaming U.S. soldiers for killing some journalists in Iraq, is only the

latest to learn this hard lesson. [More below.]

 

Mythical Pendulum

 

Four years ago, some hopeful political analysts predicted that the

rightward swing of the media pendulum, which so bedeviled Bill Clinton

in the 1990s, would lurch back leftward once Bush took office in 2001.

 

These analysts foresaw the news media assuming its traditional

adversarial role regardless of which party held the White House, tough

on Democrats and tough on Republicans.

 

But no self-correction ever occurred. Instead, as Bush enters the fifth

year of his presidency, major news outlets are continuing to swing more

to the right.

 

For example, NBC News anchor Brian Williams represents an even more

compliant figure toward Bush than did former anchor Tom Brokaw, who

himself often acted like a cheerleader for Bush's policies. After Bush

ordered the invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003, Brokaw sat among a

panel

of former U.S. military officers and proclaimed, " in a few days, we're

going to own that country. "

 

Williams is even more gung-ho and more pro-Republican. Williams, who

built his reputation as an MSNBC anchor in the 1990s with harsh

coverage

of Bill Clinton's scandals, has made a point to curry favor with

conservatives, stressing that he is a big fan of right-wing talk-show

host Rush Limbaugh.

 

" I think Rush has actually yet to get the credit he is due because his

audience for so many years felt they were in the wilderness of this

country, " Williams told C-SPAN interviewer Brian Lamb in December 2004.

" I think Rush gave birth to the Fox news channel. I think Rush helped

to

give birth to a movement. I think he played his part in the

[Republican]

Contract with America. So I hope he gets his due as a broadcaster. "

 

Williams added that when he worked in the White House press room, he

would join with his " friend Brit Hume, " now a Fox News anchor, in

citing

alleged examples of liberal bias by " you members of the perhaps

unintentionally liberal media. " [C-SPAN's Q & A, Dec. 26, 2004]

 

Having come of age in a Washington media environment where flattering

the Right was a guaranteed way to protect your career, Williams

understands that he helps himself by siding with conservative media

figures. By contrast, it would be unimaginable that a new network

anchor

would declare that he had joined, say, Air America's Al Franken in

calling out reporters for alleged conservative bias.

 

Patriotic Fervor

 

And the continued rightward swing at General Electric's NBC is being

replicated across the " mainstream " news media. During the Iraq invasion

in spring 2003, for instance, CNN fell over itself to be almost as

super-patriotic as Fox News. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com's

" Empire v. Republic. " ]

 

During Campaign 2004, CNN also gave crucial, credulous coverage to the

smears against John Kerry's war record from the pro-Bush Swift Boat

Veterans for Truth. Though the New York Times and other major

newspapers

eventually discredited the attacks, the intense coverage on the cable

news outlets – competing with Fox to publicize the anti-Kerry

allegations – marked an important turning point in the campaign. [see

Consortiumnews.com's " Reality on the Ballot, " " Bushes Play the

`Traitor'

Card, " and " It's the Media, Stupid! "

 

While no one at CNN suffered for buying into bogus Swift Boat charges

against Kerry, CBS rushed to fire four " 60 Minutes " producers when they

came under conservative criticism for their handling of disputed memos

about how Bush had blown off his National Guard duty in the 1970s. As

part of the fallout from that flap, Dan Rather – long a bete noire of

the Right – agreed to step down as evening news anchor. [For details,

see Consortiumnews.com's " The Bush Rule of Journalism. " ]

 

Even clumsy phrasing in off-hand remarks can lead to the sudden end of

a

mainstream journalism career, once the conservative media

infrastructure

becomes engaged.

 

Right-wing bloggers and Fox News claimed the scalp of 44-year-old CNN

executive Eason Jordan, who resigned Feb. 11 after coming under attack

for an off-the-record comment he made at a conference in Davos,

Switzerland, about the high number of journalists killed covering the

Iraq War.

 

Jordan disputed a characterization that journalists killed by U.S.

troops were " collateral " victims, which normally would mean that they

died when bullets or bombs fired at an enemy target went astray. At

least nine of 54 journalists killed in Iraq the past two years were the

victims of American fire, according to the Committee to Protect

Journalists. [NYT, Feb. 12, 2005]

 

Jordan's point apparently was that U.S. troops had aimed at some of

these journalists, though possibly not knowing they were journalists,

and thus the dead journalists shouldn't be categorized as " collateral "

victims. Though Jordan's point may be correct, the conservative media

jumped on any suggestion that a CNN news executive was blaming U.S.

troops for intentional misconduct – and CNN's top brass quickly caved.

 

The Bush Standard

 

This conservative influence also has been apparent in mainstream print

publications, which held Bill Clinton and Al Gore to strict standards

of

honesty during the previous administration but look the other way or

volunteer excuses when Bush is caught in a lie.

 

For instance, after Bush's State of the Union address, a Washington

Post

editorial recognized the obvious – that Bush was " flat wrong " when he

asserted that Social Security " will be flat bust, bankrupt " in 2042.

But

in line with what might be called the " Bush Standard, " the newspaper

felt compelled to make excuses for him.

 

" A bit of hyperbole in the cause of generating responsible action on

Social Security isn't the worst sin that is apt to be committed in the

course of the coming debate, " the Post said about Bush's declaration,

which ignored the fact that even after the Social Security trust fund

is

exhausted, the system could still pay more than 70 percent of benefits.

[Washington Post, Feb. 1, 2005]

 

By contrast, during Campaign 2000, the Washington Post and other major

news outlets accused Gore of a serious character flaw – some even

questioning his sanity – when he made alleged misstatements. No

apologies were in order, even when it turned out that the news media

was

exaggerating Gore's supposed exaggerations. [For details, see

Consortiumnews.com's " Al Gore v. the Media. " ]

 

Even then, in 2000, the " Bush Standard " was in place. While pouncing on

every questionable comment by Gore, the national press corps gave Bush

and his running mate, Dick Cheney, pretty much a free pass for false or

misleading statements, such as when Cheney falsely claimed about his

success as chairman of Halliburton that " the government had absolutely

nothing to do with it. " [For details, see Consortiumnews.com's

" Protecting Bush-Cheney. " ]

 

War on Terror

 

Since the terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, key elements of the major

news media have increasingly demanded consent around Bush and his

policies, a pattern that continues as Bush enters his second term.

 

After the Iraqi elections and Bush's State of the Union address, the

Washington Post's editorial page editor, Fred Hiatt, penned a column

berating Democrats, including John Kerry, calling them " Bad News

Donkeys " for not showing enough enthusiasm for Bush and his policies.

Hiatt likened the Democrats to the sad-sack character Eeyore in the

Winnie-the-Pooh stories. [For details see Consortiumnews.com's

" Washington's Ricky Proehl Syndrome. " ]

 

Yet, while commentators expect Democrats to praise Bush, the major news

media acts as if Republican disdain for Democrats is the natural order

of things. There was barely a peep of media objection on Jan. 20 when

triumphant Republicans jeered John Kerry when he joined other senators

at the Inaugural platform on Capitol Hill.

 

But it's not only Democratic politicians who can expect rough treatment

these days.

 

The Bush administration continues purging civil servants who question

the president's policies. For instance, Jesselyn Radack, a lawyer in

the

Justice Department's ethics office, found her career derailed after she

urged some limits on the harsh questioning of John Walker Lindh, an

American who was caught with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

 

Radack said her job evaluation went from positive to negative after she

sent e-mails that challenged the hard-line interrogation techniques

favored by then Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff, now the

incoming head the Department of Homeland Security. Even after leaving

the government, Radack was pursued by administration officials who

caused her to lose a private-sector job when they told her employer

that

she was under investigation.

 

" I was retaliated against for doing my job, " Radack said. [Washington

Post, Feb. 2, 2005]

 

Money Matters

 

But the Republican strategy goes beyond simply making examples out of

anyone who crosses this new power structure. The plan calls for

irrigating the conservative propaganda vineyards with rivers of cash

while draining resources that otherwise might be available to liberals

and Democrats.

 

That's why Bush's second-term proposals often have a double purpose,

both advancing conservative ideology and diverting financial resources

to Republicans and away from Democrats. In conducting this modern

political warfare, the conservatives see themselves as an army

guaranteeing its own supply lines while destroying its enemy's

logistical base.

 

So, in the Reagan-Bush era of the 1980s, an early conservative battle

cry was " de-fund the Left, " which meant denying government money to

programs administered by liberal organizations. Labor unions, which

generally support Democrats, also came under sustained attack.

 

Today, the Bush administration is seeking enactment of " tort reform, "

which would limit the size of damage awards and thus punish lawyers,

another financial pillar of the Democrats. The Republican assault on

traditional Social Security also fits into this strategy by cutting an

important financial bond between Democrats and senior citizens.

 

On the other side, Bush is pressing for policies that will give as much

money as possible to his private-sector allies who can be expected to

reinvest some of it in the Republican Party and the ever-expanding

conservative infrastructure.

 

For instance, Social Security " privatization " would funnel trillions of

dollars into the U.S. stock market and thus put more money in the hands

of Wall Street investment firms, which already are big underwriters of

the Republican Party.

 

Under Bush's " faith-based initiatives, " taxpayer dollars already are

flowing into coffers of right-wing religious groups, which, in turn,

turn out their followers as Republican foot soldiers. Iraq War

contracts

worth billions of dollars have gone to friendly military contractors,

such as Halliburton.

 

Democratic 'Enfeeblement'

 

Though rarely discussed on the pundit shows, this Republican

financial/political strategy is widely recognized by operatives on both

sides of the political aisle.

 

According to a Washington Post article by Thomas B. Edsall and John F.

Harris, both Republican and Democratic strategists agree that one of

George W. Bush's unstated goals is " the long-term enfeeblement of the

Democratic Party. "

 

The Post article adds, " a recurring theme of many items on Bush's

second-term domestic agenda is that if enacted, they would weaken

political and financial pillars that have propped up Democrats for

years, political strategists from both parties say. "

 

The article quotes conservative activist Grover Norquist as saying that

if Bush's proposals win passage, " there will be a continued growth in

the percentage of Americans who consider themselves Republicans, both

in

terms of self-identified party ID and in terms of their [economic]

interests. " [Washington Post, Jan. 30, 2005]

 

Norquist, who often compares notes with Bush's White House deputy chief

of staff Karl Rove, has long understood this crucial intersection of

money and the building of an enduring conservative infrastructure.

 

In the 1980s, Norquist was a leader of the College Republicans when

they

were getting subsidies from the secretive fortune of Sun Myung Moon, a

South Korean theocrat whose organization has a long track record of

illicit money-laundering. Moon was pumping tens of millions of dollars

into American conservative organizations and into the right-wing

Washington Times.

 

Some Republicans raised red flags, citing Moon's history of

brainwashing

his disciples and his contempt for American democracy and

individuality.

In 1983, the GOP's moderate Ripon Society charged that the New Right

had

entered " an alliance of expediency " with Moon's church.

 

Ripon's chairman, Rep. Jim Leach of Iowa, released a study which

alleged

that the College Republican National Committee " solicited and received "

money from Moon's Unification Church in 1981. The study also accused

Reed Irvine's Accuracy in Media of benefiting from low-cost or

volunteer

workers supplied by Moon.

 

Leach said the Unification Church has " infiltrated the New Right and

the

party it wants to control, the Republican Party, and infiltrated the

media as well. " Leach's news conference was disrupted when then-college

GOP leader Grover Norquist accused Leach of lying.

 

For its part, the Washington Times dismissed Leach's charges as

" flummeries " and mocked the Ripon Society as a " discredited and

insignificant left-wing offshoot of the Republican Party. " [For details

on Moon's ties to the GOP and the Bush family, see Robert Parry's

Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq.]

 

Over the next two decades, with billions of dollars from the likes of

Rev. Moon and media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, the conservative media

infrastructure grew exponentially, becoming possibly the most potent

force in U.S. politics.

 

When the Right's Mighty Wurlitzer powers up, it can drown out almost

any

competing message and convince large portions of the U.S. population

that fantasies are facts, explaining why so many Americans believe that

weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq and that Saddam Hussein

collaborated with al-Qaeda in the Sept. 11 attacks.

 

Norquist and other savvy conservatives also understood that the

political corollary of feeding billions of dollars to right-wing

organizations was starving liberal groups of money. In the mid-1990s,

after the Republicans gained control of Congress, Norquist vowed that

" we will hunt [these liberal groups] down one by one and extinguish

their funding sources. " [National Journal, April 15, 1995]

 

Democratic Response

 

Though this conservative writing was almost literally on the wall, many

American liberals and Democratic leaders in Washington failed to

recognize or react to this danger. To this day, many remain in denial,

hoping that the mythical pendulum will finally swing back in their

direction.

 

Indeed, the varying degrees of alarm among Democrats over this historic

Republican consolidation of power have defined the deepening rift

between the Democratic base around the country and the Democratic

leadership in Washington.

 

While the Democratic base sees a life-or-death battle over the future

of

democracy, the Democratic leadership generally favors a

business-as-usual approach that requires little more than tweaking the

party's rhetoric and upgrading campaign tactics to better target

Democratic voters.

 

Many in the Democratic base, however, believe a more drastic

redirection

is needed, including both a more aggressive explanation of Democratic

values and a crash program to build a media infrastructure that can

compete with the many giant conservative megaphones in TV, print, radio

and the Internet.

 

This desperation explains the passionate grassroots support for the

selection of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean as the new Democratic

national chairman. Dean is seen as willing to challenge Bush and build

a

more populist political apparatus.

 

The enthusiastic response from many Democrats to the emergence of

liberal talk radio is another sign of how the rank-and-file favors an

in-your-face style when confronting Bush and the Republicans. The

uncompromising content of Al Franken's Air America show or Ed Schultz's

program on Democracy Radio reflects a determination of the Democratic

base to get back on the political offensive.

 

But the big political question remains: Have the liberals waited too

long to begin competing seriously with the conservatives in the crucial

arena of mass media?

 

Or put differently, are Bush and the conservative movement already in

position to lock in their now-overwhelming advantage in media/political

infrastructure before the Democrats and liberals get their act

together?

Has the age of " managed-democracy " – and one-party rule – already

arrived?

 

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the

Associated Press and Newsweek. His new book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise

of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at

secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his

1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

--