[Vision2020] The Outsourced Party

[Art Deco]

[image: Campaign Stops - Strong Opinions on the 2012
Election]<http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/>
March 24, 2012, 4:28 pmThe Outsourced PartyBy KEVIN
BAKER<http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/author/kevin-baker/>

Who speaks for the Republican party? The answer is that everyone does — and
therefore, no one does.

Much air time and many trees have been wasted trying to explain the
division, rancor and lethargy that have beset the Republican nominating
campaign, now into its second year and threatening to run all the way to
the party’s national convention in late August. But it’s no great mystery.
Republicans have fallen prey to one of the favorite tactics of just the
sort of heedless, improvident, twenty-first century capitalism they revere.
Their party has been outsourced.
Mark Pernice CLICK TO ENLARGE

For decades, Republicans have recruited outside groups and individuals to
amplify their party’s message and its influence. This is a legitimate
democratic tactic that they have carried off brilliantly, helping to shift
the political spectrum in the United States significantly to the right.

When Republicans came to believe in the 1960s that they were up against a
“liberal biased” media that would never give them a fair shake, they began
the long march to build their own, alternative information establishment.
As chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Mark Fowler, led the
fight to abolish the “Fairness Doctrine” in 1987, further empowering what
was already a legion of right-wing talk radio programs.

In 1949, drawing on a long history of court decisions; on public hearings;
and on legislation mandating “equal time” for political candidates, the
F.C.C. ruled that holders of radio and television broadcast licenses must
“devote a reasonable percentage of their broadcast time to the presentation
of news and programs devoted to the consideration and discussion of public
issues of interest in the community,” and that this must include “different
attitudes and viewpoints concerning these vital and often controversial
issues.”

The Supreme Court repeatedly upheld the F.C.C.’s power to make such a rule
— but never gave it the power of law. In 1986, a pair of Ronald Reagan’s
judicial appointees on the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit, Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia, ruled that the
Fairness Doctrine was not “a binding statutory obligation.”

Armed with this verdict, Fowler, who insisted on viewing television, in
particular, as not a finite and supremely influential broadcast medium
but “just
another appliance — it’s a toaster with
pictures<http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2053>,”
persuaded his fellow commissioners to abolish the Fairness Doctrine.
Furious Democrats in Congress passed legislation to codify the doctrine
into law in 1987 and 1991, but these attempts were vetoed by Reagan and
George Bush, respectively; Democrats have gone on trying to make the
Fairness Doctrine law to this day, but have always been stymied by adamant
Republican opposition.

Right-wing radio was dominant on the airwaves before the Fairness Doctrine
was abolished. But now it had the field of public discourse virtually all
to itself. It provided conservatives with a direct outreach to the public,
free of any intercession by the “elites” Newt Gingrich is still denouncing
in this season’s debates. Right-leaning media networks such as Pat
Robertson’s Christian Broadcast Network and especially Clear Channel
Communications soon became major media conglomerates, with no obligation to
broadcast any conflicting views.

The biggest media coup of all for the Republican party, though, was the
advent of nakedly partisan Fox News, created by Roger Ailes, former media
advisor to the Nixon, Reagan and George Bush administrations. It was Ailes
who thereby managed to throw the entire weight of Rupert Murdoch’s
worldwide media empire behind the party — and it was Ailes,
reportedly<http://nymag.com/news/media/roger-ailes-fox-news-2011-5/>,
who kept it on the conservative straight-and-narrow when Mr. Murdoch toyed
with the idea of putting the empire behind Barack Obama, the new Democrat,
in 2008, much as it had backed Tony Blair’s New Labour for a time in Great
Britain. Instead, thanks to Ailes, conservative politicians and advocates
saw both their ideas amplified and their wallets fattened by a dizzying
array of Murdoch television shows, books and newspapers.

But it wasn’t just in the media where the Republican party proved ingenious
in outsourcing its rhetoric and shifting the national dialogue. In 1971,
during Richard M. Nixon’s first term in office, Lewis F. Powell Jr., a
Republican corporate lawyer from Virginia, summoned the resources of the
business community to the cause with his famous memorandum to the National
Chamber of Commerce, “Attack on American Free Enterprise
System<http://law.wlu.edu/deptimages/Powell%20Archives/PowellMemorandumTypescript.pdf>
.”

Powell wanted “American business” to fight back everywhere it could against
what he saw as the many enemies of free enterprise. Tactics would include
demanding “equal time” on the nation’s college campuses and — ironically
enough — on the nation’s airwaves, by appealing to the fairness standards
of the F.C.C. Yet more importantly, Powell’s memorandum inspired the
founding of the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Manhattan
Institute, and other conservative think tanks. Wealthy businessmen and
other individuals from Richard Mellon Scaife to the Koch brothers stepped
up, pouring millions of dollars into right-wing magazines, books and
political campaigns.

Powell won himself an appointment to the Supreme Court — and the nation’s
capital won itself a major new industry. It may seem as if lobbyists in
Washington have always been more numerous than locusts, but in fact when
Powell wrote his memo just over 40 years ago, there were at most only a few
hundred. Today, there are tens of thousands — leaders of a multi-billion
dollar industry in its own right, and one mostly interested in “freeing”
business from regulation and taxes.

The Republican effort to rally every conceivable outside entity to the
party’s cause was wildly successful. Again and again over the years,
conservative policy institutes have armed the party’s candidates with
intellectual arguments, while the conservative media barrage has blasted a
way through to high office for even the most lackluster Republican nominees.

Yet increasingly this meant that the Republican Party was outsourcing both
body and soul. Both what the party believed in and its ability to do the
heavy lifting necessary to win elections was handed over to outside
interests — outside interests that did not necessarily share the party’s
goals or have any stake in ameliorating its tactics.

This has become suddenly and painfully evident this year. Party leaders may
not have liked Rush Limbaugh’s disgusting attacks on a Georgetown law
student — calling her a “slut” and a “prostitute” for advocating that
insurance companies provide affordable birth control — but what does he
care?

If the Republicans lose the election, it will most likely mean all the more
angry conservatives tuning in and driving up the ratings for Rush and his
fellow radio ranters. Limbaugh is now facing a challenge from outraged
liberals and others urging his sponsors to drop his show. But the most that
the usually garrulous Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney would allow
himself to say was that “it’s not the language I would have used.” Rick
Santorum averred that Rush was “being absurd,” but implied that was O.K. —
“an entertainer can be absurd. He’s in a very different business than I am.”

But of course, he’s not. Rush Limbaugh is in the very same business that
Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney are in — and guess who’s in charge? It’s not
the radio calamity howlers who take their cues from the party leaders now,
but the other way around.

This campaign season we’ve seen all the major Republican candidates for
president adopt the bombastic, apocalyptic rhetoric of talk radio,
insisting that we will “lose America” if they aren’t elected, and filling
their speeches and debates with ugly personal insults, directed at each
other and at President Obama. The results are in the poll numbers. Unlike
the sharp but generally civil 2008 primary fight between Obama and Hillary
Clinton, which galvanized the Democratic base, the Republican struggle this
year has been steadily driving down the party’s appeal and driving up the
candidates’ negative ratings.

Poll numbers for Republicans in Congress have taken a nosedive, too, as the
party’s intransigence on Capitol Hill has allowed President Obama to appear
reasonable by contrast. But what does that matter to the thousands of
lobbyists who bring in more and more of the money for congressional
campaigns? Sure, a Republican victory might afford them more closed-door
sessions on rewriting federal regulations. But Democratic victories will
serve their purpose just as well, making clear to the money men who send
them to Washington that they are more needed than ever to resist
“job-killing regulations.”

Meanwhile, Fox News has become a special impediment to Republican order —
largely thanks to its own success. All the enticements of the Murdoch
empire have produced a generation of reality show pols, at least as
interested in landing their own TV series as winning office. Two of the
most popular Republican candidates for president going into the race, Mike
Huckabee and Sarah Palin, both declined to run rather than jeopardize their
shows. Newt Gingrich turned much of his campaign into book tours for
himself and his wife. Ask yourself which was most likely: that Herman Cain
and Michele Bachmann really thought they could be elected president or that
they were looking to improve their “brand.”

And after decades of trying to undo federal campaign-finance laws,
Republicans at last succeeded — only to watch the party’s wealthy sponsors
diversify their interests from think tanks to super PACs. Why bother with
all the time and expense of hiring a bunch of intellectuals to occupy some
expensive piece of Washington real estate and hammer out policy positions —
when you can go out and make a straight cash exchange for a candidate?

Even as Rick Santorum was pleading that sometimes you have to “take one for
the team” in the last Republican debate, his candidacy was being kept alive
largely by money from a single donor, Foster Friess, the conservative
Christian multimillionaire with the Batman villain name. Gingrich has his
own sponsors, the casino billionaires Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, hawkish
supporters of Israel. Does what these individuals care about most fit in
with the Republican party’s election strategy? So what?

It’s not that these individual donors believe in things — conservative
Christian stands on abortion, unmitigated support for Israel and so on —
that are so different from what much of the party’s base believes in. But
political campaigns, especially national campaigns in America, are all
about nuance and finesse — about just how you say something and when and
where you say it. Presidential candidates need to elide certain issues at
times, either things they know that they cannot do, but are loath to tell
their base; or things that they intend to try, but cannot tell the rest of
the electorate until they have gained power and built up the necessary
public support; or things that they have no idea how they will handle until
certain events play out and force their hand.

The question of whether or not the United States or Israel should attack
Iran to suppress its nuclear program is a good example of this last sort of
issue. Just what Iran’s capabilities are of developing nuclear weapons,
what its intentions are once it should have them, how successful any attack
on them can be and what the consequences of such an attack might be are
just some of the immensely complicated questions surrounding this debate.

Yet such complexities don’t seem to matter much to the ravenously
egotistical Gingrich, so long as they don’t much matter to his sponsor.
Money, it’s true, has always played a critical role in American politics.
But in the past, presidential nominees did more than simply try to raise
money. They tried to build consensus within their party. Fringe candidates
like Gingrich and Santorum were generally eliminated from the start by
their past defeats or by their extremist views — college is evil — but if
they weren’t, our political system gave them the chance to take their
arguments to the people in relatively small, manageable states and see if
they caught on.

Now, none of that really matters so much. Forced to resign as speaker of
the House by your own party? Handed the worst electoral defeat in your own
state that anyone can remember? Way behind in the delegate count? In some
circumstances, it might be good that even though you’ve failed previously
you can still go out and make your case to the people. But now you can even
fail at that, as well. It doesn’t matter. Just one billionaire can keep you
on the campaign trail!

Thanks to their inventiveness, Republicans have stumbled into the brave new
world of American politics. From primaries to photo ops, from direct mail
to voter suppression laws, the Republican party has almost always been the
real innovator in electoral politics, usually leaving their slower brother,
the Democrats, in the dust for at least a campaign season or two.

Now they’ve achieved the political equivalent of shuttering that foul old
steel mill and shipping the hard work off for others to do while they
dabble in these fascinating new derivatives. Now their candidates and their
ideas are seen as so many junk bonds, and they don’t seem to have the
wherewithal to make the party over from within.

The Republican party has been moving to the right for half-a-century now
and generally carrying the country with it. But in the past, even under the
right’s greatest hero, Ronald Reagan, this movement came in fits and
starts, as Republican candidates and officeholders had to accommodate
themselves to real-world situations and the qualms of their constituents.
This is the chastening role that elections are supposed to play.
Participating in a democracy means more than simply insisting, over and
over again, in as loud and arrogant a voice as possible, in as many venues
as your money will allow, what it is that you want. It means listening, it
means convincing, it means compromising — all those things that political
parties and their leaders used to be fairly good at.

At long last, Republicans seem to be finally coalescing around Mitt
Romney’s candidacy, and he could still win the presidency if the economy
slumps again. But the longer-term problem will remain: how to maintain a
coherent, mass political party when so many individuals are empowered as
never before to redirect it to their own, personal ends.

*Kevin Baker is the author of the “City of Fire” series of historical
novels, “Dreamland,” “Paradise Alley” and “Strivers Row.” A shortened
version of this essay appears in the March 25 edition of Sunday Review.*
-- 
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120325/9f6d8510/attachment-0001.html>