Media Matters

Grover Norquist, leader of the Americans for Tax Reform, is an important Republican strategist and leader of the conservative information network. Over decades, he has played a major role in moving the party’s center of gravity to the right. Much of the success of Republican efforts to thwart Bill Clinton was the result of careful organization and smart politics, and the careful work of Norquist. The destruction of Clintoncare paved the way for Republican conquest of the House of Representatives in the elections of 1994. Norquist, a Lee Atwater protégé, and the Wednesday Club saw Clinton’s health care program as a deadly threat to their plans. After Clinton was elected, about 30 leaders of right-wing organizations met every Wednesday in the headquarters of Americans for Tax Reform The Wednesday Club coordinated attacks on the plan and was generally successfully prevented Republicans from offering or supporting alternatives. The destruction of "Hillarycare" was the first of many exceedingly successful operations undertaken by a highly efficient network of conservative news and political information outlets. Democrats, who are divided into many factions and have a tradition of diversity, have no information mechanism worthy of the name.

These weekly meetings of conservative political activists were to continue into the second bush administration. By 2005, the weekly strategy meeting has as many as 120 participants. Right-wing columnist bob Novak is represented by a researcher, and columnist Peggy Noonan may make a personal appearance. In addition to lobbyists, right-wing organs The National Review and Washington Times are represented After the meeting, the word goes out via fax, e-mails, and other means to pundits, propagandists, and others in the conservative information machine about what issues are to be stressed and how they are to be handled in print and on the radio and television. Norquist argued that government should be reduced to a size where it could be drowned in a bathtub; and the aspects of government operations he most had in mind were those that provided benefits and services to citizens.

Robert Novak wrote that Norquist thinks God put Republicans on earth to cut taxes." Norquist thought Democrats kept seats in Congress because so many voters depended upon government largesse. Government spending tied bureaucrats and recipients of government largess to the Democratic party. He argued that cutting taxes would defund the Democratic party and cause it to lose power. Gaining power, he knew, depended upon efforts to market Republic ideas to the public. He had read Antonio Gransci and took to heart the Italian Communist’s argument that a political movement cannot succeed until it has captured the culture. Writing in an Italian prison, Gramsci recognized that elites enjoyed hegemony when they controlled culture through domination of important institutions and the press. He sought to counter this hegemony by developing other means of influencing opinion. Norquist and others have developed mechanisms to capitalize on the assets they already had. The development of talk radio and political cable shows as well as the rapid emergence of political religion may reinforce conservative hegemony and, in some ways, head off the alternative means of communicating that Gramsci described.

Democracies operate best when the public square is active and marked by civil, informed discussion. The public square emerged during the Age of Reason and laid the foundation for moving away from rule by monarchs and hereditary elites. Discussions were facilitated by the common belief that there was such a thing as absolute truth and in natural law. Today, there is less agreement about whether absolute truth exists. The cultural pluralism of postmodern society also makes more and deeper discussions necessary. Under these circumstances, a successful democracy requires a deep commitment to tolerance, civility, and majority rule.

German philosopher Jurgen Habermas was one of the first to recognize that that changing Twentieth Century realities made necessary careful thought about how civic discourses should occur, and he spent decades developing rules for dialogue and discussion. Knowledge of his work is limited to a relatively few academician in the United States, but the tone of our political discussions in the last few decades suggests that we should undertake similar studies.

Most people seem to have internalized some prohibitions against entertaining or expressing honest doubt about a number of important matters. These prohibitions are rooted in religion and culture. In this age, it is necessary to develop the moral and intellectual courage to overcome these prohibitions, even though to do so is to violate group loyalties and identities. Loyalty to the broader community and to social dialogue demand it. Yet the postmodern breakdown of commitment to the broader community and the new importance given to smaller communities has strengthened these prohibitions and barriers to honest communications and thought. Today, subcultures are employing the methods of cults. People are being convinced that even honest criticism of them and their political agenda is some form of "bashing" or unfair criticism that has somehow crossed the line of civility. If a comment is labeled "bashing" it is no longer important if it is objectively true or false. The important thing is that it was hostile in intent and came from another subgroup that should be despised. The bashing ploy represents an astute deployment of cultural anthropology. It reinforces prohibitions against thought and self-examination and it often intimidates others into silence or at least measuring very carefully what they say. On both sides, this mechanism promotes abdication of conscience, the disruption of thought, and the decline of candor. It cannot be good for democracy.

The anger and rage that have characterized recent campaigns is troubling, but even more dangerous are the efforts to curb speech and limit the news that reaches the public. Conservatives have long complained about a liberal media that allegedly slants the news. Careful studies reveal that there is some truth to the charge in respect to some cultural matters such as abortion. Beyond that, there is no evidence to sustain these charges and a number of conservative politicians are even on record denying that they have been mistreated by the media. Some even admit that the complaints are designed to "work the ref," as they say in basketball. Liberals claim that the concentration of the media in corporate hands has had the effect of limiting what is reported. This is the case in some instances. The evidence that the press practices self-censorship is overwhelming, but this is usually done to avoid criticism from the right and fear of offending an audience that is increasingly conservative. After the Second Gulf War, several major outlets apologized for willfully not presenting evidence that would have called into question false claims about weapons of mass destruction. Since 2000, there has been a growing list of documentaries and other programs that the networks have refused to air out of fear of criticism and alienating millions of viewers.