Advertisement
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…
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…
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…
[W]hile 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…
[T]he 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…
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…
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.”…
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…
[T]he 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?
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…
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…
[W]hile 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…
[T]he 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…
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…
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.”…
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…
[T]he 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?