Photo courtesy of Reuters
Politics
The war of on ideas
MYTH: Liberals whined too much about the PBS cuts, which wouldn’t have been that bad
As you can see very quickly in the media accounts, the PBS lobby is loud, obnoxious, and full of exaggeration.
So begin the conservative playbook with this defense. Liberals are not allowed to claim both that a) public broadcasting barely takes any money from the federal government and b) taking away $100 million is "attempted murder" of the system. That's especially true when a big private benefactor (McDonald's heiress Joan Kroc) just left NPR with $200 million — twice as much as the first year's proposed cut — in a private donation. Know that public broadcasting is very fat and happy and established. They have around 350 PBS stations (my colleague Brent Baker says ABC, CBS, and NBC each have less than 200), and more than 700 NPR affiliates.
...
One obvious fiscal answer to fewer federal dollars for PBS: a few commercials. But that's heresy in the PBS system, which likes to be less obvious in its pursuit of the almighty dollar.
...
Can you imagine PBS being balanced enough for an anti-pledge drive? Where someone gets to come on for ten minutes and tell you why you should not contribute? Or a slick TV commercial at the end of a biased PBS show telling you: "Who just paid for this show claiming Bush and Cheney feed off the corpse of war? You did, with your tax dollars. Make sure to tell your congressman how much you appreciate having your conservative leaders maligned at taxpayer expense." Balance wouldn't seem very fair to the folks at PBS. They're use to having their way and making us pay. (Tim Graham, The Hyperbole Channel, National Review Online, 6/21/05)
REALITY
Public broadcasting content greatly enriches the cultural fabric that is one of our nation's greatest resources. The level of quality and substance produced by the likes of Frontline as well as the educational benefits of Sesame Street simply are not produced by commercial media. Cutting $100 million from the CPB budget would have been devastating. This would have represented a cut of 1/4 of the CPB's total budget. It especially would have devastated local stations in small markets that depend on CPB grants and funding. Tim Graham's other observations are wrongheaded and ludicrous. PBS and NPR programming do carry commercials. PBS programs acknowledge sponsors and local NPR stations carry messages from supporters. However this is not the whole story. First off, other cuts were not restored:
Although the House reinstated money for the CPB - which provides assistance to more than 1,000 local stations across the country - the Ready to Learn program, a preschool partnership with the Department of Education, remains unfunded. So does more than $80 million in support for public stations' transition to digital facilities and other technical upgrades. (USA Today, 6/24/05)
But even more alarming is the shell game going on. Even as the $100 million cut from the CPB budget was restored, Patricia Harrison, a political hack and former co-chairman of the Republican National Committee, was appointed as its new president and CEO. This comes amidst comments from CPB chairman Kenneth Tomlinson, that PBS and NPR programs are too liberal. In other words the White House team that brought you Armstrong Williams and Jeff Gannon are trying to turn PBS into Fox News. And despite Tomlinson's denials, the White House directly interfered with the operation of CPB. (See E-Mails Link White House to CPB's Tomlinson). Thus we turn to Frank Rich from today's NY Times Week in Review:
But this time the game is far more insidious and ingenious. The intent is not to kill off PBS and NPR but to castrate them by quietly annexing their news and public affairs operations to the larger state propaganda machine that the Bush White House has been steadily constructing at taxpayers' expense. If you liked the fake government news videos that ended up on local stations - or thrilled to the "journalism" of Armstrong Williams and other columnists who were covertly paid to promote administration policies - you'll love the brave new world this crowd envisions for public TV and radio.
...
Mr. Tomlinson has maintained that his goal at CPB is to strengthen public broadcasting by restoring "balance" and stamping out "liberal bias." But Mr. Moyers left "Now" six months ago. Mr. Tomlinson's real, not-so-hidden agenda is to enforce a conservative bias or, more specifically, a Bush bias. To this end, he has not only turned CPB into a full-service employment program for apparatchiks but also helped initiate "The Journal Editorial Report," the only public broadcasting show ever devoted to a single newspaper's editorial page, that of the zealously pro-Bush Wall Street Journal. Unlike Mr. Moyers's "Now" - which routinely balanced its host's liberalism with conservative guests like Ralph Reed, Grover Norquist, Paul Gigot and Cal Thomas - The Journal's program does not include liberals of comparable stature. (Frank Rich, "The Armstrong Williams NewsHour," New York Times, 6/26/05)
For now, the real threat to public broadcasting is not that they will cut it out. PBS is far too popular. Even Charlton Heston testified on its behalf during a previous slash attempt. The real threat today is to the independence and integrity of PBS content. Bush, Rove and Co. are going to co-opt and turn it into Fox News. State sponsored propaganda, espousing the policies of the controlling party? If we didn't know better we'd think that could only happen in. . .
MYTH: Conservatives are the only ones with any ideas at all
Crucially, George Bush won as a conservative: He did not "triangulate" or hide behind a fuzzy "Morning in America" message.
...
The Democrats would give a lot to have a big-tent party as capacious as the Republicans'. One of the reasons the GOP manages to contain Southern theocrats as well as Western libertarians is that it encourages arguments rather than suppressing them. Go to a meeting of young conservatives in Washington and the atmosphere crackles with ideas, much as it did in London in the heyday of the Thatcher revolution. The Democrats barely know what a debate is.
...
Indeed, the left has reached the same level of fury that the right reached in the 1960s--but with none of the intellectual inventiveness. On everything from Social Security to foreign policy to economic policy, it is reduced merely to opposing conservative ideas. This strategy may have punctured the Bush reforms on Social Security, but it has also bared a deeper weakness for the left. In the 1960s, the conservative movement coalesced around several simple propositions--lower taxes, more religion, an America-first foreign policy--that eventually revolutionized politics. The modern left is split on all these issues, between New Democrats and back-to-basics liberals.
...
The biggest advantage of all for conservatives is that they have a lock on the American dream. (John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, "Cheer Up, Conservatives! You're still winning," Wall Street Journal, 6/21/05)
What has happened to the Democrats over the past few decades is best captured by the phrase (coined by Kevin Phillips) "reactionary liberalism." Spent of new ideas, they have but one remaining idea: to hang on to the status quo at all costs. (Charles Krauthammer, "A Party Without Ideas," Washington Post, 6/24/05)
This is true across the board. On Social Security, which is facing an impending demographic and fiscal crisis, they have put absolutely nothing on the table. On presidential appointments -- first, judges and now ambassador to the United Nations -- they resort to the classic weapon of southern obstructionism: the filibuster. And on foreign policy, they have nothing to say on the war on terrorism, the war in Iraq or the burgeoning Arab Spring (except the refrain: "Guantanamo"). (Krauthammer)
REALITY
Conservatives don't have good ideas. They have bad ideas and ideology. Right wing economic religion is simply the reductionist notion of cutting taxes, and increasing institutionalized corruption, err, I mean keeping business free of government interference. Bush did not win on the popularity of conservative policies in any specific area. He won by exploiting September 11th for political gain. Any one want to bet against the Republicans running on September 11th in the 2006 midterms? I didn't think so.
Conservatives have ideological conformity and zeal. They have really loud megaphones, and really lousy ideas. The sad irony here is that is that the $300 million/year right wing media leviathan trashes all good progressive ideas while repeating ideological mantras, and yet have the chutzpah to perpetually claim that the left is bankrupt of ideas.
While "lower taxes, more religion, an America-first foreign policy" make great sound bytes, they have made disastrous foundations for policy. On every social issue, like fighting disease, stem cell research, AIDS prevention, teen pregnancy, etc., the right wing medieval religious dogma is an impediment to progress. Our economy is amassing unsustainable deficits, and we're stuck in a quagmire in Iraq that's rendered us unable to confront Iran and North Korea.
Another among tragic ironies is that the right wing has taken over the government by campaigning against it. Thus, they've quite successfully demonized government, creating an environment that where progressive policy solutions become more difficult politically. Facing America's challenges, like health-care, education, the deficit, and job creation, will require participation of a progressive, activist government. Overcoming conservative ideology is a necessary step in that direction.
Just incase you might happen to be caught at a happy hour with a smug yet bellicose right winger, here are some issue specific talking points.
1. Foreign Policy
Foreign policy and the war on terror is the alleged Republican/ conservative strong suit. Even a cursory examination reveals insane, wrong headed thinking with disastrous consequences. The Bush/Neocon war in Iraq is an unmitigated disaster. Bush and Co. tried to conduct the war on the political cheap, (i.e. with the smallest amount of American ground forces possible to avoid the political costs of American casualties). And since we would obviously be greeted as liberators, they didn't really need to think through the nation building (the part that's going on now.) Thus we find our self in a tragic paradox. The only way to prevent decent into infernal chaos would be to increase troop levels to levels. Unfortunately, this would most likely require a civilian draft. Especially with recruitment nose diving almost as fast as the dollar. Thus, the only way to prevent disaster is most likely by doing something that is politically near impossible.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or the war on terror. And there were no WMDs. In other words, conservatives led the nation into a war on false premises. That's called lying, for all of you values voters out there. Iran and North Korea are making nuclear weapons as you read this. Do you think the Iraq war has increased our ability to prevent either of them from this?
Starting points for further reading:
2. The economy
Another house of cards. Cutting taxes and less government is a makes for good sound bytes, but in terms of growing an economy, or providing the infrastructure necessary for a dynamic growing economy, this reductionist blather is problematic, to say the least. The Bush record level deficits of $400 billion/year, and our mounting national debt are a severe threat to our national economic security. This is all part of a cynical Republican strategy to "starve the beast" by defunding the government. This is unsustainable.
The quality of public education in the United States is a travesty. Our healthcare system is dysfunctional, leaving millions of Americans are without healthcare. Are tax cuts and less government the answer? These ideological political slogans are actually the problem. Any real solutions to America's economic challenges will require participation by an active government. Tax-cuts for the top income brackets have only increased government red ink.
Starting points for further reading:
The Concord Coalition: Why is Fiscal Responsibility Important?
The Progressive Policy Institute: Economic and Fiscal Policy
3. Social Security
The war on social security is a major battle in the larger Republican war on the New Deal. Social Security is perhaps the most successful government program ever established and has bonded generations in a spirit of shared destiny while virtually eliminating poverty among the elders, which was rampant before the program's inception. Social Security does face long term financing questions, however not the bogus crisis invented by the Bush administration in order to destroy the program through the trojan horse of private accounts. The political motivations should be plain as day. They want to make everyone a Republican by vesting them with private stock market accounts. At the same time they could line the pockets of their Wall Street cronies. So what if the implementation would add a few more trillion dollars in costs, and the implementation is about as well thought out as the reconstruction of Iraq.
This is a subject we've had our eye on, so for more information we proudly refer you to Polianna's extensive Social Security Debunkers:
Week 14 -- the details on "progressive price indexing"
This week -- DeMint's trojan horse bill
(And more -- see this recap)
And see our allies --
Center for Budget and Policy Priorities
comments@polianna.com
