Read Senior Editor Laura Washington's 8 reasons to make a tax-deductible donation to In These Times.
ZoomZoom InZoom OutPrintDiscuss
Features > October 19, 2004

Running a Media Deficit

The joint rise of the conservative media and creeping authoritarianism is no coincidence.

By Robert Parry

This article was adapted from the author's book, Secrecy and Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq.

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, may have ignited the fire that has driven the United States in the direction of a more authoritarian system. But the kindling was put in place over three decades.

The conservatives who set the United States off in this political direction in the ’70s had no idea where the journey would end. Their original thinking was more defensive than offensive. The elder George Bush started out as a kind of Mr. Fix-it with gold-plated connections in both the Eastern Establishment and the Texas Oil World. He knew how to defuse a scandal and hide the incriminating evidence. He worked diligently, though ultimately unsuccessfully, to protect Richard Nixon from Watergate. He was more successful in getting the CIA off the front pages for Gerald Ford in 1976. Bush’s cover-up skills enhanced his own power during the Reagan-Bush era of 1981 to 1993 and saved the family name so his sons could build their own political careers.

In the ’90s, the younger George Bush entered a political world where the conservatives were already in the ascendancy and the liberals were on the run. His contribution was an intuitive grasp of how hardball Republican strategies, aggressive conservative news outlets and mystical Christian fundamentalism could blend into a potent political coalition and consolidate the Right’s dominance of U.S. government power.

Indeed, Bush picked up useful lessons during his father’s 1988 presidential campaign against Michael Dukakis. Doug Wead taught Bush how to signal to the Christian fundamentalists. Lee Atwater passed on the tricks for turning a decent opponent into a national laughingstock.

Some liberal activists wonder why Democratic leaders are often so circumspect. Why, they ask, don’t the Democrats just let it fly like the Republicans do? The cautious tone turns off much of the Democratic base while leaving many independent voters questioning whether the Democrats really know what they stand for.

The Democratic-defensive dynamic, however, is a consequence of the media-political infrastructure that Republicans and conservatives have spent three decades—and billions of dollars—creating. This conservative infrastructure has helped the Republicans achieve a unity that often has been lacking on the Democratic side. Conservatives can consult dozens of well-financed media outlets to hear the latest pro-Republican “themes,” often coordinated with the Republican National Committee or Bush’s White House.

Liberals lack any comparable media apparatus, having failed to match the investment and dedication of the right. Those committed liberal outlets that do exist are almost always under funded and often part-time. The Republicans’ right-wing media has given them a powerful advantage—and one that does not seem likely to go away.

This media deficit puts the Bush critics at a particular disadvantage because their arguments require explanation of historical context and acceptance of the frustrating work of diplomacy. On the other hand, Bush’s argument is easier to grasp: Kill the bad guys.

In the 2000 election, Bush’s simple, easygoing style, which conceals a fierce competitiveness, made Bush a sellable commodity to the American people (especially to white men), a darling of the conservative news media and a favorite of many mainstream journalists.

Add the fear and the sense of victimization from the 9/11 attacks and a new political model suddenly lay open as a possibility for the United States. It would be a post-modern authoritarian system that would rely less on traditional repression of political opponents than on a sophisticated media operation to intimidate and marginalize dissidents.

The new system would be the sum of the parts gradually arising out of the ruins of Watergate. At its core would be the intelligence concept of “perception management” not so much Orwellian as post-Orwellian. While Orwell’s 1984 envisioned sophisticated torture to extract confessions and mass speeches to stir up ethnic hatreds, this new system would rely on ridicule to make those who get in the way objects of derision, outcasts whose very names draw eye-rolling chuckles and knee-slapping guffaws. Think of Dukakis wearing a helmet, Bill Clinton and a semen-stained dress and Al Gore inventing the Internet, not to mention any number of lesser-known public figures who were so foolish as to object to the rush to war in Iraq.

George W. Bush was the perfect candidate for exploiting this transformation. Lacking a deep appreciation for the American constitutional system of checks and balances, Bush wasn’t personally repulsed by the notion of shifting to a more authoritarian structure of governance and silencing meaningful dissent. Indeed, he was attracted to the idea.

After claiming the presidency in December 2000, Bush once joked, “If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier—so long as I’m the dictator.” It is hard to imagine that any other American president would have said such a thing.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the '80s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His books, including Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush and Secrecy and Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered here. This article originally appeared on Consortium News.

More information about Robert Parry

  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Reader Comments

    The greater outrage is the abdication of the WH Press Corps - that has resulted in a Free Pass Prez and a shamefully uninformed electorate.  At the very least!  The questions should have been asked! 
    Must Read:

    THE PITIFUL PRESS CORPS!

    ASK NO QUESTIONS - REPORT NO LIES!
    A TvNewsLIES.org ANALYSIS - October, 2004

    WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?

    Because of the capitulation of the Press Corpse, and the abdication of its historic role, tens of millions of Americans are dangerously ill equipped to make a truly informed choice in the voting booth.

    Where the hell is the outrage? We’ve just had three benign debates, all shamefully limited in scope and embarrassingly bland in content. But that’s par for the course in the world of politics. The array of questions was anticipated and the answers were well rehearsed. Once again, that’s par for the course in the prelude to Election Day.  The questions were interesting, if not enlightening, - and I’m certain the nation is more prepared to make an educated choice in November after learning about the candidate’s love for their wives.  But, as we said, that’s the way it goes.

    Reality check: It was not the job of the debate moderators or even John Kerry to challenge George Bush on his dismal and dangerous record in office.  That role has traditionally been the responsibility of the men and women of the White House Press Corps. They are supposed to ask the questions and pursue the answers all through the President’s term of office. They are supposed to be independent and undaunted. They once were. They no longer are. Where the hell is the outrage?

    Where the hell is the outrage that the White House Press Corps has not asked the President a single spontaneous question in all these years?  Where the hell is the outrage that the White House Press Corpse has not held George W. Bush accountable for his actions for all the years of his disastrous administration? Where the hell is the outrage that this most secretive of administrations in memory has been allowed a free pass by those who are supposedly responsible for guarding our Constitutional right to know? There seems to be no outrage, whatsoever.

    Because of the capitulation of the Press Corpse, and the abdication of its historic role, tens of millions of Americans are dangerously ill equipped to make a truly informed choice in the voting booth.

    A myriad of terribly important questions have never been asked of George Bush at press conferences that never materialized. They surely were not asked during the handful of staged press conferences that were held only sporadically in almost four years. No president in history has held fewer or more controlled press conferences than the present resident of the White House. And no president in history has so successfully intimidated and suppressed the media and the Press Corps. Where the hell is the outrage?

    SOME QUESTIONS THAT WERE NOT ASKED!

    Had there been an honorable and responsible Press Corps, and had there been a President willing to explain himself to the nation, we might have witnessed the following:

    (List of questions in the full article)

    http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/the_pitiful_press_corps_.html

    Posted by Reg on Oct 19, 2004 at 8:59 AM

    For those who believe Bush was joking when he said in 2000, “If this were a dictatorship, ...”, go to www.iconoclast-texas.com, the website of Bush’s hometown Crawford, Texas , newspaper that endorsed Bush in 2000, but chose Kerry this year. In the Guest Op-Ed is an eyewitness account by Trish Bowcock about the confict in her hometown of Jacksonville, Oregon, when Bush visited recently. The people of this small Oregon town of 2,226 were able to have the “Brownshirt Experience” of Hitler’s Germany of the 1930’s. The shadow of the Limbaughs, Fox News, The Sinclair Group, The Christian Right, The Patriot Act, ect. is growing and darkening a fading Democracy.

    Posted by Mark Cartwright on Oct 19, 2004 at 10:24 AM

    “His contribution was an intuitive grasp of how hardball Republican strategies, aggressive conservative news outlets and mystical Christian fundamentalism could blend into a potent political coalition and consolidate the Right’s dominance of U.S. government power.”

    Given this, how is it so easy for the right wing to continue to portray itself as the minority, as the victims, etc., fighting against all that ails the country?

    I’m happy to read Mark Cartwright’s comment above, however, for it is quite remarkable that a newspaper from Bush’s hometown would endorse Kerry!

    please vote for kerry!

    virgin mobile sponsored a contest encouraging young people to create PSAs on why it is important to vote--please go to www.psaupload.com and vote today for one of the five finalists.

    Posted by sms81 on Oct 19, 2004 at 10:41 AM

    sms… the right wind has portrayed itself as a minority the way the hypochondriac endlessly complains of nonexistent ills and ends up outliving most of the family to take the spoils of inheritance. That is one aspect of it. The other is, it appeals to something you will find in the flamer posts (which all sound identical in their narrow vocabulary), namely envy. I recall the wonderful quote by Mencken (whom I recommend in these tough times, a conservative/anarchist/wildcat writer), who said, Puritanism is the haunting fear that someone, somwhere may be happy. I could go on and on about it, but therein lies the clue, I suspect. What the piece above fails to take into account, something that fuels my optimism, is that the US-American electorate is very sanguine. And thene there is a generqation growing up that may be tired of slinging hamburgers and praying daily to the Ghost of Mr. WalMart and may well just rebel and say no. Say no to thugs.

    There is a pessimistic side of me that also remembers “It can’t happen here” by Sinclair Lewis.

    What can be done? Enjoy life, smile, say yes, keep your sense of humor about you, and be yourself and live up to your principles. I am 47, and I think I have been to MacDonald’s 5 times in my life (twice I was only a passenger). No TV, either.

    Amen

    Posted by Marton on Oct 19, 2004 at 11:53 AM

    What we need here is a good expose of many of the so called ‘conservative media’ - I say conservative but really I mean greedy media - right wing equals cash - left wing equals, eh, ethnic diversity? Social Justice?  you cant run an SUV on ethical arguments can you?  I mean, an example is Sean Hannity - I listen to him bang on about his Catholic faith quite a lot - where exactly in his faith does it say it is okay to pre - emptively kill someone? the same place where it says its ok to kill someone - nowhere.  So O’Reilly is a perv, Hannity is a chickenhawk, Limbaugh is a big fat fucking junkie joke and as for ‘coulter’?  Maybe she was molested by a ‘liberal’ as a child (I’m serious here folks!) - why else would she display such warped and extreme hatred of ‘liberalism?  But above all, its murdoch and his son that need bringing down - remember, good ol’ rupert thought being compared to hitler was a compliment!  FOX, does it stand for ‘fed on xanax’?

    Posted by Ian C on Oct 19, 2004 at 12:33 PM

  • extended discussion >>>Continued...

    Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 15 posts.

Join Here
Member Login

Forgot password?

Article Appeared in this Issue

Full contents
Past issues

Also by Robert Parry
"To people who say they are sick of the corporate dominated and celebrity fixated news media, I say, "Stop whining and subscribe to In These Times." --Barbara Ehrenreich
Popular Discussions