TOPDOG08.COM

« PRESIDENTIALPRAYERTEAM.ORG | Main | Schwarzenegger can't be President after all »

June 30, 2003

Rise of the Machines

This is the third installment in a series on the role of propaganda in the political tactics and strategy of Karl Rove and his candidate of choice, George W. Bush. In the first installment, I showed how Rove plans to use 9/11 to convince us that Bush is not just our civilian leader, but a military hero in America's great war on terror. Despite the fact that Bush is only a civilian - not a member of the military, and Congress - not the President - has the power to declare war. In the second installment, I warned of the parallels between the Bush administration and fascist, propaganda-fueled political movements of the past. In this third installment, I'll take a deeper look at what the hell is going on. Why would any party depend on propaganda to achieve it's goals? Why not just give the people what they want, and reap the rewards at the ballot box? I'll tell you why. The public's needs are in direct conflict with Rove's agenda!

As Paul Krugman wrote on Friday:

In "Welcome to the Machine," Nicholas Confessore draws together stories usually reported in isolation — from the drive to privatize Medicare, to the pro-tax-cut fliers General Motors and Verizon recently included with the dividend checks mailed to shareholders, to the pro-war rallies organized by Clear Channel radio stations. As he points out, these are symptoms of the emergence of an unprecedented national political machine, one that is well on track to establishing one-party rule in America.

Mr. Confessore starts by describing the weekly meetings in which Senator Rick Santorum vets the hiring decisions of major lobbyists. These meetings are the culmination of Grover Norquist's "K Street Project," which places Republican activists in high-level corporate and industry lobbyist jobs — and excludes Democrats. According to yesterday's Washington Post, a Republican National Committee official recently boasted that "33 of 36 top-level Washington positions he is monitoring went to Republicans."

Of course, interest groups want to curry favor with the party that controls Congress and the White House; but as The Washington Post explains, Mr. Santorum's colleagues have also used "intimidation and private threats" to bully lobbyists who try to maintain good relations with both parties. "If you want to play in our revolution," Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, once declared, "you have to live by our rules."

Lobbying jobs are a major source of patronage — a reward for the loyal. More important, however, many lobbyists now owe their primary loyalty to the party, rather than to the industries they represent. So corporate cash, once split more or less evenly between the parties, increasingly flows in only one direction.

And furthermore, as he goes on to explain:

Mr. Confessore suggests that we may be heading for a replay of the McKinley era, in which the nation was governed by and for big business. I think he's actually understating his case: like Mr. DeLay, Republican leaders often talk of "revolution," and we should take them at their word.

Why isn't the ongoing transformation of U.S. politics — which may well put an end to serious two-party competition — getting more attention? Most pundits, to the extent they acknowledge that anything is happening, downplay its importance. For example, last year an article in Business Week titled "The GOP's Wacky War on Dem Lobbyists" dismissed the K Street Project as "silly — and downright futile." In fact, the project is well on the way to achieving its goals.

Whatever the reason, there's a strange disconnect between most political commentary and the reality of the 2004 election. As in 2000, pundits focus mainly on images — John Kerry's furrowed brow, Mr. Bush in a flight suit — or on supposed personality traits. But it's the nexus of money and patronage that may well make the election a foregone conclusion.

Now from the article itself, which you really need to read in full, from the July/August issue of The Washington Monthly:

If today's GOP leaders put as much energy into shaping K Street as their predecessors did into selecting judges and executive-branch nominees, it's because lobbying jobs have become the foundation of a powerful new force in Washington politics: a Republican political machine. Like the urban Democratic machines of yore, this one is built upon patronage, contracts, and one-party rule. But unlike legendary Chicago mayor Richard J. Daley, who rewarded party functionaries with jobs in the municipal bureaucracy, the GOP is building its machine outside government, among Washington's thousands of trade associations and corporate offices, their tens of thousands of employees, and the hundreds of millions of dollars in political money at their disposal.

At first blush, K Street might not seem like the best place to build a well-oiled political operation. For most of its existence, after all, the influence industry has usually been the primary obstacle to aggressive, ambitious policy-making in Washington. But over the last few years, Republicans have brought about a revolutionary change: They've begun to capture and, consequently, discipline K Street. Through efforts like Santorum's--and a House version run by the majority whip, Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)--K Street is becoming solidly Republican. The corporate lobbyists who once ran the show, loyal only to the parochial interests of their employer, are being replaced by party activists who are loyal first and foremost to the GOP. Through them, Republican leaders can now marshal armies of lobbyists, lawyers, and public relations experts--not to mention enormous amounts of money--to meet the party's goals. Ten years ago, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the political donations of 19 key industry sectors--including accounting, pharmaceuticals, defense, and commercial banks--were split about evenly between the parties. Today, the GOP holds a two-to-one advantage in corporate cash.

That shift in large part explains conservatives' extraordinary legislative record over the last few years. Democrats, along with the press, have watched in mounting disbelief as President Bush, lacking either broad majorities in Congress or a strong mandate from voters, has enacted startlingly bold domestic policies--from two major tax cuts for the rich, to a rollback of workplace safety and environmental standards, to media ownership rules that favor large conglomerates. The secret to Bush's surprising legislative success is the GOP's increasing control of Beltway influence-peddlers. K Street used to be a barrier to sweeping change in Washington. The GOP has turned it into a weapon....

Bush's Medicare legislation could still stall or get watered down. But the fact that the White House and the GOP have pushed it so far, so fast, regardless of the risk and downside, hints not only at the power of an organized K Street, but at the political end to which it is being directed. For years, conservatives have tried and, mostly, failed to significantly reduce the size of the federal government. The large entitlement programs in particular command too much public support to be cut, let alone abolished. But by co-opting K Street, conservatives can do the next best thing--convert public programs like Medicare into a form of private political spoils. As a government program, Medicare is run by civil servants and controlled by elected officials of both parties. Bush's legislation creates an avenue to wean people from Medicare and into the private sector--or, at least, a version of the private sector. For under the GOP plan, the medical insurance industry would gradually become a captive of Washington, living off the business steered to it by the government but dependent on its Beltway lobbyists--themselves Republican surrogates--to maintain this stream of wealth. Over time, private insurers would grow to resemble the defense sector: closely entwined with government, a revolving door for Republican officials, and vastly supportive, politically and financially, of the GOP. Republicans are thus engineering a tectonic political shift in two phases. First, move the party to K Street. Then move the government there, too.

In conclusion, Nick paints a pretty bleak picture for the next few decades:

If the GOP is willing to be aggressive enough, even the federal payroll can become a source of patronage. Recently, as part of Bush's "competitive sourcing" initiative, the Interior Department announced that over half of the Park Service's 20,000 jobs could be performed by private contractors; according to the Post, administration officials have already told the service's senior managers to plan on about one-third of their jobs being outsourced. (Stay tuned for "Yosemite: A division of Halliburton Corporation.") But the Park Service is only the beginning. Bush has proposed opening up 850,000 federal jobs--about half of the total--to private contractors. And while doing so may or may not save taxpayers much money, it will divert taxpayer money out of the public sector and into private sector firms, where the GOP has a chance to steer contracts towards politically connected firms.

Anyone who doubts this eventuality need look no further than Florida. There, as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman pointed out last year, Gov. Jeb Bush, the president's brother, has outsourced millions of dollars worth of work formerly performed by government employees to private contractors. There's little evidence that doing so has improved state services, as the governor's own staff admits. But it has vastly improved the financial state of the Florida Republican Party. According to an investigation by The Miami Herald last fall, "[t]he policy has spawned a network of contractors who have given [Bush], other Republican politicians, and the Florida GOP millions of dollars in campaign donations."

The Bush brothers would not be the first political family to turn government contracts into a source of political power. When the current mayor of Chicago, Richard M. Daley, won his father's old job 14 years ago, civil service reform had already wrecked the old system of bureaucratic patronage. So the new mayor began to farm out government services to private contractors, many of which returned the favor by donating generously to Daley's reelection campaigns. Today, Daley dominates Chicago politics almost as thoroughly as did his father. Like his father, Daley has used his power, in part, to improve city services voters care about, from better schools to the flower beds lining Lake Shore Drive. By contrast, the fruits of today's Republican machine--tax cuts and deregulation--have been enjoyed mainly by corporations and upper-income voters, while federal services, from college aid to environmental protection, are getting scaled back.

Indeed, it's striking how openly and unapologetically Bush and his party have allied themselves with corporations and the wealthy. The rhetoric of compassion aside, no one who pays attention to what goes on in Washington could have much doubt as to where the Bush administration's priorities lie. If the economy doesn't improve or unemployment continues to get worse, the GOP may find it's not such an advantage to be seen catering so enthusiastically to monied interests. But most Republicans seem confident that the strength they gain by harnessing K Street will be enough to muscle through the next election--so confident, in fact, that Bush, breaking with conventional electoral wisdom, has eschewed tacking to the political center late in his term. And if the GOP can prevail at the polls in the short term, its nascent political machine could usher in a new era of one-party government in Washington. As Republicans control more and more K Street jobs, they will reap more and more K Street money, which will help them win larger and larger majorities on the Hill. The larger the Republican majority, the less reason K Street has to hire Democratic lobbyists or contribute to the campaigns of Democratic politicians, slowly starving them of the means by which to challenge GOP rule. Already during this cycle, the Republicans' campaign committees have raised about twice as much as their Democratic counterparts. So far, the gamble appears to be paying off.

It wouldn't be the first time. A little over a century ago, William McKinley--Karl Rove's favorite president--positioned the Republican Party as a bulwark of the industrial revolution against the growing backlash from agrarian populists, led by Democratic presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan. The new business titans flocked to McKinley's side, providing him with an extraordinary financial advantage over Bryan. McKinley's victory in 1896 ushered in a long period of government largely by and for industry (interrupted briefly, and impermanently, by the Progressive Era). But with vast power came, inevitably, arrogance and insularity. By the 1920s, Republican rule had degenerated into corruption and open larceny--and a government that, in the face of rapidly growing inequality and fantastic concentration of wealth and opportunity among the fortunate few, resisted public pressure for reform. It took a few more years, and the Great Depression, for the other shoe to drop. But in 1932 came the landslide election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and the founding of the very structure of governance today's Republicans hope to dismantle. Who knows? History may yet repeat itself.

If you needed any more proof of how important Republicans consider control of K Street, consider this amazing update from politics1.com:

TWO GOP CONGRESSMEN MAY RESIGN. According to various news reports, Congressman Chip Pickering (R-MS) and Congresswoman Mary Bono (R-CA) are both interested in private sector positions that -- if they land the new jobs -- would cause both to resign from Congress. According to the AP, Bono would like to become the new top lobbyist for the RIAA, the trade association for the recording industry -- although she is not yet actively pursuing it. Pickering, meanwhile, confirmed Wednesday for a Mississippi TV station that he is considering leaving Congress for a job as president of a trade group that lobbies on telecommunication and Internet issues. Both positions reportedly offer salaries of at least $1 million per year.

Besides that fact that it ought to be illegal for Congress persons to even consider offers worth millions of dollars from industries they are supposed to be passing laws on and regulating, consider the deeper meaning. Two national elected officials are considering stepping down to work as lobbyists, when they were elected to serve out a two year term and represent the interests of their constituents. I think it shows you exactly how important the RNC and Rove consider K Street control to be. A top lobbyist position is more important to them than a seat in the House of Representatives! I'm sure they are both safe Republican seats, though. So even if Gray Davis is still in office, and appoints a Democrat to take Bono's seat, the Republicans would no doubt win it back in 2004 - even if they nominated Bozo the Clown. If you think it is just the two members pursuing these positions on their own, you must have forgotten the Santorum screening process, and "De Lay School" of lobbyists that Confessore documents to death in the article I link to above. In other words, top RNC brass are definitely involved with the move. They want those K street spots.

I don't see how any more proof could be needed. We've established the fact the Republicans are joining forces with corporate interests, and demanding control of corporate campaign contributions in return. It should also be clear now, why Rove has become so dependent on propoganda. Corporations do not get to vote! Citizens - many of whom suffer every day due to ruthless corporate greed - are the ones who get to vote. Rove's only hope is that all their corporate support will be enough to finance all the propaganda needed to convince voters that the Republican party has not sold out to corporate interests. That's right, the very same propaganda being financed with corporate money! How obscene can they get?

Personally, I think that now more than ever, as a life-long champion for regular people fighting major corporations, Edwards is the perfect candidate to expose the deep corporate loyalties Bush tries to cloak under a cowboy public image.

Watch this clip from Edwards' closing statement at the first Democratic debate, then tell me that I'm wrong:

I'm running for president because I believe this president has betrayed people like my parents and the people I grew up with. People who work hard every day, try to do the right thing, act responsibly, and build a better live for themselves and for their families.

Just because you speak the language of regular Americans doesn't mean your agenda is not the agenda of corporate America.

Just because you walk around on a ranch in Texas with a big belt buckle doesn't mean you understand and stand up for rural America.

Do you really think any of the other candidates can make as powerful a case?

Posted by Mike at June 30, 2003 02:38 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.topdog08.com/cgi-bin/mt-trackback.cgi/118

Comments

Post a comment