talkpolitics | Forces Forcing American Decline

When I last posted in this forum, I mentioned a man I feel was critical to understanding US politics, but whom most both here and abroad have given little consideration: Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr. I mentioned his memorandum, written to his friend and neighbor Eugene Sydnor, and clearly marked "Confidential" at the very top. What he wrote was not to be shared lightly. Sydnor did share it, of course, but mostly within the organization he helped to run, the US Chamber of Commerce. From there, it was shared with the millionaires and billionaires that felt the country had taken a wrong turn somewhere.

The Memo presented its argument in the form of what author George Monbiot called a "Restoration Story." From the linked interview, Monbiot explains the story's elements:

Disorder afflicts the land, caused by powerful and nefarious forces working against the good of humanity. The heroes—maybe one person, a group of people, may even be an institution—takes on those forces, and against all the odds, overthrows them and restores order to the land.

This is the basic narrative structure I call the Restoration Story, which has prevailed for centuries and centuries.

The wealthy activists read Powell's memo. They read subsequent memos that refined Powell's message. They created and donated to what I term the Foundations of Deceit—philanthropic charities who used their tax-exempt status to funnel untaxed money. The Foundations of Deceit funded what I call the Distortion Factories, think tanks and other organizations that exist simply to frame topical issues in terms that benefit moneyed funders. I call the products of the Distortion Factories Gobbledygook and Bunkum, other fun words for propaganda.

When the critical mass of both Gobbledygook and Bunkum was just so, the moneyed unleashed money to affect the political process in ways few understand or appreciate. All in an effort to counter the "disorder that afflicts the land."

Unlike other periods in our nation's history, though, the money controls communications technology that reaches a greater and greater number of people, inflicting on them the most effective propaganda that money can buy. By contrast, in the Gilded Age, radio simply did not exist. And during the FDR administration, radio's excesses were curbed by the Federal Communications Commission, first with the Mayflower Doctrine (1941-1949), and later the Fairness Doctrine (1949-1987).

From the Wikipedia entry on this topic, we read that this latter "…policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC)… required the holders of broadcast licenses"—you know, radio station owners—"…both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was — in the Commission's view — honest, equitable, and balanced."

Listeners could challenge the station's presentation of opinion through the FCC and demand time to present a contrasting view. "Stations were given…latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials."

That was the law of the land adhered to for decades. It's implementation was strengthened in 1969 in the Supreme Court decision Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC. Writing for the majority, Justice Byron White pointed out that a radio license was not a license to amplify the personal opinions of the station owners:

There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others…. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

(I emboldened.)

That last sentence is very, very important. "The right of the viewers and listeners is paramount." It reflects a philosophical view of First Amendment rights that is today too seldom heard. For today, though, I must focus my attentions only on what happened to the Fairness Doctrine once Lewis Powell's gang got their moneyed hands on it.

You will probably not be surprised to learn that enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine started to get more and more lax in the mid- to late-seventies, the time when Powell Movement movers and shakers started their movings and shakings. From Eric Altermann's What Liberal Media?, we read: "…media companies, together with cigarette and beer companies…, set up the Freedom of Expression Foundation to fight the Fairness Doctrine in the U.S. Court of Appeals for Washington, D.C." (Eric Alterman, What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News, Basic Books, 2003, p. 72.)

By the time President Reagan was elected, various court decisions and the wave of propaganda produced by Distortion Factories like the Freedom of Expression Foundation turned official opinion largely against the Fairness Doctrine. From Wikipedia, we read: "In August 1987, under FCC Chairman Dennis R. Patrick, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote…."

Congress, not yet all but completely devoid of its progressive voices, called bullshit on that rationale. "In June 1987, Congress attempted to preempt the FCC decision and codify the Fairness Doctrine…" But "…the legislation was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan." Just to make sure it was dead: "Another attempt to revive the doctrine in 1991 was stopped when President George H.W. Bush threatened another veto."

With Fairness toast, companies continued to buy up radio stations and transform many of them into right-wing spew outlets. Left wing commentators were shunned on radio; the stations that refused to broadcast their opinions discounted them simply as "irrelevant."

To appreciate the scope of money's reach, the cancerous spread beyond the laws that supposedly govern its misuses, you only need to look into the fairly recent ouster of Eric Cantor.

Eric Cantor used to be a Republican Congress member from Virginia in the United States House of Representatives. He was also the House Majority Leader, a pretty goddamned important position reserved only for the most active and the most powerful of the most senior Members in the House majority party.

From the McKay Coppins's book The Wilderness: Deep Inside the Republican Party's Combative, Contentious, Chaotic Quest to Take Back the White House, we find details of a dinner party the author attended on the evening of the Virginia primaries at the "home of conservative superactivist Brent Bozell."

The evening's guest list comprised leaders of the country's most influential Tea Party organizations and right-wing pressure groups—people whose shared mission was to burn down the Republican establishment and install a new regime of brash, populist hard-liners in its place….

(McKay Coppins, The Wilderness: Deep Inside the Republican Party's Combative, Contentious, Chaotic Quest to Take Back the White House, Little, Brown & Company, 2016, p. 270.)

The party was interrupted when a few party goers started getting frantic messages on their phones. The news: Eric Cantor had just lost his primary bid to newcomer David Brat.

The mood at the party quickly evolved from shock, to ebullient celebration, and finally to defiance. All through the midterm primary season over the past few months, the people in this room had seen their efforts to engineer another 2010-style Tea Party insurrection fall flat.

(Ibid., p. 271.)

Bozell himself said, "Can you think of a greater political upset in your life?… I can't think of one. This is stunning. This is the conservative movement on fire." (Ibid.)

There was, though, some pretty heavy irony here, because "none of the groups represented at Bozell's dinner table had actually supported Brat's campaign, all having deemed it a lost cause." (Ibid., p. 272.)

When the most powerful, the most influential political king makers don't support a candidate, and yet that candidate wins against a well-heeled very senior member of Congress in the primary race, something momentous has certainly happened. The question is: What?

After all, according to Politico: "Until his stunning upset win over House Majority Leader Eric Cantor…, David Brat was mostly a mystery." He was just an economics professor at a small Virginia college. Yes, he was outspoken:

…he took on the Republican establishment in unusually harsh terms…. Shortly after launching his campaign…, he suggested that Washington politicians charged money to pass laws. He also said that, to get a seat on the House Ethics Committee, a member would have to pay $150,000.

Still, he didn't spend much, apparently. From a different Politico article, "Cantor, the House majority leader, raised nearly $5.5 million during the cycle…. He lost to Dave Brat, a college professor with a $200,000 shoestring budget."

From a later Politico article, we read that "Dave Brat didn’t have much money, staff or name recognition — but he did have Laura Ingraham."

Pardon my ignorance, but… Who? "…the conservative talk radio host did more to raise Brat’s profile in his Virginia district than his own campaign could ever have done with its paltry budget and paid staff of two…." And, turns out, she wasn't alone. "…Ingraham, along with a couple of other media personalities on the right, helped turn Brat into a conservative sensation…."

They more than just blathered on about the dude on their yakky shows. Ingraham, for instance, also engaged in "…endorsements, mailings, media appearances and stump speeches…."

Okay, so a little-known college professor conveniently named David goes up against a political Goliath and shows enough pluck and gumption to draw the attention and support of conservatives who flap their gums for a living. And these yapping opinion holes jaw this David Brat to victory, slaying as many of the good opinions held about Eric Cantor as the Biblical Samson slayed the Philistines (and using the same jawbones). It's a perfect story. They don't like the guy in office. As his name implied, Brat is young and says bold things, so they support him and get him elected.

Brat’s surprise victory is a powerful reminder, as if any were needed, of the immense influence talk radio has over conservative politics — it was not only Ingraham boosting Brat, but also Glenn Beck and Mark Levin bringing their considerable influence with the right to bear as well.

After all, people saw this kind of thing coming a while ago. Remember that vast empire: "Since well before the rise of the tea party, establishment Republicans have feared the medium’s command over the conservative base."

Is that it? Not really. It turns out that Brat, the Dark Horse candidate, has ties to even darker money.

For starters, consider John Allison. He used to be the CEO of a bank called BB&T. That bank had a charitable foundation. According to a DailyKos article, back when he was in charge of that bank, he used that foundation "to provide grants to schools that agree to create courses on capitalism that feature the study of ‘Atlas Shrugged.'"

This sounds like one of those Foundations of Deceit, doesn't it? Spending money to help crank out gobbledygook and bunkum? In this case, bunkum of a very Randian flavor?

Later, things get really interesting. Before the primaries, Eric Cantor "was getting hammered on conservative radio. Particularly by the likes of Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin." Let's not forget Glenn Beck, as well.

Funny story. From yet another Politico article, this one dated April 20, 2014—whoa, 4/20, dude!

A POLITICO review of filings with the Internal Revenue Service and Federal Election Commission, as well as interviews and reviews of radio shows, found that conservative groups spent nearly $22 million to broker and pay for involved advertising relationships known as sponsorships with a handful of influential talkers including Beck, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh between the first talk radio deals in 2008 and the end of 2012.

(I emboldened yet again.)

Advertising relationships known as sponsorships. That, folks, is the very essence of our national problem. The professional gums weren't just Brat flapping for fun. They were getting paid to flap, both for Brat and (perhaps more importantly) against Cantor.

And, most importantly, getting paid in ways that circumvented even the most rudimentary campaign finance laws. Brat had "…a $200,000 shoestring budget" my ass.

This entry provides but a taste of the money forces steering our politics and society. I have many, many other examples, all of which paint a distressing picture: American democracy is dead. It has been buried by a massive pile of money just about impossible to imagine.

I'm sorry, but if you're only source of information discounts the propaganda arms of various moneyed forces, you are simply not getting the whole story, the details that help to explain why the country is on the slippery slope to hell.