TPMCafe
« The Politics of Health Care Reform—Part 1 | Home | Our Imagined Economy »

The Pulitzers and Conservatism

user-pic

As Rick Perlstein observes, almost all of yesterday's Pulitzer winners in journalism owe a debt of gratitude to the conservative movement for creating and implementing the ideas that produced the calamities unveiled in their exceptional reporting. I would add, though, that the media in general have largely failed to draw the connections linking the right-wing's belief system and policies to outcomes like children harmed by unsafe toys and cribs, the importation of poisonous pharmaceuticals from China, the transgressions attributable to private security contractors in Iraq, abuses of power based on the sham "unitary executive" concept, negligent management of a government-run hospital, and the subprime fiasco. Even in most of those award-winning articles themselves, relatively little effort was made to underscore the reality that the conservative movement's hostility toward government was the root cause of those failures of government.

The conundrum is that all of these failures reinforce the conservative movement's message that the government can't do anything right. But it was the systematic budgetary strangling of agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the FDA, beginning in the Reagan administration and then resuming with the ascent of Newt Gingrich in 1994, that greatly weakened agencies responsible for ensuring that toys and medicines are safe. Those "successes" of the conservative movement helped to produce the failures documented by the Chicago Tribune and New York Times. The privatization of security services (not to mention the Iraq War itself), was also an outgrowth of the right's agenda, which preached that private companies can do just about anything better and more cheaply than the government itself. The unitary executive idea that provided cover for Dick Cheney's shenanigans, including his efforts to short-circuit anti-torture laws, was nurtured for years in the right's well-funded Federalist Society, whose many famous conservative members include John Yoo. And neglect of public facilities and institutions like Walter Reed Army Medical Center has become endemic because of a combination of tax and budget cuts, combined with leadership in the hands of ineffective ideologues who are hostile to civil servants.

Unfortunately, the commentary pages of the same newspapers include only a small minority of regular columnists who try to help readers recognize that conservatism has failed as a governing ideology. Hopefully one of them -- maybe Paul Krugman, Harold Meyerson, or E.J. Dionne -- will earn a Pulitzer next year.


8 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

I have to take exception to the idea that the conservatives are against government (especially regulation). This is a bit of misdirection they use to sucker in the libertarian types.

Firms demand government intervention, they just don't call it that. Some obvious examples include the enforcement of the patent and other intellectual property rights system - extending this even into enforcement against other countries via bilateral trade agreements.

They also demand enforcement of market concentration (which helps the strongest players). Examples include the way the radio spectrum has been allocated, the license renewal process for broadcasters, and tax treatments of mergers.

Changes to tort and bankruptcy laws have also been demanded by business to the detriment of consumers. And the biggest use of the government is in the conduct of elections. Rulings have been consistently made which make the role of money more important than votes in the electoral process. The FEC is designed to make it difficult for independent groups to get their message out, while allowing the major parties as much access to the airwaves as they wish.

What is meant by "less government" is less spending on social programs. It's as simple as that; let's not fall into using the conservative framework when describing an attack on the weakest members of society.

user-pic

RDF, In the context of what I was talking about, primarily public health, safety, and environmental regulation, I think it's completely legitimate to say conservatives are against government and against regulation. That was one of the primary motivating forces of the wealthy business owners who funded right-wing think tanks. And when you look at the extent to which regulation in those categories has been largely shut down during the Bush administration, following the Heritage playbook, the only "misdirection" has been aimed at fooling the public into believing that those laws are actually being carried out and enforced.

In realms like you are talking about like market concentration, bankruptcy, etc., yeah, it's mostly a battle between companies that would win and companies that would lose. But undercutting public health, safety, and environmental regulations most definitely is a central agenda item of movement conservatism, and it's arguably the area where they have been most successful at carrying out their goals.

user-pic

You have touched on one of my (other) hobby horses by mentioning the Heritage playbook. People don't realize how small the group is that promotes these libertarian policies. There are probably less than 100 super wealthy families behind the effort, but they are so enormously wealthy that they have been able to reframe social ideas over the past 40 years.

Heritage, Hoover, Cato, and other such institutions are all funded by the same core group: Scaife, Olin, Coors, Walton, Mars, Koch, etc. This is the same group that has been behind the abolition of the estate tax and the preferential treatment of the various types of non-earned income. Why $40 billion isn't enough for the Walton's is beyond my understanding, but they are fighting to keep the other $40 billion they might have to pay in estate taxes if progressive policies are reinstated.

Similarly why the Walton's need to provide substandard health insurance to their employees so that they can earn a bit more each year is also a puzzle. Wouldn't big firms like to see a healthy workforce and customers able to afford their products?

Whenever I hint at the "vast right wing conspiracy" people think I'm exaggerating, but I refer them to SourceWatch or Media Transparency where they can examine the connections between these families and the assault on social services for themselves.

user-pic

I've been giving this some thought lately too. Why would a political party be trying to dismantle the gravy train?

I woke up with the epiphany that what the conservatives are trying to do is make government an arm of big business. If they had their way (and they have alot lately) they would take taxpayer money and use it to enable whatever big business thinks it needs. Also to fund the military-industrial corporations (which they have managed to privatize to a large extent) and then toss in an earmark here and there to keep the sheep happy. The religious right voting block was a great catch for republicans because they don't want anything that matters, just some restrictions on social liberties and breaking down the separation of church and state...things that matter to conservatives being things like restricting corporate growth or any type of social program that requires spending taxpayer dollars on actual taxpayers.

user-pic

RDF, What you've described in the connections between those wealthy families and the conservative policy ideas that have done so much damage is the central theme of my book The Conservatives Have No Clothes: Why Right Wing-Ideas Keep Failing. Check it out:

http://www.amazon.com/Conservatives-Have-No-Clothes-Right-Wing/dp/0470044365

user-pic

Great post, Greg. But, uh... where have you been? We've missed ya!

user-pic

Pulitzers for reporters but do the media corporations really care about that?
Appears not.
There's no profit in that and the owners ideologies are not well served by pointing out the obvious connections.
And yes, RDF, you do need to buy Greg's book and read it. You'll love it.
Do wingers ever win Pulitzers?

user-pic

Greg:
I made an exception in your case and actually bought the book as well as reading it. (Usually I just take books on current events out of the library.)

I was hoping for a bit more space devoted to the "vast right wing conspiracy" based upon comments you had made previously.

Perhaps you can keep up the educational campaign in online forums.

I wrote my own brief blog entry on "class warfare" on this site recently:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/class-warfare.php

My take is that there are only two classes, those who have to work to eat and those who don't. The higher income sector in the US tends to see themselves as having common interests with the non-working, super wealthy, but this is a mistake. They have been tricked into thinking that they have the same goals. A wealthy stock broker or lawyer is still a member of the working class, and their failure to understand this has blinded them to what their real interests are.

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Recent Reader Posts

All Reader Posts »



Book Club Calendar


Coming Soon



Nov. 30-Dec. 4



January 12-16



« Book Club ArchiveFull calendar »

Book Club Archive



Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall

Site Editor
Lila Shapiro

Intern
Kyle Krahel-Frolander



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address