TV, Money and 'Crossfire' Politics

[escapee]

TV, Money and 'Crossfire' Politics
There's no ideological coherence to partisan positions. But you must support
your team. If you don't, it screws up the TV show

By Fareed Zakaria
Newsweek

Nov. 1 issue - There are no unscripted moments in American politics anymore,
certainly not seven days before the presidential election. That's why the talk
of Washington last week was a few minutes of spontaneous unrehearsed drama-among
TV personalities, not politicians. Comedy Central's Jon Stewart, host of the
wicked political satire "The Daily Show," had gone on CNN's "Crossfire" as a
guest and complained about the show. "It's hurting America," Stewart said,
explaining that "Crossfire" and programs like it were not discussion shows but
theater. His hosts seemed stunned-"Come on. Be funny," Tucker Carlson said
plaintively. Perhaps it's unfair to single out "Crossfire" for scorn, but on his
broader point, Stewart is exactly right. The structure of political life in
Washington is increasingly made for theater, partisan fund-raising, polling and
consulting-but not for governing. And after a close election the problem is only
going to get worse.

Paul Begala, "Crossfire's" other host, explained his show this way: "Everything
is reduced to left vs. right, black vs. white." Exactly, but "Crossfire" is now
a metaphor for politics in Washington. There are two teams, each with its own
politicians, think tanks, special-interest groups, media outfits and TV
personalities. The requirement of this world is that you must always be reliably
left or right. If you are an analyst "on the right" you must always support what
the team does. If President Bush invades Iraq, you support it. If he increases
the deficit, you support that. If he opposes stem-cell research, you support
that, too. There's no ideological coherence or consistency to these positions.
Republicans are now fervent nation-builders, but only two years ago scornfully
opposed the whole concept. You must support your team. If you don't, it screws
up the TV show.

The problem is much larger than television. Any policy proposed from the left is
sure to meet an instant avalanche of criticism from right-wing think tanks, talk
shows, political groups and, of course, politicians. This is less true of the
left, but just wait. Liberal donors are forming groups of their own, hoping to
mirror the right's success at this game. All of which means that honest debate,
bipartisanship and, hence, governance become close to impossible.

Some political scientists long wished that America's political parties looked
more like European ones—ideologically pure and tightly disciplined. Well, it's
happened—there are fewer and fewer moderates on either side—and the results are
polarization and gridlock. Europe's parliamentary systems work well with
partisan parties. There, the executive branch always controls the legislative
branch, and so the party in power can pass its agenda easily. Tony Blair doesn't
need any support from Tories. The American system, by contrast, is one of shared
power, overlapping functions and checks and balances. To make progress, one
needs broad coalitions between the two parties and politicians who will cross
the aisle. That's why James Madison distrusted political parties themselves,
lumping them together with all kinds of "factions," considering them a grave
danger to the young American republic.

I know that these complaints all sound very high-minded and squishy. And I know
there's long been lots of nasty partisanship in America, especially in Madison's
own era. But there has also been lots of bipartisanship, especially over the
past century. Reacting to the political bitterness of the late 19th century—the
last time there were two close elections in succession—many American leaders
tried to create forces for good, problem-solving government. Robert Brookings
established the Brookings Institution in Washington (in 1916) because he wanted
an institute "free from any political or pecuniary interest ... to collect,
interpret, and lay before the country in a coherent form, the fundamental
economic facts." The Council on Foreign Relations, founded five years later,
also consciously reached across party lines. The first editor of its magazine,
Foreign Affairs, told his deputy that if one of them became publicly identified
as a Democrat, the other should immediately start campaigning for the
Republicans. Contrast that with the much more recently founded think tank, the
conservative Heritage Foundation, whose former senior vice president Burton
Pines is refreshingly frank and has admitted: "Our role is to provide
conservative policymakers with arguments to bolster our side."

The trouble is that progress on any major problem—the deficit, Social Security,
health care—will require compromise from both sides. The country is evenly
divided. In foreign policy, crafting a solution in Iraq, or a policy for Iran
and North Korea, or a long-term strategy toward Asia will all need significant
support from both sides. But that's highly unlikely. Other than the occasional
maverick statesmen like John McCain, those who advocate such compromises will
find themselves marginalized by the party's leadership, losing funds from
special-interest groups and constantly attacked by their "side" on "Crossfire."
Better to stand firm, don't give in and go back and tell your team that you
refused to bow to the enemy. It's terrible for governing, but it's great for
fund-raising.

© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6315747/site/newsweek/

Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

[Submariner]

"escapee" <get...@thebestplace2be.org> wrote in message
news:qlopn0lgo4cl5i3g6...@4ax.com...

But when you *do* it screws up *America*, Paul, and that was Stewart's point.
Crossfire exists for Crossfire and the corporate profit it makes
Crossfire and shows like it do an incredible disservice to the country.

Do Paul, Tucker, Carville, Stephanopolous, O'Reilly, Matthews and others really
think
they are providing some vital service other than to their own comfortable
retirement?

Remember when news divisions lost money? That was a premium the networks
paid for the privilege of using America's airwaves.

The media were labeled *liberal* because they looked at things from the
perspective
of how a given item would affect average Americans.

Now "news" agencies just serve as megaphones for corporations with people
like Murdoch, Ailes, Eisner, Welch, Moon, and other billionaires deciding what
we watch,
the public they're supposed to serve be damned.

I think they might have already seen their heyday, though, as people are
starting to wise up
and stop trusting the tube for news.

>
> The problem is much larger than television. Any policy proposed from the left
is
> sure to meet an instant avalanche of criticism from right-wing think tanks,
talk
> shows, political groups and, of course, politicians. This is less true of the
> left, but just wait. Liberal donors are forming groups of their own, hoping to
> mirror the right's success at this game. All of which means that honest
debate,
> bipartisanship and, hence, governance become close to impossible.
>
> Some political scientists long wished that America's political parties looked

> more like European onesâ?"ideologically pure and tightly disciplined. Well,
it's
> happenedâ?"there are fewer and fewer moderates on either sideâ?"and the

results are
> polarization and gridlock. Europe's parliamentary systems work well with
> partisan parties. There, the executive branch always controls the legislative
> branch, and so the party in power can pass its agenda easily. Tony Blair
doesn't
> need any support from Tories. The American system, by contrast, is one of
shared
> power, overlapping functions and checks and balances. To make progress, one
> needs broad coalitions between the two parties and politicians who will cross
> the aisle. That's why James Madison distrusted political parties themselves,
> lumping them together with all kinds of "factions," considering them a grave
> danger to the young American republic.
>
> I know that these complaints all sound very high-minded and squishy. And I
know
> there's long been lots of nasty partisanship in America, especially in
Madison's
> own era. But there has also been lots of bipartisanship, especially over the
> past century. Reacting to the political bitterness of the late 19th

centuryâ?"the
> last time there were two close elections in successionâ?"many American leaders

> tried to create forces for good, problem-solving government. Robert Brookings
> established the Brookings Institution in Washington (in 1916) because he
wanted
> an institute "free from any political or pecuniary interest ... to collect,
> interpret, and lay before the country in a coherent form, the fundamental
> economic facts." The Council on Foreign Relations, founded five years later,
> also consciously reached across party lines. The first editor of its magazine,
> Foreign Affairs, told his deputy that if one of them became publicly
identified
> as a Democrat, the other should immediately start campaigning for the
> Republicans. Contrast that with the much more recently founded think tank, the
> conservative Heritage Foundation, whose former senior vice president Burton
> Pines is refreshingly frank and has admitted: "Our role is to provide
> conservative policymakers with arguments to bolster our side."
>

> The trouble is that progress on any major problemâ?"the deficit, Social
Security,
> health careâ?"will require compromise from both sides. The country is evenly

> divided. In foreign policy, crafting a solution in Iraq, or a policy for Iran
> and North Korea, or a long-term strategy toward Asia will all need significant
> support from both sides. But that's highly unlikely. Other than the occasional
> maverick statesmen like John McCain, those who advocate such compromises will
> find themselves marginalized by the party's leadership, losing funds from
> special-interest groups and constantly attacked by their "side" on
"Crossfire."
> Better to stand firm, don't give in and go back and tell your team that you
> refused to bow to the enemy. It's terrible for governing, but it's great for
> fund-raising.
>

> © 2004 Newsweek, Inc.