Nobody But Bush: The Media Calls Another Election(JAN 2004)

The fix to this year’s presidential election is already in. It seems certain that as the 2004 campaign unfolds, the media will successfully undermine the credibility the Democratic challenger at the same time that it heaps praise on Bush. As a result, unless the Democratic Party can come up with a superior strategy for getting its message out, it will be all but impossible to undo the media’s spin and set the record straight. And in the end, on election day, it is extremely likely that the media will be successful in pulling the wool over the public’s eyes just as it did during the 2000 election.

SUMMARY
As a foreshadowing of how the media will undoubtedly try to influence the general election, one must only look at how they have been successful in skewing voter’s perceptions about Howard Dean during the Democratic primary campaign. From very early on in this race, Dean was depicted as a hot-head and given the nickname “mean Dean” by GOP talk radio and the mainstream media alike. Also from very early on, Dean was depicted by both talk radio and factions within the Democratic establishment, as being too liberal to ever win the general election. As a result of these mischaracterizations, the leading stories in the mainstream media about Dean have been dominated by the question of whether Dean was simply too angry and too liberal to be electable.

The claim that Dean was too liberal to be electable was first put forward on GOP talk radio, a venue which it is important to note, has regularly labeled all of the Democratic candidates except Lieberman, as left-wing wackos. The depiction of Dean as an ultra-liberal was quickly seconded by the Democratic Leadership Council — a centrist, some might even say right-leaning, faction within the Democratic establishment — that has, coincidentally or not, concurred with talk radio that its former chairman, Joe Lieberman was the only candidate most able to win against Bush. Added to this mix was the idea put forward by the mainstream media that Dean’s opposition to the war with Iraq was somehow an extremely liberal position, even though polls showed that the majority of Democrats agreed with it. To cap all of this off, when Dean stated that he did not believe that Americans were safer because of Saddam Hussein’s capture, he was lambasted from all sides — including talk radio, the mainstream media, the Democratic establishment, and most of his Democratic rivals — as if he had said something that was so extreme that he was being irresponsible — even though polls showed that a majority of Americans agreed with his statement. As a result of all of these mischaracterizations, even though Dean’s record as Governor of Vermont shows him to be well within the mainstream of the Democratic party, the media has been largely successful in convincing the public that Dean stands so far to the left of mainstream America that he would be unelectable.

<snip>
The Democratic establishment versus Dean

Very early on in this contest, the Democratic establishment joined in on the Dean bashing. In May 2003, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) issued a memo, which warned that a Dean candidacy would result in Democrats becoming increasingly marginalized. This memo warned that the types of Democrats that were attracted to grassroots politics, which formed the basis for Dean’s campaign, did not represent the Democratic mainstream, but instead represented an elitist fringe within the party. Invoking the memories of the nominations of McGovern and Mondale which saw the Democrats lose 49 states in two elections, the DLC memo further cautioned that if the Democratic Party tacked too far to the left, in giving the nomination to Dean, it would be banished to the political wilderness.

<snip>
It is easy to understand why the DLC would be threatened by a Dean candidacy. In essence, Howard Dean came out of nowhere and rose to prominence in a field of much better known Democratic contenders without the need to rely on the Democratic establishment as the basis for his fundraising or support base. In the second half of 2003, Dean raised $5 million a month, far more than any previous Democratic contender, including Bill Clinton — not from large contributions which usually form the basis for most campaign fundraising — but mostly from small contributions of under $100. While campaign contributions for both parties usually come in large amounts from less than .01% of the population; if Dean had raised a total of $25 million mostly from an average donation of a hundred dollars, this meant that he had been able to gain support from something approaching 1% of the population, or ten times the norm. With this type of financial support, it was clear that Dean did not need the blessing of the Democratic establishment to be successful in his quest for the nomination.

One must suspect that the DLC’s decision to use scare tactics to undermine Dean’s credibility may have had more to do with the fact that they felt threatened by his candidacy — that they were more interested in protecting their own credibility — rather than being motivated from having the party’s best interests in mind. If this is true, then the DLC’s entire anti-Dean argument can be turned on its head. Drawing from their own attack on Dean, it may be argued that the DLC does not represent the Democratic mainstream but instead represents an elitist fringe driven by their craven desire to cling to power

<snip>
Now, I personally listened to Dean’s Iowa speech on the radio as it was happening and I must say that his delivery did not seem angry or even unseemly to me. In fact I found Dean’s speech inspiring for its defiance, being as it was meant to thank his supporters and assure them that despite the loss in Iowa that the campaign would continue and prevail.
Even with the visuals, when a longer segment of the speech is viewed, Dean’s 15 second scream at the end can be seen in context and would probably be viewed more as excitement than anger by most people. CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer, noted that from what he could gather about the event was that even “the reporters in the room when Dean allegedly wigged out didn't think there was anything odd about it. It seemed appropriate and unremarkable. … he did what politicians and coaches do at pep rallies.” And yet the incessantly repeated image of Dean excited and shouting, when taken out of context, succeeded in having the desired effect of making Dean seem angry and out of control.
One must wonder what motivated the media to air the final 15 seconds of this speech, taken out of its larger context, over and over again when it only could have been intended to create a drastically skewed perception of Dean. In the end, this bit of videotape has perhaps done more for the “anybody but Dean” movement, than any logical argument against him ever could. The video-bytes that the networks chose to air again and again, succeeded in their intended purpose by making Dean seem to be out of control, even if he wasn’t.

<snip>
The deference of the media toward Bush and against his detractors, which began during the 2000 campaign, has shown no sign of letting up ever since. For example, if you want information about anything that is controversial in American politics that might shed a bad light on Bush — whether it is the warnings given to the U.S. government about 9/11, the fact twisting involved in the lead-up to the war with Iraq or an honest analysis of the effect of Bush’s tax cuts — you will have to turn to the European media because the American media simply does not report on anything that might make Bush look bad. As it stands, the hard questions about the Bush administration are still not getting asked by the American mainstream media. And with a few exceptions Bush almost always gets a free pass.

The campaign of Howard Dean has been tremendously successful in awakening the civic duties of people who previously might have thought that they couldn’t make a difference. Instead of drawing on the Democratic establishment for contributions or talent, the Dean organization was able to create what can only be called a “movement” which has successfully used grassroots techniques to involve ordinary people in the political process. What the Democratic establishment must understand is that now, more than ever, it needs this type of grassroots support and it needs to bring previously inactive people into the fold. If Dean does not get the nomination, what remains to be seen is whether the energy and the grassroots support of the Dean campaign will be readily transferable to another campaign.