White House Chronicle

News Analysis With a Sense of Humor

The Perils of Palin on the Fox Box

by 2 Comments

 

The great television event of this winter is not what happens with Jay Leno and the late-night crew at NBC. Rather it is Sarah Palin signing on as a contributor for the top-rated Fox News Channel.

In her maiden run on Fox, Palin delighted her admirers and confirmed the negative view of her by those who watched “The O’Reilly Factor” just to see if the former Alaska governor would make a spectacle of herself.

When Palin dismissed allegations about her shortcomings as John McCain’s 2008 running mate in the new book Game Change, by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, as “crap,” both her followers and detractors got what they thought they wanted from the Woman Who Would Be President. Her followers saw a gutsy conservative and her detractors heard a woman who they believe to be ignorant and incapable of serious responses to serious charges.

For Palin, the real issue is what will television do for her? Will it hurt or hinder? Will it be the final nail in her political coffin as she becomes a talking head, an entertainment, a figure of fun?

To appear from time to time on television is essential for aspiring office seekers. To have a regular spot there is something else. It reveals the mind behind the face, and no politician has been able to survive or be enhanced by too much television.

If Palin doubts this, she look at her colleagues on the Fox box. Step forward Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove and Dick Morris. Or switch over to MSNBC, and see how things are going for two other former politicians: Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough.

Let us take them one at a time.

Newt Gingrich, once the fount of Republican ideas, is a somewhat reduced man on television, another pundit among many. It has not put him up in the polls as a potential Republican candidate for president.

Karl Rove, once thought to be the omnipotent brain behind President George W. Bush, has also been leveled by regular television appearances, with his insights no more compelling than those of a host of Washington commentators.

Watching Dick Morris’s lugubriousness on Fox, it is hard to believe that President Bill Clinton hung on his words, as did many other politicians. Many political reporters in Washington have as much insight.

Over at MSNBC, Pat Buchanan, some-time presidential candidate and longtime columnist, gets more air time than all the rest. This outpouring of Buchanan philosophy has not produced the slightest groundswell for him to run again.

Joe Scarborough, a former U.S. congressman, has done well as a morning television host, but nobody has suggested he should give this up and return to politics.

Television can be good for the ego but it is a career killer, unless that career is in television.

While television builds name recognition, it also breeds familiarity and robs politicians of their mystique. We do not want to know what politicians think about absolutely everything that happens every day. We want to believe they know things we do not know and think things above our understanding.

Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate, alone has been enhanced by appearing on Fox. But he is hosting a variety show, not just showing the variety of his opinions. He is good on television — so good that he may never run for office again. Huckabee could offer himself to any network as an accomplished entertainer and host.

Palin comes to television with a fearsome following. She has reputedly sold 2 million copies of her book, Going Rogue, has 1.5 million friends on Facebook and half a million followers on Twitter. All of those numbers are in the stratosphere.

Has there ever been such devotion to a political woman, so much homage paid to the idea of an iconoclast as a leader? It is a lot to risk for jabbing at liberals on television, along with other women who jab at liberals like Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham and Monica Crowley. — For the Hearst-New York Times Syndicate

 

Republicans Need an English Lesson from Thatcher and Blair

by Leave a Comment

 

 

Before Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1979, Britain was in trouble and headed for worse. The story was told on radio news every morning. Along with the weather and the traffic reports, there was daily a list of trouble spots of a different sort: industrial action.

 

Industrial action was the euphemism of the time for strikes; most of them unofficial, all of them debilitating. The national mood was sour, the economy perilous, and Britain’s international competitiveness was slipping fast. Commentators around the world talked about “the English disease.”

 

Thatcher’s challenge was to curb the unions; but before she could do that, she had to convince a doubting nation that the unions could become, or be made, responsible. Over the years, the unions had amassed quite extraordinary power that reached into lives of people who had never thought they were affected by unions.

 

Union excess was everywhere but because the British believed in the importance of unions, their strengths and excesses were taken as the necessary price for the fundamental right of collective bargaining.

 

The Labor Party derived much of its support and financing from the union movement. They were structurally entwined: The unions represented the core, or the “base,” of the party. Unfortunately for Labor, the base was toxic and threatened the health of the economy and, as the election of 1979 showed, the electability of the party.

 

Thatcher, though hard to love, did three enormous things for Britain. She restored the primacy of the free market, curbed union excess and, ironically, saved the Labor Party. Thatcher’s changes made it possible for what was to be called New Labor to modify its relations with its trade union base. The politicians got back the politics, which had been progressively assumed by union bosses of the base.

 

The British experience is redolent with lessons for the Republican Party. The “base,” represented by the aggressive broadcasters like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham, is goading the party in Congress to adopt positions that satisfy them, but not the electorate.

 

Building on the new reality created by Thatcher’s Conservatives, Tony Blair and his political brain, Peter Mandelson, were able to discipline or silence the trade unions in the Labor Party and present an alternative to the Conservatives that could plunder the best ideas of the right. When nobody was looking, Blair must have thanked God for Thatcher.

 

The agony of the Republicans is clearly on display with the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court: To oppose her blindly is to kiss off millions of Hispanic voters, maybe for generations. The party clearly had no strategy to deal with a candidate like Sotamayor. None.

 

The far right came out with, well, with an old argument: She is a liberal activist. Not much evidence of that, but the conservative talk-show hosts were ready for war. The last war. Or the one before that.

 

More damaging to serious Republicans has been the conversion, almost entirely on Fox, of respected Republican philosophers into political Vaudevillians. Enter, center stage, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee and Karl Rove. Their collective TV antics are damaging to the movement they once led.

 

A lot of good thinking about the future of the Republican Party is taking place in the think tanks, particularly the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation. But the solid work of restructuring the party for the new realities at home and abroad is drowned out by the eponymous broadcast wing of the party.

 

It is hard to believe that Newt Gingrich, broadcaster, is the same Newt Gingrich who masterminded the 1994 Republican midterm sweep. Or that Karl Rove was the genius who saw that George W. Bush could be presented as a convincing presidential candidate.

 

Absent any possibility of reform of the Republican base from the outside, in the Thatcher way, it has to come from the inside. Several astute conservative writers, like David Frum and Mickey Edwards, have lighted a path. A first step down that path could be a more even-handed examination of President Obama’s Supreme Court picks. He could have as many as four of them in his first term. Clearly he has an eye to the electorate, as much as to jurisprudence, if Sotomayor is a harbinger.

 

Thatcher built herself an entirely new base. Blair dismantled an old one. The Republicans need to examine both.

 

 

Newt Gingrich And The End Of Ideology

by 2 Comments

Newt Gingrich, a former speaker of the House and espouser of big ideas, has discovered two old political verities: our education system is broken and the nation’s infrastructure needs an overhaul. Both have been true for decades. They were true when Gingrich was forcing his tribal doctrines on Congress and when, later, he described George W. Bush as a “transformational” president.

 

For Gingrich, the trouble is he did nothing for education when he had power and he was opposed to funding infrastructural repair. While Gingrich was trumpeting Bush’s ability to change the nation, the president was bringing about change at home through neglect and change abroad through interventionist war.

 

Now, the price is to be paid–the astronomically high price. Get out your wallets, your children’s wallets and your grandchildren’s wallets.

 

Gingrich’s Republican Revolution is a tattered thing now. His “Contract with America” is never mentioned. His term limits idea is no more viable than Esperanto. The man who believes that private enterprise and the free market are the balm of hurt countries is observing the nationalization of a large chunk of the finance sector. It is hardly the kind of transformation Gingrich expected from the Bush administration.

 

Despite this litany of events that has turned Gingrich’s dreams to nightmares, we need thinkers more than ever. If Gingrich had been less wedded to the Republican orthodoxies (now crumbling) and given his ideas free rein, he might have had more enduring successes. Real ideas are more enduring than party fealty expressed though party-speak.

 

Whoever wins in November–now hard upon us–has to approach the business of government in the immediate future as a new paradigm: pragmatism first and ideology second.

 

The problem with ideology is that it inhibits ideas and produces rigidities that inhibit the natural immune systems of countries from functioning. If the Democrats had not been so ideologically wedded to the purposes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they would have sided with conservatives to control these monsters before things went hopelessly wrong. Likewise, if conservatives had not developed a pathological hatred of regulation (oversight, really), some alarms over the house of cards on Wall Street may have been noticed. As a prophylactic, regulation can only be measured in its absence. There are no bonuses for good regulation.

 

It is up to creative people, like Gingrich, to introduce House Republicans and the party’s base to this big idea: things have changed. All of those robust slogans of the 1990s are obsolete. So is the idea that good results in government will axiomatically flow from personal rectitude, including faith, family, patriotism, a love of small government, and a belief that our institutions of government are irresistible to the rest of the world.

 

In many ways, Republicans are better equipped to prepare themselves for the future than Democrats. Republicans do have leaders, like Gingrich and Rep. Roy Blunt, who are equipped to mold a new party philosophy. They also have a corps of literate thinkers on the op-ed pages, including George Will, David Brooks, Bill Kristol, Kathleen Parker and Charles Krauthammer.

 

These days the Democrats have no living heroes. The Clintons are contentious and Jimmy Carter is a liability. In both the House and the Senate

Democratic leadership is weak. Neither Nancy Pelosi nor Harry Reid can stir the emotions.

 

Most of the print liberals lag their conservative counterparts. Harold Meyerson is the most articulate; but outside of the liberal circle, he is unknown. Maureen Dowd writes well but is too shrill to be taken seriously. And Richard Cohen is read for pleasure, not ideology. Hence, the ridiculous expectations Democrats have for Rachel Maddow, the MSNBC talkmeistress.

 

But one commentator cannot turn back the dominance of broadcast commentary enjoyed by conservatives. Gingrich had a lot to do with that, too. He welcomed right-wing radio-talkers into Congress and gave them workspace.

 

They will not like what, I believe, they will hear from Newt and others next year. The page is turned.