From Henry's review of Hacker and Pierson's new book Off Center:
So why hasn't the Republican party been punished by voters for its radicalism? As I understand it, Hacker and Pierson's explanation has three main components. First, information. Voters are often poorly informed about politics, and are vulnerable to “tailored disinformation,” which distorts public perceptions. Second, institutions. The Republican Party has been able to use its dominance of Senate, House and Presidency to set the agenda and to sideline opposition. Finally, networks. “New Power Brokers” like Tom DeLay have been able to assemble networks that bring together politicians, think-tankers, funders and lobbyists, creating a coherent agenda across separate institutions, rewarding and protecting loyalists while brutally punishing those who go off-message.
And as I understand it, the argument really begins and ends behind door number one. That the Republican Party has been able to leverage their institutional dominance to reshape the playing field and imprison Democrats in the dugout helps explain their effectiveness, sure, as does the DeLay-led synergy among moneymen, idea peddlers, and politicians, but the reason they can bring their ideological babies to term is the peculiar structure of the media and the openings it provides for disinformation. If voters don't know, they can't oppose. And the media's preference for screaming fests, their willingness to let distortions and half-truths fly unchallenged, their grateful acceptance of a cadre of professional flacks paid and trained to lie unpopular positions into broadly acceptable forms, and all the other quirks of the "objective" protocols have taught listeners to basically tune out the whole show, to watch it as a boxing match rather than an informational session. The results are unambiguous, this comes from a PIPA poll released shortly before the election:
Majorities of Bush supporters incorrectly assumed that Bush favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements (84%), and the US being part of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69%), the International Criminal Court (66%), the treaty banning land mines (72%), and the Kyoto Treaty on global warming (51%). They were divided between those who knew that Bush favors building a new missile defense system now (44%) and those who incorrectly believe he wishes to do more research until its capabilities are proven (41%). However, majorities were correct that Bush favors increased defense spending (57%) and wants the US, not the UN, to take the stronger role in developing Iraq's new government (70%).
Bush supporters also, themselves, favored some of the positions that they attributed to Bush. Majorities of Bush supporters favored including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements (93%), and the US being part of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (68%), the International Criminal Court (75%), the treaty banning land mines (66%), and the Kyoto treaty on climate change (54%). Only 33% of Bush supporters wanted to build a new missile defense system now, while more wanted to do more research until its capabilities are proven (56%).
Same thing happened during the Clinton health care initiative. Studies showed that, over the course of the controversy, voters actually got stupider, which is to say that the fairly clear understanding they had of the Clinton plan at the start actually degraded over a year of wall-to-wall coverage. The media, the commercials, the politicians -- all these ended up misinforming the populace on what was being debated. It should thus be no surprise that, after ClintonCare died, surveys found voters wanted a health care proposal that was -- you guessed it -- almost exactly like Clinton's.
For now, our politicians live on disinformation. The Energy Bill was an atrocity, the Medicare Bill a giveaway, the tax cuts targeted at those with no need, the Iraq War sold on the dangers of weapons that didn't exist. The only failure, Social Security privatization, flopped because Bush eventually admitted what it was -- not a solvency plan, but a restructuring of a beloved program. Betcha he won't make that nistake again.
