When, five years ago, Hillary Clinton announced the existence of
a “vast, right-wing conspiracy,” conservatives responded with hoots
of derision and laughter. The very idea was preposterous. Or was
it? Recent developments suggest she may have been prescient.
Once a week a couple of dozen leaders of conservative groups
gather at the offices of Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax
Reform. Every few weeks the National Republican Congressional
Committee convenes a group of senior Republican consultants and
operatives, most of them veterans of many campaigns. Why else would
these groups meet regularly unless it is to plot the nation’s
course? Picture President Bush and House Speaker Hastert chewing
their finger nails in anticipation of getting their regular
marching orders from the respective groups.
Sinister? Yes, but something far more sinister seems to be afoot
with such groups. Sources tell this column that these conspirators
have hired specialists with a secret method to seduce unwitting
Democrats into doing their bidding. The objective is to scuttle
Democrat efforts to win the presidential and congressional
elections of 2004. Consider the evidence:
• Liberal radio. A week ago, two major Democrat campaign
donors, Sheldon and Anita Drobny of Chicago, announced they were
heading a group to finance a liberal radio network to checkmate the
likes of Rush Limbaugh and dozens of conservatively-oriented talk
shows around the country. Their group will put up $10 million to
create a daily menu of 14 hours of liberal programming. They hope
to hire comedian Al Franken to tickle America’s funny bone with
liberal wonkery dressed up as hilarity.
The Drobnys and their friends are doing this in the face of all
available logic. Mario Cuomo’s effort at talk radio was about as
entertaining as listening to readings from the telephone book. Jim
Hightower’s syndicated program also flopped, despite the host’s
cracker-barrel, folksy manner.
Rush and all those conservative talk-show hosts don’t need
investors, of course, for they have sponsors who pay to advertise.
Actually, Ronald Reagan began the whole conservatives-on-radio
movement back in 1975 after he left the governor’s office in
California. For nearly five years he had a five-minute commentary
program every weekday which, at its peak, was carried on 350
stations. Some say it helped build his popularity for winning the
presidency in 1980.
Now if the Drobnys were following logic, they would understand
that conservative radio is a response to the prevailing liberal
world view of network television news, most large newspapers and
the weekly news magazines. It is a bottoms-up affair, giving voice
to the views of large numbers of people who believe their views are
not represented by those “mainstream” media.
Liberal philosophy and the policy prescriptions that flow from
it are, on the other hand, top-down in origin. Elitists, with moral
certitude, pass their ideas down to the hoi polloi.
Speaking of television, MSNBC thought it would counter Fox
News’s hit show “The O’Reilly Factor” with a resurrection of the
liberal Phil Donahue. For those who have trouble sleeping, Donahue
has proved to be a cost-free substitute for Sominex.
The very terms “liberal radio” and “liberal television” are
oxymorons. The only listeners and viewers will be the faithful:
policy wonks, party activists and various axe-grinders.
• Campaign finance “reform.” The Democrats who were
railing about “getting money out of politics” got their wish.
“Soft” money is out, while the limit on “hard” money contributions
(direct to candidates) was increased — after 27 years — from
$1,000 to $2,000. In the 2002 election cycle the Republicans raised
$332 million in hard money to $163 million for the Democrats. This
was under the old rules. The Democrats were much more dependent on
soft money (raising $245.8 million to $250 million for the
Republicans). Nine of the 10 largest soft money contributors gave
to the Democrats. Anthony Corrado, a scholar of campaign finance,
was quoted in the Washington Post as saying, “The
Republican Party just has a much broader base of large and small
donors, and on average they give more.” Harold Ickes, the
Democratic operative, said, “The (Republican) spending advantage is
enormous.”
There is no rational explanation for Democrats in Congress to
vote for a bill that has the effect of cutting off their biggest
money supply. Nor, for that matter, is there one for rich Democrat
donors to invest $10 million in radio programs which will attract
few listeners. No, the only possible explanation is this: The vast
right-wing conspiracy hired a team of hypnotists to perform their
arcane ways on congressional Democrats during caucus meetings and
on those rich investors at a fund-raising cocktail party for, say,
Al Gore.
Once she gets wind of this fiendish, but effective, plot,
Senator Hillary will no doubt introduce a bill outlawing
hypnosis.
