Hard right conservatives, and their GOP counterparts, have managed to make a great many Americans believe there is a “Liberal Media,” and that it and all public discussion - except their own take on issues -  is slanted by radical liberal thought and action. And yet at the same time that these conservatives discredit the media, they own, control and largely manipulate the press and the air waves. 

            In effect, while controlling most of the media the conservatives have succeeded in making people distrust it, therefore it is easier for them to discredit any voices opposed to their viewpoint that might appear in the remaining few media outlets that provide a liberal or neutral approach to commentary and news. This also  makes the GOP seem like an underdog, the media outsider, and gives weight and credibility to right wing commentators and news sources that would otherwise be shunned as radical or extremist. Through such tactics the right wing media is able to wrap itself in the flag and act like it is in a guerilla war for true American freedom. 

            Conservatives, both radical and mainstream,  have managed this duality of interest  under the age-old premise that if a lie is big enough and told often enough it will sooner or later enter main stream thought and gain undeserved credibility.  It seems clear they have proven the point once again.

They have succeeded in developing suspicion between traditional American groups and individuals, and increasingly they are successful in manipulating the national public and political dialogue.

            The people who are trying to divide us want to make us feel like ‘the only way the trains will run on time,’ or the only way we will be secure, is if we have an authoritarian style government. Of course, in today’s world we should probably substitute planes for trains, and we’re certainly not expecting an American Mussolini to straighten everything out, yet there is plenty of evidence to indicate that if we don’t watch our step we could wind up with an American version of the Italian fascist.

            We all think, of course, ‘that it couldn’t happen here,’ but our 20^th Century history shows that there was quite as much to fear from fascism as there was from communism, as Sinclair Lewis once tried to point out. And unlike communism, which was beaten and discredited, fascism was only beaten.

            And here is where history and words and phrases join hands.

            There is virtually no “Liberal Media,” especially in the terms that conservatives and the GOP portray it, and politically “liberal” should not be a pejorative term any more than conservative should be. But by successfully creating the illusion of something that doesn’t exist – the ‘liberal media’- and tying it together, at first, with the term ‘radical liberal,’ the Republicans and their conservative supporters were ultimately able to succeed in turning a legitimate word into a pejorative brand; now to tag someone with the term liberal is to automatically besmirch and discredit them. Anyone adhering to what was long accepted as progressive and open-minded values and ideas can no longer be defeated by whispering that he or she has Communist leanings, or is suspected of being a Communist - a favorite tactic of conservatives and the GOP during the Twentieth Century - but now the person holding such views can be hurt by being loudly and repeatedly called a liberal. And yet, at the same time, the term ‘conservative’ remains on high ground.

            But this didn’t happen over night.

            Taking a definition from Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, a liberal is “one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional or established forms or ways,” and a conservative is “an adherent or advocate of political conservatism…one who adheres to traditional methods or views…”

            What has happened in the last 30 years is that conservatives have broadened the definition of liberal, leaving it hooked to the idea of it being something radical while connecting it with virtually everything and anything they oppose, especially Democratic politics. As one ‘average American’ recently noted in a car enthusiasts’ internet chat room, “the conservatives have managed to slowly turn the word liberal into a word that more and more people do not want to be associated with; terms like tree hugger, pro-choicer, elitist, etc., come to mind.”

            Conservatives, thanks to their dominance in media ownership and their mature skills in manipulating the mainstream media, have managed to avoid having the term radical applied to themselves, while constantly connecting it to individuals and policies that reflect liberal values.

            This Teflon success in avoiding being stuck with the term ‘radical’ to describe their most far right members must seem like a great benefit to the conservatives and the GOP policy makers, but it has turned out to be a problem for everyone, including the many sincere conservatives who are unable to distinguish themselves from the loud and contentious voices of the far right.

With the lack of that descriptive word the great majority of honest conservatives have not been able to differentiate themselves from people such as Ralph Reed, formerly of the Christian Coalition, or the powerful machinations of billionaire reactionaries like Richard Mellon Scaife, who pour millions upon millions of dollars into the promotion of a hard right wing agenda. Several right wing newspapers, news letters and now web sites that are regularly quoted in the mainstream press and on talk shows and various internet chat rooms would cease to exist without money from Mellon Scaife and others of the reactionary ultra rich, all of whom share common goals and motives.

On a similar note, it also should be remembered that the Washington Times, which is so often quoted by conservatives, is owned and controlled by the Rev. Sun Yung Moon, who is at least a totalitarian if not an out and out fascist. He is better known for his creation of the “Moonies,” a reactionary religious cult that absorbed many young Americans in decades past, and which after experiencing American resentment has become much lower key, working behind the scenes to try to influence American ideas and lifestyles instead of proselytizing door to door.

But it is people like Scaife who are the more widespread threat; Scaife and others with millions to spend expanding  their reactionary agenda hire and support, or underwrite by advertising, skilled writers and reporters and radio commentators whose whole professional task is to fill web-sites and newspapers and the air waves with right wing polemics. Yet because it has been virtually impossible to tag these ‘conservatives’ with the term radical, they have managed to get to the point where they pronounce themselves the voice of American Conservatism.

There has been no easy way to differentiate, from the mainstream of conservative thought, the rigid and aggressive right wing  ideology of Radical Conservatives; a good example is the multiplicity of right wing talk shows in every part of the country. The "conservative" talk shows vastly outnumber any that even vaguely appear liberal or even middle-of-the-road. There are of course reasons for this phenomenon, and those reasons include the political predilections of media ownership and  the plethora of conservative advertising dollars.  A great many media owners have found this to be a very happy convergence of inclination and financial support that has the additional advantage of being self-perpetuating; that is, the more one viewpoint is propagandized, the more it becomes acceptable and therefore that much more in demand, and so forth. 

Obviously this is a dangerous cycle in a democracy; in a democracy such a cycle is dangerous whether it is weighted left or right, because as the middle is abandoned or pushed to the dominant side, authoritarian measures will increase proportionately. Right now, in our nation, the propaganda that is gaining ground and momentum  is reactionary.

Voices of radio commentators like Rush Limbaugh  mouth words that follow closely the goals of the reactionary idealogues, and often are in lockstep with them. Yet even radio hosts like Don Imus blur the distinction between radical and mainstream conservative thought. Imus, whose facts are usually in order and whose guests are diverse, nonetheless has a "take" on the issues that almost invariably follows a conservative path, and some of the comments of his co-hosts manage to outdo Limbaugh. People like Limbaugh, of course, are but echoes of behind the scenes power brokers like Mellon Scaife. 

And now, after haranguing the nation for years, the Radical Conservative ideologues seem to be winning. They are successfully influencing the national political dialogue, and therefore the governing structure.

Radical Conservatives are now a major force in the GOP, and through the media that they both own and influence by financial support, they are very skilled at shouting down anyone who defies their particular orthodoxy. They are true radicals, and we ought to begin calling them Radical Conservatives so that we can separate them from the mainstream, and at the same time we should begin talking about the Conservative Media.

If one listens closely to these people, especially in their print media, you will see that there is a strong leaning toward the creation of an American-style of fascism, which by the Heritage Dictionary’s definition is simply “a merging of state and business leadership together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism…” If unchecked this has historically led to “a philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right.”

            It is the Radical Conservatives who want to separate us, and we are all losing ground because of their success. What used to be the middle in American politics has shifted a great deal to the right, and the Republican Party appears in danger of being captured by these radicals. If this were to happen it would be as bad as if the Democratic Party were captured by true socialists bent on creating a new brand of American-style communism. At this point there is zero danger of such totalitarian zeal from the Democratic Party, but it seems increasingly clear that the GOP is in danger of being captured by far right ideologues.

            That is why we need to put the radical tag on these so-called conservatives, and in fact, by doing this we will be better able to judge Radical Conservative thought and action when it is subtle as well as when it is bold. In its subtle form it often assumes an appearance that is deceptively appealing to the American sense of individuality and justice, but is still an extension of right wing politics. The Conservative Media, for example, has pushed forward with little or no serious analysis the conservative idea that lowering taxes will help everyone and will be a cure-all, which is very attractive sounding. But it’s a fiction. A smoke screen.

            It’s a smoke screen because it masks the true discussion; that is, how do we use and distribute our overall national wealth.

            If lower taxes meant that we would still maintain our standard of living, our security, and our currently agreed upon level of social services, who could possibly be against it?

            But it won’t work that way.

            First of all, if we made any cuts substantial enough for all of us in the middle and working classes to feel some true relief, we would either have to cut back severely on the billions we spend around the world on “allies” and on alliances of convenience, such as Columbia and Egypt, or we would have to limit the growth of our military, or both. It might be possible to make some cuts in the former, but hardly in the latter. Our economy itself is greatly attached to our famous “military-industrial complex,” as pointed out in a warning by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower 42 years ago after the threat developed on his Presidential watch. It has hardly shrunk since then.

So, if taxes are cut in one place, they will have to be made up somewhere else.

Therefore when people talk about cutting taxes during political debates, and especially during election years, they are naturally forced to be socially conservative as well because social services are the only place money could be cut without disturbing national defense, international aid, and perhaps most importantly, large corporations and the very wealthy.

            This would be at least less frustrating to all of us who pay the taxes if in fact the biggest potential taxpayers actually were the biggest taxpayers. But to say that many companies as big as Enron get away with paying little or no taxes is no exaggeration, and pretty much we all know it; we also know that the very rich have good lawyers and accountants who trim their share so that it is not proportionate to their wealth.

Even the great philanthropists, those who lived in earlier times as well as those living among us today, are very often driven by tax concerns as much as they are by social conscience.

            It is no surprise then that when you hear the cry, ‘No new taxes,’ or ‘We will cut taxes,’ you can assume two things: 1. It is probably a Republican talking. 2. Whatever taxes that may be cut after the election will represent money currently spent to help poor people and, more quietly, money spent to help working people.

            And people in power in the GOP, who unabashedly make known their ties to private wealth, big business and industrial interests, are very aware of this, therefore there is good reason to be cynical when we hear such arguments. But they also know it is great politics, because it hamstrings the opposition. The Democrats in the Twentieth Century have become the party committed to resolving social injustice and representing the workingmen and women, much in line with the party’s historical populist roots.

            Therefore, since the Democrats fully understand that they too would not be able to effectively cut spending on national defense or international aid, and would probably be called traitors by the GOP if they did, the party of the donkey is stuck, and, like the animal that is its symbol, the Democrats can only stubbornly remain in the traces, supporting social agendas. This makes them an easy target for exploitation, since every time a scandal involving welfare or some other public support system is revealed it can be made to look like the bleeding heart liberal Democrats are squandering the taxpayer’s money on people who don’t deserve it.

            And this tactic has the secondary advantage of pitting the middle class and the working class against the lower class, and sometimes against each other; that is, it keeps everyone looking at each other and not looking at how the system might really be improved. Do we think we could do better by cutting aid to obscure countries for often very obscure reasons? Do we think we could force our elected representatives to close the loopholes giant corporations use to make a mockery of the public tax system?

Remember the hotel chain matron, Leona Helmsly, who arrogantly declared that “only the little people pay taxes.” That remark was too much for the people in power, at least it was too much to have it stated in public instead of in a drawing room, since to allow it to stand would possibly make everyone begin to take a look at the bigger picture, so she was prosecuted and convicted of tax charges.

            But Americans could, together, figure out better ways to have the national tax monies allocated. Yet it would require breaking through the conservative propaganda that buries the nation daily. It would require standing up to the politics of polarization so that we could come to a consensus. And it is here that it’s too bad there really isn’t a ‘liberal media,’ because if there were it might be possible to have such a national dialogue.

            It’s worth noting that even if newsrooms were filled to the brim with liberals, what gets into print or on the air is what the publisher or, in radio or TV, the station ownership will allow.  Freedom of the press, as has been said many times, belongs to those who own the presses, and, in today’s world, the electronic broadcasting stations.

            An excellent example of the power of the media, and how well the GOP can and does use it, is illustrated in how George W. Bush and Dick Cheney began to shift the public view of the economy in the fall of their election year. Everything was booming, but they declared that there was a recession ahead, they could foresee it. The media played this up heartily, and pretty soon Wall Street began to tremble, stocks fell, and it became something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

But of course there was a good deal of calculated politics at work, since by initiating a call for caution the boom faltered and lay-offs soon took place, which loosened up the job market for employers. Workers were increasingly less likely to demand the highest wages and benefits before they would consider coming to work in a given company. Instead they were increasingly happy to either maintain their jobs, or to be able to actually find one.

            And now, with the economy vastly different than it was two years ago when the bedraggled Democrats were displaced, we are again hearing the tax cut drumbeat.

            Sometimes we also hear that by cutting taxes jobs will be created. The argument goes something like this: If taxes are cut employers will have more money to reinvest in their companies and therefore more jobs will become available.

            Because of that phenomenon it was hard, maybe impossible, for the GOP to thwart the Radical Right from attaching itself to the Republican Party and begin to call its adherents simply conservatives.

            Yet for those very reasons it is very important now to differentiate them from the mainstream of conservative thought by at least calling them Radical Conservatives, and we should wake up and call the media what it truly is, conservative. The vast majority of media corporations of all types in this country are Republican owned, and more and more often they are influenced by the ascendancy of the far right, so that their editorial voices and predilections are increasingly reactionary.

We must begin to differentiate the Radical Conservatives and their Radical Far Right supporters and sponsors from the mainstream of conservative thought, and from their mainstream attachment to the GOP, if we are going to thwart their ‘divide and conquer’ strategy. And we must begin to laugh at the phrase, “Liberal Media,” and begin instead referring to the Conservative Media and its slant on American values. 

Editor’s Note: Joseph E. Bradleyfulco collaborated on this analysis.