Cheney’s inherent vice

The talking points on the centrist news networks like CNN and especially MSNBC, constantly barrage us with talk of the erosion of norms. Trump and his administration, so the narrative goes, has engaged in systematic undermining of the norms of democracy. He tramples over the procedures and guarantees of the constitution and functioning democracies and tries to assert his personal will over the good of the nations. Not surprisingly, although not exclusively, this narrative is forwarded by disaffected Republicans, who want us to return to the “normalcy of the Bush and Regan administrations, and they even admit that Obama and Clinton were normal in this respect too. But Democrats too engage in this trope and almost daily bemoan the loss of a traditional sense of the rule of law. Mostly however, this is a self-congratulatory story line, that celebrates and legitimizes the often-unjust conditions and creeping authoritarianism of prior administrations. By making a hard and fast distinction between, Trump and the Republicans who went before him, the narrative serves to rehabilitate Republican leadership like Reagan and Bush I and II who have not fared well, in court of educated public opinion. If you watch NBC and MSNBC, there is quite a bit of Bush and Reagan worship going on. The deaths of George H. W. Bush and his wife Barbara were occasions for celebrating a kinder gentler machine gun hand (apologies to Neil Young) and an era of “reasonable” politics where members of both parties get along. George Bush’s daughter is employed by the network, and a constant stream of ex Republicans, mostly from the Bush administrations, whose homiletic praising of the virtues of Bush are far too reverential.

One of the “virtues” of the film VICE, the story of the rise and fall of Dick Chaney, is to disabuse of the notion that the expansive view of presidential power for which Trump is rightly criticized is unique or outside the norm. It has a longer history, going back as far as Nixon. The core of the republican party of which Cheney was as central operative, used notions of expansive executive power which have come home to roost in the figure of Trump. The strict distinction between a lawful republic, and the renegade Republicanism of Trump is illusory.  At the center of the film’s narrative is the rise of the doctrine of unitary executive authority, a view of constitution that in Cheney’s interpretation gives the president almost unlimited powers. While article 2 of the constitution gives the president fairly broad executive powers, the strong version of the unitary executive theory reads these in the strongest possible fashion to give the president unlimited authority over the executive branch and limiting the power of congress in a way that seems inconsistent with the separation and balance of powers. On these readings the president is the executive branch, Perhaps most troubling is the view that when carrying out his commander in chief function the president has unlimited authority. He cannot be limited by any laws passed by congress; This is the interpretation Cheney favored.

Richard Nixon famously forwarded an interpretation of unitary executive, in his assertion that the president can’t do anything illegal. As the supreme authority he is the law, What he does is always just. This seems to be a reading that is closer to the German political theorist Carl Schmitt, who gave support to Hitler not Montesquieu’s theory of tripartite government.

The film shows how the younger Chaney something of a ne’er do well like the young George W. Bush happens upon government service and meets Donald Rumsfeld, forging a political alliance largely around this notion of unitary power. When they both emerged as players in the Reagan administration this doctrine was put to good use, Reagan began the extensive use of signing orders, which some thought allowed the president to specify what parts of a law the president was going to enforce, allow him a defacto line item veto.

The most prominent use of this doctrine during Reagan was the Iran-Contra scandal, Cheney famously argued in his report on Iran Contra that the actions of the Reagan administration were legal because the president was acting in his capacity as commander in chief.

Cheney’s full use of the powers of the executive came to the fore. He redefined the vice presidency as a free-floating position neither fully in the executive or the legislative (due to its role as president pro tempore of the senate) and literally gave himself sweeping powers no previous vice president had. In many ways he acted as president. The attacks of 9/11 gave Cheney his greatest opportunity to employ his interpretation of the unitary executive. As a series of secret memos released after the fact indicated the administration in addition to spying illegally on citizens, took almost total and dictatorial powers. It was John Yoo, a rather undistinguished legal scholar picked for his views rather than his acumen. Scholar Chris Adelson sums up some of these powers

The unitary executive theory, as implemented by the Bush administration, was claimed to justify effectively unchecked presidential power over the use of military force, the detention and interrogation of prisoners, extraordinary rendition and intelligence gathering.

The use of torture, unprecedented in American history and explicitly banned by international laws the US accepted, the use of Guantanamo Bay and other places as offshore prisons in order to skirt American Law are among the darkest moments in American history. I might also add a fake justification for a politically motivated war on Iraq. G.W. Bush also greatly expanded the use of executive orders and signing statements, Bush used 130 signing statements more than any other president by far and often invoked the unitary power of the executive to justify these statements. Obama cut back on these statements, but still used executive orders and powers notably in his incursion into Syria? While he clearly stopped torture and other practices, his failure to prosecute those who condoned torture and used extraordinary powers to subvert the constitution, meant he failed to stem the tide,

Of course, what Trump has attempted goes beyond even the distorted visions of Cheney and G.W. Bush and it is scary to see what he has done; However, it is a mistake to see Trump as sui generis. The ground for his extreme notions of presidential authority was prepared by the very republicans that alienated republicans champion today, Some old republican hands like new attorney general William Barr continue to defend the unitary executive theory and use it to absolve Trump of collusion and other charges.

Vice allows Cheney the last word. He defends his actions as necessary to protect the county from foreign enemies. History and the film tell us otherwise. Not only did the invasion of Iraq have no clear link to any terrorist threat, there is no reason to believe that torture or other rendition techniques provided information that saved lives. It was evil policy badly conceived and poorly executed. If we take away anything from the film Vice, it is the insight that our present dilemma with the “erosion of norms” was long in coming and may be difficult to eradicate. The malign ghost of Cheney and his cohorts hangs heavily on us still.

LOSING FOCUS: THE WXXI CITY NEWSPAPER MERGER

 

The recent announcement of the acquisition of City Newspaper by WXXI will make a significant change in the Rochester media landscape. Yet other than a few articles announcing the change it has faced little scrutiny  No doubt WXXI has built a positive relationship with important segments of the community with the exception of right wingers who the notion of public media whatsoever, and that has given it the cultural capital to engage in a series of mergers and acquisitions. On the surface it seems like an innovative idea, Just as XXI stepped in to aid and work with the Little Theatre, it has stepped in to save the financially strapped City from going under and preserved an important community cultural and intellectual resource.

I think however there are some good reasons to be skeptical of the latest acquisition by XXI. Over the years I think that WXXI has engaged in an expansion  that is quite unique among Public Broadcasting outlets and I believe exceeded its mission to provide incisive public broadcasting. Its actions are more consistent with a large corporation which aims at integrated power than the public interest. To be sure WXXI still provides a lot of worthwhile programming, but I think it does less than it could if it actually focused on its core mission.

WXXI president Norm Silberstein praised the CITY acquisition  as providing a model of how the modern corporation ought to operate, and to have a presence over a wide variety of platforms. The closest analogue to what Silverstein describes is the vertical integration of the large media conglomerates of today. Large corporations now own tv and radio networks, including individual stations, movie studios production studios cable channels and newspapers. Such conglomerates often speak of the advantage of cross platform integration.  They also claim they need concentrated power to counter the rise of digital technologies. However critics of media concentration, which was helped along by Clinton era reforms and which has led to a large decline in the number of independent owners of media outlets, note that it results in far less diversity in ownership.  Fewer independent owners mean fewer perspective, and the increased power of large conglomerates means they can more easily pressure affiliates and cross owned companies to favor viewpoints or produce cultural products than others. Just look at the power that a media corporation like Sinclair has over its affiliates to carry must run editorials that favor the current incumbent Donald Trump. Horizontal integration has a big downside. It leads to a narrowing of the scope of political social and cultural expression in the media and a conservatism in cultural production.

Unfortunately though the years XXI has pursued a strategy which expanded its reach without really providing much in the way of increased services. As far as I can determine this type of horizontal integration of media is unprecedented for a PBS station. WXXI is a large non-profit which has about 15 million dollars a year in income. It runs a television station with several digital subchannels, two radio stations, and has agreements with several other public radio stations. But in addition to this core function it has expanded into areas are unusual.

For quite a while now WXXI has run the governmental access channel in the City of Rochester (CITY 12). When this arrangement first started it displaced public access programming until it was moved to channel 15. It receives several hundred thousand dollars a year and does very little original programming. At first it simply reran WXXI programs on the channel. This led City Newspaper writer Jack Bradigan Spula to complain about the lack of governmental offerings by CITY 12 “Your Government at Work on the Air.” While XXI has done a little bit better in recent years. It runs live broadcasts of governmental meetings and has some original programming, a perusal of the schedule for City 12 it is mostly still XXI reruns. There seemed to be a good bit of cronyism on this arraignment. Gary Walker later a public information officer for the City was originally the Vice President for Television at XXI .  However, unsatisfied with only  this contract, it also bid (unsuccessfully) a decade ago to run PEG channels in the Western suburbs of Monroe county – an area which covers a population even larger than the city. In my research I found that the mixture of Public Broadcasting and Public Access is discouraged, and rarely existed. Public broadcasting and Public Access were meant to be kept separate and to have fundamentally different missions.

Over the years, XXI has been very accommodating to the City. You won’t find much public affairs programing or controversial views on CITY 12, something you might well find on the independently run public access channel RCTV.

WXXI also has an agreement with WRUR the University of Rochester to provide NPR programming on the station. In part this was justified because the weak signal of WXXI AM didn’t reach all of the area. This arraignment came into being however, at a time of turmoil at WRUR where several on air personnel were removed for obscenity violations, and for a while shows were done on tape. Whether XXI should have a major hand in what is supposed to be a student run radio station or whether it was brought in to control unruly students are questions that have not been satisfactorily answered

The merger of WXXI and the Little Theater in which the latter is a semi-autonomous subsidiary corporation was met with a lot of fanfare. According to the announcements at the time, the merger was supposed to enhance the mission of both entities. Because both of these are non-profits there appears to be a bit of a mixture between the two boards of directors Like XXI’s takeover of governmental access, XXI’s merger with a movie theatre is unique. While there are instances of arts organizations and PBS stations having connections, nothing like a movie theatre is involved. After several years of ownership I am not sure what XII adds to the mix. Looking at the schedule of the Little it is really hard to see how xxi enhances its mission other than keeping it from the wolf’s door. XXI however, seems to use the Little to publicize its shows and get itself more recognition. The schedule includes a preview of an xxi-television series, and a movie series sponsored by xxi’s classical  featuring the use of classical music. Couldn’t some of these projects like the XXI promotion and series be done without ownership? Was XXI ownership really the only solution?

Cross ownership of newspapers and TV stations was a point of contention for many years. In 1975 the FCC instituted a rule prohibiting cross ownership of daily newspapers and television stations in the same market. They feared that such cross ownership would create a concentrated quasi monopoly on sources of information. Under the pressure of neo0liberal deregulatory interests this prohibition has been weakened. In 2017 the FCC repealed cross ownership rules. Advocates for cross ownership, like Rochester’s WXXI argue that  this is necessary to save newspapers by creating economies of scale. The questions about reducing diversity of views remains unanswered.

To be sure, CITY newspaper was not a daily and not probably covered by this prohibition, still I think it’s a matter of concern. Supporters of the WXXI City acquisition risk being  guilty of inconsistent reasoning. Say for example Rupert Murdoch bought the Democrat and Chronicle. You can bet that even if it is allowed, people would be complaining, and if as is likely cross ownership of newspapers and local stations grows, there will be concerns. Too many think however, that since WXXI is benign they give it a pass. Malign or benign however, media concentration is not beneficial to the public. Cross ownership will lead to a narrowing of the spectrum of views.

The acquisition of CITY newspaper presents another problem from an administrative point of view. CITY will remain a for-profit while being a subsidiary of the non-profit, WXXI.  As funding for non-profits have dried up this has become an appealing option. The non-profit can get distributions from the for-profit, and get more income. In the neo-liberal era in addition non-profits have been under pressure to  However care has to be taken to avoid making the for-profit entity a vehicle of the non-profit, otherwise the non-profit can lose its mission and act like a profit-making entity. I’m sure that WXXI has lawyers to advise them on the legal niceties, one wonders exactly  what kind of effect the two entities have on each other and whether the mixing of a non-profit with a for profit subsidiary will have detrimental effects. In general however, the neo-liberal influences on the non-profits sector have been negative. Non-profits with social justice missions are often be redirected to serve middle class or elites rather than the poor or those with problems they were originally meant to serve.

Over the years Public Broadcasting stations as well as the national network have faced challenging financial and political conditions, that have weakened its commitment to the social justice elements of its mandate. Never given a secure stream of funding (say like the BBC) they have had to seek outside sources of funding. And they have faced a barrage of criticism from conservatives who fear the airing of critical perspectives on our society. While the Nixon administration raised political opposition to PBS, in the Reagan era privatization efforts, cut funding so deeply that CPB (the corporation that runs PBS – not to be confused with local stations like WXXI) was forced to seek even more outside corporate funding. PBS is not derisively called the Petroleum Broadcasting System for nothing. The corporate influence on PBS has led to even more caution in airing controversial programming. The network flagship news program, was consistently the most conservative of all news shows feature commentators  and guests on from the center and right.  Later on with a more conservative head of the network, leftish programmers like ex LBJ cabinet member Bill Moyers found considerable difficulty keeping his show on PBS. Throughout the country including Rochester, attempt to show Amy Goodman’ democracy Now news show were for the most part rebuffed.

Most observers have already noted that the insecure funding of public broadcasting has led it astray from the social justice aspects of its original mission. Born of a time of social conflict, the advocates of a public television argued persuasively that many groups including minorities were virtually invisible. Not only had network TV presented a commercialized and sanitized view of US society, it had failed in its imperative to present socially significant and contentious issues before the public. Critics had long argued that the democratic potential of media like radio and later television was stifled in a purely commercial system. The establishment of a non-commercial public broadcasting system was supposed to an element and to address the pressing public problems of the time.

Certainly what is true on the national level is echoed by local stations. The endless drives for contributors and the need or local business and corporate support certainly shapes programming decisions. Although back in the distant past Rochester was the home of some experimental shows its more recent history has been less adventurous. I enjoy some of the many British imports shown on XXI and the concerts with the dinosaurs from my time, and plenty of people enjoy the cooking shows and home improvement shows like this old house, but when I think of the mission to provide controversial public affairs programming or brings those invisible on the tv broadcasting of the past into the light, it falls short. PBS retains its Frontline documentary series and XXI devotes an entire half-hour a week, to its Need to Know program, but these shows play a subaltern role. When is the last time you saw a labor union show on XXI or local shows that dissented from the gentlemen’s agreement to avoid the dirtier realities of life in Rochester, Rather than expanding to other media, I think that it ought to do more to make its local public affairs programming more challenging and comprehensive, not to run a newspaper which itself has become rather moribund and accommodating too?

WXXI has followed in this more domesticated version of public broadcasting, and while this is no doubt an element in its success in a more conservative community like Rochester, it diverges from its vision of promoting democratic discussion and awareness. You don’t see a lot of union programs or in-depth investigations of Rochester’s deep and persistent poverty.  During the long goodbye of Kodak and Xerox I don’t recall WXXI giving over a lot of time to questions of deindustrialization and vast economic changes here that generated today’s inequality. Like most of the Rochester media they treated it as a nature like force rather than a political economic one in which power is transferred.

WXXI’s domesticated version of Public Broadcasting is to my mind a bit pretentious. It brags that it is “the essential life-long educational public media resource for the greater Rochester area. WXXI engages the community with programming that stimulates and expands thought, inspires the spirit, opens cultural horizons and promotes understanding of diverse issues.” While it’s a given that most mission statements contain fluff, this one is significant for what it doesn’t say. It is a rather bland almost conservative/elitist statement of the edifying force of culture, but little about the role of public television as an agent for creating popular democracy.  But the importance of art education and cultural innovation, in which I include not just high culture, but popular culture is not simply edifying or morally uplifting, rather it lies in its character as unsettling and disruptive.  It encourages us not just to feel good, but to think critically.

While some on the right may fear a left-wing takeover of the media it has been a long time since CITY newspaper was a courageous critic of establishment ideas. It has pretty much embraced and defended Rochester’s current mayor, hardly a flaming radical, and overlooked many of her flaws and as media analyst like Rachel Barnhart have noted does very little in the way of local investigative journalism or critical analysis of city politics.

Nor do I think the seeds of any new cultural movements will emerge out of this new combination, as they did when the beats and elements of protest counter cultures were aired on Pacifica Radio in the 50’s and 60’s.  A more likely outcome is a bland homogenization of local culture, with staff cutbacks and combined services, taking whatever spirit is left of CITY’s cultural reporters and columnists.

Media are central elements in a public sphere which needs to be wide ranging and even a bit anarchic. New voices will emerge out of a less centralized and organized cultural spaces. We need a variety of voices including the ones sometimes thought to be unruly. Monopoly or at least oligopolistic control which is the norm in media now is in many ways a threat to democracy. While WXXI and City hardly will challenge the real oligopolies that dominate Rochester media, I still think it goes in the wrong direction, one of accommodation not challenge. They both need to be more open to alternative voices.