[Jim D., can you please tell PK that 'the anti-globalization left' is a
figment of his and other self-anointed pundits pathetic lack of
imagination.]
March 29, 2002
The Smoke Machine
By PAUL KRUGMAN
In a way, it's a shame that so much of David Brock's "Blinded by the
Right: The conscience of an ex-conservative" is about the private lives
of our self-appointed moral guardians. Those tales will sell books, but
they may obscure the important message: that the "vast right-wing
conspiracy" is not an overheated metaphor but a straightforward
reality, and that it works a lot like a special-interest lobby.
Modern political economy teaches us that small, well-organized groups
often prevail over the broader public interest. The steel industry got
the tariff it wanted, even though the losses to consumers will greatly
exceed the gains of producers, because the typical steel consumer
doesn't understand what's happening.
"Blinded by the Right" shows that the same logic applies to
non-economic issues. The scandal machine that employed Mr. Brock was,
in effect, a special-interest group financed by a handful of wealthy
fanatics - men like the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, whose cultlike Unification
Church owns The Washington Times, and Richard Mellon Scaife, who
bankrolled the scandal-mongering American Spectator and many other
right-wing enterprises. It was effective because the typical news
consumer didn't realize what was going on.
The group's efforts managed to turn Whitewater - a $200,000
money-losing investment - into a byword for scandal, even though an
eight-year, $73 million investigation never did find any evidence of
wrongdoing by the Clintons. Just imagine what the scandal machine could
have done with more promising raw material - such as the decidedly
unusual business transactions of the young George W. Bush.
But there is, of course, no comparable scandal machine on the left. Why
not?
One answer is that for some reason there is a level of anger and hatred
on the right that has at best a faint echo in the anti-globalization
left, and none at all in mainstream liberalism. Indeed, the liberals I
know generally seem unwilling to face up to the nastiness of
contemporary politics.
It's also true that in the nature of things, billionaires are more
likely to be right-wing than left-wing fanatics. When billionaires do
support more or less liberal causes, they usually try to help the
world, not take over the U.S. political system. Not to put too fine a
point on it: While George Soros was spending lavishly to promote
democracy abroad, Mr. Scaife was spending lavishly to undermine it at
home.
And his achievement is impressive; key figures from the Scaife empire
are now senior officials in the Bush administration. (And Mr. Moon's
newspaper is now in effect the administration's house organ.) Clearly,
scandalmongering works: the public and, less excusably, the legitimate
media all too readily assume that where there's smoke there must be
fire - when in reality it's just some angry rich guys who have bought
themselves a smoke machine.
And the media are still amazingly easy to sucker. Just look at the way
the press fell for the fraudulent tale of vandalism by departing
Clinton staffers, or the more recent spread of the bogus story that Ken
Lay stayed at the Clinton White House.
Regular readers of this column know that not long ago I found myself
the target of a minor-league smear campaign. The pattern was typical:
right-wing sources insisting that a normal business transaction (in my
case consulting for Enron, back when I was a college professor, not an
Op-Ed columnist, and in no position to do the company any favors) was
somehow corrupt; then legitimate media picking up on the story,
assuming that given all the fuss there must be something to the
allegations; and no doubt a lingering impression, even though no favors
were given or received, that the target must have done something wrong
("Isn't it hypocritical for him to criticize crony capitalism when he
himself was on the take?"). Now that I've read Mr. Brock's book I
understand what happened.
Slate's Tim Noah, whom I normally agree with, says that Mr. Brock tells
us nothing new: "We know . . . that an appallingly well-financed hard
right was obsessed with smearing Clinton." But who are "we"? Most
people don't know that - and anyway, he shouldn't speak in the past
tense; an appallingly well-financed hard right is still in the business
of smearing anyone who disagrees with its agenda, and too many
journalists still allow themselves to be used.
I found "Blinded by the Right" distasteful, but revelatory. So, I
suspect, will many others.
