Would a conservative president really feel the need to pay conservative commentators to get positive press?

Maggie Gallagher follows Armstrong Williams as the second pundit revealed to have a covert financial relationship with the Bush administration. The controversy is in some ways not as perfidious, and in other ways worse, than the scandal that engulfed Williams.

At least looking at the Maggie Gallagher half of the equation, the traditional-marriage proponent's role in this controversy doesn't compare to Armstrong Williams's role in the initial punditgate scandal. First, Health and Human Services paid her to conduct specific research--as the government does with scholars all the time. Gallagher even benefited from government generosity under the Clinton administration. Second, she got less than a tenth of the money Williams got. Third, unlike Armstrong Williams's post-subsidy flip-flop on the No Child Left Behind Act, no evidence has appeared showing that Gallagher changed her position on marriage after getting the money. Fourth, Gallagher did not get paid to shill for the president's marriage initiative in her columns or media appearances. But all of this does not absolve Gallagher of wrongdoing. The salient point Kurtz made is not that Maggie Gallagher's transgressions rival Armstrong Williams's (they don't), but that Gallagher keeping this relationship secret compromised her integrity as an independent voice. This seems a fair criticism.

Looking at the Bush administration's role, their conduct was in many ways worse in Punditgate II than it was in Punditgate I. They paid Williams to promote a law, not a piece of legislation. They paid Gallagher to write material for them that was used to promote an initiative, not a law. In other words, the Bush administration used government money to campaign for a proposed law. That's illegal. That's unethical. That's unconstitutional.

The Gallaghergate affair is offensive in so many ways. First, conservatives believe in a smaller, less intrusive federal government. A $300 million proposal promoting marriage--an institution that has prospered for so long without the aid of the federal government--undermines this conservative principle. Second, promoting any proposal (particularly a big-government one such as the marriage initiative) with government money, empowers big-government and manipulates the democratic process. And third, conservatives don't require payoffs to advance conservative positions. It's only when liberal proposals are masked as conservative ones--such as the No Child Left Behind Act and the administration's marriage initiative--that politicians would feel the need to grease the pockets of conservative media figures to gain favorable coverage.

This payoff thing is going to explode when we get to the topic of Iraq. There are more than a few people who I would guess are on the payroll for that one.

I would also suspect their are a few people on the take regarding the Iraq war, however, it is more likely that we have people on the take to oppose this rather than to support it. It is wrong to pay folks to shill for your policies. I don't know how President Bush will get his agenda accross to the American people in a media enviroment that is almost universially hostile to him. Clearly this method is wrong. Do we even know if President Bush had any knowledge of the pay outs? Of course with the main stream media Bush is always guilty. The media focuses on these minor things while virtually ignoring the biggest financial scandal in history, the UN oil for food scandal. Interestingly before the war in Iraq Jeremy Paxman a reporter for the BBC appears to support the notion that Saddam needed to be removed because of his stockpiles for WMD. He even wrote a book on this. Then the BBC and Mr. Paxman flip flop. More on this can be found at http://highway99.blogspot.com under the 12/29/04 archives. the author of this evaluation of Paxman's stance believes that prior to the war Saddam's WMD and the need to disarm him served as an indictment agaianst the west and the USA. Suddenly in the run up to the war Saddam's WMD and the need to disarm became a pro west arguement and specifically a pro-Bush argument. This, according to the evaluation explains the 180 degree change to opposing the war. The BBC does not like the western world and it harbors a very venemous hatred toward America. We know from other news reports that CNN paid the Iraqi government for access to Saddam's Iraq. If properly investigated, we will probably find many in the main stream news media who are being paid by terrorists and terrorists supporting organizations.

I must comment on this statement: "the Bush administration used government money to campaign for a proposed law. That's illegal. That's unethical. That's unconstitutional."

I remember the first time I encountered such behavior. It was 1971, I was a liberal. I was working for the governor of Maryland, helping keep tabs on developments in Washington. I was assigned to cover a meeting of social activists, people who were employed by the executive branch of the Federal government in the more radical programs spawned by the "War on Poverty." The meeting was held in a Congressional office building. The meeting was devoted entirely to cheerleading and strategizing about ways to get these programs reauthorized. This was a large part of the "work" these people did.

I was distrubed by this. But no one I talked to (I knew only liberals at the time) found it in the least problematic. They seemed to be impressed by the cleverness of the whole thing--creating a program that had its own self-perpetuating mechanism. Since that time I have sat in on many meeting were a primary purpose seems to have been for government employees to plan how to rally beneficiaries of a policy to agitate for increased funding for a policy. I have a feeling half the PTA meetings in the country end up being such rallies.

My point is: While these actions should be unethical and illegal, the other side acts as though they are not. If our side refuses to use these weapons we may never get the other side to realize their destructive potential and agree to a ban on them. It is a difficult and ugly choice.

One other point on marriage. It has "prospered for so long without the aid of the federal government. . . " But the numbers seem to show it does not prosper as much now and may fail to prosper in the future. Federal policies have helped make the mess. What should you do when your agent, without your authorization but with your knowledge, has harmed something vital. Do you insist the agent now obey your old orders and stay away from the thing harmed? Or do you insist your agent try to reverse, or at least contain, the damage being done? That, too, is a difficult and ugly choice.

Sorry, that post by "Alan" was actually my post. I had to tell you the name had been changed, to protect the innocent.

DocMcG, your thinking is confused about the marriage issue and whether the federal government should have programs to support trad marriage. Even if a person bears responsibility for screwing something up, that does not mean he bears any responsibility for fixing the problem. One can be resposible to do something only if one has an ability to do it, and we have no reason to think that fed gov programs have any competancy here at all.

To replase your anslogy above, here's a better view of the situation: If the powerful retarded man Lenny (=government) from Of Mice and Men was petting your already sick dog (=marriage) and hurt him, would you demand that Lenny then administer first aid? Federal government "programs" aren't the root cause of marriage's problems, and can't help the institution of marriage. Their only principle about marriage should be "do no harm."

Docmcg,

Your point that "if our side refuses to use these weapons [govt promoting itself] we may never get the other side to realize their destructive potential and agree to a ban on them" is a very interesting "realpolitik" calculation. I find your suggestion extremely tempting to agree with but I actually have to reject this option.

My first response is the Christian/Platonic response that it is better to suffer injustice than to perpetrate it. This is the basically anti-Machiavellian idea that "2 wrongs don't make a right." I know that that position applied to politics sounds sadly naive and unrealistic, and I can grant that to an extent.

But add to that traditional argument (which the left pays lip service to), the more aristotelian/Thomistic principles of prudence and patience and I think we can draw a conservative conclusion different from the neo-realist position you have outlined.

What I mean is that the reason we can not afford to act unjustly even if our political foes choose to do so is that we can have no faith in the ultimate outcome of such actions. Frustration at the illegal activities and schenanigans of the left is understandable but patience is key. We have to overcome them through legal means. Anything less is a concession that will likely cause more harm by further undermining the rule of law and civil society. I fear anarchy (in a broad or absolute sense) more than I do the unpunished lawlessness of the libs.

***Note that what I am claiming here is scholastic realism and is NOT utopian, and in fact, I believe that realpolitik is as guilty of political radicalism/idealism as is democratic socialism, progressivism, fascism, or the other forms of modern political theory.***

Also, where do you gain the support for your very optimistic belief that the left will come to see the injustice of their tactics by having the right return the favor? Aren't you really just saying that both sides then will have come to a common agreement that politics is nothing but power grabbing and that anything goes?

But maybe I hold this view b/c I do not see the GOP as "my side" at all but rather as part of the problem of the modern Leviathan and political nihilism.