Democrats wake up from their slumber

The problem with the mainstream D.C. press is not simply that they are obsessed with seeking scandals and "gotcha" moments. It is that for all practical purposes many have become salesmen for a clearly and unambiguously partisan anti-Democratic narrative. This fact has significant implications for Democratic political strategy.

This is not to say that the group of mainstream commentators in question says exactly the same thing as Fox News and the overtly pro-GOP press. Quite the contrary, the distinct role these commentators are playing in the American partisan ideological debate is leveraging their pretence of neutrality in order to minimize and conceal the massive extremist trend within the GOP. Their method is to continually insist upon a false equivalency between the two parties.

In the latest issue of The American Prospect Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson provide one of the most carefully documented demonstrations of this point. They conclude:

Despite the evidence of increasing Republican extremism, elite discourse--in journalism, academia, and foundations--resists the notion that Republicans are primarily responsible for polarization and deadlock. To argue that one party is more to blame than another for political dysfunction is seen as evidence of bias, not to mention bad manners. Foundations will fund nonpartisan vote drives; they will not fund efforts to shame right-wing Republicans for crippling governance. Academics worry about seeming biased when the truly biased perspective is the one that treats the parties as equally extreme. And while Fox News takes an avowedly partisan line, most of the media world retreats into self-defeating denials of the truth that stares them in the face.

Consider what happened in 2013 when Mann and Ornstein, who had probably been the most quoted observers of Congress during the previous two decades, issued their well-documented critique, It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism. The book emphasized the responsibility of the GOP for government dysfunction. After it came out, the authors were not quoted in the press or invited to the public affairs shows on which they had regularly appeared. As Mann explained, "I can no longer be a source in a news story in The Wall Street Journal or the Times or the Post because people now think I've made the case for the Democrats and therefore I'll have to be balanced with a Republican."

Balance is one thing when you are talking about ideological differences; it is dangerous when you are talking about basic facts of American political life. In too many crucial venues, the mainstream media's desire to maintain the appearance of neutrality trumps the real need for truth-telling. The inevitable complexity of the governing process further increases the temptation to offer narratives that do not help more casual observers of our politics to determine accountability. This isn't just bad journalism; it's a green light for extremism.

To repeat, this has substantial implications for Democratic political strategy.

In the first place, it means that Hillary is entirely right in refusing to play by the traditional rules. The mainstream political press has itself rendered these rules obsolete by failing to report on the most important political story of recent years - the extremist conquest of the GOP. Reporters and commentators who refuse to report this reality as an objective fact about modern American politics cannot possibly also play the role of impartial arbitrators or objective journalists when covering a Democratic political candidate.

Second, Hillary's decision to act in accordance with this insight presents a profound challenge and threat to the GOP crypto-partisans among the press corps, one which will inevitably engender a deep and profound hostility and desire to cut her down to size. As Greg Sargent notes:

I suspect that to at least some degree reporters share conservatives' frustration that all the Clinton scandals and mini-scandals and pseudo-scandals haven't taken them down. In a way it's an affront to the power of the press. When we splash headline after headline about allegations of misbehavior across our papers, when we devote hour after hour on television to the fact that "questions are being raised," well that's supposed to make an impact. It's supposed to drive the politician in question to the depths of ignominy. It's not supposed to leave them in exactly the same position as they were when it started.

Everything [Hillary is] doing communicates to the press that they aren't as important as they once were. It's bound to get them angry and make them like her even less than they already do, which could make their coverage even harsher.

As a result, Democrats should prepare themselves for the uncomfortable fact that in the coming months the mainstream press will become increasingly and stridently anti-Clinton. So long as she does not play by their rules they will describe her as "remote," "fake," "robotic", "inauthentic" "scripted", "cynical" "manipulative", "dishonest" and "insincere". Her Republican opponent, whether it is Bush, Walker, Rubio, or any of the other contenders will then be described in contrast as much more "real" "down to earth" "authentic" "open" "honest" and "sincere." Fueled by their wounded vanity and the very real threat to their influence, the mainstream commentators will create a narrative that continually frames the 2016 election in precisely this way.