The War On Public Radio

“Republicans and the new Administration need to demonstrate that we take our fiscal responsibility seriously...That’s why I have reintroduced two pieces of legislation to permanently defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and National Public Radio. CPB received $445 million during Fiscal Year 2016, and this money could be put to better use rebuilding our military and enhancing our national security.”

  Congressman Doug Lamborn (CO-05)

During the first presidential debate of the 2012 election cycle Mitt Romney gave Twitter mana from heaven when he said, “I’m sorry, Jim. I’m going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I’m going to stop other things. I like PBS. I love Big Bird. I actually like you, too. But I’m not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for it.” That was a little over four years ago, Big Bird (like many others who depend on The Cooperation for Public Broadcasting) breathed a sigh of relief when Mitt Romney was defeated that November, but that wasn’t the beginning or end of the Republican war on access to Public television and radio.

On January 31st, Congressman Doug Lamborn, from Colorado’s 5th Congressional District introduced two bills H.R. 726 and H.R. 727 to defund NPR and the CPB. H.R. 726 is a bill that, in his words, “Prohibits public radio stations from using federal funds to purchase programming from and/or pay dues to NPR.” In fiscal year 2015 NPR received $81 million dollars from programming fees and dues. The second part of this bill would prohibit direct Federal funding of NPR which would cut another $5 million dollars from their coffers. The congressman’s bill would cut over 40% of NPR’s operational budget. H.R. 727 would end all federal funding for the Corporation of Public Broadcasting after fiscal year 2019. With two pieces of legislation, one Congressman with a simple majority in both houses could give President Trump a bill that could permanently destroy public access television and radio in America.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) has been in the ideological and fiscal crosshairs of the Republican party since its inception in 1967. In 1971 President Nixon denied National Public Radio (NPR) space in the White House press room; this was followed by a 1972 veto of funds allocated to the CPB and the firing of top PBS officials. President Nixon almost killed Public radio and television at a time when neither entity was a thorn in his side. NPR (either out of good journalism or spite) gave voice to the antiwar movement and provided extensive coverage of the Washington Post’s investigations into the Watergate break in and cover up. The national media’s reluctance to cross the Nixon administration gave NPR legitimacy with their core audience, but also to those who opposed the war. NPR barley survived the Nixon administration. NPR didn’t get White House access until Nixon resigned.

For the two years of Ford administration and the four years of the Carter administration, The CPB, NPR, and PBS lived without the threat of elimination. That changed when Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter in the 1980 election. President Reagan’s free market principles fueled his push eliminate federal funding to the CPB. It’s a mathematical fact that Ronald Reagan tripled the federal debt over the course of his two terms, yet his “fiscal conservatism” led him to believe that NPR and PBS shouldn’t be subsidized by the federal government and should fend for themselves in the free market. In 1983 President Reagan asked congress to cut 20% of the funds allocated for CPB funding. These cuts hurt NPR and some of the smaller stations that were heavily dependent on federal dollars. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting survived because listeners got involved and picked up the slack financially. I don’t believe there’s enough evidence for one to be optimistic about NPR and CPB surviving the 115th Congress and the Trump administration. 

Conservative arguments for defunding the CPB are compelling if you hear them without any context. CPB funding falls under the discretionary spending portion of the budget. In 2015 the $445 million dollars appropriated for the CPB (which is the same amount allocated for FY 2017) wasn’t a big enough percent of the budget to make most of the pie charts I researched. A person would have to be disingenuous or terribly bad at math to believe the Federal Budget can be brought back into balance by eliminating the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. CPB funding costs taxpayers $1.35 per year. This kind of ideological budget cutting is like a shopaholic trying to balance their personal budget by not buying a pack of chewing gum once a year instead of cutting back on shoes, slacks, and sport coats. The worst part of Congressman Lamborn’s argument is the notion that another $445 million dollars added to the military budget would make anyone safer.

In 2011, the 112th House of Representatives passed a version of Congressman Lamborn’s defund NPR bill on a partisan vote 228-192. There’s no doubt in my mind house Republicans will support this legislation again; this puts even more pressure on Senate Democrats to keep these bills from reaching the President’s desk. Senate Democrats have to vote in unison against H.R. 726 and H.R. 727, and peel off some of the same Republicans who helped them kill this legislation in 2011. The confirmation vote for Betsy DeVos ended with Vice President Mike Pence breaking a 50-50 tie. The fact that so many Republicans voted to confirm someone so woefully unqualified to be the Secretary of Education doesn’t bode well for NPR and the CPB. This leaves Senate Democrats with zero room for error if NPR and the CPB are going to survive.

Information is easier to get than ever, yet we’re being dragged towards a post-truth/“alternative facts” reality where truth is a subjective concept instead of an objective one. We have an administration that makes decisions based on how they perceive the very facts they make up. A crowd of a couple hundred thousand can become a million plus, lies are capped off with strong exclamation points designed to end debate, and when in doubt: they fabricate terrorist attacks and then blame the media for not covering them.

NPR has been a solid voice for truth and reason inside to beltway. I know progressives who were dissatisfied with their coverage of the Iraq war and their concerns were warranted, but this has to be an issue the left can unite on. This administration's animus towards the media doesn’t bode well for the future of free public access to information. NPR is just one front in this fight. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting funds over 1,100 public radio stations; some of these stations are the sole source provider of radio content in their area. Defunding the CPB is another example of Republicans enacting policies that hurt their constituents. Many of the rural radio stations that rely on CPB funding would have to make major cuts in payroll, programing, and services to survive; those will be the lucky ones: others will be forced to close their doors. During an emergency radio has always been a reliable way to get important information out to rural communities. Coordination between emergency management teams, first responders, and the community is a priceless service provided by community radio stations, yet this relationship is in jeopardy to save less than one tenth of one percent of the Federal Budget. This doesn’t make sense.

Bernie Can't Win Virginia: Neither Can Hillary

This election cycle has provided more than its share of political theater; however, after Iowa and New Hampshire there are still some questions we aren't any closer to answering. Can the GOP establishment sabotage Donald Trump without alienating the right-wing of their party? Can Bernie Sanders win electoral support in minority communities? When will Jeb Bush admit defeat and suspend his campaign? Can Hillary Clinton win the Democratic nomination after three decades of personal and political attacks from conservatives and liberals? But for me, the biggest question is: can Bernie or Hillary keep the Commonwealth of Virginia blue?

In 2008 President Obama won Virginia with 53% of the vote; It was the first time Virginia went blue since President Lyndon Johnson won here in 1964. In 2012 the president defeated Mitt Romney winning just 51% of the vote; Mitt Romney received almost 100,000 more votes than John McCain did four years earlier. In 2008 third party and write-in candidates received 38,000 votes a figure that amounted to roughly 1% of the total vote; by 2012 those fractional factions received 60,000 votes. There's a very real possibility that Democratic turn out will be down this November. If a strong democratic leaning independent or Green Party candidate were to make a serious run, third party and write-in totals could exceed 100,000 votes. Either of these factors alone could hurt the Democrats, but if both happened it would be game over. With that said, is Virginia (with all of our coal mines) the canary in the Democratic coal mine?

I live in a very rural, conservative part of Virginia. President Obama got trounced by large margins in many of the sparsely populated areas similar to where I live. President Obama's victory was a result of dominating high density urban areas like Richmond, Petersburg, Fairfax, Arlington, Alexandria, and Norfolk. I've lived in Richmond and Norfolk. I travel to northern Virginia a few times a year; I would be shocked if northern Virginia and my former neighbors in Richmond and Norfolk came out and supported Bernie or Hillary with the level of enthusiasm they had for president Obama. The 20% African American population of Virginia will decide who gets our 13 electoral votes- whether we want this responsibility or not.

In the last week Hillary and Bernie received strong criticism from powerful figures inside the African American community: Michelle Alexander and Charles Blow. Their critiques were met with opposition inside the campaigns, and vitriol by some of their supporters, but in reality, the two articles were a microcosm of the kinds of (barber shop/ beauty salon) conversations that don't get media attention. Michelle Alexander wrote a thought provoking article that was published in The Root questioning whether or not Hillary Clinton deserves the black vote. Without being nasty she asked a few serious questions about the Clintons: Did they take extreme political risks to defend the rights of African Americans? Did they courageously stand up to right-wing demagoguery about black communities? Did they help usher in a new era of hope and prosperity for neighborhoods devastated by deindustrialization, globalization and the disappearance of work?

Michelle's questions carry weight with people who read and respect her work. Hillary's supporters have to understand that this line of questioning is fair. Hillary's staunchest supporters are similar to President Obama's staunchest supporters in that both groups have a knee-jerk reaction to defend criticism without engaging it. If Hillary is going to excite younger black voters she has to, in an authentic way, engage these types of questions forcefully. Like it or not, the three decades of attacks on her character have caused some people to view her as calculating and manipulative.

Charles Blow published a New York Times Op Ed piece titled Stop Bernie-Splaining to Black Voters in it he writes: Tucked among all this Bernie-splaining by some supporters, it appears to me, is a not-so-subtle, not-so-innocuous savior syndrome and paternalistic patronage that I find so grossly offensive that it boggles the mind that such language should emanate from the mouths — or keyboards — of supposed progressives.

In my opinion, this sentiment is what John Lewis was channeling when he made his statement about never seeing Bernie Sanders in the midst of the civil rights movement- a statement he's since softened. While some of our progressive allies are hoping for a utopian shift in our economic and political system, the black experience is rooted in the reality that change, even small shifts, is the result of fighting for a cause over a protracted period of time. More pre-Civil War abolitionist died trying to get emancipation than ever saw it come to fruition. This doesn't mean progressives should avoid trying large scale projects, but it does mean we have to come to grips with the reality that our role in progress may be to build a solid enough foundation for the next generation to finish the work. In some ways Bernie's rhetoric diminishes the steps President Obama has made. None of the gains made by the left have been the result of immediate actions.

I don’t think either candidate can win Virginia. I hope I’m wrong. If Hillary wants black voters in the 18-35 demographic to vote for her she’s going to have to do more than “whip and Nae Nae” If Bernie wants that demographic to come out for him he’s going to have to measure his tone as it relates to his criticism of president Obama. This slice of the electorate has watched the first black president be viciously disrespected by his political opponents for the last seven years. I don’t think it behooves Bernie to engage in this new progressive pastime of being let down by President Obama. That doesn’t mean he should avoid legitimate criticisms of the president and his policies, but he can’t continue to negate his accomplishments either. Virginia and North Carolina are very similar in some respects. President Obama narrowly won in Virginia in 2012; that same year he lost North Carolina by 2 points. The electoral map could change faster than our suburban and metropolitan progressive allies can order their next Grande Skim Milk No Foam Latte.