Book Review: Banana Republicans

In reviewing the book Banana Republicans: How the Right Wing is Turning America into a One-Party State, I have undertaken a purely post-modern pursuit: to review a book of investigative journalism whose authors themselves reviewed myriad journalistic sources. I’m a journalist covering journalists who covered journalists, ad infinitum, ad absurdum. I mention this banal detail only because it implies the greatest aspect of our nation’s democracy: an endless web of reporting of facts, opinions, and positions that collectively is the American political conversation. The particulars of this discussion only produce more discussion and in the end the discussion is what is important. The fact that free and wide ranging discussion is possible is what makes democracy, well, democratic. All of this is directly relevant to Banana Republicans because if the Republican Party gets its way, the book contends, this discussion will not be free or wide ranging, but confined to the interests of the conservative right. Essentially, the American political conversation will become un-democratic. This book outlines the means by which the Republican Party is trying to limit the American political conversation. Banana Republicans begins from the premise that, given most Americans’ identification with progressive ideas (this fact based upon 30 years of opinion polls), how has the conservative Republican Party come to dominate all branches of federal government and a majority of state governorships and legislatures? The book argues that it is the war-like approach to politics that Republicans take which has enabled them to become so successful. The Republicans’ war-like approach to politics is established at the book’s outset by a quote from The Art of Political War: How Republicans Can Fight to Win, a political pamphlet written by conservative activist David Horowitz, endorsed on the cover by President Bush’s senior advisor Karl Rove, and distributed to all Republicans in Congress before the 2000 elections. The quote begins: “‘Politics is war conducted by other means. In political warfare you do not fight just to prevail in an argument, but to destroy the enemy’s fighting ability.'” It then instructs: “‘In political wars, the aggressor usually prevails.'” Republicans’ violent approach to democratic governance is reinforced by influential conservative activist Grover Norquist who asserts that “‘We [Republicans] are trying to change the tones in the state capitals-and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship.'” Violence and democratic government, it seems to me, should remain mutually exclusive. From this foundation, Banana Republicans outlines how the right wing organizes itself and deploys its tactics to achieve its conservative ideology. Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, the book’s authors, have constructed the book in a logical and progressive manner. They demonstrate, in turn, how Republicans have established an effective network for the creation and promotion of conservative ideas and policies, and how this network is used for fundraising, organizing activism, and disseminating propaganda through the media. This network is composed of an incestuous mix of well endowed foundations and think tanks, of corporate leaders, lobbyists, and elected Republican officials. Many of the relationships within this esoteric network blur the ethical line between the influence of special interest groups upon government and the interests of the American people.There are other startling revelations-besides the horrifying militancy of right wingers-peppered throughout the book. One of these disturbing revelations is the relationship between Republican politicians and lobbyists. The book tells of President Bush’s practice of hiring special interest lobbyists for temporary government positions or for his team that helped his transition into office after the 2000 election. When their temporary tenure ends these lobbyists are allowed to return to their former lobbying jobs without the normal six month cooling off period required by law. Additionally, Republicans such as House majority leader Tom Delay, monitor lobbyists’ politics and only meets with those whose conservative sympathies have been established. In the last decade, spending by lobbyists has shifted from a roughly 50/50 split between the political parties to a decided favoring of Republicans; in some cases the split is now as much as 90/10, in favor of Republicans. The authors also reveal how the Bush administration has let conservative ideology trump the objectivity of scientific inquiry. Government scientists now need permission to publish research on “sensitive issues” relating to agriculture, environment, and climate change. Government scientific advisory committees are being loaded with unqualified representatives of industry and special interest groups. The danger all of this presents is that scientific experimentation is not supposed to confirm or be bound by political ideology. These scientists and committees are meant to examine evidence and freely assess the dangers posed to American people so that the best course of action can be taken. When their discussion is limited and dictated by political ideology, accurate results are difficult to come by and this translates into policies that ignore the best course of action in favor of policy which is of financial benefit to industry, as opposed to citizenry. Countless other disturbing political practices are outlined in Banana Republicans. Inherent in each tactic is a pervasive aggression. There are the ways Republicans have learned to use the media to create sympathy for their ideas-even when their proposed policies run counter to the sympathetic image created. There are attempts to block voters from voting or the restructuring of voter districts in ways that are advantageous for Republicans. There is the diversion of political debate away from real issues and towards appeals to moral and value questions that should be irrelevant to politics. And finally, there is the way conservatives try to suppress opposing viewpoints by casting them as un-patriotic or anti-American. The common denominator between all of these revelations is a limitation of the exchange of ideas. The primary problem when the exchange of ideas becomes limited is that policy decisions are made and actions are taken without full awareness of available information. The authors point out danger of this by reminding us that one-party dominated states “are notorious for their tendency to make disastrous decisions.” And it can be any one-party, not just Republicans; the problem is not the party, the problem is the absence of free and wide ranging discussion. Even the U.S. military has a special designation for this type of system. The military defines “incestuous amplification” as “a condition in warfare where one only listens to those who are already in lock-step agreement, reinforcing set beliefs and creating a situation ripe for miscalculation.” The authors also remind us that psychologists recognize a similar phenomenon called “‘group polarization,’ which describes the tendency for like-minded people, talking only with one another, to end up believing a more extreme version of what they thought before they started to talk.” Banana Republicans argues that that Republicans’ aggressive political tactics and esoteric organization strategies have not only been useful in enabling them to control all branches of federal government, but also that “they have created conditions that make incestuous amplification and group polarization more likely.” And not only in the three traditional branches of government, but also “in disparate areas of America’s political arena, from government agencies to business lobbies and even within traditionally independent bodies such as the government’s scientific advisory boards.”Banana Republicans is an intensively researched book of investigative journalism. Sources are extensively documented and the narrative is centered around reporting and analyzing reported information and not upon ideological refutation. The book certainly has a perspective that is undeniably critical of the conservative movement, but this criticism is tempered by the authors’ desire to retain some measure of journalistic integrity. The authors are not trying to make liberals or Democrats look good by making Republicans look bad, they are simply arguing for the preservation of the sound principles upon which our democracy is founded. My biggest criticism of the book is that it is so loaded with reportage, that it never really establishes a fluid narrative. The authors’ attempt to limit their bias with credible journalism at times seems to cause the narrative to digress, to devolve into over-reporting at the expense of their central argument. The structure and chapters are arranged logically, but rare are the occasions when the authors tie all of their research into clear focus. While these weaknesses detract from the book’s literary value, the disturbing nature of the information reported counterbalances these shortcomings, making the book interesting reading.Of course the most interesting aspect of this or any book is how much it makes you want to talk about it. And this book-in true democratic form-makes me want to talk politics. This is vital because free and wide ranging discussion is precisely what we need in order to insure that what the book proposes-the conservative desire to suppress discussion to enable their own esoteric political agenda-never happens. So go out and read this book, or don’t. But consume something political, even if it is just a daily dose of contentious cable news. Then do what needs to be done to preserve our democracy: talk about democracy and politics. And I can’t stress this enough. VOTE.