< PREVIOUS ] [ 1996 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
Despite the best efforts of some high-minded
Republicans, the Dick Morris scandal doesn't even boast the
customary suffix, even though Dickgate
would a
charming addition to the political lexicon.
Curious about this, I called inside contact, Ananias Ziegler, media relations director for the Committee that Really Runs America.
For one thing,
Ziegler said, this is like the
savings-and-loan scandal. Both parties are in it. Morris
has also advised high-powered GOP senators like Jesse Helms
and Trent Lott, and so there's no real percentage for the
Republicans to start hollering a lot about 'a man is known
by the company he keeps.'
So it won't go anywhere?
I asked.
There's another angle,
Ziegler explained. The
Republicans control Congress, which means they are, in
theory anyway, somewhat in charge of law enforcement in the
District of Columbia. And Morris has no trouble finding a
$200 hooker there? What's that say about the GOP's
commitment to family values?
In other words,
I said, as long as you can
manage to involve both major parties, you're pretty safe,
since nobody can exploit your scandal for partisan
gain?
Precisely,
Ziegler chuckled.
But what about the great free press of this
country?
I asked.
Ziegler began to guffaw. For one thing, Morris got a
$2.8 million book advance. Every reporter is jealous. For
another, look at all the interlocking pieces of the modern
media conglomerates. Book publishers are owned by the same
companies that own TV networks, cable empires, magazine
families and newspaper chains -- the Morris book will get
ample publicity when the time comes, and nobody's going to
get a $2.8 million advance for a book about sleazy campaign
consultants and their effects on American politics.
Despairing, I asked about third parties. Perhaps they would have an interest in holding Dick Morris up to public shame, ridicule and humiliation, so that he spends the rest of his days washing dishes at a hash house.
Well, there's the Greens with Ralph Nader, who
doesn't want to campaign. You've got Ross Perot, who
doesn't want anybody looking into shady campaign practices
after the way he treated Dick Lamm. And you've got Harry
Browne and the Libertarians, who would likely rather focus
on other issues, like the War on Drugs. So there's nobody
around to profit from making Dick Morris into a real
issue.
I mulled for a minute, then asked Ziegler how the Committee was playing the War on Drugs. It's been an issue in every election since about 1968, and as nearly as I can tell, it will be until well past the millennium.
You hit it dead on, Quillen,
Ziegler said. In
fact, it's going to get worse. Now that we don't have
commies any more, we need an enemy so that the American
people will remain united and patriotic, and eager to turn
to government for solutions.
But I thought Bob Dole was campaigning for a smaller,
less-intrusive federal government.
Only when it comes to corporate regulation and
taxation,
Ziegler said. He wants to use the military
to fight drugs. He says Clinton has gone AWOL in the drug
war, since teen-aged drug use has risen.
But under Clinton, record numbers of people rot in
prisons, and now he wants the states to start testing
prisoners and parolees for drug use as a condition of
getting federal funds for prison construction,
I
noted.
You have to realize this is all a charade, on both
sides,
Ziegler said. Take tobacco, probably the most
dangerous and addictive drug. The Clinton Administration
has gone after that hammer and tongs -- and youthful
smoking appears to be on the rise. So why would devoting
more resources to other drugs make any difference?
Good question,
I conceded. So why is the War
on Drugs always an election issue?
Because if you're campaigning for office, you're
selling government,
Ziegler explained. You've got to
convince people that there is a problem, and that the
problem can be cured by electing you.
If we just sold drugs at a pharmacy, then there might
be medical problems from their use, but not social and
law-enforcement issues,
he said. Yet we need social and
law-enforcement issues when it's time to run a political
campaign. So at the Committee, we can't afford to give up
on the War on Drugs. It's one of those gold-plated issues
that will never go away. Even if we eliminated heroin,
there's always marijuana and cocaine. Get rid of those, and
there's tobacco, or meth, or Ecstasy. Eradicate those, we
could start planting stories about the Twin Scourges of
Chloral Hydrate and Morning Glory seeds.
Sounds stupid to me,
I told Ziegler.
Not exactly,
he concluded. Just keep your eye
on the campaign contributions from drug-testing companies,
prison-construction firms and prison-guard unions. What
would happen to them if people actually quit using illegal
drugs? You want the American economy to collapse?
< PREVIOUS ] [ 1996 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >