Laboring for American Workers

Laboring for American Workers
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, August 31, 2022, p. A5
Where have all the workers gone? And what can Democrats do about it next Monday?

Had Democrats stuck with the coalition Franklin Roosevelt bequeathed them they would today be winning by wide margins every election from the local schoolhouse to the White House.

That coalition carries forward in the name, “the Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party.” Not incidentally, that party controls half of Minnesota's U.S. House seats, both U.S. Senate seats, the lower house of the state legislature, and the governorship.

Both parties have watched the cost of presidential and congressional campaign expenses go from $23 million in 1952 ($257 million in 2020 dollars) to $14.4 billion in 2020 – a 56 fold increase.

In response, the Democrats tried to build a national political party with money from the east coast and voters on the left coast. The result? Flyover country became fly away country. When workers asked, “What have you done for us lately?” all they heard was crickets.

By the 2020 election 83 percent of the 3112 U.S. counties studied were solid Republican. Iowa Democrats’ results were worse: 94 percent of the counties went for Trump. (Democrats picked up the three counties with state universities plus Polk, Linn, and Scott.)

The pay and benefits of union jobs that had enabled workers to enjoy the middle-class rewards of homes, cars, boats and college-educated kids had largely disappeared. When the air traffic controllers went on strike in 1981 President Reagan shut out the union and fired 3,000 members. His message to industry leaders? Union busting is OK.

In the 1950s 35 percent of private sector workers belonged to unions. By 2012, after a half-century of Republicans’ successful efforts at union busting, it had fallen to 6.6 percent. [Photo credit: The United Food & Commercial Workers International Union.]

Union members were not just a source of funds and votes. They also used to do the most significant share of the heavy lifting – door knocking, leaflet distribution, phone calling, and taking voters to the polls.

Today much of that person-to-person campaigning goes undone.

I recall (but can’t find) a Wall Street Journal item in the early 1960s about a firm in California that claimed it could elect anyone to any office with a $100,000 TV-only campaign. With no TV competition they were quite successful. During 2019-2020 political TV, radio and digital advertising reached $8.5 billion.

But today’s TV effectiveness is not what it used to be. And mastery of political use of social media has yet to occur.

Democrats can’t magic wand their party’s problems away.

Meanwhile, what Democrats can do is to seize the ultimate teachable moment each Labor Day offers the party – starting with next Monday.

They can organize Labor Day Democratic party celebrations and rallies in communities and neighborhoods around the country. They can emphasize what the party’s elected officials have delivered to working people over the past century. Not today’s candidates’ promises. What Republicans have done to oppose them, further enriching the wealthy while ignoring, or opposing, workers’ interests.

It's no cure-all, but it sure would be a good start.
__________
Nicholas Johnson was a board member, DNC Harriman Communications Center. mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

SOURCES Minnesota DFL. “Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Democratic-Farmer-Labor_Party (“It is currently the state's favored party, controlling half of Minnesota's U.S. House seats, both U.S. Senate seats, the lower house of the state legislature, and the governorship.”)

Campaigns cost. “$23 Million for 1952 Campaigns,” CQ Almanac [Congressional Quarterly], 1953, https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal53-1365614 (“GOP Reports $13,814,997, Democrats $6,159,844 For White House, Capital Races; CQ Lists Spending Reports Of 133 Groups, Names $5,000 Donors In 30 States

The 1952 campaign, Presidential and Congressional, cost the two major parties and other national political groups $23 million, according to reports filed with the Clerk of the House by political organizations. The total includes expenditures for Congressional campaigns. (For detailed analysis of Congressional campaign spending, see page 40.)

Republican Congressional candidates and national and special political committees spent a total of $13.8 million. Democratic groups and candidates spent $6.2 million. The remaining $3 million was recorded as expenditures by labor groups, minor parties and unaffiliated political groups.”)

Karl Evers-Hillstrom, “Most Expensive Ever: 2020 Election Cost $14.4 Billion,” Open Secrets, Feb. 11, 2021, https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2021/02/2020-cycle-cost-14p4-billion-doubling-16/ (“Political spending in the 2020 election totaled $14.4 billion, . . .. While the presidential election drew a record $5.7 billion, congressional races saw a stunning $8.7 billion in total spending.”)

“$1 in 1952 is Worth $11.18 Today,” CPI Inflation Calculator, https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1952?amount=1#:~:text=Value%20of%20%241%20from%201952,cumulative%20price%20increase%20of%201%2C018.02%25 [based on U.S. Bureau of Statistics data] (“Value of $1 from 1952 to 2022. $1 in 1952 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $11.18 today, an increase of $10.18 over 70 years. The dollar had an average inflation rate of 3.51% per year between 1952 and today, producing a cumulative price increase of 1,018.02%.”) [Thus, the 2020 value of $23 million in 1952 would be $257 million.]

Republican counties. Samuel Wonacott, “87% of Americans Live in a County That Has Voted For the Same Party in the Past Three presidential Elections,” Ballotpedia News, news.ballotpedia.org/2022/04/18/87-of-americans-live-in-a-county-that-has-voted-for-the-same-party-in-the-past-three-presidential-elections/ (“After the 2020 presidential election, 288 million Americans lived in either a Solid Democratic or Republican county, 87.2% of the 330 million covered in this analysis.” map of counties; 459 solid Democratic, 2368 solid Republican)

“Donald Trump Won in Iowa,” Politico, Jan. 6, 2021, https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/iowa/ (map showing counties)

Percentage in unions. Mike Collins, “The Decline Of Unions Is A Middle Class Problem,” Forbes, Mar. 19, 2015, https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/03/19/the-decline-of-unions-is-a-middle-class-problem/?sh=5b0d78667f2d (“President Reagan - Reagan Kicked off the era of union busting by successfully shutting out the air traffic controllers union in 1981. After a nationwide strike 3,000 workers were dismissed by Reagan. This was a signal to industry that union busting was o.k. It was also a signal to future presidents and politicians that taking an anti-union stance was not necessarily a political liability.”

“In 2013 the unionized workforce in America hit a 97 year low. Only 11.3% of all workers were unionized. In the private sector unionization fell to 6.6%, down from a peak of 35% in the 1950s. American corporations have made a concerted effort to get rid of unions and reduce labor costs since 1980, and they have been very successful.”)

“Unions by the Numbers,” Barnes & Thornburg, Jan. 24, 2022, https://btlaw.com/en/insights/blogs/labor-relations/2022/unions-by-the-numbers-2022-edition (“In 2021, the number of wage and salary workers belonging to unions continued to decline (-241,000) to 14.0 million, and the percent who were members of unions was 10.3 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The rate is down from 10.8 percent in 2020 . . ..” crediting U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.)

TV ads. Howard Homonoff, “2020 Political Ad Spending Exploded: Did It Work?” Forbes, Dec. 8, 2020, https://www.forbes.com/sites/howardhomonoff/2020/12/08/2020-political-ad-spending-exploded-did-it-work/?sh=7fa848d3ce0d (“In the 2019-2020 election cycle, total political advertising spending reached $8.5 billion across TV, radio and digital media. This was 30% higher than the $6.7 billion projected earlier this year, and 108% more than spending in 2017-2018, which was a record at that time. We saw 9.3 million of TV ads alone in more than 4300 federal, state and local elections ….”)
# # #

Bernie's Extraordinary, Unacknowledged Accomplishment

“Why Nobody ‘Wins’ the Iowa Caucus; Why the Iowa Caucus Matters – and Why it Doesn’t,” February 1, 2016, was deliberately written and posted by me before that evening’s Iowa Caucus even began – in order to eliminate any suggestion it was designed to favor one candidate over another. In that post I discuss the Caucus’ significance in terms of the national parties’ nomination process, the candidates’ campaigns, and the media. Not surprisingly, I concluded that its primary significance results from how the results are reported in the media. At that time, two days ago, I had no idea how prescient it was.

Before we get to how the media reported the Iowa Caucus, let’s start with some facts.

The Iowa Poll, considered to be among the most accurate for the Iowa Caucus, is our source for this data, available from “Tracking the Candidates in the Iowa Poll,” Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 3, 2016, p. A8.

How have the candidates fared over time? The data is from seven polls conducted in January, May, August, October and December of 2015, and early January, late January – and then the Caucus results on February 1, 2016.

Most candidates have gone up and down in the polls. Hillary, for example, went from a high of 57% in May to a low of 37% in August, and continued to fluctuate until the Caucus. Ted Cruz was at a high of 31% in December, dropped to a low of 23% in late January, and ended up with 28% in the Caucus. (the most of any Republican). Since August, Trump has ranged from a high of 28% to a low of 19%.

However, there are two candidates whose poll results have had unbroken increases every time they were measured.

Senator Marco Rubio started at 3% in January. The numbers in the following polls, in order, were 6%, 6%, 9%, 10%, 12%, 15% and finally 23% on Caucus night.

Senator Bernie Sanders started at 5% in January, and proceeded to climb in each succeeding poll to 16%, 30%, 37%, 39%, 40%, 42%, to a Caucus finish at 49.6%.

From December to Caucus Hillary increased from 48% to 49.8%, and Bernie went from 39% to his 49.6%.

Let’s compare these two candidates.

Hillary Clinton has been in the public eye, whether for good or ill, since the 1990s if not before – as the wife of Arkansas Governor and then President Bill Clinton, the point person for the Clinton’s health care plan, a United States Senator, previous presidential candidate (2008), a U.S. Secretary of State, and a long-anticipated presidential candidate – indeed, the presumed nominee. She and her husband have access to the financial resources of some of the wealthiest people in the world, in addition to their own wealth from campaign contributions and speaking fees from Wall Street firms, corporate leaders and other wealthy persons here and abroad. Theirs has been described as one of the most powerful political organizations in America, a solid part of “the Democratic Party establishment,” which gives them access to resources such as former staffers, friends, hangers-on, and thousands of contacts – including some of our country's most brilliant and experienced political and media advisers. (One of the many ways the Democratic Party Establishment rigs the outcome to favor themselves is the creation of the so-called “Super Delegates” – most of whom are, by definition, from the Party’s establishment. That’s why, although she and Bernie Sanders have won about equal numbers of the national convention delegates from Iowa, he now has a total of 29 and she, with the Super Delegates already pledged to her, sprints from a starting line way out in front of him, with 385.)

In the opposite corner of what the media insists on portraying as something like a boxing ring, we find a gray haired grandfather with wild hair who cares little for fashion and sometimes speaks with a facial expression, anger and volume reminiscent of Howard Beale in the movie “Network.” He's not exactly Hollywood's central casting's vision of a presidential candidate. And yet there's something wonderfully charming about the incongruity of someone once described as a 74-year-old democratic socialist Jew from Brooklyn living in Vermont attracting the largest crowds of any candidate. He's so opposed to the corrupting effect of billionaire's money in politics that he refuses to accept money from the only individuals able to make the multi-million-dollar contributions available to Hillary Clinton. He just started campaigning in Iowa anyway, with neither name recognition nor money. As people heard what he had to say, they came to know the name Bernie Sanders, liked his ideas, and found him to be authentic, consistent in his views over decades, and a really likable guy. His numbers climbed in the polls, and by Caucus night they were high enough that the number of “state equivalent delegates” he received was virtually the same as Hillary Clinton. That was a truly stunning accomplishment, given her overwhelming advantages.

So how were these results reported by the media?

Coming in third, Rubio might well have been described as having “lost” the Iowa Republican Caucus. After all, he wasn’t even second, a “runner-up.” But he was not so described. He was described as “surging” or “propelled.” The Gazette’s headline was typical, "Surge Propelling Rubio in GOP Race; Florida Senator's Third Place is 1 Point Short of Trump's Finish.” James Q. Lynch and Rod Boshart, “Rubio Leaves Iowa with Third-Place Finish, ‘Marcomentum;’ Florida Senator’s Surge to Third Place Propels Him Forward,” The Gazette (online), February 2, 2016, 3:32 p.m.; hard copy: James Q. Lynch and Rod Boshart, "Surge Propelling Rubio in GOP Race; Florida Senator's Third Place is 1 Point Short of Trump's Finish," The Gazette, February 3, 2016, p. A1. Note that Rubio was not even compared in the headline with the one who finished with the most support; he was compared with Donald Trump. (The Washington Post home page for February 3 headlined, "Establishment Candidates Target a Surging Rubio.”)

When I wrote “Why Nobody ‘Wins’ the Iowa Caucus" I wasn’t thinking about ties. My point was about the genuine story, and significance of the outcome of this first opportunity for citizens to participate in the nomination process. The Caucus can tell us which candidates demonstrate enough popular support to warrant their continuing to campaign into the subsequent primaries. For this purpose, probably something like 20-35 percent of the “state delegate equivalents” would be enough to warrant continuing.

There will be a winner and a loser next November 8. One can "win" an election. But there is nothing to “win” in the Iowa Caucus. Even if there were, it is clearly not "winner take all." Candidates are not elected president at the Iowa Caucus; they are not even nominated to run for the presidency. Even if, after the Iowa state conventions, a single candidate ended up with all of Iowa’s delegates to the Democratic National Convention it would have a minuscule impact on the Party’s ultimate selection of its presidential nominee.

The media can declare that the Caucus is a competitive contest that one candidate “wins” and all the others lose, but that doesn’t make it one –- except for the media owners looking for viewers and subscribers.

Moreover, to speak of a Democratic Party “winner” of the 2016 Iowa Caucus is even sillier than it normally would be -– because this year it was, from any rational and reasonable perspective, literally “a tie.”

Sanders' accomplishment was remarkable in light of the conventional wisdom that his support was limited to Black Hawk, Johnson, and Story counties, where the Regents’ three public universities are located. In fact, as one might expect in a tie, both candidates had support in counties all across the state -– with both usually well within percentages between 40 and 60 percent. However, Sanders' appeal to young people was unprecedented. “Of the estimated 31,000 young people who caucused for the Democrats on Monday, 84 percent supported Sen. Bernie Sanders — a much higher percentage than even Barack Obama garnered during his first run for the White House in 2008. During Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucuses eight years ago, then Sen. Obama won support from 57 percent of both the 17-24 age group and the 25-29 group . . ..” Vanessa Miller, “Percent of Youth Caucusing for Bernie Sanders Surpassed that for Obama in 2008; 'They're wanting to be a part of his political revolution,'” The Gazette (online), February 2, 2016, 5:20 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Election 2016: Wide Support for Sanders Among Young Iowa Voters; Obama Received Smaller Ratio in State's 2008 Caucuses," The Gazette, February 3, 2016, p. 8A.

And Sanders did all of this coming from nothing, an unknown in Iowa, with no pre-existing political machine in place, and no money -- refusing PAC money, he had to pay the bills with 2.3 million contributors averaging $27, finding supporters one at a time, while attracting the largest crowds of any candidate (nationally as well as within Iowa).

So how was Senator Sanders’ incredible accomplishment described by the media?

The CNN headline was typical: Tami Luhby and Nia-Malika Henderson, “Hillary Clinton Wins Iowa Caucuses,” CNN, February 3, 2016, 12:23 p.m.

In fairness, the Iowa branch of the Democratic Party Establishment contributed to this misrepresentation, whether deliberately or inadvertently, that Hillary was “the winner” (as she herself declared). Erin Jordan, “Slim Win for Clinton Sign of Lengthy Nomination Process; ‘Iowans Like a Contest , Not a Coronation,’”, The Gazette (online), February 2, 2016, 8:11 p.m.; hard copy: Erin Jordan, "Election 2016: Slim Clinton Win Signals Lengthy Fight Ahead; Close Race Raises Questions of Just How Well Caucuses Were Run," The Gazette, February 3, 2016, p. A1 (“The Iowa Democratic Party declared Clinton the winner at 2:30 a.m. Tuesday with all but one of the 1,683 precincts reporting. . . . Clinton had 49.8 percent of state delegate equivalents and Sanders had 49.6 percent, with 171,109 Democrats participating. . . . ‘The Iowa Democratic Party is declaring Hillary a winner and that is a victory for her,’ said Chris Larimer, University of Northern Iowa associate political science professor, who did not caucus Monday.”)

So why this disparity in reporting? Why is Hillary "the winner"? Why is Rubio “surging” and “propelled,” despite this “loser’s” third-place finish? Has not Sanders been "surging" and "propelled" as much or more than Rubio along the same glide path? Yet the media tells us that, notwithstanding Sanders’ at least equal, if not much greater unprecedented accomplishment, we should think of him as the "loser" and Hillary as the “winner” of the Iowa Democrats’ Caucus. Why is that?

How could I know the answer? I don’t. But there are some things I do know.

”[T] he media's owners are, by definition, well within the 1%. They have every possible financial, political, ideological, and social motive to try to prevent him [Senator Bernie Sanders] being taken seriously. Savvy media employees who wish to stay employed can't help but be aware of the advantages offered them if they will cut back on or eliminate coverage of him (see description of the shameful exclusion of him by "Meet the Press" in "Bernie's Media Challenge," June 19, 2015), and when unavoidable (perhaps because he is getting the largest number of contributors and audience members of any candidate) diminish his reputation with ridicule, marginalization, and dismissal as "a socialist" whose views are "out of the mainstream."

Second, with rare exceptions, profit-driven media do not have the space or time, or a sufficient number of highly educated, informed and analytical journalists, to present lengthy print, online, or televised discussions of major public policy issues in a way that will involve, inform, and hold an American audience. (See "Three-Legged Calves, Wolves, Sheep and Democracy's Media," Dec. 1, 2014.) Thus, even if media owners were supportive of Senator Sanders' views, they aren't really set up to present anyone's views at length. Thus, political coverage tends to focus on fundraising (e.g., Senator Rand Paul's mediocre contributions; Jeb Bush's $100 million), poll results (e.g., leading Republicans excluded from Fox News debate), gotcha moments (e.g., Governor Rick Perry's 2012 "oops" moment), the bizarre (e.g., Donald Trump's behavior, characterized by Dan Rather as somewhat similar to "a manure spreader in a windstorm"), physical appearance (e.g., the Donald's hair; women's clothing), and those portions of candidates' past history they'd rather forget (e.g., Hillary Clinton's Arkansas Whitewater, 1990s healthcare efforts, Benghazi, 50,000 emails).

”Senator Bernie Sanders and America's 'Mainstream',” July 25, 2015, 8:45 a.m.

And, from ”Bernie’s Media Challenge,” June 19, 2015:

Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting's research discloses that between January 3rd and May 3rd of 2015, Meet the Press (NBC; host, Chuck Todd) made no mention whatsoever of Senator Bernie Sanders, notwithstanding 16 mentions of Hillary Clinton, 13 of Jeb Bush, 12 of Scott Walker, 11 of Chris Christie, and 10 each for Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee. In total, 24 presidential candidates received mentions during this four-month period. Bernie? Zero. "Meet the Press Breaks Its Silence on Bernie Sanders," Extra!, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), June 2015, vol. 28, no. 5, p. 3 ("Meet the Press host Chuck Todd . . . declared on the show's May 3 episode . . . 'I'm obsessed with elections.' Yet the one major candidate who had announced he was running that week -- Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who declared on April 30 he was running for the Democratic nomination -- was strikingly ignored on that same broadcast.")

Bernie Sanders is the only avowed "Democratic Socialist" serving in the United States Congress. Defeating both Democrats and Republicans, he served as Vermont's only member of the House of Representatives for 16 years (1990-2006). Sanders has now served in the United States Senate for more than nine years (2006 to the present). As acknowledged by Todd himself . . . , in all those years, Meet the Press never saw fit to have Sanders appear on "America's most watched...Sunday morning public affairs program" until September 14, 2014 when Sanders was interviewed about his "possible" run for the Presidency. (One month earlier than the October date initially cited by Todd in response to FAIR.)

Ernest A. Canning, "Bernie Who? Media Watchdog Documents NBC's 'Meet the Press' Marginalization of Sanders," The Brad Blog, May 11, 2015

Only following FAIR's report was an invitation extended, which Bernie accepted. "Meet the Press Transcript - May 31, 2015." While it certainly counted as an after-the-fact "mention" of his candidacy, it was scarcely an effort to explore his past and approach to the issues.

[T]he interview degenerated into full horse-race, candidate-personality mode. Specifically, Todd sought Sanders’s views on . . . Hillary Clinton. He began indirectly by asking Sanders to weigh the relative merits of Bill Clinton’s presidency versus Barack Obama’s. . . . [H]e asked Sanders to comment on Hillary Clinton’s apparent leftward movement on a number of issues, including “same-sex marriage, on immigration … on NAFTA, on trade, on the Iraq War, on Cuba. She has moved from a position, basically, in disagreement with you, to a position that comes closer to your view. So I guess is, do you take her at her word?”

Cue the horse race! To his credit, Sanders refused to take the bait. Instead, he expressed hope that “the media will allow us to have a serious debate in this campaign on the enormous issues facing the American people” and tried to move the conversation to his policy views. Todd, however, had no interest in having a serious debate on the issues . . ..

Matthew Dickinson, "Bernie Sanders and Chuck Todd's 'Meet the Press' fiasco: 50 shades of bad; Bernie Sanders deftly refused to engage in media-generated controversy and expressed hope that 'the media will allow us to have a serious debate in this campaign,'" Christian Science Monitor, June 1, 2015.

Both Clinton and Sanders have now agreed to an additional debate this Thursday evening at the University of New Hampshire in Durham. Alan Rappeport, “Bernie Sanders Says Yes to Debate Thursday Night,” New York Times (online), February 3, 2016, 11:18 a.m.

And who has NBC selected as a moderator for that debate, along with Rachel Maddow? That’s right, Chuck Todd.

# # #

The Case for Bleeping Expletives

October 20, 2007, 7:40 a.m.

"Indecency" in Broadcasting
The Press-Citizen devoted most of its op ed page this morning (Oct. 20) to the subject of "indecency" in broadcasting. It asked that I respond to a column on that page by Dr. Loren Glass. My column is reproduced below -- with a link to an earlier dissenting opinion on the subject that I wrote when an FCC commissioner.

As will be seen from today's column, and the earlier dissenting opinion, there are two distinct subjects here.

One involves literary and artistic freedom generally in our country; the other relates to the FCC's responsibility to enforce laws regarding "indecency" in broadcasting. The differences between Dr. Glass and myself involve the second. What he is attacking, as his title suggests, are actions by the FCC; but what he argues by way of support are reasons for literary freedom generally (as to which we are in more agreement than disagreement).

I knew and supported Allen Ginsberg as well as George Carlin, and Pacifica's New York City station WBSI (a true "fair and balanced" practitioner of the First Amendment, often under attack at the FCC, and virtually never defended by the commercial broadcasting industry, even when Pacifica's Houston station was bombed off the air, twice). But since the Press-Citizen asked that I, like a good law professor, put together the best case I could for the FCC's position, that's what I've endeavored to do.

My column is an effort to bring to Dr. Glass' attack on the FCC the acts of Congress and Supreme Court decisions that impose on the FCC, and broadcasters, standards regarding the unacceptability of "indecency" in over-the-air radio and television broadcasts that virtually all (including members of the Supreme Court) would acknowledge to be unconstitutional if applied to other media.

In the course of doing so, I also raise the matter of what Justice William Brennan characterized in the Pacifica ["George Carlin"] case [FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978)] as the "acute, ethnocentric myopia" of his colleagues -- though I don't, here, use his phrase. (Justice Brennan wrote in dissent, "in our land of cultural pluralism, there are many who think, act, and talk differently from the Members of this Court . . .. It is only an acute ethnocentric myopia that enables the Court to [disapprove] . . . communications solely because of the words they contain." 438 U.S. at 725.) That is to say, in a democracy we have at least some obligation to respect -- that's "respect" not "capitulate to" -- the different values of our neighbors, regardless of whether they be freer, or more restrictive, than our own.

Dr. Glass' column, and his additional comment in today's Press-Citizen replying to mine, on the same page today, are linked from this blog entry just below my column.

The Case for Deleting Expletives
Nicholas Johnson
October 16, 2007
What are we to make of Dr. Loren Glass’ “@#$% the FCC”?

Not the content. The title.

By deleting the expletive (ironically, one approved by the Supreme Court for public display in Cohen v. California [403 U.S. 15 (1971)] he refutes his very thesis. It is an example of his “pandering to a very small group with a very loud voice” -- his characterization -- for which he criticizes the FCC.

Don’t get me wrong. Among the 400 dissenting opinions I wrote as an FCC commissioner are a goodly number poking fun at a variety of FCC silliness. One dealing with the FCC’s punishment of little college station WUHY-FM for its “indecency” will be linked from the blog version of this column for your entertainment. [Here is that link.]

But the issues are a little more complicated than I then, or he now, reveal.

For starters, the “small group” forbidding indecency in broadcasting is called “Congress.” “Indecency” has been illegal since the FCC’s earliest days -– ironically in the very same section of the Act that forbids FCC “censorship.” In 1948 Congress moved it out of the Communications Act and into the Criminal Code, where it still resides as a crime punishable by fines and imprisonment [18 U.S.C. Sec. 1464 (2004)].

That doesn’t make “indecency” any less vague as guidance for broadcasters, but it does make the agency’s attention to the issue something more than mere “pandering” to “the core constituency of the Republican Party.”

Moreover, however well qualified Dr. Glass may be regarding the tastes and values of the Democrats of his personal acquaintance in Johnson County, I suspect there are a goodly number of registered Democrats in America among the Republicans in that “very small group” offended by indecency.

And therein lies the dilemma for which the discipline of anthropology provides more insightful guidance than either my training in law or Dr. Glass’ field of American literature.

Dr. Glass points out the availability of pornography on some cable channels and the Internet. He’s right. But the Supreme Court says he’s wrong to argue broadcasting should be as free.

For 70% of us TV comes by cable -– whether the Cedar Rapids stations or cable programming sources like Comedy Central. But there’s a difference -– one more easily explored in my Senior College class this month than this brief column. There’s a scarcity of over-the-air frequencies that doesn’t exist for cable. That’s one reason our local stations are licensed by the FCC to serve “the public interest” and Comedy Central is not (but bleeps expletives anyway).

Anyone who pays an extra premium to the cable company for a soft or hardcore pornography channel can’t reasonably complain when they get what they paid for. The same is true for cable generally to a lesser degree -– “lesser” because we can’t yet pick individual “basic cable” channels.

Rabbit ears and rooftop antennas still provide, for free, a wide range of public and commercial stations. We have a choice.

Personally, I prefer individuals’ “censorship” for themselves to FCC censorship for all. Don’t like the cable channel? Don’t pay for it. Worried about the Internet? Get a filter. TV? Get a “v-chip.”

But what of those who’ve done those things and must still live, and raise children, amidst societal values of which they disapprove? Aren’t they entitled to ask the FCC and Justice Department to enforce the criminal law? In a democracy, with an anthropologist’s sensitivity, we can’t simply offer them a poke in the eye with a sharp stick and a dismissive expletive, deleted or not.

We need not permit them to determine what the rest of us can read and watch. But we must honor the different values of their religious communities, their choice of home over public schooling, or their decision, like that of the Amish, to create entertainment from home rather than merely watch entertainment from Hollywood.

I suspect Dr. Loren Glass, like Comedy Central, chose to delete his expletive because he thought it a good idea to respect others’ values -- even though not legally obliged to do so. For broadcasters, respect for others’ values is not just a good idea, it’s the law.
__________
Former FCC commissioner Nicholas Johnson teaches at the University of Iowa College of Law, blogs at FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com, authored the just published book, Your Second Priority, and is teaching a Senior College course on the media.

# # #

This op ed column was published as Nicholas Johnson, "'@#$%& the FCC' and the case for deleting expletives," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 20, 2007, p. A17.

It was written as a response to another column on that same page, Loren Glass, "The Only Proper Response is to Say '@#$% the FCC,'" Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 20, 2007, p. A17.

The paper also published a response to my column by Dr. Glass, Loren Glass, "Glass Responds to Johnson," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 20, 2007, p. A17 -- the introductory comments at the top of this blog entry are, in effect, my response to his response.

# # #