TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/090489/09048900.000

Text File | 1992-09-23 | 6.2 KB | 119 lines

                                                                                ESSAY, Page 72

America's Dubious Export


By Walter Shapiro


    The historical counterpoint is perfect: 50 years almost to
the day after Nazi tanks roared across the border into Poland,
that long-suffering nation has given birth to a freely elected,
non-Communist government. No metaphor better symbolizes the
triumph of democracy over totalitarianism. Even the horrific
memory of the bloodstains in Tiananmen Square cannot eradicate
the impression that most of the world is emulating the Western
form of government -- or wants to desperately, even to the
point of death. Not only the Communist bloc is awash in
democratic ferment; nine Latin American nations have held or are
scheduled to hold free elections in 1989. For the first time in
memory, there is reason to hope that the doddering Communist
Party boss in his shapeless dark suit may be as much an
anachronism as the strutting military strongman with his
chestful of ersatz ribbons.

    Amid such a global transformation, it is only natural for
Americans to feel proud and perhaps even a trifle smug. After
all, hotly contested democratic elections are as American as,
well, campaign consultants, TV sound bites and 30-second spots.
That, alas, is precisely the problem. For lost in the euphoria
over this upsurge of freedom are some impolitic questions about
America's own role in fostering free elections abroad.
Democracy is indisputably good for the world, but are U.S.-style
campaign techniques necessarily good for democracy? Should
Americans feel elated if election campaigns from Manila to
Moscow become as vacuous as the contest between George Bush and
Michael Dukakis?

    These unfortunately are not abstract questions. For just as
it was in 1940 when Franklin Roosevelt coined the phrase, the
U.S. remains the world's "arsenal of democracy." But these
days, rather than sending bundles and battleships to Britain,
America is aggressively exporting political technology and
campaign expertise. Whether it is bringing exit polls to the
Soviet Union or the first negative spots to Argentine TV,
Americans are there -- on the ramparts of freedom -- trying to
turn the world into one vast Super Tuesday primary.

    This is one high-tech arena where the Japanese and the West
Europeans still cannot compete: America leads the world in the
sophisticated techniques of manipulating voters in free
elections. The "booming market abroad for U.S. campaign
operatives" was the subject of a recent cover story in the
political-industry trade journal Campaigns & Elections. As the
magazine enthused, "State-of-the-art television commercials and
computerized voter files are spreading rapidly to other
countries. American research firms are conducting focus groups
for politicians worldwide." Like old-time vaudeville acts
playing the Orpheum circuit, most of the top consultants have
popped up somewhere in Latin America (primarily Venezuela,
Costa Rica, El Salvador, Argentina and Bolivia) since the U.S.
elections last November.

    In this world of the endless campaign, pretty soon no
candidate anywhere will ever again risk uttering an impromptu
thought in public. For a hefty fee, U.S. advisers will
market-test every word and gesture to achieve the proper level
of dynamic blandness. And since media consultants tend to
recycle endlessly any technique that works, it is easy to
envision future political spots that begin, "It's morning again
in Poland." But equally disturbing is the way that during the
1980s, the political handlers have wrung the last droplets of
spontaneity out of U.S. politics, as passion and ideology have
become increasingly suspect. Perhaps the U.S. can survive
irrelevant politics and low-turnout elections. But fledgling
democracies cannot afford such decadent luxuries.

    In their off-year forays abroad, American consultants are
largely motivated by avarice, arrogance and adventure. Perhaps
their most high-minded justification is the contention that
teaching the effective use of TV allows democratic leaders to
communicate with the voters and mobilize political support. But
this brings to mind the old joke about the small-town attorney
who was going broke until another lawyer showed up, and they
both got rich suing each other. Similarly, one media adviser in a
foreign country may be a boon for democracy, but bring in a
rival and you create that lucrative state known as consultant
gridlock. Before long the airwaves will be dominated by dueling
commercials, each more shrill and negative than the last, until
foreign elections pivot on the local equivalents of Willie
Horton and the Pledge of Allegiance.

    Such private political meddling abroad is not without
foreign policy implications. There is the real risk that
consultants will naively misjudge a foreign leader's commitment
to democracy. Joseph Napolitan, one of the pioneering global
political operatives, helped mastermind Ferdinand Marcos' 1969
re-election campaign in the Philippines. As Napolitan gushed in
his 1972 memoir, "(Marcos) is bright, knowledgeable, handsome,
charismatic -- the kind of candidate you like to work with." At
least Napolitan had the belated good taste to turn down the
Marcos account in 1986. Instead, the aging dictator's last
hurrah was handled by Black, Manafort, Stone & Kelly, a firm
established in the afterglow of helping elect Ronald Reagan in
1980. This created a bizarre situation in which the Reagan
Administration was overtly backing Cory Aquino (managed by
Sawyer Miller, a Democratic firm) while some of the President's
own political handlers were trying to prop up Marcos.

    Over the years, American popular opinion has recoiled at
revelations that the CIA, beginning with Italy in the late
1940s, has manipulated foreign elections. But in the
laissez-faire 1980s, no one seems to notice or care that almost
all of the U.S.'s leading political consultants are now doing
roughly the same thing for fun and profit. Either way, U.S.
intervention may undermine the very democratic values the
nation so loudly proclaims. Maybe that old American truism
should be amended to read "Politics -- and political consultants
-- should stop at the water's edge."