The Late Great John S. Adams

I listened to John S. Adams’ last interview (listen here and here) with Senator Max Baucus. I mean “last” not in the sense of “most recent”, but rather that he’ll never get another, having broken the journalists’ code, which works something like this:

Wait in line. Do not take cuts. Enter the office looking down. Do not attempt to make eye contact. Step sideways two steps, forward two steps. Ask your question. Do not be confrontational lest you hear the words ending your tenure in journalism: “No access for you!”

There were some interesting highlights in the interview, many actually. At one point an aid cuts in, telling the Senator he had another call. (Apparently Baucus has an elaborate call-waiting system that kicks in when he is in a dangerous interview.) Again, later in the interview, the aid simply tells the Senator he has to move on. (Adams named the aide who was interrupting in his post, but that post is now gone.)

Adams grilled the Senator about his treatment of single payer advocates. Baucus said he was planning to meet with some advocates in Montana. Adams asked who he would be meeting with and Baucus got testy. He told Adams not to get “confrontational”. Adams reminded him that it was a worthy question, and the Senator said that it was his tone that was “telling”.

Baucus didn’t answer the question, by the way. That was the whole point of the maneuver. It was a dodge. The single payer people he is going to meet with are your aunt and her dog, and the meeting will be held on the tenth of Never, 5:00 sharp.

Later, the senator said that there was no bill in the senate for single payer. He’s wrong – Senator Bernie Sanders introduced S. 703: The American Health Security Act of 2009 way back in March. Baucus doesn’t know this. That’s … how would you phrase it … telling?

Adams then raised the matter of money … campaign contributions from health insurance companies and pharmaceuticals. Baucus seemed indignant. He said money means nothing to him, that he pays no attention to it.

He’s raising a worthy point. We who advocate campaign finance reform dwell too much on the money aspect. It’s much more than that – it’s power. Many times if a politician does not take money from one side of an issue, he’ll get it from the other. Money can be neutered.

But with the Senator and single payer, there is only one money tap, so it does matter. But power factors in – it is revealing how Baucus dealt with single payer advocates at his health insurance “hearing”. He had them arrested, holding them in literal and figurative contempt. That’s … how would you phrase it … telling?

Baucus understands power – who has it, who doesn’t. He acts accordingly.

Money is but one tool of power, and perhaps not even the most important one. Powerful people have many means at their disposal: They can threaten to finance opponents in either primary of general elections. They can generate bad publicity through newspapers they own or advertise in. (Right wing newspaper publishers abound, after all.) (Baucus has a cozy relationship with most Montana newspapers, the Great Falls Tribune apparently an exception at this time. Journalists ought to look into that.)

More tools: powerful people can lure politicians into compromising situations involving women or drugs or back-door sex. They can offer privileged flights on private jets to exotic locations or to sporting events. (Baucus’s staff members once watched the Super Bowl from a private box.) They can hire relatives to lucrative jobs for which they are not qualified – think Wendy Graham or Beau Biden, or Elizabeth Dole running the Red Cross for $700, 000. Perhaps most importantly, powerful people can offer delayed bribes – jobs and riches after politicians leave office. Tom Daschle has made $220,000 in health care doing “consulting” work since his electoral defeat. His wife pulls down a lucrative salary for lobbying for defense contractors. And of course former Senator Conrad Burns immediately went into lobbying after his 2006 defeat.

Powerful people can also use wiretaps and spying. We are probably seeing only the tip of that iceberg. And then there are prostitutes and seductresses who are as common around power as plastic phasers at a Star Trek convention. Here’s an interesting anomaly: Elliot Spitzer was actively challenging corporate power. He was exposed for using high-priced hookers. That’s not something that I can afford approve of – the question is, why him, and not the countless others who are likely sampling the expensive candy?

Senator Max Baucus is corrupt*, but to say that it is due to taking money from a certain industry for legislative favors is to give that industry far too little credit. It’s more than money – it’s both positive and negative incentives. It’s not something applied haphazardly – these are serious people who want serious favors, and who know how to get their way. It’s not a game – it’s a business. High-priced talent does persuasion for a living. So when Baucus says “Money means nothing to me”, he may be right in a narrow sense. He merely left out the last part of the sentence: “… but power owns me”.

Towards the close of the interview, Baucus rattled off a list of things that he had done that had offended health insurance and pharmaceutical companies. There was no time for follow-up, of course, as the breaker was hovering. Given more time, Adams might have asked how many of these offensive initiatives actually came to fruition, how many Baucus actually took a leadership role on. Baucus has a display window voting record. Much of what he does has no effect, and is mere dressing for that window.

The Adams interview is rich, and John was courageous, confrontational and incisive. American journalism has long been in need of a compass – reporters long ago lost sight of the fact that they are often our only window to power. They are more than stenographers, and they need show only perfunctory courtesy to political and corporate office holders. Their role is to hold powerful people accountable. One can only speculate, but if Baucus had been annoyed by pesky journalists of Adams’ caliber from the day he took office, he’d probably be herding sheep right about now.

If current journalists hold true to form, John will get the tap. He will meet with his editor and advised to tone it down. He should not, he will be told, become “partisan” or “emotional”. Those are code words for “disrespectful of power”.

Footnote:Adams’ post and the interview are gone from his blog. Fortunately, a link to was put up at Left in the West by a commenter, and thus the YouTube links above. I hope they stay in place.

*The word “corrupt” is used here not to mean that Baucus is storing money in his freezer, but rather that he is corrupted as a computer file might be: No longer useful and in need of replacement.