Gordon L. Weil
The Trump rescissions bill killed federal funding for NPR,
PBS and local stations. The $1.1 billion
cut is small for the federal budget, but big for Republicans who think NPR/PBS tilt
to the liberals and give little coverage to GOP conservatives.
NPR/PBS maintain they do straight reporting. Their response recalls the retort of President
Truman to a voter who yelled, “Give ‘em Hell, Harry.” He replied, “I just tell the truth about them,
and they think it’s Hell.”
If enough voters agree with that view, it could make Trump
regret having satisfied longstanding GOP grumbling.
The unusual bill, to claw back funds already appropriated and
in the pipeline, passed on an almost purely partisan basis. Some Republicans regretted having the
congressional power of the purse transferred to the president, but they went
along with Trump’s request.
In the Senate, two GOP senators broke with their party. Maine’s Susan Collins and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski
did not influence the outcome, but they voted “no” in their states’
interests. Alaska and Maine are the two states
most heavily affected by the cuts, well beyond any other states.
One argument against the cut was that it would impact rural
states that depend on the public media for news, emergency warnings and entertainment.
Maine is the state with the highest share of its population
living in rural areas, which make up more than 98 percent of its land
area. Alaska is almost entirely rural. Still, Murkowski’s fellow Alaska senator voted
with the president. Collins, the only
GOP member of Congress from New England, faces re-election next year and
depends heavily on the most rural parts of the state.
In the House, two Republicans broke ranks. Neither comes from a seriously affected area,
though one represents a swing district in Pennsylvania. For all other Republicans, partisanship
prevailed.
If two more senators and two more representatives had voted
against recission, the bill would have been defeated. In the House, the vote was 216 to 213; the Senate
vote was 51-48.
In the 2024 elections, two Democratic House incumbents and two
sitting senate Democrats lost their re-election bids by narrow margins. The popular
vote winning margin for the two House seats was 11,938 out of a total of 145
million votes cast in House elections. With the Democrats, the result would have been
214-215.
In the Senate, the two losing Democrats had missed
re-election by a combined margin of 58,492 out of 110 million cast in Senate
elections. With them, the Senate vote would have been 49-50.
Trump would not have been able to prevail on cutting NPR/PBS
and foreign aid, if two seats in either the House or Senate had not
flipped. As much as the Trump spokespersons
emphasize his mandate and his almost monolithic GOP congressional support, his
dominance might have been undermined if 12,000 more people had voted for the
Democrats.
Clearly, the Democrats will try to take Senate seats now
held by Republicans. Among likely
targets, reflecting somewhat the impact of the recissions vote are North Carolina,
Nebraska, Montana and Alaska.
In the House, they will surely try to recover the two seats
they lost last year. But they also see GOP
legislative loyalty to Trump as potentially creating political liabilities for
the Republicans. Trump is writing the Democrats’ platform by giving them issues
to run on. That’s worth more than vague references
to restoring democracy or Trump’s dangerous way of governing.
That makes the public media vote interesting. It is estimated that about 100 million people,
plus those streaming, view PBS at least once a month. The demographics
of viewership fit with the emerging picture of the Democrats’ natural
constituency – educated, middle income or higher, female.
The educated, affluent voters who watch PBS are likely to
vote more than the general population.
They follow the news, so they may be aware of the rescissions bill. In some areas, stations are heavily viewed by
key constituencies like Blacks or Hispanics.
Kids who talk to their parents about their viewing and their caregivers who
are viewers both matter.
PBS now receives much support from the private sector. Though it does not carry commercials, it
allows major donors to present their product or service. Supporting companies may benefit from the “halo
effect” of being associated with the public media. Maybe there’s a different of halo effect, one
based on the loyalty of PBS viewers.
By itself, it may be questionable if the loss of government support of the public media will have much of an electoral effect. But joining in showing loyalty to PBS is easier than arguing about issues that create divisions in the Democratic Party. Can the Democrat’s turn support for PBS/NPR into a feel-good cause that’s beyond politics?
