Who controls the Republican Party?

An occasional question. Here's the latest I've found on it. The two major political parties in the United States are highly decentralized. Finding their center - or who is in charge of either at any moment in time - is very difficult. And the power center is often in flux. The author argues that the current Republican Party is controlled by media personalities, specifically talk radio hosts and Fox News.

- Ted Cruz and Donald Trump: Signs of conservative media's grip on GOP.

Over the course of the last three decades, these media personalities have surpassed party officials and even elected representatives in their influence, ascending to exalted status atop Republican leadership. Yet, they prioritize goals seemingly at odds with good governance, and often, even the party's sole purpose for existence.

Talking heads wresting control of the GOP from the traditional party power brokers benefits neither the party, nor the nation. Political parties, after all, exist to win elections. By surrendering issue control to entertainers on the fringe of contemporary thought, however, the Republican Party has limited its ability to reach the 42% of Americans who according to Gallup, regard themselves as independents in a national, general election.

. . . On the rare occasions when Republican elites have attempted to reassert control, they've been pounded into submission by the titans of talk and their allies in Congress. One example came last summer when House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) stripped Rep. Mark Meadows (R-North Carolina) of his subcommittee chairmanship as punishment for crossing the Republican leadership on a key procedural vote -- which violated a cardinal rule of party loyalty in the House.

When choosing sides between the maintenance of party order and discipline or support for a charter member of the House Freedom Caucus who was among the leaders who forced a government shutdown in 2013, one talk icon didn't hesitate.
While chatting with a Meadows' sympathizer, Ohio GOP Rep. Jim Jordan, a disgusted Laura Ingraham slammed the leadership for its shabby treatment of leaders like Jordan and Meadows.

"This is what the mafia does," Ingraham said. "You know, I'm sorry, but this is a political mafia up on Capitol Hill. That's the way I see it. I don't see this as a Republican Party that represents people like me."

Later in the show, Ingraham hosted Meadows, who she praised: "Mark Meadows, Republican (of) North Carolina who stood up for common sense and pragmatism in trade and was punished for it."

She shamed Chaffetz, exclaiming "there's a point where you just have to say, you know I voted the right way in your mind on trade, sir, but I will not do this. I won't be party to what you're doing to these good men. That's what he should have said."

Less than a week later, Chaffetz reversed course and restored Meadows to his position, signifying the toothlessness of the elected Republican leadership.

Talk Radio and Ideological Think Tanks

Politico points out that a handful of the most talk radio personalities get substantive support from ideologically oriented think tanks - like the Heritage Foundation and - as well as recently formed advocacy groups - like Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity.

The Fairness Doctrine

TNR has a story about a conservative uproar over the possible reinstatement of the fairness doctrine.

The fairness doctrine was established over 60 years ago when limited airwaves caused the FCC to establish a policy mandating that opposing views be given to controversial topics. Since the airwaves were owned publicly and access was granted by a license issued by the FCC, broadcasters risked losing their licenses if they did not comply. In the 1980s, the expansion of access -- plus the opposition of ideologically oriented broadcasters -- led to the retraction of the policy.

Though conservatives, who believe they will suffer from the policy since conservative talk radio stations would be required to counter Rush Limbaugh with, say, Michael Moore.

Here's some pro and con about the policy.

Con: From the Heritage Foundation.
Pro: From Common Dreams.

Explain Don Imus to Me

Please.

Yes I understand that he--and the rest of the shock jocks--boost ratings, which increases ad revenues, which increase media profits, which expand the availability of media outlets, which expands the possibility of democratic government, which makes the sky bluer and flowers sweeter smelling and puppies cuter and reduces acne, but still...

His recent comments--which have dominated mainstream media and the blogosphere--are hardly the only controversial statements he's made over the years. Yet his radio and television program has become (perhaps that ought to be past tense) a necessary stop for most political players over the past few years.

Why is he taken seriously? And add to the mix the range of talking heads whose careers are based on mean, shrill commentary. They only have a platform because we build it for them. We pay attention.

Why?