Have you seen these “pro-war rallies” lately? If they seem reminiscent of a certain European nation circa 1935, you’re not alone. One recent rally featured the mass burning of thousands of Dixie Chicks CDs and merchandise after one of the group’s members spoke out against President Bush. Paul Krugman described the events as follows in a New York Times column:

By and large, recent pro-war rallies haven’t drawn nearly as many people as antiwar rallies, but they have certainly been vehement. One of the most striking took place after Natalie Maines, lead singer for the Dixie Chicks, criticized President Bush: a crowd gathered in Louisiana to watch a 33,000-pound tractor smash a collection of Dixie Chicks CD’s, tapes and other paraphernalia. To those familiar with 20th-century European history it seemed eerily reminiscent of… . But as Sinclair Lewis said, it can’t happen here.

It turns out that this rally, and the vast majority of those occuring throughout the country, are being funded by none other than Clear Channel and other media conglomerates. Apparently sensing an opportunity to earn some much-needed political capital with the administration, Clear Channel (and others) are pumping substantial sums of money and influence into backing its friends in the Bush camp. In fact, one of the Directors of Clear Channel was himself one of the largest contributors to Bush’s Presidential campaign back in 2000. Can you say “payback time”?

Krugman isn’t the only one who has questioned this unholy marriage between media monopoly and imperialist government. The Chicago Tribune noted that Clear Channel’s intrusion into the sphere of politics is fairly unprecedented.

The sponsorship of large rallies by Clear Channel stations is unique among major media companies, which have confined their activities in the war debate to reporting and occasionally commenting on the news. The San Antonio-based broadcaster owns more than 1,200 stations in 50 states and the District of Columbia.

While labor unions and special interest groups have organized and hosted rallies for decades, the involvement of a big publicly regulated broadcasting company breaks new ground in public demonstrations.

“I think this is pretty extraordinary,” said former Federal Communications Commissioner Glen Robinson, who teaches law at the University of Virginia. “I can’t say that this violates any of a broadcaster’s obligations, but it sounds like borderline manufacturing of the news.”

But don’t expect the current FCC Director to interfere with Clear Channel’s business practices. Who is the Director, you ask? None other than Michael Powell, Secretary of State Colin Powell’s son. That’s awfully convenient.

The result of all this is a radical change in the watchdog spirit that is so important to a well-functioning democracy. As Krugman puts it:

There’s something happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear, but a good guess is that we’re now seeing the next stage in the evolution of a new American oligarchy. As Jonathan Chait has written in The New Republic, in the Bush administration “government and business have melded into one big `us.’ ” On almost every aspect of domestic policy, business interests rule: “Scores of midlevel appointees … now oversee industries for which they once worked.” We should have realized that this is a two-way street: if politicians are busy doing favors for businesses that support them, why shouldn’t we expect businesses to reciprocate by doing favors for those politicians — by, for example, organizing “grass roots” rallies on their behalf?

What makes it all possible, of course, is the absence of effective watchdogs. In the Clinton years the merest hint of impropriety quickly blew up into a huge scandal; these days, the scandalmongers are more likely to go after journalists who raise questions. Anyway, don’t you know there’s a war on?   

Yeah. And apparently, that’s just how Clear Channel likes it.