Is Conservative Talk Radio Wrecking The Right?
Feb 26th, 2009 | 23 responses
Is conservative talk radio wrecking the right?
We’ve asked that question many times before here, but now the question comes from a must read article in The American Conservative that expands upon some of the questions and points we’ve made here over the past few years. These are questions about how conservative talk radio — once a useful device for a seemingly discouraged Republican party — has now apparently become a major motor of policy for the Republican party — a classic “tail is wagging the dog” situation. And if a tail wagged a dog, you can imagine how the dog could get bruised. It is also becoming the paramount image of the GOP and of conservatism.
John Derbyshire, writing in The American conservative in an article titled “How Radio Wrecks the Right..Limbaugh and company certainly entertain. But a steady diet of ideological comfort food is no substitute for hearty intellectual fare,” thinks the image of conservatives has been bruised and needs to get they need to get own tail-wagging capability back. Some highlights from his piece which needs to be read in full:
For [Rush] Limbaugh to remain a player at this level after 20-odd years bespeaks powers far beyond the ordinary. Most conservatives—even those who do not listen to his show—regard him as a good thing. His 14 million listeners are a key component of the conservative base. When he first emerged nationally, soon after the FCC dropped the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, conservatives for the first time in decades had something worth listening to on their radios other than country music and bland news programs read off the AP wire. In the early Clinton years, when Republicans were regrouping, Limbaugh was perhaps the most prominent conservative in the United States. National Review ran a cover story on him as “The Leader of the Opposition.”
Limbaugh has a similarly high opinion of himself…
He gives Limbaugh full credit: Limbaugh jazzed up a staid right that was most typified until he burst on the scene by the cerebral, stimulating but not in-your-face entertaining (this was, after all the late 20th century) “Firing Line.” He notes how liberal talk radio has not succeeded. (I’ve frequently written here that in my long car rides across the country I would need a private detective to find progressive talk in most major and even un-major radio markets).
And then he gets to the core question of whether conservative talk has helped or hurt the right — and whether the fairness doctrine’s revival is a real threat:
There are many reasons to be grateful for conservative talk radio, and with a left-Democrat president and a Democratic Congress, there are good reasons to fear for its survival. Reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine is generally perceived as the major threat, but may not in fact be necessary. Obama is known to have strong feelings about “localism,” the FCC rule that requires radio and TV stations to serve the interests of their local communities as a condition of keeping their broadcast licenses. “Local community” invariably turns out in practice to mean leftist agitator and race-guilt shakedown organizations—the kind of environment in which Obama learned his practical politics. Localism will likely be the key to unlock the door through which conservative talk radio will be expelled with a presidential boot in the rear.
With reasons for gratitude duly noted, are there some downsides to conservative talk radio? Taking the conservative project as a whole—limited government, fiscal prudence, equality under law, personal liberty, patriotism, realism abroad—has talk radio helped or hurt? All those good things are plainly off the table for the next four years at least, a prospect that conservatives can only view with anguish. Did the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Savages, and Ingrahams lead us to this sorry state of affairs?
They surely did. At the very least, by yoking themselves to the clueless George W. Bush and his free-spending administration, they helped create the great debt bubble that has now burst so spectacularly. The big names, too, were all uncritical of the decade-long (at least) efforts to “build democracy” in no-account nations with politically primitive populations. Sean Hannity called the Iraq War a “massive success,” and in January 2008 deemed the U.S. economy “phenomenal.”
Indeed, Once upon a time people who differed with the GOP could furiously differ with it over policies and ideas. Liberals and even some independent voters considered conservatives stubborn — a lot less prone to alter key values and tenets to gain votes. “He’d rather be right than be President.” But Limbaugh and Hannity have wiped away this image. On some days they wounded more like defense lawyers than talk show hosts. And worse: if you’re not a member of the choir you know the song that will be sung before you even tune in.
Just talk to a high school or college student who is NOT a member of the Democratic party or Republican party and get his/her reaction to hearing a typical conservative talk show that sounds like three hours of rip and read RNC emails while raging against anyone with a “D” in front of their party affiliation. Most young people listening to sputtering and name-calling partisans on the air consider them lame — and many of these young people are conservatives or liberals. Progressive talk flopped because it adapted the Limbaugh/Hannity model or tried to be the anti-Limbaugh anti-Hannity (and forgot about a little thing called broadcasting TALENT, which Limbaugh has). Why listen to a progressive talk show that sounds as if IT is doing rip and read from the DNC? (NOTE: There are conservative and Democratic exceptions to this rule).
But the Demmies radio shows have simply not found a commercial niche, even though this is often blamed on stations being owned by conservatives. If the PRODUCT is not good, it won’t sell. (A program manager of a mid-west station that runs conservative talk and looked into progressive talk told me this summer with a sigh:”I just don’t know what it is about progressive talk. The market just doesn’t seem to be there for it. It’s weird.”)
But conservative talk as a product sells. And its influence has spread to within the policy making elites’ decisions on party strategy. Meanwhile, it has had a measurable negative impact on conservatism: it has led to the emergence…and critics would say the dominance…of a new form of what Derbyshire calls “lowbrow conservatism:”
Much as their blind loyalty discredited the Right, perhaps the worst effect of Limbaugh et al. has been their draining away of political energy from what might have been a much more worthwhile project: the fostering of a middlebrow conservatism. There is nothing wrong with lowbrow conservatism. It’s energizing and fun. What’s wrong is the impression fixed in the minds of too many Americans that conservatism is always lowbrow, an impression our enemies gleefully reinforce when the opportunity arises. Thus a liberal like E.J. Dionne can write, “The cause of Edmund Burke, Leo Strauss, Robert Nisbet and William F. Buckley Jr. is now in the hands of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity. … Reason has been overwhelmed by propaganda, ideas by slogans.” Talk radio has contributed mightily to this development.
It does so by routinely descending into the ad hominem—Feminazis instead of feminism—and catering to reflex rather than thought. Where once conservatism had been about individualism, talk radio now rallies the mob. “Revolt against the masses?” asked Jeffrey Hart. “Limbaugh is the masses.”
In place of the permanent things, we get Happy Meal conservatism: cheap, childish, familiar. Gone are the internal tensions, the thought-provoking paradoxes, the ideological uneasiness that marked the early Right. But however much this dumbing down has damaged the conservative brand, it appeals to millions of Americans. McDonald’s profits rose 80 percent last year.
AND:
Why engage an opponent when an epithet is in easy reach? Some are crude: rather than debating Jimmy Carter’s views on Mideast peace, Michael Savage dismisses him as a “war criminal.” Others are juvenile: Mark Levin blasts the Washington Compost and New York Slimes.
His final graphs:
I repeat: There is nothing wrong with lowbrow conservatism. Ideas must be marketed, and right-wing talk radio captures a big and useful market segment. However, if there is no thoughtful, rigorous presentation of conservative ideas, then conservatism by default becomes the raucous parochialism of Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, and company. That loses us a market segment at least as useful, if perhaps not as big.
Conservatives have never had, and never should have, a problem with elitism. Why have we allowed carny barkers to run away with the Right?
This piece has to be read completely for several reasons. (1) It shows that there are voices in the GOP waiting to get a louder microphone who want to engage on ideas and policies rather than lash out at those who seek, advocate, write about or support policies with which they don’t agree. (2) It’s one more sign that in the post-Bush era — even with Karl Rove doing quite well as a Fox political commentator — some Republicans want to move beyond the old leadership, and the old style. (3) It indicates that the kind of thought-based conservatism that led JFK dream of criss-crossing the country and traveling with and debating conservative icon Barry Goldwater before the President’s assassination is still very much alive.
The question is whether conservative talk radio will continue to grow as a dominant high profile voice of Republicans — one that decidedly turns off many independent, moderate, centrist, conservative Democrats, moderate Republicans, and young people who are not “damaged goods” baby boomers (like me) and makes them think this is what the Republican party is and stands for — or whether it can go back to being one tool in the GOPs’ get-out-vote arsenal.
And can the non-RNC talking points conservatives gain a higher profile in the (decaying) old media, new media and cable as America moves with the Democratic party as the majority party into the 21st century?
The bottom line good news: there are thoughtful conservative voices out there — but many of them don’t have a powerful microphone.
Yet.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
23 Responses to “Is Conservative Talk Radio Wrecking The Right?”
Rush Limbaugh has outlived his usefullness. He will kick and scream and fight until his fans realize this as well.
I first heard Rush Limbaugh on the radio the day after the war in Desert Storm began. I was on an extended drive and needed someone to listen to for updates on what was happening. He provided them without me realizing that he was a conservative. In fact for about a month of listening to him I thought his name was Rushland Mall. Then the war was over and I found myself listening to him as he returned to his conservative roots and began making fun of liberals. I thought it was funny because it was the same sort of things I felt about liberals.
After about 2 years of listening to him off and on. Not a regular listener but off and on he sort of fell out of favor with me as his attacks started becoming personal at times instead of just funny. Much as Bill Mahrer is funny at times but is also personal. When attacks become personal I do not have much to do with them. Because someone is my intellectual superior or inferior does not make what they think, believe or say any less important then what I say, thing or believe.
So As Rush Limbaugh has become more desperate to entertain he has encouraged the Air America types to follow his lead. Now when I drive to work each morning I can find at any given time about 5 or 6 talk show hosts all screaming insults at the left or the right.
The failure of this Site is to recognize that its both sides now. The only difference at this site and in liberal minds is that What their guys are spouting is the truth and what Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck are shouting is lies and hate.
Wrong. Both sides suck. When you start bashing Chris Mathews for his bizarre behaviour and thoughts then I will grant you Bill O'reilly. When you start lamblasting Keith Olberman for his rambling idiocy then I will give you Rush Limbaugh.
I for one dont like any of them and used to tell my wife when Hannity and Colmes were on Fox…….I dont know how Alan Colmes doesnt punch that idiot in the face. Sean Hannity is an embarrassment to the GOP. But no less so then Olberman, Rhoades and Mathews are to the liberal cause.
“The failure of this Site is to recognize that its both sides now. The only difference at this site and in liberal minds is that What their guys are spouting is the truth and what Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck are shouting is lies and hate.”
I think you nailed it here, green. I have Sirius Radio and have listened to liberal talk hosts several times but I can't stand them any more than I can stand Limbaugh or Hannity. They're just being the Limbaughs of the left.
More to the topic of the article, I don't know if conservative talk radio has ruined the right or if it's just a reflection of what the right wanted to hear.
I think the statement about a steady diet of junk food is apt. There's nothing wrong with talk radio but it's the absence of the healthier, intellectual fare that's the problem. If we still had William F. Buckley types then there would be balance to the conservative movement.
Time in the wilderness will re-germinate the intellectual core of conservatism. But that will have to wait another cycle or two. Many conservatives are still in denial about why they've fallen out of favor. The times have changed and they have not changed with them. When you start saying that your side lost because your leaders weren't true enough to the “real conservatism,” you are in deep denial.
But that will change, just as it did for liberals after many cycles of loss. It took three Presidential humiliations for Democrats like Clinton to adjust to the post-1980 conservative era. If there were something like liberal talk radio before Clinton came along, you can bet that all the DJs would have insisted that Mondale lost because he wasn't liberal enough.
What makes it harder is the descent into mocking ideas themselves. As Ruffini calls it – the “Joe the Plumberization of the GOP” – where you fetishize ignorance as a core virture. In that climate, any serious engagement with ides is met with scorn and mockery…from the right. Look at the descent of the National Review, from William Buckley's groundbreaking conservatism to amen corner for Limbaugh.
Elrod.
You might just be right. It might actually take 12 years to emerge from the wilderness. Just as the Democrats finally learned that being far left was not going to get them back into power the GOP might have to learn that being far right wont get them back either.
A deeper problem as I see it for the GOP is not being too conservative. The democrats emerged from the wilderness just as far left as they always are. The deeper problem for GOP is in an ever increasing resentment of what the Liberals keep pushing as class warfare. While it is true that the Conservatives tend to coddle the rich it is mainly for pragmatic reasons. Its the rich that provide jobs. Not the poor. This is then pointed out by democrats as a bad thing implying the GOP only cares about the rich and lifted up as a class warfare thing when the reality is that their is most likely as many filthy rich democrats as their are republicans. Just look at hollywood.
For the longest time the GOP convinced the masses that lower taxes was a way to stimulate the economy and help everyone achieve. The American public bought it. The last 4 or so years has seen an explosion in the faces of those Republicans and hence we have the backlash against them perpetuated by the fallacy that the GOP hates anyone who makes less then 5 million a year.
I reiterate that the Democrats did not change their liberalness and after 12 years they are back in power. So to it will hold for the GOP. They do not have to be less conservative, they simply need to be the ones reframing the debate.
For the longest time the GOP convinced the masses that lower taxes was a way to stimulate the economy and help everyone achieve. The American public bought it. The last 4 or so years has seen an explosion in the faces of those Republicans and hence we have the backlash against them perpetuated by the fallacy that the GOP hates anyone who makes less then 5 million a year.
You know, the more I think about it, this speaks to a way that the GOP can and should sell its message to young people. We should be telling the younger generation that just because their elders screwed up doesn't mean that they shouldn't be trusted to do better. They should resist being put into a permanent guardianship by the government as a result of an irresponsible generation who abused the economic freedoms that they had. Unfortunately the younger generation is already going to be saddled with the debt burden that the older generation laid at their feet, but they should be empowered to break that cycle.
Elrod, I think you're kidding yourself about how deep the denial runs. There's plenty of evidence I see of a turning point among the smarter elements of the party.
Read this by Patrick Ruffini. Read his link to Newt's 80/20 concept. Listen to Eric Cantor giving a great interview about principled opposition to Obama's economic policy. Check out Breitbart's Big Hollywood blog.
I know you'll find plenty of evidence to counter my argument, because I realize we haven't turned the corner yet, but conservatism is resting, not comatose.
Radio has denigrated both music and serious talk. Music has automated play lists with talk radio it's the bloviating and mindless rants. If a DJ or talk show host deviates from the script, his/her corporate overlord/program director will chop off the head. It's all about maximizing profit, not engaging in any reasoned thought or exploring 'real alternative' radio.
What the Right needs is a nonhostile forum for ideas, a la NPR. NPR may lean left but they at least give you your fair shake and actually let you talk. Also, I think the advantage for the Left is they co-opted the moderates and independents who were disgusted by Bush. So what the Left has done is marginalize their own far Left voices, the Michael Moores and Ted Ralls and MoveOn (seriously, when's the last time you saw them?). That's why the left sounds so “reasonable” today. (Yes I'm Upper middle class and I'll GLADLY pay taxes to care for Octomom's brood-spawn).
The Right should capitalize on themes that come with hard times: personal responsibility, meritocracy, and thrift without framing it into a small/big government debate or taxes/cut spending debate. Those horses have run their course. Hell, if you want to get young people and minorities on your side, try attacking the police state and the Drug War. As governments get starved for funding, you'd better believe there will be cameras at every red light and thermal imagers focused on every house. Attack political cronyism and the upcoming waste and corruption. Attack the white collar criminals who've looted their clients for a whole new “tough on crime” stance. I could go on all day.
Another thing that hobbles the Right is few new faces. Many on the Right have been quoted on the record at one point or another defending or advocating Bush, the new Jimmy Carter. Bush is still radioactive and likely will remain so as long as Carter has for 30 years.
That's refreshingly honest about NPR, Lit3Bolt, but doesn't it beg the question of why a publicly funded media outlet should be permitted to 'lean left' while the right needs to find a privately funded means to counter it?
By its very nature, media seeks to stun and overwhelm as much and as often as it can to hold its audience's attention. But then it is also polarizing moderates away from whetever ilk it is propping up. So there's your schism. The GOP wants moderates while it also feels compelled to pray at the altar of Limbaugh. The two desires are mutually exclusive.
Prior to the republican national convention I was an avid listener of conservative talk radio. I thought it expressed the opinion of most conservatives in this country. They started pushing Giuliani who at the time most thought of him as the party's savior. No sooner Hannity started praising Giulani the country started rejecting him.
Shortly after Romney became Sean's favorite candidate. He was a victim of talk radio as well. Finally Huckabee became talk radio's darling, wrong again. In fact the winner turned out to be the long shot, yes, the one talk radio hated John Mc Cain. In fact he trailed every single one of this candidates. They never said anything positive about Mc Cain, Nonetheless the approximate 150 million American that consider themselves fair minded America loving republicans outnumbered the minute 8 million Sean Hannity's listener. The candidate talked radio bashed Jonah Mc Cain won the nomination.
Then enters Sarah Palin, What a rookie and uniformed choice she turned out to be.
When I saw the exclusive Sean Hannity interview with Mr. Palin, the accolades extended to her and the obvious pampering, right then and there I realized how fake
e my republican party has become.
Oh Dear Ronald Reagan, Where are you?
It has become so obvious to most Americans that these talking heads and the tabloid cable networks they represent that they are commercializing American patriotism in order to get better ratings and book sales. That is too selfish, What a bunch clowns they are!
I thought the republican party would have learned their lesson, at least realize that Americans can not be fooled, But after Georgia Congressman Phil Gingrey called into Rush Limbaugh's radio show to apologize and I watched the newest republican rookie Bobby Jindal sound like a High School dropped out I realized that my party is in big trouble.
Greenschemes–
While its true that the Democrats have many rich donors from Hollywood, their policies actually attempt to correct inequities in pay, opportunity and resources between the classes, while the GOP gives them tokenism with symbols like Joe the Plumber. That's a huge difference.
Whose policies Krit?
If your talking about hollywood they actually have a very fascist union which severely penalizes your career if you do not toe the far left party line. Its about as close to communism as one can get.
[...] Gandelman thinks maybe so, and he has facts to back it [...]
Greenschemes–
Yes, you need both unions and companies– who is arguing that point? Reagan and his Republican successors worked to break the backs of the unions and give corporations free reign. Massive deregulation also was geared towards greater freedom for corporations and their highly-paid executives.
And yes- Hollywood is made up of union employees- so what? There are successful right wingers in Hollywood- not many- but they manage.
My point was not about haters but about concrete results of the two parties' policies. After 8 years of W, we have most wealth concentrated at the top- while the poor and middle class have either stagnated or slipped further down. I'm sure this was the actual intent of the president whose base was the “haves and the have mores” (his own words)!
Kim, there are really only two alternatives to the construct that Bush ascribed to.
If not “haves and have mores” then it's either “Haves and have nots” as in a plutocracy, or a society where no one is allowed to own anything at all.
Which one do you advocate?
[...] Gandelman makes this excellent point about the damage that this has done to the right, and the GOP: Just talk to a high school or college student who is NOT a member of the Democratic party or [...]
[...] Gandelman makes this excellent point about the damage that this has done to the right, and the GOP: Just talk to a high school or college student who is NOT a member of the Democratic party or [...]
[...] Joe Gandelman, editor-in-chief of The Moderate Voice, where I’m a co-blogger, wrote this post about conservative talk radio that asks, “Is Conservative Talk Radio Wrecking The [...]
Rush is creative and funny . Want nasty? Listen to Randi Rhodes sometime or perhaps Keith Olbermann. Rush has not done the damage to the right.. Bush did the damage to the GOP with his fiscal irresponsibilty and Iraq. Don't blame Rush for this. Left Wing Media propaganda is clouding your brains. Did anyone catch Bill Schnieder saying how nasty Rush's speech was? Its all propaganda. They fear truth and want to shut Rush Up. Don't let it happen by playing into their agenda.
[...] one thing to keep in mind that the far right propaganda performers hate political moderates. That’s why they didn’t really have their heart in supporting McCain. They suspected he [...]
Egg Donors Wanted…
Keep ‘em coming
…