Why Talk Radio Political Culture Conservatives are “Winning” and will Win

Unfortunately, some wars are won by the side that is the most fanatical in the religious sense. The victorious leaders harness the holy energy of collective insanity.


COGITOR KWYNA

[From the Machine Crusade by Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson]

Everyone should read this article.

Thanks for the link, Joe.

I think the far-left is ju7st as much a "religion" as the far-right, neither is willing to compromise. Examples of this from both parties can be see daily on C-SPAN.

They're stooping lower than ever to rationalize their hatred of righty talkers. Pathetic.

I agree with Leonidas. Political fundamentalism isn't just the province of the right. Most lefty activists are equally dogmatic about their political tenets, and their entire political narrative consists of demonizing those who disagree with them rather than even attempting to persuade people on logical grounds.

So I agree with the author on the general phenomenon, but not on the idea that it's coming from the conservative movement exclusively. I'd say it's happening increasingly because the parties each find it easier to tap into these kinds of fundamentalist and emotion based beliefs of their own side, and to use messaging which targets opponents as the immoral others, instead of actually defending their own policies on intellectual grounds. And by and large, the voters, including unaffiliated moderates, are falling for it (witness the endless blog debates about which party's messaging is more contemptible, rather than debating what the actual policies might offer.)

Leonidas and CS both make good points. The Left also has its share of fanatics.

The most important paragraph in Gabler's article is this:

"There is something terrifying in this. The media have certainly been cowed; they treat intolerance as if it were legitimate political activity. So have many politicians, and not just the conservative ones who know that if they don't fall in line, they will be run over."

We have seen this over and over. Hate speech and threats defended under the first amendment. Bringing loaded guns into a political rally defended under the second amendment. Yet few in the GOP will speak up against it, because these same conservative forces can mount an opposition candidate to run against them in the primaries. So the moderates stay silent against intolerance and extremism.

BTW, No one is saying that the left doesn't have fanatics, but they don't have the clout of a Rush or a Billo.They don't have the number one talk show on the radio or the number one show on cable news.

The number of threats against Obama already top 400% of the number of threats against George W. Bush. Bush was in office 8 years- Obama has been in office 9 months.

Pretending that the pervasiveness and intensity of irrationality and partisanship is equal on the right and the left is as insane as saying that partisanship and irrationality only belongs to one side. "But both sides have mean people!". Yeah, and Pluto is a cold place and the Sun is pretty hot. No one is interesting in hearing you say completely obvious things, people. Do you honestly think that people who say that there are crazies on the right somehow have to be "fair" and "admit" that there are irrational far-left people? What overly defensive piffle.

Qualitatively, the two sides are flawed in the same manners and in the same ways. Quantitatively, there is no doubt that the right has a larger and more powerful phalanx of nasty nutjobs.

Kastanj, I'm not asking for balance in the name of 'fairness'. My concern is that the political middle is the only place where a defense against the practices of zealotry (with tactics like demonizing opponents) can be mounted.

If centrists insist that only if both sides' extremists are exactly equal is it necessary to call out the extremism on both sides, then it is never going to get called out because the volume of vitriol shifts back and forth. And if centrists tend to turn a blind eye or excuse extremism on one side more than on the other (which happens routinely here and elsewhere when people pretend that the leftist opposition to GWB wasn't dominated by some batshit crazy people, or that the rise of MSNBC pundits like Olbermann isn't akin to Limbaugh's rise during the Clinton administration, or what have you), then you're going to continue to get more and more of this from the left.

You're also going to continue to get far left policies being pushed without legitimate debate, because you're being suckered to believe that there simply is no other alternative. Now, for those who really do believe that the left wing of the Democratic party has the right solutions, I imagine it doesn't matter because the ends justify the means. I'm hopeful though that there are enough reasonable moderate Democrats and centrists who are starting to question things and notice that there's seldom any real analysis that justifies some of the claims made about current policy proposals by the Democrats.

Here is a good one from Garrison Keillor of the Chicago Tribune.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/c...

Thirty-two percent of the population identifies with the GOP, and if we cut off health care to them, we could probably pay off the deficit in short order.

Limbaugh, Keillor, whats the difference?

But do either CS or Leonidas admit that the GOP currently has a higher percentage of extremists than the Democrats? It certainly isn't something that used to be true but I think it is now.

Limbaughn is actually more sane and engaging than Keillor, and doesn't misuse public money because he can't make it on his own in the private sector, the way so much on NPR can't.

[scowl]

"but they don't have the clout of a Rush or a Billo"

Does "Billo" even have any clout, still?

There are far-lefty talkers that are starting to develop a following, but they often are (as their peers are) very illogical and ill-behaved. (Stephanie Miller is a pre-junior-high-school airhead, for example.) Some like Ed Schultz (louder and more strident than Limbaugh) can be entertaining, but are speaking from an often-failed as well as alien state of mine and position.

" Quantitatively, there is no doubt that the right has a larger and more powerful phalanx of nasty nutjobs."

Inversion of reality. Common on the left, admittedly...

"Examples of this from both parties can be see daily on C-SPAN."

I have to say, I almost miss having the chance to hear the Dems defend the public option and climate craziness and other legislation these days. Almost.

I really don't know how to quantitate it, Jim. The crazies tend to become more vocal and visible when their opponents are in power, but I don't know that the go away or decrease in numbers when their 'side' (to whatever degree that side will claim them) is ascendant- they just garner a lot less attention.

I will say that the point that is often made about the particular danger to Obama due to race is probably accurate. I think that extreme racists (who aren't necessarily GOP- the real white supremacists who promote violence are so far in the fringe that they wouldn't even claim to be a part of the GOP, let alone that the mainstream party certainly doesn't claim them) are truly dangerous. But I think some here vastly overestimate the degree to which those elements would be provoked by anything said by the likes of Rush Limbaugh. If anything, some of them are Ron Paulites and his sharp criticism of big govt policy could be provocative- and yet his rhetoric certainly isn't actually inciting violence.

And then when it comes to more mainstream people who might be emotionally stirred up by talk radio...I think it's a stretch to think that people who might get a little overheated but are otherwise sane and normal are going to launch an assassination plot- any more than sane Democrats would have attempted it against Bush no matter how much they were stirred to hate him (and I do think that some otherwise sane Democrats truly were stirred to the point of hate- it became very personal as GWB and Cheney were vilified.)

So while I agree that extra protection should be afforded Obama due to concerns of racist hate, I don't connect that with talk radio rhetoric. If a fringe lunatic hates the idea of a black president so much that he's inspired to act, I don't think it will have any connection whatsoever to political rhetorical attacks on Obama even if they are highly immoderate in tone.

I can't stand Keillor's political rants but I can't help it...I still love his Lake Woebegone stuff. He's a great storyteller and humorist, if he'd just stick to that.

There are two flaws with the article in the LA Times.
First it moves on the assumption that "normal" conservative thought is "the minority" winning a war against the "majority" liberal thinkers. That's an outright false claim. The vast majority are conservative thinking - they worry and work toward protection of their family, practice of their faith, and providing for themselves. The vast miniority believe that the government is the cure to our ills in this nation.

The right works through talk radio. They appear to be truthful and sometimes they are. Limaugh is well studied and knows how the game plays. Hannity is a mouthpiece that says the same thing over and over, but comes off as a partisan. Beck is what the left considers a fear-monger, but he comes off as genuine and sincere. Although beck is more libertarian, than a Reaganite.

Talk radio is not a good medium for the left. Guys like Ed Shultz come off as flighty and uninformed and are easily unseated by a conservative caller. The left works from within, attempting to accomplish their mission in the long-term through books, schools, and universities. The left subverts the culture.

One thing that is missing from most of these pieces is the general "soul" of the nation. Most (democrat or republica) Americans see the culture and soul of our nation as dying. Every generation says that, but it has come to a head in the past 2 years. We have to redeem some of our roots in politics. We have to get back to the Constitution. Both parties have been subverting that document for decades.

I agree with Jim.

The left has picked up a lot of moderates and indies, who were turned off by the hard right's dominance of the GOP. Also, thanks to Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emmanuel, there are even conservative Democrats in Congress.

CS - I understand your point that racist crazies are racist crazies, and people who would consider assassination attempts are generally detached. But I do think it adds to the danger when various outlets proclaim that a potential target isn't "one of us" or is a Marxist/socialist. When you dehumanize someone (not one of us) or equate that person with a sworn enemy (Marxist), you make it easier to justify, in the mind of the crazy, that killing that person is ok.

No more so than the dehumanizing of Bush and Cheney, IMO, tidbits. They were portrayed as evil warmongers and were often accused of shredding the Constitution. A Democratic Congressman said that Bush was having Congress send kids to Iraq to have their heads blown off for his amusement. I don't see why that wouldn't be equally of concern as calling someone a Marxist.

While this article makes some very salient points, I can't help but think about how religion in general is slowly falling out of favor with the American public. Most main stream Christian denominations are shrinking, not growing. Very few of the young people I know hold strong religious beliefs. I would be more interested in the demographic breakdown of this movement, if that data were possible to obtain.

I think those of us who are white, and middle age (let's face it, there are probably not very many teens or twentysomethings on this site) tend to forget that there's another generation out there, larger than the Boomers, who hold very different beliefs and have a completely different world view. Stridency in all forms is anethema to them. The Right's dogmatic approach to politics is unlikely to sway this group.

Demographically, the GOP is headed for a ditch, if they can't do something to attract young people and people of color. The numbers don't lie. The Millennial generation (born 1980-2000) is the largest (36% of population), most diverse generation ever seen in America. And 66% of them voted for Obama. Does anyone suddenly expect them to turn and vote for a mostly white, Southern GOP?

The Congressman CStanley is referring to is Pete Stark.

A few days later Stark apologized for that comment, saying, "I hope that with this apology, I return to being as insignificant as I should be."

"Bringing loaded guns into a political rally defended under the second amendment."

Well in truth it is showing a firearm outside rallies, and it would be the first amendment that allows it as they are doing so to make a political point. So freedom of speech would be as relevant or more than right to bear arms.

"No more so than the dehumanizing of Bush and Cheney, IMO, tidbits. They were portrayed as evil warmongers and were often accused of shredding the Constitution "

But, they were evil war mongers who shredded the constitution...

I think an important point so far missed is that Bush, et.al, earned their villification through their actions and over a period of eight years. So far Obama has been in office 9 months. The rhetoric against him was hyped up before he even took office and had done "anything" to deserve the scorn. To me this is a sign of a deeper problem than idealogical differences. Its rooted in racism, fear and a desperation ploy by the republicans to remain viable in any pathetic fashion they can muster. There are plenty of progressive bloggers, congresspersons and journalists who are holding Obama's feet to the fire in regards to his pledges of leadership and policy changes. It was rare to find a conservative commenter or any sort who did the same during Bush's most heinous decisions and policies. It was a lovefest.

How many more years of failed conservative policies are we supposed to endure before everyone finally figures out its based on greed, misanthropy and only serves to make a small percentage of the rich richer while turning the rest of us into waiters and car washers. No thanks.

CS - Don't want to get over the top on this, but I'll go there just to see what kind of fire it draws. I too recall the trashing of Bush/Cheney. In that context, by and large though not always, it was Cheney who was portrayed as evil and Bush more as stupid or a puppet. That portrayal, with the "real evil" one next in line, may have made Bush's personal safety more assured.

The real add-on factor with Obama, as you point out, is race, and the not-one-of-us drum beat potentially adds, I think, fuel to the fire. Though I don't believe either one of us is qualified to speak for what moves detached wannabe assassins. It could always be someone who wants to impress Jodi Foster after watching "Taxi Driver."

"BTW, No one is saying that the left doesn't have fanatics, but they don't have the clout of a Rush or a Billo.They don't have the number one talk show on the radio or the number one show on cable news."

But they do have half of hollywood and that fat guy who keeps making bad movies.

"But do either CS or Leonidas admit that the GOP currently has a higher percentage of extremists than the Democrats? It certainly isn't something that used to be true but I think it is now."

Was there a vote, some kind of poll, something I missed?

"But, they were evil war mongers who shredded the constitution..."

I love this... "My deranged obsession is reasonable theirs isn't" kind of a thing cracks me up.

"It was rare to find a conservative commenter or any sort who did the same during Bush's most heinous decisions and policies. It was a love fest."

It obvious that you just didn't listen to it. Bush was railed against for high spending, not being hard enough on immigration, Iraq, the list goes on and on. It would be hard to find a commentator shy of Hannity who didn't trash the Pres on multiple issues.

BTW, No one is saying that the left doesn't have fanatics, but they don't have the clout of a Rush or a Billo.

I'd disagree with you on Bill O'Reilly. I think Keith Olbermann has (sadly) become the left-equivalent of O'Reilly. Not that that's such a bad thing. O'Reilly and Olbermann are like matter and anti-matter...they cancel each other out, which is fine by me.

As for Rush Limbaugh, I'm surpised he keeps getting referenced in this comment thread as often as he does. Yes, he's certainly the most famous of conservative talk radio hosts, but in terms of extremism and general lack of civility, Limbaugh is a lamb compared to Michael Savage or Mark Levin.

EEllis, I will see your "my deranged obsession is reasonable theirs isn't" and raise you,

1 war in Iraq
1 credit crisis due to lack of regulatory oversight,
1 No Fly List,
1 lying Attorney General,
1 outed CIA operative for political gain,
and,
100 tortured unlawful enemy combatants.

I got more too. ; )

And what is the point that they are trying to make?

1 war in Iraq - that the public was wildly in favor of and almost every democrat in the house and senate voted for
1 credit crisis due to lack of regulatory oversight, - Which both Bush and McCain spoke about and pushed for more stringent regulation (yes they should of pushed harder) and that democrats were strongly against even looking at
1 No Fly List, because no bureaucracy ever became a pain in the ass
1 lying Attorney General, because politicians have always been so honest before
1 outed CIA operative for political gain, By a bureaucrat with no ties to Bush (Armitage)
100 tortured unlawful enemy combatants. Man Bush must of had some busy weekends

Yes, but with Beck and Hannity on the air O'Reilly has become the voice of reason on Fox.

That actually appears to be the case...and really I don't think O'Reilly was ever as much of a partisan watercarrier or demagogue as the others. I find him incredibly annoying and pompous, but he does criticize across both sides of the aisle.

nic-

Maybe that would be true if their audiences were the same size. They are not. Also, I'm not sure how often Olbermann knowingly uses false information--- but Billo is wrong about half the time.

1 war in Iraq - that the public was wildly in favor of and almost every democrat in the house and senate voted for

Senate Democrats definitely deserve some of the blame, since a majority of them supported the Iraq War resolution; although their (58% in favor of the resolution) is considerably less than the Republican's 98% in favor of the resolution.

The same, however, cannot be said for the House of Representatives, where only 39% of Democrats supported the resolution (as compared to 96% of Republicans).

So, no, it cannot be said that "almost every democrat in the house and senate voted for the war." Just the spineless ones.

Thats correct, nicrivera, the resolution to fight in Afghanistan was the one with almost total Democratic support. In fact the only nay vote in the entire Congress on that one was the Nay was Barbara Lee - D-CA. Thats one of the reasons they are having trouble cutting and running in Afghanistan.

"1 credit crisis due to lack of regulatory oversight"

That was a Barney Frank DNC vote to NOT regulate the credit and Fannie/Freddie mess.
That is documented fact.

And if Janet Reno and Eric Holder are saints, then you are a bit naive.


As for the rest, you're on target.

"So, no, it cannot be said that "almost every democrat in the house and senate voted for the war." Just the spineless ones."


I'm sure you are right. I really didn't want to waste time looking it up an I remember it being pretty much a slam dunk. I'm not trying to make some pro-Bush point, I just want to show the silliness in pretending there is only one way to view something. "Only my derangement is acceptable! You? You're just crazy!"

Even Ron Paul voted yes on this, but that was his last vote for support of pre-emptive war...
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_member.p...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_Resolution
# 126 (61%) of 208 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution.
# 6 of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution: Reps. Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX).
# The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep. Sanders (I-VT)