Posted on 05/15/2006 5:36:17 AM PDT by Quilla
One of the Left’s great agonies and frustrations of the past fifteen years has been its abortive quest to field a counterpart to Rush Limbaugh. Fully cognizant of the massive damage inflicted on it by talk radio, a number of contenders placed bids to mount a counterattack. To their bitter dismay, they all came to grief despite the great hype and hope that surrounded each successive attempt.
A decade and a half worth of feverish effort thus produced no headway, not even a single nationally viable liberal host. With nothing to show for, the time has surely come to ask the obvious question: Why?
Why have liberals failed to make any inroads in talk radio? And why has their failure been so complete?
It surely cannot be due to a lack of trying or will, since they have done everything they could to prop up their hopefuls, even to the point of raising donations in this consummately commercial medium. All to no avail.
But rather than to reevaluate their obviously failing approach, they stubbornly carry on in the same way with predicable results. Again and again they run headlong into the same wall, each crash more pathetic and embarrassing than the one before. So bad things have gotten that most recently they placed their bets on Al Sharpton, hoping that the kooky reverend would carry their water on national airways. A futile dream if there ever were one. Rather than pursuing vain hopes, liberals would do much better to take a pause and search for the root cause of their fiasco.
Any such effort would have to begin with a hard look at the format in which they are trying to succeed.
In the type of political talk show invented by Rush Limbaugh, the host openly takes an ideological stance (conservative or liberal) and then applies it to the issues of the day during his hours on the air. What this in effect amounts to is in-depth analysis of current affairs from a specific political point of view.
The key to success in this kind of enterprise is the host’s ability to articulate his positions in a logical and cogent manner. This is because most people will not listen for very long to an analysis-driven program if the analysis itself does not make rational sense.
And this is precisely where the crux of liberals’ problem lies. They are simply not able to explain and defend their views in rational fashion. This is not at all surprising, for how does one justify high taxes, gay marriage, abortion, multiculturalism and such? They are all based on false premises and they all produce disastrous outcomes. Anything more than a superficial examination must reveals them for the frauds and failures that they in truth are. This is why liberalism cannot withstand the analytical vigor of talk radio and why it has failed so abysmally in it.
Talk radio has thus exposed in a striking way a fatal flaw at the very heart of liberalism – its indefensibility by rational argument. Without having yet grasped it, it is the medium’s format that became liberals’ stumbling block.
However abysmal their current predicament may be, the future holds bleaker prospects still. Most liberals do not yet realize that they will never be able to succeed in talk radio. To make it there – at least in the form in which it is currently practiced – requires that hosts do something which liberals simply can’t: logically and rationally expound their views. To make matters even more desperate there is nothing they can do about it short of abandoning their untenable ideology. In popular parlance, they are cooked… completely and utterly cooked.
Things used to be infinitely more palatable (for liberals) when the television talk show was the main forum for the mass dissemination of political opinion. Its relatively short broadcast time – rarely more than fifty minutes – is usually intensely contested by several guests. As a result of severe time constraints, the discussants rarely speak for more than a couple of minutes at a time. This, of course, makes any serious analysis all but impossible. This problem is made all the more acute by the fact that the guests’ statements are routinely intended to rebuff points made by their opponents which themselves are often quite irrelevant to the topic under consideration.
This format is just fine with liberals who – knowing instinctively that their positions cannot withstand thorough scrutiny – are always happy to avoid in-depth discussion of anything. Conservatives, on the other hand, are badly disadvantaged in this kind of environment. Conservatism requires methodical exposition, quite unlike liberalism which can only survive in the realm of disjointed statements and unsupported assertions. The television talk show is thus liberalism’s perfect vehicle. Often nothing more than a scattered clash of personalities, it is normally dominated by those with the biggest mouth. And since liberals have almost a complete grip on television, they make sure that the biggest mouths on their programs come from their own camp.
But things changed dramatically with the advent of Rush Limbaugh, when the program format he made commonplace became the first ever forum in the mass-media that allowed for the systematic analysis of issues. Nowhere indeed are things discussed more deeply and thoroughly than in talk radio where not infrequently the whole show revolves around two or three subjects. The level of analysis is further deepened by the input from callers who enrich the discussion with their unique input and perspective.
And then, of course, there are those who disagree and openly challenge the host’s positions. To retain his audience’s trust he must be able to deal with their objections in an honest and fair manner. Woe be to the host who keeps dismissing those who oppose him without properly addressing the points they raise. Sooner or later he will be abandoned by all except the most narrow-minded in his audience. No one understands this better than Rush Limbaugh who accords those who contradict him the time and courtesy which go far beyond the bounds of common politeness.
Unable to face the unsavory truth, liberals charge that Mr. Limbaugh owes his success to his showmanship and that their failure to compete is due to their inability to field an equally talented performer. But this surely is not the case. Success in talk radio is not contingent on the host’s ability to be funny. There have been a number of other conservatives who succeeded in this medium without possessing Mr. Limbaugh’s flair for entertaining. Sean Hannity, Michael Reagan and Oliver North immediately come to mind. Funny or not, not a single liberal talk show host has come even close to matching their level of success.
The most acute observer of the American scene, it is his intelligence, penetration, and grasp of issues that primarily account for Rush Limbaugh’s success. His sparkling humor is merely the icing on the sumptuous cake of analysis he serves up on a daily basis. To liberals, however, it does not taste as delicious and understandably so. To them his wit feels more like a stinging petard in their rear regions as they lie prostrate in the ruins of their ideology brought down by the power of his analytical firestorm.
Stated, yes - but not really proven. That proof would require much more analysis of socialism ("liberalism") than the writer attempts.But he is correct: the fact that "liberalism" cannot be effectively promoted in Rush Limbaugh's "long form" format is in fact a demonstration of the fatuous nature of its basis.
The problem with liberals is this:
They don't have a message; everything they try to do, fails; they have tried to bring down the Bush Administration and can't; they don't have anyone that knows what the American people REALLY want.
They can't send out their message, if they did, noone would vote for them, they are for high taxes, gun control, being friends with our enemies...
They have been going from President Bush to Cheney to Rumsfeld to Rice and around again, they don't know anything different, they play book hasn't been updated....
They say the economy is bad, it isn't; they say we aren't winning the war, we are; they say everything is so much worse than before, it isn't....
The American people want money in their pockets, they want a secured border, they want jobs, they want it easy for a while....The Bush Administration has or is giving them this....the only thing I can see is wrong with the Bush Administration is the border problem, and we may start to get that fixed soon, we hope.....
An excellent point. I had no idea that's how Prof. Walter Williams became a guest host. He's always been my favorite.
Rush has a sense of humor that surpasses all their schtick.
If I want information I get it from FR. If I want analysis with a good nature, I listen to Rush.
After that, the radio is OFF for the most part.
"Without a vision the people shall perish." (Proverbs, the Bible)
One of Rush's strongest characteristics is that he is optimistic. He holds up a vision of our country that is inspiring and makes you feel good about being an American. He's also got a great sense of humor. Sometimes a liberal will call in and express his views and Rush will "go along with him/her." If your a Rush fan, you know what's happening, but the caller doesn't.
He is a great gift to our country. I believe that a lot of "used to be liberals" came around to their senses through listening to the King of Talk Radio.
The Democrats think the Nazis are extreme Right people but haven't they bothered to understand that the very word Nazi is a contraction of the German phrase for National Socialism? The tactics of the Left are so akin to what the Sturmabteilung (Storm Troopers) did intimidating the general public during the late 1920's and early 1930's.
Unlike a certain other talkshow host I could name, but won't. Michael Savage Did I say that outloud? Oh I'm a baaaad person!
When I listen to talk radio I use this criteria. Would I want this person in my home, imparting knowledge to my family?
As for Sean, he imparts only rants and self aggrandizement.
Savage is well....savage!!! He's not welcome in my home either.
My kids grew up with Rush on the radio every day. In the early days I never had to hurry them out of the room or turn the radio down way down.
It is natural to claim objectivity if you can get away with it. Conservatives would do so if they dominated journalism. But to claim objectivity is to undercut you own argument, since if your argument depend on the assumption of your objectivity - and your objectivity cannot be proven - your argument is rotten at its core.And your objectivity - or journalism's - can never be proven because nobody can state the whole truth. And half the truth can be a very big lie. Thus it is impossible to prove objectivity. Journalism's "objectivity" is especially difficult to prove because of the rules which make journalism commercially successful:
Journalism promotes the bad news from Iraq because it sells newspapers. Far from making the bad news from Iraq representative and unbiased, that fact makes journalism tendentious in a predictably anticonservative way.
- "Man Bites Dog" rather than "Dog Bites Man" makes journalism unrepresentative.
- If it bleeeds it leads (and the unspoken, if it's good, it will appear in an ad or not at all) makes journalism negative.
- There's nothing more worthless than yesterday's newspaper makes journalism superficial.
The interests of journalism define liberalism, because liberal politicians act on the belief that NOTHING actually matters except PR. It is scarcely to be marveled at that a political philosophy based on superficiality, negativity, and unrepresentativeness cannot stand up to polonged and focused logical critique.
With all due respect for Mr. Limbaugh, it was inevitable that a talk-radio format would excel, (if it wasn't him, it would have been somebody else) in some ways he is just a tragic comedian, pointing out the absurdities of modern "liberal" policies. Point is, there is no shortage of material, so how hard is that? The liberals got around this in past years by only presenting one point of view and/or ridiculing and marginalizing opposing viewpoints since they had a vitual stranglehold on news outlets. Astonishingly, it was possible to convince the mainstream that their views were somehow, not mainstream, which is quite a trick. The death knell for the old-school news folks was claiming they were objective, which really stuck in the craw of folks since the 60's at least.
If they have such a fatal flaw how come the liberals/socialists/communists are still so prevalent?
ie push polls with low numbers.
I have strong disagreemnt with GWBush on immigration however I will not throw the baby out with the bath water and will be voting in november.
I think many of us are able to tune out the Goebles effect of the left and bypass the MSM.
The same can be said for the fall of the USSR.
It's a question of WHEN. If RR hadn't shown up, it might have been another 50 years before the Wall came down. If Rush hadn't persevered, it might not have happened until 2030. Don't sell Rush short.
Levin? No we don't get him here (mpls) I've just started listening to Sean on a regular basis, my take...not that bad, has good guests on (always a plus) I work (or so I tell my boss) 2nd shift so AM radio is right out. There is some really good local folks here
Bob Davis http://www.am1500.com/davis.htm
Joe Soucheray (Softcore politics) http://www.am1500.com/garagelogic.htm
Dan Conry http://ktlkfm.com/pages/danconry.html
I refer you to my #49.
The second extra reason (related to the one brought up in the article) is the condesention of virtually every liberal host. They treat anyone who disagrees with them as (a) stupid and (b) not as compassionate as they are. Again, this attitude alienates all but the most rabid, extremist libs in the audience.
Simple - they use emotion-based arguments that appeal to folks who respond to issues emotionally. Those are the folks who don't know who the VP is, or who pays the taxes, or who their Senators are. But, they can agree with "tax the rich", "Bush Lied", "Conservatives are mean".
I refer you to my #49.
Because the mainstream media, where the majority of Americans receive their news and mold their views, is a gaggle of liberals, socialists, and communists.
you forget liberals use call screeners to eliminate inteligent competition and only allow those who absolutly agree or are absolute kooks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.