...can we say Oprah?
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.
Huh!
I disagree. The RATS depend more on the old Yellowdog Dems and 60's protestors than any other group. Gen X and Y are more conservative than their Boomer parents. You only see the DUhmmies who go to anti-war, anti-American protests because that's what the mediots want you to see. X and Y kids were too young to remember the heyday of liberalism during Vietnam and Watergate, but get just as annoyed as the rest of us when they see the Left try to recreate those halcyon days by bashing the military and President Bush. And they're old enough to see and understand what 9-11 meant and realize that this is a war between freedom and Islamic fanaticism.
I am afraid your point was so subtle, I almost missed it.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying because we have a free market, someone would have stepped in at some point to fill this need (for a national conservative voice) and as it happens, it was Rush, but any talented person would have been just as good.
If that was indeed your point, perhaps, but I doubt it. Rush is unique, his talent is unique.
...can we say Oprah?
"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) "
That somebody else was Larry King, the " King " of talk radio.
He had about 15 years along with countless other talk show hosts, to make something of talk radio.
Even into the second year of Rush's show, when Rush was starting to measure his audience in the millions vs King's tiny numbers, King still claimed he had never heard of Rush.
Eventually King's show became too much of an embarrassment and he dropped it.
At the end I was telling friends to tune into King, the Rush conservative callers were destroying him on the air.
Larry King failed, along with Mario Cuomo, Jerry Brown,and other Democrat leaders, comedian Al Franken is failing.
The startling, phenomenal success of the Rush Limbaugh show was not inevitable.
To the contrary, I meant that Rush proved that he could do it, which is what most entrepreneurs are driven to do. Only after he had proved that it could be done - at least by him - did others try it on a national scale."Better mousetrap" ideas seem precious in hindsight, but what makes some of them happen is that someone took that idea and ran with it, when it was not convenient. The entrepreneur is driven to make the idea work. If you invent a water-driven airplane tomorrow, but do not prove that it works, the idea will just be a curiosity. It doesn't matter how good the idea seems in retrospect, only that someone dedicated themselves to proving that they could make it work.
I think it was Texas Instruments whose management said of new ideas for products, when we consider new products we ask ourselves if there is anyone we can put in charge of the product who would quit if we did not develop this product. If we have that person, we consider further. If not, we regretfully conclude that although the idea may be a winner it is not an idea that our company can profitably develop. And I think the "quote" is from In Search of Excellence by Tom Peters.
Our post must have passed in the ether. I did miss the orginal point, but would agree, the time was ripe for someone with Rush's talents and abilities, and ready to sieze the opportunity when presented. I guess my point back was, there are not many like that, and we are lucky we had Rush to lead the way out of the wilderness
Liberals use "message" to hide their intent. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see through them rather easily.
"Truth is much better"
There sure isn't much demand these days, for something in so
short of supply.... THAT is why "liberal" talk shows don't work. Propaganda is a one way street, talk radio is inherently democratic, with a small d.
"When Rush went national, no one believed in him, not even the stations he managed to sign up. The original deal was he had to do a local three hour show (in New York) before they allowed him to do his national three hours show, so in the beginning he was doing six hours a day."
I caught Rush his third day, it was a lot of fun listening to his growth, as a new national host you could hear him use his iron discipline to force himself to adapt to his new audience,( he would often catch himself in mid sentence and say no, I'm not going to say that).
The saddest day on his show was about 2 or 3 months after he started, he devoted one hour to conservatives only.
The conservatives sounded creaky, unsure of themselves, almost like they had been living in a cave for years.
As months and years went by you could hear the change as conservatives gained confidence, and learned how to shape their arguments, and learned new facts previously hidden from them, they knew they were part of a community.
Eventually because of Rush, conservatives came to realize they were part of a majority.
Rush changed the direction of America and served as a bridge between Reagan's sunny embrace of the electorate and Gingrich's guerilla warfare in the bowels of power. Rush empowered a vast pool of middle class activists and water cooler debaters.
Unprincipled people see no evil in using lies towards getting and staying in power. Power is the goal -- along with the perks it brings.
I think we can sum up what Rush did best in saying before he showed up we all thought we were the odd man out. Rush showed that we were not the minority that the main stream media portrayed us to be.
Rush showed us we are not alone, and the Internet gave us our voice.
I disagree. Conservatives like Rush don't claim objectivity. What they do claim and insist upon, I might add, is rationality.
That's the essence of the article. A conservative argument is more rational than a liberal argument. Hence Rush's success in a format that demonstrates rationality and exposes irrationality.
But that only means that it's not a fatal flaw. (Unfortunately!)
Good? Rush is more than good. He's in a league of his own. I've listened to "Talk Radio' for over 30 years. No one comes close.
Articulate, informative, rational and above all entertaining.
save for later...bump
"The Rush Limbaugh and Liberalism’s Fatal Flaw analysis was excellent, however, it missed another aspect of Conservative Talk Radio that may be far more important that the left's inability to field effective commentators. That aspect is satire, which in my estimation is the deadliest form of political commentary in the pundit's arsenal. Left wing politicians abhor satire, mainly because they are pompous self-appointed doo doo gooders who believe that they have been anointed to lead the lumpen proletariat to their promised land of lots of benefits with no responsibilities or work required. Anyone, repeat ANYONE who dares to poke fun at these self-righteous worthys elicits mouth-foaming wrath and eternal damnation by the intended recipient and his or her fellow-travelers.
Over the years, Rush has proven himself as the Grand Master of Satire, with his wicked barbs and merriment verse over pop music laying waste to the liberal strategem. Rush and our other great commentators can never be matched by the left, because we conservatives rarely present a satirable target in person or policy. The left's agenda, on the other hand, is a Potemkin Village of lunactic schemes which cannot pass the most basic tests of reason. Indefensible in their theories, the left wing politicians and their commentators can only respond with ad-hominem fury when criticized, and satire is the pinnacle of political criticism.
(Today’s history lesson: Potemkin Village: When Catharine the Great of Russia condescended to leave the palace and tour a province, her Minister Potemkim sent advance minions to each village along her route to paint or false front the structures she would see from her carriage. Sort of like a movie set. Therefore, Catherine would believe that villagers were prosperous and benefitting from her “wise leadership”)"
"I've been listening to talk radio for 30 years")
So have I, again, I don't want this to be "about" Rush Limbaugh, because my observation deals more about what conservatives have had to put up with for 50 years. Truth is, there WAS no conservative thought expressed for public consumption, unless you count William F. Buckley, and the WSJ. It was just a given that "progressive", urban elite ivory tower judgment was infallible.
I was called "Bourgeois"(sp) in Junior High by a teacher, and this was in middle west suburbia. They got to define the terms of the debate, and always always had the last word. The leftists have had a field day for decades in manipulating public sentiment.
"Mixed metaphors are a pain in the ass and should be thrown out the window."
--William Safire
< ]B^)
I agree-
And I still see it to this very day! at least in the MSM.
I have often wondered if Rush's TV show was canceled
BECAUSE of it's Success--NOT the lack of it-(his ratings
were very high for the time slot)
The real Bourgeois- liberals,socialists,communists
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.