Posted on 03/04/2009 6:39:43 AM PST by seatrout
Do I detect some jealousy on Derbyshire's part -- given that he and his print media buddies no longer have a monopoly on the dissemination of conservative thought?
Kind of petty of you, Derb, ol' boy.
The question is ... how does one go about getting somebody like Eric Cantor a "toehold" so that he can actually express himself in a meaningful way?
It's certainly not impossible -- but it does require some thought and effort, which conservatives right now do not seem to be expending.
It seems to me that the underlying format of the NPR shows is something that conservatives could, and should, take advantage of -- it would give Mr. Cantor a chance to shine; and it would also allow the formation and promulgation of a consistent conservative point of view.
Also, conservatives seem to have missed the huge political impact of people like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, whose take on current events is amazingly effective at "shaping the battlefield." It's not like there are no funny and insightful conservatives, and God knows there's no shortage of juicy targets on the left -- but we're not even in the ballgame!
Of course, we need more than just a medium -- we also need a message. That's where the real work lies. Question is, who's available to start putting it together?
Not petty -- he's essentially correct in his analysis. Conservative talk radio doesn't disseminate "conservative thought." In it's current form it is little more than a mouthpiece for a few guys' personal opinions, presented in a manner designed to entertain and tweak the emotions of its niche (large, but niche) audience.
I see, infiltrate NPR with a responsible conservative message. And you would gain entree by trashing the most visible conservative in the US. Perhaps you’re thinking David Brooks, Chris Buckley, or some other Obama supporting “conservative”?
The liberals will love you.
“Mr. Derbyshire very correctly notes that we conservatives lack intellectual respectability”
With whom? The liberal intellentsia? Leftist academia?
The MSM?
It depends on which show you're listening to. Savage doesn't. Hannity is entertaining but, shall we say, a little shallow on the philosophical front.
But, then, there are Limbaugh and Levine and a group of local hosts -- Mark Davis (DFW), Mark Belling (Milwaukee), Jason Lewis (Twin Cities), Hitchcock (San Diego), along with Mark Steyn, etc. -- who have a large philosophical and intellectual component to their shows.
It's no coincidence that the local list also constitutes Limbaugh's "bench".
The primary attraction and entertainment value of talk radio, to me, is that it makes me think!
Baloney. The MSM "news", as well as network TV entertainment shows are simply stiff with lowbrow liberalism. It's extreme pervasiveness may be why JD doesn't notice it.
Yes he did indeed. Thanks for posting back to me!
LLS
You’re back to publicly funded radio.
See, talk radio is a commercial enterprise. Advertising insures profitability. Capitalism is fundamental in conservative thought. Publicly funded conservative programming is sort of a contradiction in terms.
FreeRepublic and the various blogs fill in the gaps.
This guy is a way off base loon ... Rush is not a dictaor nor is any of the others. The conversation they have with listeners is how issues get worked on and play out.
Talk radio is the best thing since sliced bread.
Typical inside the beltway vs outside the beltway fight.
I totally disagree with you. Conservatives are the thinkers, liberals are the feelers, with nothing of any substance to back up their feelings.
That's you talking, not me.
The liberals will love you.
Ah, yes. Well, that tired gambit is my cue that you don't have a real argument to make. Have a nice life.
I stand by my comment. Yes liberals have ideas and an agenda, and yes they are good at getting the agenda accomplished, but they do it by taking every issue and distilling it down to a 30 second emotional soundbite. A perfect example is a discussion I had with a friend of mine concerning the the Medicare drug plan. I was trying to get her to consider the cost and the expansion of government that it was going to entail, not to the mention control it was giving to government over people’s lives. Her answer, don’t you want old people to get the drugs they needs? Do you want old people to have to decide between food and medicine? How you can you conservatives be so unfeeling and cruel? I tried to engage her in an honest argument about the issue, but she just kept returning to the emotional side of the issue. The Left is very good at playing the easy emotion card. It can take a few minutes to explain the conservative view and why it makes more sense, it takes 30 seconds to make an emotional appeal to an Oprahized nation.
Disagree all you like, but the fact remains that liberals have been leaving their footprints on conservative backs for the past several decades -- and even our greatest victories have proven to be only temporary.
It's time to face an ugly truth, FRiend: it takes one hell of a lot of substance to maintain a record like the liberals have created over that time. They've got focus and patience and methods that we can't hold a candle to right now.
And we conservatives seem far more beholden to our "feelings" these days than the liberals do -- just look at our mindless invocations of "Reagan's legacy," with no substance to back it up.
Perhaps your own feelings have simply gotten in the way of your realizing that.
“A clever tactician (i.e., not me) might well parlay the current DNC vapors with respect to Mr. Limbaugh into an opportunity to offer “responsible” conservative viewpoints on Morning Edition or All Things Considered.”
That’s you talking. Not me.
Unless of course you mean something other than Rush is irresponsible.
Your argument is irresponsible. You take out the one media outlet conservatives dominate. Sure, it’s not perfect. Obviously it doesn’t satisfy your high ideals. Well, get on the radio and fix it. Do something.
And my life is nice.
Derb is only vaguely conservative. He’s conservative compared to, say, the current president. Or Olympia Snowe.
I'm not a big fan of Rush myself, but I think he does a lot of good for the conservative cause. While his address at CPAC may not have met your intellectual standards, it was very motivational. He laid down the gauntlet. That needed to be done.
Your comments about Rush's lifestyle and concern for the little guy sound like Democratic class envy. I'm not saying you are guilty of that, just that your comments give that impression.
For my part, I'm a firm believer in the American dream. And for me the American dream includes humble beginnings and entrepreneurial success. Small businessmen are my heroes because they provide the jobs that give people a chance to work and advance their lives. --I am certain Rush understands that point.
I guess my point here is that Rush serves an important purpose. He articulates the conservative view in a clear and entertaining way. Part of the design of his radio format is to allow listeners to join him for 20 minutes at a time (often in the car bewteen stops) and come away with a message.
He is an entertainer with a message. He is not an intellectual with a radio show.
That's not true. Hell, if all it took was 30 second soundbites, conservatives wouldn't be in our current disastrous position. But we are in deep trouble despite spending millions on soundbites.
Here's the deal: that 30 second liberal soundbite has traction because it simply summarizes a point made far more broadly over months or years -- it does nothing more or less than tell people what they already "know" from other sources.
Obama didn't win the election because of his soundbites -- he won because the foundations for his victory had already been under construction in the media (broadly defined) for years. His team played it brilliantly, taking advantage of the cultural framework built by the likes of Jon Stewart, whose message was essentially "conservatives are funny, and deserve to be made fun of." And despite the dismissiveness of many FReepers, Stewart's send-ups of conservatives are often hilarious, because they're based on accurate (albeit highly skewed) depictions of conservative talking points.
Obama's an empty suit with no record, of course -- but that simply aided his team's approach: with no clear record on anything, a sharp eye could spot the "cultural holes" that Obama's image could be moulded to fill. Obama's soundbites were just taking advantage of spots where the "cultural framework" was not being effectively addressed.
That's the liberals' real strategy: to control the cultural landscape. Once they've done that, they pretty much get to pick their battles on ground of their own choosing. We conservatives are at an intrinsic disadvantage. Obama found a chink in their armor, but I think it serves mostly to expose their strategy, rather than to weaken it.
There's more, though. We conservatives love our theories -- but we seem to have forgotten that real politics is played among real people, rather than just among academicians. Regardless of what it eventually ended up being, W's "compassionate conservatism" was essentially correct in its diagnosis -- that we tend to ignore the "people" side of politics.
Let's take a look at your Medicare discussion, because it highlights the point. You say that, despite your arguments, your friend kept returning to the "emotional side of the issue." She probably did -- but I think you've forgotten the most important part of the political equation (it's something I tend to do, anyway).
The fact is that many seniors do have a great deal of difficulty dealing with their medical expenses. I'm sure you gave her all sorts of fine and correct conservative economic arguments ... but how do they help the old lady down the street who really is trying to find some way to pay for her prescriptions?
I think I'm like most people, in that I tend to be more favorably disposed toward the person who offers to help me solve my current problem; than I am toward the person who offers theories that don't do anything to help me deal with what's ailing me at the moment.
Liberals understand that dynamic; conservatives seem driven to work against it -- which merely strengthens the liberals' hand.
It's true that I think Rush is responsible for a lot of bad things -- chief among which is the propagation of conservative emotionalism. His show is both shallow and narrow, and designed to play only to the choir. As I noted above, whenever Rush (or whomever) talks about a topic on which I'm well-informed, he's usually ill-informed, and often flat-out wrong in his assertions. That sort of stuff doesn't carry over well to reasoned debate with an informed opponent (cf. Mr. Hannity's tendency to get trounced by his liberal guests.)
My point, however, is not that Rush is "irresponsible," but rather that is is possible to take advantage of the Democrats' perception of his irresponsibility. I trust you can understand the distinction -- it's not that subtle. I've found that even ardent liberals are often receptive to an offer of substantive debate -- a good tactician could parlay that into something "in the lion's den."
You take out the one media outlet conservatives dominate.
I didn't suggest any such thing. Like Derbyshire, I believe conservative talk radio is a great way to purvey "lowbrow conservatism" -- just as MSM television programming appeals to "lowbrow liberalism." But we must acknowledge that it is, indeed, "lowbrow," and as such is incapable of building a sound intellectual foundation for conservatism. Moreover, its political impact is pretty isolated to a demographic that would vote conservatively anyway -- it doesn't do much to bring in new recruits.
What conservatives need, is something that offers a "middlebrow" outlet for conservative thought -- something with depth and breadth -- so that people outside of the die-hard talk radio audience can begin to assess and approve of what conservatism is really about.
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.