Posted on 03/04/2009 6:39:43 AM PST by seatrout
LLS
Because of people like this, including christopher, is why I chose NOT to renew my subscription with National Review. They can all bite me.
“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 — (e.g.)Feminazis instead of feminism.”
Calling them feminazis is not “ad hominem.” Look up the Latin, dummy.
Hoosier: "Conservative principles are better expressed by other folks at NR, like Ponnoru or Goldberg."
Yes. Ok. True.
-
So why haven't Ponnoru or Goldberg carved out a leading role in conservatism like the intelligent but 'juvenile' Levin or the excruciatingly dimwitted Hannity?
The high-brow elites hated Reagan, too, but they are dwindling now.
One thing for sure, with the universities turning out exclusively leftist intellectuals, Burke and Kirk are carried aloft into the real world by fewer and fewer every May graduation.
If we're going to have a conservative majority, it's going to have to be blue collar folks unpolluted by universities and "erudition."
He's right, too. Do you really think Sean Hannity is capable of building a solid intellectual base for conservatism? Do you think Rush Limbaugh's show is capable of selling conservatism to the 100+ million people who don't listen to his show?
The problem with talk radio is that it is incredibly shallow -- it's just the nature of the beast. It is not a medium that allows for deep, nuanced debate.
It can be argued that limbaugh has been indirectly responsible for the rise in liberalism. Before limbaugh the media at least tried to cover their biases. Since the media HATE limbaugh, anything he says is immediately REJECTED by the MSM. What would have been blockbuster RAT scandals in the MSM are now ignored because Limbaugh talks about them first and at length. If they report the same stories and share the same opinion as Limbaugh they give him credibility. Also since limbaugh is all over the RAT scandals, the media dont feel the need to report them since the info is out there. Unfortunately the MSM still has a great deal of credibility with American viewers. Unless the MSM airheads are upset about an issue, the avg viewer doesnt think its a big deal. Another issue is that before limbaugh MSM “reporters” didnt realize that there was big money in becoming celebrity commentators. They used to keep their opinions mostly to themselves, but afterwards were all over the air spouting off on everything and cashing in. The boundaries between opinion and journalism blurred even further, now there is no difference. In the end, I think Rush drove the media way further left than they used to be and despite what Rush says, the media is important in driving American opinion.
The GOP is not even interested in debate. Power and Pork Rule.
So, people like me with a college degree and my white collar husband need not apply?
You're avoiding a very important point, however. Mr. Derbyshire notes that two of the top three radio shows are on NPR, each with listenership comparable to that of Rush Limbaugh's.
By the size of the audience, NPR is obviously quite successful -- and I would suggest to you that NPR's political influence is much greater than Mr. Limbaugh's.
The advantage NPR has with "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered" is that they've got access to a wide array of very intelligent folks who have many different points of view, and who are capable of expressing their views in depth. I generally don't agree with what those folks say, but their intellectual abilities are quite evident.
By contrast, conservative talk radio is based on a format where one man expresses his opinions for three hours. Mr. Limbaugh or Mr. Hannity or whomever -- no matter how bright they may be -- is still only one man whose daily task is to be the Oracle. All knowledge depends on what they've scanned through the night before -- and I find that when they speak on topics with which I'm very familiar, they're quite often shallow or even incorrect, because it's clear that they don't have a deep grasp of the topic.
This article and thread are simply amazing.
Reminds me of the libs blaming the US and Israel for the Islamic headchoppers.
—The advantage NPR has with “Morning Edition” and “All Things Considered” is that they’ve got access to a wide array of very intelligent folks who have many different points of view, and who are capable of expressing their views in depth. I generally don’t agree with what those folks say, but their intellectual abilities are quite evident. —
And some folks who consider themselves pretty far on the right side might actually listen to NPR at times (when not listening to music they’ve burned on to a CD for example), if only because the “quality” of their LOCAL talk shows is so horrible (and commerical-glutted) that no one with the IQ of a possum could stand listening to them.
What's that supposed to mean? Do you need your own private party?
Or, can you manage to have common purposes and share a party with someone who listens to Rush but has never read Burke or Santayana?
Actually I think Bush was right on Dubai Ports , a side point .Cavuto gave many reasons why it was good for the USA.
. What those three missed is that Bush got himself in a corner on debt spending prior to those give-aways where saying 'no' for them would have killed his chances for re-election. He already had broke the piggy bank prior, with talk radio's blessings. The TR mantra was "We can invade and rebuild two countries, cut your taxes (Ie free war) but cant afford any of that liberal social stuff you want, so get another job if you want those things." . Rove knew it wouldnt sell. The path GWB/Rove choise, to say 'yes' on expensive social stuff got GWB reelected, but doomed republicans chances for a long time.
They (the three) also praised the economy certainly up to 2006 if not in 2008(Hannity was praising it in October) , but they changed their messages 180 degrees after the October crash. Turns out the economy was bad after after all they said in October) and it was all democrats fault. I still like Rush, at least he went after McCain, but the other two jumped from Bush to McCain.
Most of them are still operating at a loss.
Remove NPRs public funding and the stations would collapse like dominoes. Comparing Public Funded radio shows to Private Funded radio is apples to oranges.
If we're going to have a conservative majority, it's going to have to be blue collar folks unpolluted by universities and "erudition."
If you didn't say what you meant, then just explain to me what you did mean.
Onion dip topped with maraschino cherries; go ahead and barf.
—Onion dip topped with maraschino cherries—
You’re not pregnant, are you? That sounds like a craving!
You're right -- but I think that's a symptom rather than an explanation.
Today's GOP is pretty much rudderless -- they've been mooching for the past 20+ years off the intellectual foundations laid in the '60s and '70s by the likes of Mr. Buckley and Mr. Reagan. Reagan's political successes gave them a chance at power, and today's GOP politicians got a taste for it.
The question became, "how do we keep it?" Here is where "mooching" comes into the picture.
Reagan's biggest challenge -- one that he was unable to surmount -- was to deal with the Democrats' highly effective use of "pork populism." They used Alinsky's tactics of patient infiltration, incremental gains, and cynical exploitation of real injustices, to prevent change and to reverse Republican victories.
Reagan most likely understood the nature of his difficulties, even if he couldn't solve them -- and that, at least, allowed him to express his position as well as he did. Reagan's GOP successors, however, appear never to have understood the Democrat tactics at all; nor is there any reason to believe that they have a good grasp of the intellectual foundations of conservatism as Reagan, Buckley, et al. understood them.
The modern GOP seems only to have noticed that the Democrats have made great gains by offering pork and wild talk, and they're trying to make their own gains by offering the same. The Democrats, however, have a method to their madness -- not to mention a machine built over decades with which to push through their agenda. The GOP has no such method, nor have they built a machine to carry their agenda; they only want the power. With neither method nor machine, they're left to try to use the Democrats' machine for their own ends, to achieve goals which are more properly those of the Democrats.
The unpleasant truth is that it will probably take 20 years of patience and focus for conservatives to rebuild our foundations to the point where we're again an effective political force. Unfortunately, conservatives as a whole have never really shown a knack for either patience or focus -- we're too busy doing other things.
Conservative talk radio is unable to address those foundational issues. Its format (not to mention its audience) are completely unsuited for the task: it feeds our native impatience. Moreover, it tends to make politics a form of entertainment -- a spectator sport that conservatives can enjoy on the couch with a bag of chips. Meanwhile, the political left is out there training and scrimmaging, and when they get out on the field they end up scoring all the touchdowns.
John Derbyshire is one of the reasons National Review will never again achieve the prominence it had under Bill Buckley.
Derb is, quite simply, a snob. I have no use for snobs who think they are better than me with their nasal Mr. Howell-esqe “Yes, I remember BBC 4, Lovey” vapidity.
Rush Limbaugh IS the leader of the Conservative movement, Derb. Get on board, or get your snooty butt outta the way.
Perhaps you mean a conservative majority is going to have to INCLUDE blue collar folks
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.