Skip to comments.Search for the impossible: Neal Boortz offers pointers for liberal radio talk-show hosts
Posted on 07/08/2003 1:07:01 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
The e-mail came last week from a friend, probably the best talk-radio consultant out there. "Who can hold their own in an argument with you?" he asked. Wiseacre responses to my friend are a proud tradition. "Nobody," I replied, "unless they're very loud or I'm very drunk."
An angry "get serious" response showed that my friend wasn't looking for the flippant response. The search is real. He actually thinks that the genre is ready for a good liberal talk-show host, so he's looking for likely candidates. I decided to set the flippant and obnoxious personality aside for a few moments, and actually try to help someone for a change. Since it may well be that my friend, known to virtually nobody as "Mr. Sunshine," may not be the only consultant or broadcaster out there looking for a good left-wing radio talk-show host, others may benefit from my suggestions.
OK, so you're looking for a good liberal talk-show host? You're looking for someone who can ignore the plain language of the Constitution, defend plunder, promote big government, praise compulsory charity and bow to the gods of diversity and do it all in a way entertain listeners to the point that they won't be banging their heads off the dashboards when those commercials are running.
Hey, I really want to help you. Democrats, and their leftist-socialist fellow travelers are feeling so powerless lately. It's almost sad. Liberals are absolutely convinced that the lack of any truly successful left-wing talk-radio shows is the result of some grand right-wing conspiracy, and sooner or later they're going to do what liberals do best, use the government to force an outcome that the free market won't generate on its own. So, to Democrats, socialists, leftists and radio programmers looking for the left's answer to Rush Limbaugh, here's some help:
First and foremost, you are going to have to search for someone who will be able to provide a moral justification for plunder. The very essence of liberalism is plunder, defined by dictionary.com as "to appropriate forcibly." Every single penny of income tax paid to the imperial federal government is, in essence, seized by force.
Most of that money is then paid directly to another individual, sometimes as an earned benefit, as in Social Security, but more often as a simple transfer of income. Your liberal talk-show host is going to have to be able to explain just how a government that, as our Declaration of Independence says, "derive(s) (its) powers from the consent of the governed" is then able do that which we cannot do for ourselves without committing a crime.
He will have to argue that while he cannot forcibly take your property from you in order to give to another, he has perfect standing to ask the government to do that in his stead. Sooner or later, a caller will ask your hero: "If I can't use force to compel one man to serve the needs of another, how, then, Mr. Liberal Talk-Show Host, can I then ask the government to do that for me?" No ready answer, no credibility. No credibility, no talk-radio future.
Your liberal hero is also going to have to carry the argument that money is distributed, not earned. Liberal politicians emit copious amounts of methane talking about the "distribution" of wealth in America. It is my experience that those who listen to talk radio have this nasty proclivity to believe correctly that most of the people holding this wealth actually earned it. They will resist the idea of redistribution by government. Make sure your progressive pontificator can carry the redistribution-of-wealth argument with a "we're going to nail you and make you like it" demeanor.
Your liberal talk-show host will have to convince his audience that they should embrace their group and cultural identity over their individual identity. Today's most prominent leftists, including Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy, have endorsed and promoted today's leftist assault on individualism. Kennedy has gone so far as to acknowledge his support for a war against individualism. Sadly, for liberals, most Americans still value their individual identity and believe in the idea of individual rights. See if your potential talk hero can defend the Kennedy-Clinton position. If not, he'll be in a world of ratings hurt.
You will also need to find someone who can demonstrate the wisdom and truth of leftist economic policies. Included among these will be the idea that money is better spent when spent by government, rather than the person who actually earned it. In other words, a dollar spent by a government bureaucrat stimulates our economy, while a dollar spent by a wealthy business owner does not. He will also need to argue that tax cuts should go to people who don't actually pay taxes, and that allowing a person to keep more of the money they actually earn is actually a "give away."
Sooner or later, the new Democratic hero is going to have to explain why a person who receives a $1,000,000 windfall is more righteous and valuable to society if they give that money away to low-achievers, than if they were to spend that money building a business that would eventually make them wealthy, and, in the process, would be responsible for employing 20 people. If they can't carry that argument in their first job interview, send them packing.
We're running out of time quickly, but this too needs to be said: See if your new leftist radio wunderkind can explain why our founding fathers wrote nine of the first 10 amendments to our Constitution protect the rights of individuals, and then wrote just one to protect the rights of government.
Now, if you find such a person, send them to me. If they can pull all of this off, I want them on my side.
|We're On A Mission From God|
|Help us make our 3rd quarter fundraising goal in record time!|
Feeling owned yet?
Conservatives do not restrict themselves in their possible solutions to the problems of the day. "The people" can and will do some things without government supervision, and the government has to do the rest (e.g., national security).
Liberals, OTOH, ultimately would make everything either mandatory or illegal. That is a restricted and inflexible thought system, a proposal to basically perform a lobotomy on society by eliminating all decision-making by we-the-people. And that naturally gets hard to defend against all comers.