Isn’t that what this group should be discussing?
Now Barack Hussein Obama is no peanut-farming, triangulating, “big government is dead” Clinton/Carter type bubba Southern favorite son. Yet he won Virginia, Florida, and North Carolina. And Georgia was a close call, and the demographic trends in Texas will make future Socialist Negroes competitive there. Yikes.
Is this map all that’s left of Nixon’s vaunted Southern Strategy?
So, what will it be for the Republicans?
I’m betting on a ‘doubling down’ strategy, promoted by the Limbaugh-Palin-Malkin-Hannity wing. “We were not conservative enough!” I actually heard Rush Limbaugh Explaining It All (live on my car radio), which Ross Douthat picked up on, transcribed, and commented. It’s well worth reading, to understand the thinking of that wing of the party.
Even more “true conservatism.”
Oh yeah, that’s the answer. Go for it, GOP!
Stephen, you shouldn’t gloat. In 2004, the Democrats faced a similar predicament: their candidate was uninspiring, the other party’s political machine seemed unbeatable, and demographics were against them. Two years later, they won Congress, and two years after that, they won the White House.It’s entirely possible that the Republicans will rise from the ashes with a leader like Barack Obama, who will be able to unify the business wing and the religious right and give conservatives something to vote for rather than against.
Stephen,I think you are conflating two arguments. The argument that the GOP needs to return to its conservative roots has significant support throughout the party. Almost no one who is a conservative thinks the GOP has been conservative enough over the past eight years.Limbaugh is making a much narrower argument. If you don’t agree with him about every single thing that he considers a key plank of conservatism, then you are a heretic who should be expelled from the party. That’s not the same thing as the much wider view that the party should stop being Democrat-lite. He wants ideological purity and is rejecting alliances with those who might agree on a few issues, but don’t sign on for the whole package.
David, even outside Limbaugh’s view, there are two separate ideas of “Getting back to the roots of conservatism.”One is that Bush and McCain were in general too moderate on issues like immigration and spending, and that’s why they lost. This is no different from the argument floated on liberal blogs that Kerry lost because he was too conservative on foreign policy and Gore lost because he ran away from Clinton.The other is that conservatism needs to return to some root principles, which it should put above power. This is what David Brooks is saying – that Republicans should offer a positive view of government based on conservative principles, rather than try to drown it in a bathtub. The liberal equivalent of that is that Democrats should be defending principles like equal rights and fighting poverty, rather than the specific set of programs they passed in the 1960s; this is more or less how Obama won.The first view has powerful arguments for it. In some cases, adopting a less moderate position does make sense: for example, the Democrats performed better in 2006 by stressing raising the minimum wage. But this is only true on the margins. In general, very few positions have the same 85/15 split in public opinion as the minimum wage, and even fewer are considered serious political issues. On the ones that are even 60/40, no politician has ever lost by being too moderate. Even Bush’s immigration policy, supposedly his downfall, gave him unprecedented Hispanic support in 2004.
Probably the most telling excerpt in Rush’s rant is his critique of the supposedly “Moderate Republican” strawman credo that: “we had to somehow find a way to become stewards of a Big Government but smarter that gives money away to the Wal-Mart middle class so that they, too, will feel comfortable with us and like us and vote for us.”In Rush-world–where the only people who count are pompous, roll-bottom-doll looking, expensive-cigar-smoking millionaire as*holes like him who don’t need “Government handouts”–it’s his right to heap scorn on “the Wal-Mart middle class” because, don’tcha know, people like Rush are just so innately superior. If the pick-up truck driving dittoheads revolt be voting Democratic–because they finally see that Rush’s “true conservative” vision of corporate welfare and deregulation has them struggling like vermin on his “fruited plain”– well, F*ck ’em. Circle the wagons!The key to understanding Rush Limbaugh’s “conservative” philosophy is to see him for what he really is: the modern equivalent of a 19th Century snake oil salesman and barker whose only interest in people is enriching himself by selling them his elixir, at the same time he holds them in utter contempt for buying it.There, that rant felt great.I’ll let DavidC expound on his own vision of how a return to “conservative roots” would get this country out of the economic mess it’s currently in. I’m genuinely curious how he thinks that less Governmental intervention might help matters at this time.One suggestion I do have: let AIG fail.
Redhand,I’m glad you feel better keeping all that anger bottled up is not good for you, creates stress and what not.”Conservative Principles” per say have little to do with the outlook you’ve assigned to Rush (BTW I’m not a fan of his) and by defacto to others (maybe me or davidc). I would point out to you that conservatism has more to do with personal resposiblity, less intrusive government, fiscal responsibility, rule of law and a love and respect for ones country, the U.S. None of those things require hatred, abuse (verbal or otherwise) of the poor, racial bias or an inherent contempt of others in general. Interestingly enough weather it was 2006 or 2008 the Democrats have run on more conservative themes than in the past such as; balancing the budget, tax cuts, respect for the 2nd Ammd and even a bit of muscular foriegn policy (Pres. El.Obama has said that he would pursue Osama into Pakistan unilaterially if need be, OMG!)Also, on a more personnel note I’ve been poor. Government handouts were not the answer. what was? Hard work, disipline. perseverence, family and friends. The bail out is huge mistake it is already being abused by Corporate America, which is why many of us dunderhead conservative types opposed it from the beginning. The fat cats from Detroit to Wall Street are lining up for easy money from the American Sucker, people like me who actually pay taxes and have all their life (even when I made very little, thanks Bill Clinton). Also, paying the mortgages of the stupid and irresposible is disgusting and unjust to those of us who have played by the rules and managed our affairs with prudence.Should we be a society that helps those at the bottom? Yes. However, we also need to be a society that does not demonize the fruits of honest hard work or seeks to give them to those that didn’t earn it via charitable coercion of punitive taxation. You may find this arrogant but I don’t want to be equal to everybody else. I want to be better. I want to work harder and smarter, earn more and yes by God keep it for my family and myself. I suppose that makes me a bad guy, perhaps even an enabler of the “Snake Oil Salesmen” of your world.We need balance, caring for the poor and respect for the tax payer. Oh, one last thing people need to be honest with themselves and accept resposiblity for their life’s events. like loosing your home because you overextended yourself finacially. Guess what you deserve to loose your house and I don’t deserve to be given the bill for keeping in that house.
Alon,I generally agree with what you are saying. There are actually various arguments among conservatives, and conservatism means different things to different people. Limbaugh’s position is that people who disagree with him are not conservatives at all. redhand,John pretty much said most of it for me. But on this particular point:”how a return to “conservative roots” would get this country out of the economic mess it’s currently in.”Free market conservatives (and libertarians) such as myself don’t look to the government to fix economic problems. In fact, we believe the government has a lot to do with causing problems. Its clumsy efforts to fix things tend to make them worse not better. The only fixes I’m in favor of are ones that decrease government involvement in the economy, such as tax cuts. “One suggestion I do have: let AIG fail.”I’m with you on that. Let all the failing businesses that made bad decisions fail. Let the market work.
Pendulums swing. It seems to be their nature.The minute anyone gets into office their “potential” begins turning into actual policies.Right now, President-Elect Obama has the support of the 60+ million that voted for him*.Contained in that group are (roughly) 48,675,329 differing opinions on what Hope and Change is or should be.In two years time, Peggy Joseph will still be having problems paying her gas bill and her mortgage and there will be countless little (or big) erosions of enthusiasm or support like this all over the country. It is unavoidable.Also, there is the danger of overreach on behalf of the victors. Team Obama is no less convinced of their righteousness than was Team Clinton in 1992. Hence 1994.Obviously, Obama was not my guy. But I do have to say that while his election doesn’t solve any problems, I do love the questions that it answered.On a related note, can you imagine any President-Elect sitting down and reading their first Presidential level Daily National Security Threat briefing and NOT thinking, “Ooh, maybe I was little hard on my predecessor.”*And, I hope, at least the best wishes and the opportunity to be given a chance by the ones who did not
And speaking of hearing Rush Limbaugh on the radio, what is your opinion on any attempts to reinstate the “Fairness Doctrine?”
And speaking of hearing Rush Limbaugh on the radio, what is your opinion on any attempts to reinstate the “Fairness Doctrine?”Man, that is a tough question. I don’t want to say that Rush Limbaugh is not allowed to spread his nonsense, but broadcast frequencies are a public resource, and the use of a government-controlled public resource for one-sided partisan attacks is something that gives me pause. Is it a denial of Rush’s free speech rights to require that opposing viewpoints be allowed access to a limited public resource? Without a Fairness Doctrine, you are essentially leaving the primary source of political information in the hands of one side of the political spectrum – those who can afford the broadcast licenses. It might be good capitalism, but is it good democracy? I’m not even sure myself, but it’s a deep question. I’ll have to think some more about this.
If the “Fairness Doctrine” is to be applied to Radio then it should be applied to TV as well; network, satelite and cable. Also, then PBS should be abolished because if the government is going to control the programing of private media then we no longer need a tax payer funded TV station for Liberals.BTW didn’t the Left have Air America? What was the problem? Oh, I remember nobody listened to it. Hmmm, I guess if you can’t sucessfully market your ideas to the listening public then you have to force them to listen. Thanks Big Brother.
the outlook you’ve assigned to Rush (BTW I’m not a fan of his) and by defacto to others (maybe me or davidc)Rush in in a class by himself, though I also dislike Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Bob Grant.You and DavidC are fine to debate with, though I obviously have problems with some your positions, especially in this campaign. However, this is one of the very few “political” blogs I know where frank and fair exchanges are possible so I’ll hang around until people start taking some of my overheated rhetoric too seriously.As to DavidC’s “conservative fix” for the economy, we see that there really isn’t one. I’ll simply say that doing nothing is not acceptable IMO, since it could lead to a world wide recession (if not depression).I’m sure we’ll see some form of “neo-Kenysian” pump priming targeted at “the Wal-Mart middle class” in the near future, and I don’t disagree with it.
BTW didn’t the Left have Air America? What was the problem? Oh, I remember nobody listened to it. Too true, and why should they? Conservatives could never match the satire of the Daily Show or the Colbert Report, and liberals never managed to get the hang of angry radio. But this is the incompatibility I was wondering about between capitalism and democracy. A democracy works best when you have voters who are informed on both sides of the issues. Capitalism works best when profitable Rush radio time doesn’t require unprofitable Keith radio time to keep it in balance. But are we going to say that only the only political ideas which will be broadcast on public airwaves are the ones with a built-in profitable audience?As for the TV/cable point you bring up, that’s what we have up here in Canada, which is why the CRTC doesn’t allow Fox News on our cable networks. It’s too biased to qualify as a legitimate news source in the eyes of the CRTC. I’ve seen enough Bill O’Reilly to think it’s not a bad idea.
Redhand,Like you I come to this blog (and only this blog) for a reasonable exchange with the other side. I’m interested in perspectives besides my own. I wouldn’t say we should do nothing respecting the economy but I fear we do too much.Canuckistani,you illustrate a left principle, which is those who presume to know what is good for me should control what I watch and listen to,that makes me suspicious of government being involved in media. “As for the TV/cable point you bring up, that’s what we have up here in Canada, which is why the CRTC doesn’t allow Fox News on our cable networks. It’s too biased to qualify as a legitimate news source in the eyes of the CRTC. I’ve seen enough Bill O’Reilly to think it’s not a bad idea.”Maybe Canadians are fine with their government dictating what is an appropriate source of news, but as a free thinking U.S. Citizen I’m not. The idea of the party in power telling me what is legitimate news (their take on matters)and what is not (like opposing points of view) sends a chill down my spine. No, thanks you can keep State run TV and your CRTC news nannies.
The reason why Right Wing (RWTR) talk radio is more dominant than LWTR has to be arrived at first.Whatever one thinks of RWTR or how it came about it could only survive if it was profitable. And the profitability of RWTR should have no bearing or influence on the profitability of LWTR. It is two separate audiences. Air America Radio was conceived as a project to counter opposing ideology first and as a profit generating operation second. For whatever reason…it hasn’t found its own Limbaugh who can drive the change or the Left doesn’t have AM radios (who knows?)…it has not been a successful commercial venture.What shouldn’t be ignored in the discussion of fairness is that RWTR’s audience is not mandated. It is essentially the result of millions of individuals making sometimes several individual choices per day in its favor. It wasn’t taken over by The Right. It was conferred upon them by the audience.You can put Randi Rhodes on for three hours after Rush Limbaugh (or vice versa on AAR) and nobody is going to hang around and listen. Any system that requires anything approaching “equal time” is just a de-facto fine on any station carrying politically-based programming.There are 61+ million Obama voters out there and 48+ million McCain voters. There is a massive audience out there for both ends of the political spectrum to cater to. Yet RWTR thrives and LWTR struggles.My theory is that RWTR benefits from a shortage of right leaning opinion/news outlets overall (all media) in comparison to the left leaning opinion/news outlets.The right has Fox News and AM Band Talk radio. The left is dominant in everything else. Movies, TV (Sitcoms, Late Night Talk, Network News, Non-Fox cable news. Olbermann is on ESPN for goodness sake!), and big Daily print.So are views contrary to those found on RWTR really that unavailable?And this before we even begin discussing the internet.The Fairness Doctrine is from a time when the “electronic media” was three major networks and AM and FM radio and while they have not come up with more AM frequencies to spread around the discussion should be based on actual availability of viewpoints from all sources rather than the fact that the AM band still only goes from 530 to 1620.
I’m not going to defend the suckage that is AM talk radio, on the right, or the left. And while I agree that there are many more sources of information available to the voter nowadays, there are still only 2 with no significant entry cost; over-the-air radio and over-the-air tv. Cable TV, Satellite radio, the internet are different. These all have significant costs attached, and effectively infinite bandwidth. I don’t see why any fairness regulation is required here. But people without the means to access this information are stuck with a limited number of radio and tv channels, and without a fairness doctrine, they will have their access to information restricted to the most profitable (de facto right wing) sources. And I will restate my belief that the best citizens of a democracy are those with access to multiple points of view that they are able to evaluate for themselves.
you illustrate a left principle, which is those who presume to know what is good for me should control what I watch and listen to,that makes me suspicious of government being involved in media.I have no interest in telling you what to watch or listen to*. What I want is for you (or your neighbour without internet access) to have the opportunity to hear a different point of view. Whether you take that opportunity or not is up to you.And I’ll be honest, i wouldn’t be Canadian if I wasn’t profoundly conflicted about the CRTC and it’s role in what I have access to. The best thing I can say about it is that it prevents abuses by the giant corporate monopoly that controls TV access in my region. But if I wanted Fox News, I can still get it on the internet.*except for House. You should watch that. Hugh Laurie is great.
Re: “But people without the means to access this information are stuck with a limited number of radio and tv channels, and without a fairness doctrine, they will have their access to information restricted to the most profitable (de facto right wing) sources.”So what you are saying then is that even if the AM band had limitless frequencies to give to stations, an opposing viewpoint that has no audience or not enough of one to make a profit needs to be subsidized by the one that does?
And speaking of hearing Rush Limbaugh on the radio, what is your opinion on any attempts to reinstate the “Fairness Doctrine?”Reading conservatives rant about today’s media, I can’t help thinking that what they describe as the heyday of responsible journalism took place while the Fairness Doctrine was still there. In fact, it was so popular that when Reagan repealed it, Congress voted by margins of more than 2-to-1 to keep it; Reagan vetoed it, and for some reason Congress never overrode even though it had the votes for it.The Fairness Doctrine is from a time when the “electronic media” was three major networks and AM and FM radio and while they have not come up with more AM frequencies to spread around the discussion should be based on actual availability of viewpoints from all sources rather than the fact that the AM band still only goes from 530 to 1620.We have the net today, but so what? Not everybody in the US has Internet access. And even people who do, don’t always have the time for it. Radio is the only source of news available to you when you’re driving. That’s why Rush has an audience of 20 million while no Televangelist has ever topped 2.5 million.My theory is that RWTR benefits from a shortage of right leaning opinion/news outlets overall (all media) in comparison to the left leaning opinion/news outlets.Possibly… RWTR also benefits from friendly advertisers. Advertisers are understandably friendlier to radio shows that tell people to vote pro-business than to shows that tell people to vote pro-labor.The right has Fox News and AM Band Talk radio. The left is dominant in everything else. Movies, TV (Sitcoms, Late Night Talk, Network News, Non-Fox cable news. Olbermann is on ESPN for goodness sake!), and big Daily print.I don’t know which movies you have in your area. The ones I get here glorify violence, religious devotion, and do-it-yourself individualism. The US and its military/intelligence/police are always portrayed positively, except when the hero is an insider fighting the establishment (think Mercury Rising). How many movies are there about a labor leader organizing people to fight a corporation, or about a journalist uncovering military corruption?As for sitcoms, meh. All in the Family humanizes racism; as far as I know, there’s no sitcom that humanizes anti-Americanism.
Canuckistani,People with out means have PBS which is tax payer funded government run Liberal/Progressive TV. Internet access is available at any (free) public library and dial up service can be had for as low as $10.00 a month. Hey, it might not be fast but it is available. Trust me folks have plenty of ways of accessing Left/Progressive points of view. Especially when free TV is network TV which is 100% dominated by the Left. Not to mention that two out of three cable networks, CNN and MSNBC, are hard Left. To even assert that the Right is in control of media sources seems silly to me. No, the fairness doctrine is a naked attempted to shut down opposition. We don’t need a fairness doctrine we need respect for and enforcement of the 1st Ammd (which I will not write here because it is well known and self explanatory). I believe you’re sincere when you say,”And I’ll be honest, i wouldn’t be Canadian if I wasn’t profoundly conflicted about the CRTC and it’s role in what I have access to.”And belive me when I say I’m not conflicted in my thinking on this at all. I’ll become disloyal to a government that seeks to control the media. The fairness doctrine isn’t fair it is intrusion on my God given (or human right for my nonbeliever friends)right of freedom conscience.
So what you are saying then is that even if the AM band had limitless frequencies to give to stations, an opposing viewpoint that has no audience or not enough of one to make a profit needs to be subsidized by the one that does?Yes, if the public airwaves are being used for partisan purposes. You can’t have a functioning democracy without an informed electorate, and an electorate that only has the opportunity of getting one side of the story is not going to make sound decisions. It’s a bigger question than more corporate profits.
“an electorate that only has the opportunity of getting one side of the story is not going to make sound decisions.”You are describing a situation that doesn’t exist in the U.S. There are all sorts of sources for people to get whatever side of a story they want. And there is more access to varying information sources than ever before.There’s a reasonable argument to be made about whether or not, or how much the government should be involved in the economy. But the idea that we somehow need government intervention in order for people get both sides of partisan politics is just ridiculous.
Okay, now which opposing view? To balance Limbaugh, who and how many?Naturally we think in terms of Dems v. Republican. But this leaves Naderites without a forum. The Greens will want their slice of time. And the Libertarians. By your standard, unmodified, a station would have to abandon political talk radio.To modify your standard in a way to make it workable you would need to have a drawing or develop a system thank would grant equal time access to given groups based on some level of audience demand.Which is what we have now.And moving away from the philosophical into the practical and empirical: Right now RWTR dominates talk radio. In January, those on the opposite side of the political spectrum will control the White House and both Houses of Congress. Unless you think that the fact that there is a Republican in office somewhere…anywhere…as evidence that the flow of information is out of balance somehow then the case can be made that viewpoints other than that of RWTR are indeed getting out.
“The Fairness Doctrine”: I’m a’gin it.IIRR enthusiasm for reviving TFD began in the Bubba years as a way for desperate Demos to counteract the Talk Radio influence of Rush Limbaugh, et al.This is one area where I am NOT in favor of re-regulation. New media — satellite radio, cable and especially the internet — make the notion that the airwaves are “scarce public resources” for communicating public opinion, which the FCC must regulate in the public interest, about as antique as the need for the ICC to curb monopoly in the buggy whip cartel.A more interesting question, I think, is whether Redneck Radio will survive in the “marketplace of ideas” if the Democrats are hugely successful in revolutionizing political culture through policy successes. Will people still listen to El Rushbo’s “fruited plain” bullshit if his demagoguery and disconnect from reality become screamingly obvious even to the dittoheads, and cause a drop in listeners and revenues?Time will tell. It’s not too early to speculate, but it is too early to predict. The Democrats have to marginalize Limbaugh’s message through governing success first.I don’t think massive success will make Redneck Radio disappear entirely, however. Look how long Bob Grant has been on the air.
Re: “A more interesting question, I think, is whether Redneck Radio will survive in the “marketplace of ideas” if the Democrats are hugely successful in revolutionizing political culture through policy successes. Will people still listen to El Rushbo’s “fruited plain” bullshit if his demagoguery and disconnect from reality become screamingly obvious even to the dittoheads, and cause a drop in listeners and revenues?”A more interesting question, perhaps, but a much less important one. The survival of the marketplace of ideas itself supersedes any concern about any individual’s survival in it.Limbaugh will survive. Believe it.Those that are pushing for the reinstatement of the “Fairness Doctrine” believe it too. Otherwise, why spend any political capital on it?What President Obama will do if such a bill ever hits his desk I don’t know. Is he pushing for it? Maybe. I don’t know that either.Now, Chuck Schumer is another story. If he can get such a bill to the Presidential desk he will do it. No doubt about that.The YouTube video of Schumer comparing the regulation of RWTR to the regulation of porn on the open airways was mind boggling* outside of any context that doesn’t figure him just wanting to shut down the opposition.We have come from people freaking out because Ari Fleischer said in a White House press briefing, “We all need to watch what we say”, because it was soooooo obviously a veiled threat of some sort to the government actually governing how much of what is allowed to be said and where**, with the threat of bankruptcy or license removal as the enforcement action.* I was going to say “chilling”, but in the past 6 or so years it has become the most overused word there is concerning political speech.** One of the reasons I was an unenthusiastic supporter of McCain was the McCain-Feingold restrictions on free speech. The Obama campaign killed that whole thing, essentially, and good riddance. Irony’s a b****.
Re: “*except for House. You should watch that. Hugh Laurie is great.”We have just now discovered House. We love it. But I have to ask…does anyone else start getting odd quasi-imaginary symptoms after watching a few of them?
I discovered House a few months ago. I thought it was a very good crap show.A more interesting question, I think, is whether Redneck Radio will survive in the “marketplace of ideas” if the Democrats are hugely successful in revolutionizing political culture through policy successes.Of course it will. The Democrats were hugely successful with their domestic policy in the 1960s. The poverty rate went down from 22% in 1961 to 12% in 1969. Blacks finally got the right to vote. Retirees were guaranteed health insurance.Instead of silence the right, these successes galvanized it. Suddenly people were no longer concerned with poverty and inequality, so conservatives could rant about taxes and welfare and crime.
Crime shouldn’t be subject to ranting?
Sure it is, as is poverty. My point is that crime was a more salient issue in 1974 than in 1960, both from an absolute perspective and a relative one.
Having been a part of the Online Universal Work Marketing team for 4 months now, I’m thankful for my fellow team members who have patiently shown me the ropes along the way and made me feel welcomewww.onlineuniversalwork.com