This is from the latest Atlatic Monthly. Please read past the "conservatives" part; PJ is a proud Republican, and this article encompasses the whole spectrum by the end. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/07/orourke.htm I Agree with Me When was the last time a conservative talk show changed a mind? by P. J. O'Rourke (excerpts)... Last year, on a long car trip, I was listening to Rush Limbaugh shout. I usually agree with Rush Limbaugh; therefore I usually don't listen to him. I listen to NPR: "World to end—poor and minorities hardest hit." I like to argue with the radio. Of course, if I had kept listening to Limbaugh, whose OxyContin addiction was about to be revealed, I could have argued with him about drugs. I don't think drugs are bad. I used to be a hippie. I think drugs are fun. Now I'm a conservative. I think fun is bad. I would agree all the more with Limbaugh if, after he returned from rehab, he'd shouted (as most Americans ought to), "I'm sorry I had fun! I promise not to have any more!" Anyway, I couldn't get NPR on the car radio, so I was listening to Rush Limbaugh shout about Wesley Clark, who had just entered the Democratic presidential-primary race. Was Clark a stalking horse for Hillary Clinton?! Was Clark a DNC-sponsored Howard Dean spoiler?! "He's somebody's sock puppet!" Limbaugh bellowed. I agreed; but a thought began to form. Limbaugh wasn't shouting at Clark, who I doubt tunes in to AM talk radio the way I tune in to NPR. And "Shari Lewis and Lamb Chop!" was not a call calculated to lure Democratic voters to the Bush camp. Rush Limbaugh was shouting at me. Me. I am a little to the right of ... Why is the Attila comparison used? Fifth-century Hunnish depredations on the Roman Empire were the work of an overpowerful executive pursuing a policy of economic redistribution in an atmosphere of permissive social mores. I am a little to the right of Rush Limbaugh. I'm so conservative that I approve of San Francisco City Hall marriages, adoption by same-sex couples, and New Hampshire's recently ordained Episcopal bishop. Gays want to get married, have children, and go to church. Next they'll be advocating school vouchers, boycotting HBO, and voting Republican. I suppose I should be arguing with my fellow right-wingers about that, and drugs, and many other things. But I won't be. Arguing, in the sense of attempting to convince others, has gone out of fashion with conservatives. The formats of their radio and television programs allow for little measured debate, and to the extent that evidence is marshaled to support conservative ideas, the tone is less trial of Socrates than Johnnie Cochran summation to the O.J. jury. Except the jury—with a clever marketing strategy—has been rigged. I wonder, when was the last time a conservative talk show changed a mind? ... Does the left have this problem? Do some liberals feel as if they're guarding the net while their teammates make a furious rush at their own goal? NPR seems more whiny than hectoring, except at fundraising time. There's supposed to be a lot of liberal advocacy on TV. I looked for things that debased freedom, promoted license, ridiculed responsibility, and denigrated man and God—but that was all of TV. How do you tell the liberal parts from the car ads? Once more I resorted to books. To answer my question I didn't even have to open Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right. But having done so, I found these chapter headings: "Ann Coulter: Nutcase," "You Know Who I Don't Like? Ann Coulter," and "Bill O'Reilly: Lying Splotchy Bully." Michael Moore's previous book was Stupid White Men, titled in a spirit of gentle persuasion unmatched since Martin Luther, that original Antinomian, wrote Against the Murderous and Thieving Hordes of Peasants. Moore's new book, Dude, Where's My Country?, contains ten chapters of fulminations convincing the convinced. However, Moore does include one chapter on how to argue with a conservative. As if. Approached by someone like Michael Moore, a conservative would drop a quarter in Moore's Starbucks cup and hurriedly walk away. Also, Moore makes this suggestion: "Tell him how dependable conservatives are. When you need something fixed, you call your redneck brother-in-law, don't you?" Arguing, in the sense of attempting to convince others, seems to have gone out of fashion with everyone. I'm reduced to arguing with the radio. The distaste for political argument certainly hasn't made politics friendlier—or quieter, given the amount of shouting being done by people who think one thing at people who think the same thing. But I believe I know why this shouting is popular. Today's Americans are working harder than ever, trying to balance increasing personal, family, and career demands. We just don't have time to make ourselves obnoxious. We need professional help.
i agree with his take on rush, franken, et al, which is why i ignore them all, left and right. he makes a crucial error however when he compares conservative opinion rantersm whether they be on the radio ala rush, in print ala coulter, or on TV ala O'reilly, with news media like CNN, NPR (partially supported by public funds!), NYTimes, or indeed the hard news portion of Fox. it's the liberal bias inherent in traditional hard news coverage that makes conservative opinion writers scream and shout.
lmao, Trader_Jorge, nice post. So basso, I hear what you're saying, but if I'm reading you correctly you're mainly saying "yeah, that's right. Nobody wants to really discuss or argue in the true sense of the word, but it's because of the darned liberal media." We can play chicken and egg (and of course the arguments about the media's "bias" have been neverending around here -- I think they're fairly conservative, while I understand why others find the media liberal), but let's shift it. What is the real root of people only sticking with their choirs? O'Rourke flippantly says people are tired from working so hard. I tend to think there must be deeper reasons.
actually not what i'm saying. i think he's correct, that most everyone is preaching to the choir, and this has more to do with the profound schism that exists in american politics today. however, the rise of right-wing opinion media is almost entirely due to a perceived liberal bias in large news organisations. news organisations that suppost conservative editorial boards, be they fox or the WSJ, generally are, at least IMO, more fair and balanced. contrast the way the WSJ reports the news with either the NYTimes or the WaPo. comparing the weekly standard to the NYTimes is useless because one is opinion, the other news. similarly, to say that fox is biased because of Bill O'Reilly misses the point. compare Brit Hume's show with Aaron Brown and you begin to see the point.
I'm right! I know I'm right! Everyone who disagrees with me is wrong because I'm right. I have to be right because to not be right would mean I'm wrong and I can't be wrong because I'm right, right? Challenging yourself and your set beliefs has to be the hardest thing for anyone to do. Because it requires self contemplation and introspection. Things that people (for the most part) are uncomfortable of doing. We don't like to admit that we might be wrong and god forbid that we would have to re-evaluate our positions. It's human nature to rely on the safe and assumed. It's easier to believe ourselves to be right. Because to be wrong and admit it would require acceptance in our shortcomings. Not only would we have to admit it to ourselves, but to others as well. And then there's the whole concept to trying to convince others that you were wrong and now they must either accept the new you or make other friends. To lose the known; to begin fresh and new, that is terrifying to some.
in here at least, i'm mostly a one-issue conservative, iRaq. if we were talking about other, perhaps social, issues i'd come across as much more conservative. my choir however, is not Rush and O'Reilly, bith of whom strike me as strident blowhards the few times i've listened to them. i'm turned off by their tone, less so by what they say. my perception of the democratic party however, is that it's been taken over by leftish equivalents who think all conservatives are evil simply because the have different opinions. perhaps because i'm surrounded by so many people in new york that assume i feel the same way they do, i react more strongly than i would if i still lived in memphis, where my first voice teacher nearly kicked me out because she referred to her maid as her "little chocolate drop" and i had the temerity to suggest perhaps that wasn't the best term to use. down there i was a liberal...context can be important.
I do know what you mean. San Francisco is liberal, to say the least, and I often end up in the "devil's advocate" position here just because it can become an immense pep rally of agreement otherwise. But when I lived in Santa Cruz, man oh man. That place was even more liberal in the sense that most people seemed to adopt a very narrow and homogeneous outlook on all things political. It brought out the inner redneck in me, and I was always saying "freaking hippies" and the like. I had a strong urge to put a gun rack in my Corolla. Anyway, if both parties are run to some extent by their more extreme elements, why did that happen? I understand what mc mark is saying in terms of challenging yourself, and maybe that's just basic human nature. In that sense, are we wrong when we wring our hands and say "oh gee, everything is more polarized today"? I don't think we're wrong. It's almost as if many separate divisions of our populace (economic beliefs, social policy beliefs, et cetera) have lined up in a sort of resonance, real or manufactured. In the 1970's, for instance, there was great disagreement about so many things, but I feel like each issue had its own divisions. Maybe that's not true. At any rate, I do honestly feel like our culture has become progressively louder and more shallow. You need to be brief and you need to use exclamation marks, in some sense throwing your hands toward the camera lens as if recording your pop music video or some such. This has a deep impact on political discourse, I'd say.
I find PJ O'Rourke hilarious. I don't agree with any of his positions but I love the way he states them. Check out his old collection of articles from the first gulf war entitled, "Give War a Chance." I feel the same way about William F. Buckley. Don't agree with him but love to hear him speak. However, Al Franken is right about Rush and O'Reilly.
I thought Parliament of Whores was a very interesting look at American politics (something P.J. has traditionally not covered in favor of politics abroad). Some of my favorite P.J. O'Rourke articles have been his car reviews, though. O'Rourke is closer to my brand of conservatism than many of the more well-known conservatives.
O'rourke is a Cato Institute regular. I would put him more in the the libertarian camp than anywhere else.
