Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck

[PassedOut]

As a long-time conservative unhappy that tobacco-juice-droolers have taken over the republican party in the US, I was heartened to see this column by David Brooks today: Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot

 

Over the years, I have asked many politicians what happens when Limbaugh and his colleagues attack. The story is always the same. Hundreds of calls come in. The receptionists are miserable. But the numbers back home do not move. There is no effect on the favorability rating or the re-election prospects. In the media world, he is a giant. In the real world, he’s not.

 

But this is not merely a story of weakness. It is a story of resilience. For no matter how often their hollowness is exposed, the jocks still reweave the myth of their own power. They still ride the airwaves claiming to speak for millions. They still confuse listeners with voters. And they are aided in this endeavor by their enablers. They are enabled by cynical Democrats, who love to claim that Rush Limbaugh controls the G.O.P. They are enabled by lazy pundits who find it easier to argue with showmen than with people whose opinions are based on knowledge. They are enabled by the slightly educated snobs who believe that Glenn Beck really is the voice of Middle America.

 

So the myth returns. Just months after the election and the humiliation, everyone is again convinced that Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and the rest possess real power. And the saddest thing is that even Republican politicians come to believe it. They mistake media for reality. They pre-emptively surrender to armies that don’t exist.

Where I live (Upper Michigan), Limbaugh, Hannity, and their clones blanket the airwaves and folks think they do have influence (always on other people, of course). It's good to read a contrary opinion.

[Winstonm]

The Republican Party is unpopular because it’s more interested in pleasing Rush’s ghosts than actual people.

 

Mr. Brooks makes an odd argument - he argues that the right-wing media types have no real power - yet it is their influence on the politicians within the Republican Party that is causing the party's decline.

 

I would venture a more simple reasoning to explain the decline of the Republican Party - a growing rejection of their ideology.

[Lobowolf]

I would venture a more simple reasoning to explain the decline of the Republican Party - a growing rejection of their ideology.

Strongly disagree (with one exception). It's a rejection of the war, specifically, and the long-standing shift away from the party in power whenever there's a poor economy. Anything beyond that is a stretch.

[Lobowolf]

As a long-time conservative

Just going by the BBF conversations, I'd have guessed you to be more of a moderate. If you still consider yourself a conservative, what are some of the core conservative beliefs you adhere to?

[Winstonm]

I would venture a more simple reasoning to explain the decline of the Republican Party - a growing rejection of their ideology.

Strongly disagree (with one exception). It's a rejection of the war, specifically, and the long-standing shift away from the party in power whenever there's a poor economy. Anything beyond that is a stretch.

I chose the phrase "Republican ideology" for a reason. I believe Republican ideology no longer reflects conservative ideas. The party has been hijacked and marginalized.

[jdonn]

I would venture a more simple reasoning to explain the decline of the Republican Party - a growing rejection of their ideology.

Strongly disagree (with one exception). It's a rejection of the war, specifically, and the long-standing shift away from the party in power whenever there's a poor economy. Anything beyond that is a stretch.

I completely disagree with both of you. I think the main reason is demographic. A growing percentage of the population is minority (mostly due to hispanic influx), and a growing percentage of the population is urban. Those are groups that tend to lean strongly democratic. That Obama appeals so strongly to the younger population of voters has made that shift even larger, at least in the short to medium term.

 

Frankly, saying the Republican party is declining because they have gotten away from their ideology is a false excuse* that is usually (though not always) made by Republicans and former Republicans. Not that they don't believe it, I just think they are kidding themselves. As for the war, that hardly seems to be on the minds of the general public any more, it can't be used as a reason for the current prevailing views.

 

*I want to clarify that I mean to say as a statement it's true, but as an excuse for their current unpopularity it's false.

[awm]

Disagreeing with Josh's points to some degree...

 

The Republicans used to do pretty well with Hispanic voters. They were not overwhelmingly voting democrat until the last election. So what happened? One thing is that the Republicans started spewing a lot of rhetoric about "illegal immigrants" that seems like thinly-disguised racism. They blame "illegal immigrants" for everything from the economy to the health care crisis to terrorism and want to crack down -- yet refuse to even consider penalties against employers who offer these folks jobs. And calling Judge Sotomayor a racist? Sure, they can oppose her nomination based on her rulings if they want, but racist? No wonder the Hispanic vote is trending towards the Dems.

 

The Republicans also used to do pretty well with younger voters. Of course, Obama has his particular appeal to youth. But the Republicans have also taken some positions (like being radically anti-gay) which are out of step with America's younger voters. The current health insurance reform bill is likely to screw over a lot of under-employed young adults in this country (basically forcing them to buy health insurance they don't think they will need, and then causing their rates to go up by mandating that insurance companies reduce the gap between premiums based on age). But the Republicans aren't pointing that out. In fact, they are in favor of those reforms (i.e. the reforms that are a big giveaway to insurance) -- they just want to make sure we don't have a public option that might actually help lower costs. Instead, they are making up stuff about death panels to try to scare our senior citizens.

 

The Republicans also seem to be anti-education. Besides their policies (which seem to be against public schools, cutting the university budgets at the state level, cutting funding for scientific research) they also continually nominate people who were educational under-performers (both Bush and McCain got into college on daddy's reputation, then slid by with "gentleman's C's"). America's youth is increasingly college-educated and places some value on education, as well as tending to believe in some basic science like evolution and global warming. By continuing to bow to the anti-science "religious right" they are losing a pretty high percentage of the young generations.

 

Note that none of these positions are necessarily "conservative" in the sense of believing in limited government or balanced budgets. Nor are they really "conservative" in the sense of believing in religious values -- an awful lot of Christian religion is about helping the poor and the sick, and the Republicans seem more interested in helping the rich and the powerful. It does seem like the Republican politicians are more and more often repeating the sensationalist lies of Limbaugh and his ilk. And while this might get some nods from the religious right, it doesn't play well outside their own base.

[mike777]

If the general perception of the Republican party or conservatives is that they are:

1) anti Hispanic

2) anti education

3) anti basic science research

4) pro the rich and powerful

 

they got big problems.

[jdonn]

I don't see where you disagree with me Adam. Republicans have traditionally been strongest with older rural white males. The percentage of the population that belongs to the groups "rural" and "white" are significantly lower than they used to be. You have simply stated potential factors behind my conclusions.

[PassedOut]

As a long-time conservative

Just going by the BBF conversations, I'd have guessed you to be more of a moderate. If you still consider yourself a conservative, what are some of the core conservative beliefs you adhere to?

Speaking politically, I believe in fiscal responsibility, conservation of natural resources, responsible foreign policy decisions (based on facts), and a limited, fair, efficient, practical government.

[awm]

My point is that there are two possible conclusions to draw. These are:

 

(1) The Republican message has not changed over the years, but the nation's demographics have. The growth in Hispanic population (and non-Christian population, and youth population) is killing the Republican party's chances.

 

(2) The Republican message has changed to become less tolerant of various groups such as Hispanics, non-Christians, and young people. This is hurting the Republican party's chances.

 

Josh's post seemed to be blaming the problem on (1) whereas I think there's a lot of (2). There have always been right-wing fringe elements (represented by Limbaugh for example) who preach non-tolerance. The problem is that these people have gotten more airtime (thank Fox news) and that the Republican politicians have become more likely to parrot their talking points. The Republican "old guard" (people like Bob Dole) who are fiscally conservative but don't necessarily conform to the extremist social views of the religious right are being replaced with crazies like Sarah Palin.

[Lobowolf]

My point is that there are two possible conclusions to draw. These are:

 

(1) The Republican message has not changed over the years, but the nation's demographics have. The growth in Hispanic population (and non-Christian population, and youth population) is killing the Republican party's chances.

 

(2) The Republican message has changed to become less tolerant of various groups such as Hispanics, non-Christians, and young people. This is hurting the Republican party's chances.

 

Josh's post seemed to be blaming the problem on (1) whereas I think there's a lot of (2). There have always been right-wing fringe elements (represented by Limbaugh for example) who preach non-tolerance. The problem is that these people have gotten more airtime (thank Fox news) and that the Republican politicians have become more likely to parrot their talking points. The Republican "old guard" (people like Bob Dole) who are fiscally conservative but don't necessarily conform to the extremist social views of the religious right are being replaced with crazies like Sarah Palin.

(3) Republicans were in the White House and in a majority in congress when the economy tanked and an unpopular war was entered into, which resulted in a massive vote for change. When people are unhappy with "the government" at some point in the near to mid-term future when Democrats are in charge, there will be a similar reversal.

[jdonn]

(1) The Republican message has not changed over the years, but the nation's demographics have. The growth in Hispanic population (and non-Christian population, and youth population) is killing the Republican party's chances.

 

(2) The Republican message has changed to become less tolerant of various groups such as Hispanics, non-Christians, and young people. This is hurting the Republican party's chances.

 

Josh's post seemed to be blaming the problem on (1) whereas I think there's a lot of (2).

I don't disagree with you about 2, I simply believe 2 follows from 1. The chain goes like this.

 

1 is change.

Change leads to fear.

Fear leads to intolerance.

Intolerance is 2.

 

And since the change from 1 is going (more) against Republicans, it is Republicans who have (more) fallen to 2.

 

(3) Republicans were in the White House and in a majority in congress when the economy tanked and an unpopular war was entered into, which resulted in a massive vote for change.  When people are unhappy with "the government" at some point in the near to mid-term future when Democrats are in charge, there will be a similar reversal.

I don't doubt 3 exists as a temporary effect, and will lead to a similar temporary reversal, and back and forth they go. But you are ignoring permanent effects occuring at the same time. It's like a sine wave with a slight downward slope, and you are focused on the up and down motion which does exist but missing the downward slope. All in my esteemed opinion, of course.

[Winstonm]

(3) Republicans were in the White House and in a majority in congress when the economy tanked and an unpopular war was entered into, which resulted in a massive vote for change. When people are unhappy with "the government" at some point in the near to mid-term future when Democrats are in charge, there will be a similar reversal

 

Sounds good - if you ignore facts.

 

The NBER officially set the date of the start of the recession to December of 2007 - after the 2006 midterm elections had been determined as a win for the Democrats.

 

The "unpopular" war was not an "unpopular" war when it started - what caused the war's unpopularity was the discovery that our leaders took us to war based on lies and "doctored" intelligence.

 

It wasn't the economy that caused Obama's victory - it was the voting out and crushing defeat of the "nooklar party".

[Lobowolf]

 

The NBER officially set the date of the start of the recession to December of 2007 - after the 2006 midterm elections had been determined as a win for the Democrats.

 

But long after the war was decidedly unpopular.

 

 

 

The "unpopular" war was not an "unpopular" war when it started - what caused the war's unpopularity was the discovery that our leaders took us to war based on   lies and "doctored" intelligence.

 

Also causing the war's unpopularity was how long it lasted and how many American lives have been lost. It wasn't the quick and easy win people expected/hoped for.

 

 

It wasn't the economy that caused Obama's victory - it was the voting out and crushing defeat of the "nooklar party".

 

The defeat of the Republicans doesn't explain Obama's victory; it restates it. A tremendously effective predictor of political races, historically, is the state of the economy. If it's good, the party in power can expect good things in an election, and if it's bad, they can expect bad things.

 

Part of the discussion depends on what we mean by "Republican ideology" and "decline of the Republican party" (registration numbers? failure in elections?) Ultimately, elections give you 2 choices -- this guy, or that guy. Extrapolating that entire philosophies have been embraced or rejected is painting with too broad a brush.

 

 

With respect to Josh's point about the sine wave and the decline, I think that the sine wave is so much bigger than any gradual demographic shift that it swamps it in significance, and will for a long, long time. The shift that we've seen in election results has been sudden and dramatic, which is why I attribute it more to the ebb and flow than to gradual demographic trends. A similar explanation could have been given to the Clinton victory in 1992 after 12 years of a Republican White House, but shortly thereafter, we got the first Republican congress in decades, and 8 years of Bush. Even taking the position that it should have been Gore in 2000, we went from a clear preference for Clinton over Bush then Dole to a virtual toss-up.

 

With respect to Adam's comments regarding illegal immigration, just about all white racists are opposed to illegal immigration, but that doesn't mean that anything close to a majority of people who oppose illegal immigration are racists, and I would posit that most of the middle third, politically, are solidly against illegal immigration, and solidly opposed to the conflation of "immigration" and "illegal immigration" wherein they are mischaracterized as being "anti-immigration." Of course, they're pretty much sold out equally by politicians on both sides, for different reasons.

[Winstonm]

Extrapolating that entire philosophies have been embraced or rejected is painting with too broad a brush.

 

I agree.

 

But from what I have seen from those Republicans elected to Congress and from the statements of Republican Party leadership, that party has been marginalized by allowing their most extreme elements to control the image of the party as a whole.

[mike777]

Extrapolating that entire philosophies have been embraced or rejected is painting with too broad a brush.

 

I agree.

 

But from what I have seen from those Republicans elected to Congress and from the statements of Republican Party leadership, that party has been marginalized by allowing their most extreme elements to control the image of the party as a whole.

And to you is that image basically a racist one that cares only for the rich and powerful?

[Winstonm]

It is interesting how differently we remember things. For example you say:

 

Also causing the war's unpopularity was how long it lasted and how many American lives have been lost. It wasn't the quick and easy win people expected/hoped for.

 

My remembrance is that Donald Rumsfeld (via "intelligence" from Chalabi) sold the idea of a quick and easy war, a war that would pay for itself, and a war where we would be embraced as a liberating force.

[MattieShoe]

A bit of a tangent, but is anybody else tired of the republican/democrat dichotomy thing? I'm fiscally conservative (what republicans claim to be anyway...) but socially permissive (what democrats claim to be anyway...)

 

Now I suppose the closest label for that would be libertarian, but because all reasonably moderate voters are subsumed by democrat/republican, those identifying themselves as libertarian are generally much more extreme than me.

 

So what do you call somebody like me, fairly moderate with sizable objections to both parties?

 

I like to call it "sane", but I'm sure some would disagree :D

[Lobowolf]

A bit of a tangent, but is anybody else tired of the republican/democrat dichotomy thing? I'm fiscally conservative (what republicans claim to be anyway...) but socially permissive (what democrats claim to be anyway...)

 

Now I suppose the closest label for that would be libertarian, but because all reasonably moderate voters are subsumed by democrat/republican, those identifying themselves as libertarian are generally much more extreme than me.

 

So what do you call somebody like me, fairly moderate with sizable objections to both parties?

 

I like to call it "sane", but I'm sure some would disagree :D

I call it "small-L libertarian," and apply it to myself, too.

 

And yes, I'm very tired of it.

[Lobowolf]

It is interesting how differently we remember things. For example you say:

 

Also causing the war's unpopularity was how long it lasted and how many American lives have been lost. It wasn't the quick and easy win people expected/hoped for.

 

My remembrance is that Donald Rumsfeld (via "intelligence" from Chalabi) sold the idea of a quick and easy war, a war that would pay for itself, and a war where we would be embraced as a liberating force.

I don't think I said anything in contradiction of that. But even if the war hadn't been "sold" at all, or even if there were no doubt that there were WMD, or that the war was directly tied into 9-11, the duration and the mounting death toll still would have made it unpopular, and less popular than in the early days. Misrepresentations are certainly a sufficient condition for the war's unpopularity, but they weren't a necessary condition.

[matmat]

A bit of a tangent, but is anybody else tired of the republican/democrat dichotomy thing? I'm fiscally conservative (what republicans claim to be anyway...) but socially permissive (what democrats claim to be anyway...)

 

Now I suppose the closest label for that would be libertarian, but because all reasonably moderate voters are subsumed by democrat/republican, those identifying themselves as libertarian are generally much more extreme than me.

 

So what do you call somebody like me, fairly moderate with sizable objections to both parties?

 

I like to call it "sane", but I'm sure some would disagree :D

donkophant.

[hrothgar]

Personally, I think that identify politics are the most persuasive explanation for what we're seeing in the US right now.

 

I certainly agree that the politics in the US are cyclical. Individual parties ebb and flow. However, the recent collapse of the Republican party has been a focused one. If you look at the Republican Party today, it is (essentially) limited to three identify characteristics:

 

One is geographic region: The Old South and Appalachia

One is religion: Evangelical Christians

The last is the rural / urban divide.

 

In many ways, this all feels like an extension of Nixon's Southern Strategy. Johnson's decision to push forward with Civil Right's legislation created an extremely powerful political realignment in this country. When Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he famously told an aide "We've Lost the South for a generation". Nixon's Southern Strategy quickly proved him correct.

 

Unfortunately for the GOP, Republican strategists clearly over reached. They've invested so much time and energy courting the South, that they've alienated most of the rest of the country. Moreover, they've been courting the South with a messaging strategy that appeals wonderfully to large elements of the Republican base that doesn't resonate at all outside of it.

 

At the most basic level, if your entire strategy is designed to attract idiots, you're going to have a real hard time attracting anyone with more than half a brain...

[kenberg]

At the most basic level, if your entire strategy is designed to attract idiots, you're going to have a real hard time attracting anyone with more than half a brain...

This sums it up pretty well.

 

 

There are some other simple explanations that I think have some merit. No doubt Bill Clinton had a weakness for bimbos, but actually the coutry fared pretty well during the Clinton years and not so well during the Bush years. I imagine the collapse of the Soviet Union made it a lot easier for Clinton to look good but he didn't screw it up. Bush cannot be blamed, although some try, for the catastrophe of 9-11 but you do not have to be an ideological extremist to conclude that he badly misjudged the consequences of invading Iran.

 

I grew up in a neighborhood that is pretty representative of a large section of the country. My father went through Ellis Island when he was ten, finished grade school and went to work. Folks like this are by no means ignorant but they don't read the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times and they take a practical approach. If things are not going so well, maybe the other guys can do better. They understand that crime has to be dealt with, there is a reason we have a military, and things we get have to be paid for. For example, my mother had the mid-western populist distrust of politicians and their wars, but she explained to me when I was thirteen or so that I should join the Navy rather than the Army because you don't hear much about ships going down and anyway you get better food. A political party ignores this practical orientation at its peril.

[Winstonm]

Extrapolating that entire philosophies have been embraced or rejected is painting with too broad a brush.

 

I agree.

 

But from what I have seen from those Republicans elected to Congress and from the statements of Republican Party leadership, that party has been marginalized by allowing their most extreme elements to control the image of the party as a whole.

And to you is that image basically a racist one that cares only for the rich and powerful?

I don't think of the Republican image as being racist. The Republican Party strikes me as dishonest, never allowing facts to interfere with the story they repeat over and over and over.