David brooks: "Rush blared the trumpets, but few of his dittoheads advanced."

We loved reading the NYT's David Brooks (our favorite conservative) Friday, about how little Rush Limbaugh, and other right-wing blabbermeisters media actually effect voters, and real polling numbers. How Republicans have bought the "Media Mythology," that's nothing but a small-ball tactic that retards their wandering back in from the desert.

His column, which infuriated the tea-bagger right, buttresses what we've written about local radio for years: even after months of Monson, or Carlson, or Wilbur, or Weissbach, or Shiers blarting away against a candidate, touting a ballot measure, nothing much happens on election day. 

Does anyone expect political things to change in Seattle after the self-referential, three-ring circus tour by Glenn Beck?

Is it the dawning of a revolution as he predicted? We've seen these revolutionaries, and most couldn't be far enough away from a bathroom  to bring down the government.  (We're just praying that one of these armchair warriors with a gun collection doesn't take Beck to mean they should shoot up a local synagogue or a welfare office).

Brooks comes from the long out-of-fashion "sane wing" of the Republican Party who reject those who  "... adopt the radio entertainer’s niche-building strategy, while abandoning the politician’s coalition-building strategy." The radio entertainers have done right well for themselves: Beck's overall viewership, frinstance, has climbed an astonishing 89%, and in the 25-54 demo, by 136%.

He points out that Rush, Dobbs, Hannity, Beck, etc., have few, if any, election-day successes. They did help George W. Bush get re-elected (though they're kinda quiet about that these days) and have managed to scare some politicians who perpetually mistake all the noise for some kind of majority. But as far as driving numbers and electing Republicans, right-wing media has made little besides a hullabaloo for years.

We yield to Brooks:

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.

They pay more attention to Rush’s imaginary millions than to the real voters down the street. The Republican Party is unpopular because it’s more interested in pleasing Rush’s ghosts than actual people. The party is leaderless right now because nobody has the guts to step outside the rigid parameters enforced by the radio jocks and create a new party identity. The party is losing because it has adopted a radio entertainer’s niche-building strategy, while abandoning the politician’s coalition-building strategy.

The rise of Beck, Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and the rest has correlated almost perfectly with the decline of the G.O.P. But it’s not because the talk jocks have real power. It’s because they have illusory power, because Republicans hear the media mythology and fall for it every time.

Comments

[thothman]

Has broadcasting become narrowcasting? Preaching only to the choirs? I try to read Drudge and HuffPost to get both sides. But I know each is slanted. Where is the golden middle Aristotle described?

[AuthenticAndrew]

You're the middle.

[AuthenticAndrew]

This article makes a big mistake; it confuses political advocacy and personal destruction. Just becuase talk radio is bad at promoting an agenda doesn't mean they aren't good at character assassination. Ask Hillary. Michael Steele had good cause to worry. Even though only a small percent of Republicans listen to Limbaugh, the headlines were seen by many and they weren't favorable. Talk radio is much better at portraying Obama as the joker, or a monkey or a Kenyan than promoting something like personal health savings accounts. Talk radio can destroy people. That's why phrases like Obamacare bug me, they prompt the listeners to HATE the man first, then consider the plan second, if at all. It's sad.

[AuthenticAndrew]

Commentary: GOP celebrates U.S. defeat

"to all the critics happy about us losing the 2016 games, turn in your flag lapel pins and stop boasting of being so patriotic. When an American city loses, like New York did in the the last go-round, we all lose. And all you critics are on the same level as the America haters all across the world.

You should be shouted down for not backing your own country. The next time any of you bang out a press release about "Buy American" or "Support our troops," remember this moment when your cynical, callous and small-minded brains happily rejoiced when America lost the 2016 Olympic Games
"

[mrogi]

The success of Rush Limbaugh is totally independent of which political party is in power. Rush rose to prominence during the George Bush senior administration. He became a superstar during the Clinton years. Rush was subsequently signed to the biggest radio contract in history while Bush junior was in office. Rush continues to prosper with Obama in the White House. The liberal progs will never comprehend Limbaugh's pimp hand.

[sparky]

And there are two prime examples of what Brooks is talking about...

[joanie]

Right on, Sparky.

Good comments, Andrew. While these media jocks may be addressing a "slightly educated" niche, their words can result in real harm. The people that listen to them are the gun-packing crazies.

And mrogi aka judas, your comment doesn't really make sense. This column is not about entertainment; it is about the effect these entertainers do or do not have on real-world politics. I imagine they all think of themselves as entertainers. Do you think they affect the political reality? Or do you think?

[joanie]

Brooks is right to say that "there is no Beck or Limbaugh 'majority,'" said Marc Ambinder in The Atlantic, but that doesn't mean their power is an illusion. The GOP of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck isn't the party Brooks embraces, "but it's the GOP distilled to its essence. And it's one reason why, midterm gains next year notwithstanding, Republicans must incorporate these elements into whatever coalition it builds for the future."

It's too bad the ranters are getting so much attention, said Peggy Noonan in The Wall Street Journal. It's dangerous and destructive when a left-wing radio jock says Republicans "want to see you dead," and a right-wing radio talker says "the republic is failing." That's one reason it's so painful to be losing so many of the "Elders of journalism" -- William Safire, Walter Cronkite, Bob Novak, Don Hewitt, Irving Kristol. "They were tough guys who got in big fights," but they knew where the line was, and they put country first.

From politico. I also wonder about the influence these guys have over younger voters, if any. We are not as educated today as we were forty years ago. Poverty is higher. People are desperate. And when I think about those Wall Street bailouts, I get a little crazy myself.

Our future is anybody's guess.

[Sam's ass]

Younger voters don't listen to talk radio.

[M.Steele]

I wonder how long it will take before he walks his position back. Or maybe he and Senator Graham represent the Republicans finally gaining a back bone and maybe their wits.

[sparky]

I think in the next few years we will see just how "smart" Rush is. Talk radio is dying, Beck has usurped him as the go-to voice of Republicans based on his television show, and voters are showing they are not influenced by his orders. Will he reinvent himself on some other medium? Or will he burn out on his drugs.

[AuthenticAndrew]

"Younger voters don't listen to talk radio." - Sam's ass (??)

young voters don't vote either.

[KS]

I agree with Brooks, but for different reasons than the Lib Progs do.

Talk radio will not decrease much at all in the next few years (conservative or liberal), but it won't grow much from now either, based on the past 10 years of listener data. However, the medium may well change from radio stations to streaming internet stations. It depends more on how people respond and if they wake up, which is starting to happen. With all due respect, on a large scale, talk radio is background noise that can influence things more for the masses in the time of controversy.

More young people pay more attention to the Daily Show but they don't vote as much either.

[M.Steele]

Did it ever occur to you KS, that your meandering thoughts only make sense to you?

[chucks]

"We are not as educated as we were forty years ago"
When did you start teaching Joanie?
"Poverty is higher"
When did LBJ's Great Society programs start to kick in?
I agree with many of you that people like Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck and their radio and/or TeeVee programs are starting to wane. In another twenty or so years, they will be gone and others will move in and take the lead.

[editor]

"We loved reading the NYT's David Brooks Friday ..."

"we" who?

The style and manner of composition on this blog is befuddling at best, embarrassing at worst, but always good for an arched eyebrow, a suppressed chuckle and a golden wink.

Obviously, I get the use of the imperial 'we' by a lonely, basement typist is an aspirational emulation of the nouveau hip new media; a sort-of stylistic trend following of the provocateurs of pagination who self-style themselves a 'creative class.' And that verbiage goes well on sites like lostateminor.com or giantrobot, but here - on a non-frills blog hosting the passive aggressive ramblings of a graying - though affable - old lib it just strikes one as a bit off-kilter.

Be yourself, don't try to be someone else.

[sparky]

I don't know if people were more educated 40 years ago so much as people took education much more seriously. It was an important goal to attain one and people made great sacrifices so their children could get one. Education today would be a lot different if more people felt that way now.

[chucks]

Many of us do. I raised my children knowing that the only choice was to what university they where going to attend. College is the natural next step. Two of the are successful WSU and UW grads and number three went to trade school and is happily and gainfully employed doing what he enjoys.
It is just so hard to guide your kids in to picking friends with similar goals while growing up.
Oh well. Next.

[M.Steele]

Looks like the Republicans are possibly turning the corner. This movement maybe gaining slight momentum, an opening intellectuals can run through. Though the cons are the Pepto-Bismol that can seize up the openings lighting fast.
But in the end the author conjures a strange logic. He envisions the top purveyor of conspiracy as the expectant redeemer. Is the author just a plain crank trying influence a change in the program or preemptively apologizing? We will see Monday.

[Puget Sound]

Good job, Chucks.
To be a successful parent is a real achievement.
Fewer americans are choosing that path.
For those that elect or have chosen a childless life I can only tell ya that you're missing the ride of a lifetime.
Oh well, next!
I like David Brooks a lot. He makes sense to me.

[KS]

"Did it ever occur to you KS, that your meandering thoughts only make sense to you?"

MS - Now you know how I see your posts. So what did you not understand ? Allow me to enlighten you, or are you purposely being obtuse ?

[M.Steele]

Well KS, I sat and wondered if I should answer your plaintive request, and here is my judgment. Here is an example. Your statement… “It depends more on how people respond and if they wake up, which is starting to happen.” It is full of ambiguities. Like, what depends, and if people wakeup what is the response we are looking for? Or how about what are they waking up from? And the unusual rationalization “if they …, which is starting to happen” follows no known logic on earth. Though you may be a creature from outer space, I do not know. Your strange grammar coupled with your logical loop de loops make you posts hard to comprehend. I am sure folks with more experience with the rhetoric you expose will understand your point. But for those of us that do not frequent “Free repuck la lick”, you are their representative. Reread Hoods post. Maybe you will gain some incite.

Stay cool my huckleberry.

[AuthenticAndrew]

I think the devaluation of education correlates to the devaluation of America's overall worth. Blue collar industries we used to dominate are have long since been taken over by China, Korea, Japan, etc. White collars work is outsourced to India.

What I find sad is that a lot of conservatives attributed out high worth to patriotic notions, such as the idea that we enjoyed urban opulence and security because we're "hard working Americas", America is the greatest country on Earth, etc. Well guess what; they work their asses off in Indonesia as well. And now that we're equalizing with the rest of the world they blame the downfall of our way of living on anti-Americanism, i.e. Glenn Becks "the America I know would have rebuilt the twin towers as they were but twice as high and twice as strong." Grown men acting like blubbering babies complete with tears and everything.

If anything we should take a hint from the Jew and learn to be financially resilient rather than functionally obsolete.

[joanie]

"We are not as educated as we were forty years ago"
When did you start teaching Joanie?

Actually, this is my twentieth year. I wasn't in time to educate you, chux. Too bad.

But I keep trying anyway.

The problem I see with the fact that the young don't vote is that they will vote some day. And their propaganized brains will parrot chux.

Andrew, we never were the greatest country. We were always the youngest. We had the energy, vigor, natural resources, open frontier and freedom to do whatever we wanted.

Now that we are a little older, have spent our resources, have given our money back to the lords and ladies of wall street, we'll see what we're really made of. I doubt the "stuff of us" will be impressive.

I remember watching David Frum on The Hour, a Canadian show. He's Canadian and his mother was quite the celebrity. I didn't know that. He seems like a nice man with a bit of a brain. When George asked him, "will you vote for Palin if she's the nominee?" Frum smied and thought about it.

"Well, one has to stick to his team, doesn't he?" (or something like that.) George just looked at him.

I think you have to be an idiot to belong to the Rs.

[KS]

Such a waste of critical thinking. Easy for you hiding behind that veil to say something as insipid and stupid as displayed above. Same old shit...

[sparky]

What have you contributed lately, KS, besides insults and name calling?

[joanie]

Didn't know where to post this so am posting it here: Randi sometimes sounds like she's eating sour grapes. Now is one of those times. She's denigrating Olbermann's hour last night.

He was passionate and authentic. He's cheesy sometimes. Over-dramatic. I turn him off. But he was authentic last night. So give him a break, Randi

I turn her off sometimes, too. She's over-bearing and self-righteous often. Doesn't always get the caller's point and then takes an attitude. She knows her stuff and I admire and respect her. But she's not perfect either.

She ought to do her show and let Olbermann do his.

[KS]

"What have you contributed lately, KS, besides insults and name calling? "

Exposing the truth, justice and other stuff that Lib Progs like yourself frown upon. I know better than to ask what you have contributed because its apparent - diddly squat... I just feel in an insulting mood and respect is waning.