John Derbyshire’s cover story for the latest issue of TAC, taking aim at Limbaugh, Hannity, and rest of the right-wing squawkers, is now online. Enjoy!
How Radio Wrecks the Right
11 Responses to How Radio Wrecks the Right
-
and yet says:
I love Derbyshire but I was disappointed in this article. This was not because his call for some sort of “middlebrow” conservative programming was not spot on, and not because his criticisms were all wrong; I guess two things bothered me.
First – you guys ought to reach out to Glenn Beck, not lump him in with Hannity. Glenn admits when he is wrong, Glenn is with us on the border, on spending, and on trying to educate people using the writings of the founders. Indeed, Glenn is genuinely trying to educate himself in what you might call the conservative classics. Give the guy a break – he is closer to the American Conservative than anyone else on the air and moving closer all the time. Instead of pummeling him as a “neocon devationist and wrecker” or whatever, you might try embracing him. I mean, I know there is no real need to cultivate people like Beck as there are dozens of paleos with high-rated national talk sh.. oh, wait, nevermind…
Second, there seems to be a desire on the part of a lot of folks here to spend most of the column space heaping scorn on those who agree with you 60% of the time, rather than attacking those who disagree with you 95% of the time. I know a lot of the neo-cons are ex-Trotskyite, but the most unattractive part of movement leftism – attacking the “splitters and devationists” with far more venom than you reserve for those who hate everything you stand for – is becoming a characteristic of this magazine. This is getting really annoying.
-
I may write about this more in another forum, but I’m beginning to think Glenn Beck may end up being the John T. Flynn of this generation.
-
Tony says:
I agree with the points on Beck, but disagree with the point on attacking neo-cons. There aren’t many conservative publications that are against the neo-cons and their positions, and in order for conservatism to get its good name back and to get the country back to foreign and domestic non-interventionism. Also, it could be disputed that we agree with the neo-cons 60 percent of the time: we disagree on foreign policy, monetary policy, immigration policy, and what place religion holds in the debate. That seems like more than 60 percent to me.
-
Steve says:
First, I find Mark Levin irritating; I don’t care for Hannity; Rush I enjoy since he no longer pushes the Iraq mistake with enthusiasm. I have to agree with something Michael Savage once said — to paraphrase – Savage is a performance artist and he has to say some things to be heard on others.
Why not just say to the critics — Yes, this is our performance artist. Please, feel free to compare him to the ones on the Left. Savage also can play the straight-shooting Uncle in conversations. He will discuss literature; he will attack Republicans; he will discuss the sting of having dreams shot down by affirmative action; he will discuss his own anger and cussedness. What it amounts to is the guy is a radio treasure. I, too, could give you a list of things he has said that I thought were ridiculous or a bit crazy. But he is having a human conversation, unlike, say, Levin, you don’t need to agree with everything Savage says to enjoy his show. And Savage’s callers can be amazing learned people. From historians to insiders in the financial world, interesting people pop up on his show. Listen off and on for three months and you will hear it.
The problem is with our politicians and intellectuals. They are not out there mixing it up. They should be conducting the debates with a sportsmen’s sense of fair play. Instead, they can’t do anything for us. It was the citizen soldiers of talk radio that defeated immigration reform. It is ballot measures that are introduced by the unwashed that go against affirmative action, as our pols quiver on the sideline. It can be raining Democratic corruption and our guys can’t touch it with a twenty foot mike boom. Yet, a couple perverted e-mails by one of our disgraced congressmen have the shelf life of nuclear waste. Our guys can’t fight. They can’t fight as street fighters; they can’t fight as sportsmen.
Good lord, take away talk radio. Yeah, give me Boehner, Lindsey, McCain, Gergen and others. That seems to be what we get when we are told to mellow out. Tell me what still living Republican ever came out and rallied the troops on anything?
Don’t poke at us with our own pitchfork. Jab it at the Republican establishment’s balls. I can guarantee no matter how carefull you aim you will miss. The truth is our Repubs don’t have the balls, the brains or the PR skills for the political confrontations. If you’re coming from the Right, you are going to need all those things — the media and the Dem. establishment have plenty of wall space for the heads of Repubs who are going to be good sports.
Steve -
SteveM says:
“The Derb” should be re-christened “The Self-Absorbed Crank”.
He has nothing interesting to say. TAC should lose him. Send him back to NRO where he can wax poetic about cleaning his guns while perched in his tree house.
Idiot…
-
Jack Tracey says:
Wow. People who read this site feel really strongly about talk radio. I didn’t expect that. I agree with the article that the “godfather” and his imitators shouldn’t lead the discussion about conservatism or be the voice of conservatism to the public at large, but I really don’t see who else is in a position to fill that role in the traditional media.
I did have a strange experience regarding Glenn Beck. I had always dismissed him as another talk radio goof, but my dad really enjoys him, so I took my dad to Beck’s Christmas special. I wasn’t sure what to expect, but I figured it would be something fairly political or at least patriotic. Instead, it was a deeply stirring and jarringly personal one man show. I was just shocked and fascinated. I didn’t know anything about the man or his opinions, but I just supposed he was another Rush. I’ve since seen YouTube clips and heard snippets of his show where he appears to be earnestly searching for practical, prudent conservative principles. He also doesn’t seem to be just another mouthpiece for the GOP or a self-important egotist.
-
TM says:
SteveM,
Listen to Derb’s podcasts – they’re fantastic. He’s more American Conservative than National Review.
-
WRW says:
I have issues with Derbyshire, but wasn’t his point simply as Tracey noted, that the talk show hosts shouldn’t dominate the debate? And I don’t think he asserted someone else (the irrelevant Gergen or others) should replace them, but rather that something should be added to them to further the debate.
Those who complain Derbyshire caricatured these folks are doing the same to his argument.
As for Beck, well, he raises the whole Mormon question addressed earlier.
The real problem for the Right, is that the GOP isn’t interested in conservative politics and most of its supporters aren’t either.
-
TM, maybe I’ll listen as penance for Lent. But I’ll have to murder someone first to make the punishment fit the crime.
About talk radio. They say that even a broken watch is right twice a day. I can’t read Derbyshire’s article because.. . Well, just because.
But no matter what he wrote, Limbaugh and Hannity, et al., after rationalizing the Bush travesty for 8 years, have absolutely no credibility. The fact that mainstream Republicans still kowtow to those nitwits and push them out as Conservative mouthpieces just illustrates how warped the Party has become.
Toss Karl Rove’s column for the WSJ into the mix of egregious Bushian has-beens playing “Never mind”. Opining portentously about how Obama has to watch that spending does not get out of control! Of course from his comfortable perch at Fat & Happy Consulting on K Street.
BTW, Limbaugh is already trying to make this Obama’s recession. I think Obama’s strategy is wrong. But he sure as hell did not invent it. Limbaugh and his pals are now in the process of covering up their feckless stupidity.
Pathetic…
-
Tom Williams says:
The article (and some of the comments) falsely characterizes Limbaugh and Hannity as displaying “blind loyalty” and “yoking themselves to the clueless George W. Bush and his free-spending administration.” Where did you get that — the Daily Show? Both railed constantly against the growth of Welfare State behavior under Bush, e.g., the prescription drug subsidies.
As for phrases like “feminazi,” which was coined as a way to point out the fascist successes of the “feminist” movement. Seems to me that that counts as effective rhetoric.
Which brings me to my thesis sentence: the reason we need Limbaugh and the rest of ‘em is that most post-Reagan Republican politicians begin their speeches by agreeing with the Left.
Personal demographics: I listen to Rush (approximately 1/2 hour) and NPR voluntarily; and to Savage and Hannity when NPR is worse.
-Tom Williams
That article is scarce in substance and low- to middle-brow at best. Lots of us vs. them. BTW, one should refrain from calling political opponents “enemies” under normal circumstances. Not worthy of TAC.