Originally posted by MelanerpesInteresting point. For the supposed American conservatism, how does one explain the "mainstream liberal media"?
......so maybe it's a case where most of the passengers on deck are leaning the right, even as their boat is sailing steadily to the left
Taking up your idea of conservatives today being more 'liberal' than the Democrats of 50 years ago, then would it be reasonable to suggest that if nothing else Sarah Palin has prepared the American consciousness for the possibility of a female President? Was her sole purpose to act as a lightning rod to mold public sentiment in favor of the concept, so that when a truly competent candidate can be found, America will truly go ga ga and elect a Madam President?
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87If not for Obama, the 2008 winner would most likely have been Hilary Clinton. So I don't think Palin served any kind of "purpose" in this regard. But both Clinton and Palin were indicators of just how far things have progressed.
Interesting point. For the supposed American conservatism, how does one explain the "mainstream liberal media"?
Taking up your idea of conservatives today being more 'liberal' than the Democrats of 50 years ago, then would it be reasonable to suggest that if nothing else Sarah Palin has prepared the American consciousness for the possibility of a female Pr ...[text shortened]... y competent candidate can be found, America will truly go ga ga and elect a Madam President?
I actually think Margaret Thatcher in Britain may've played a big role in changing the way Americans viewed female candidates. It showed that a woman in power need not be some sort of radical with an ultra-feminist agenda - but could actually be mainstream or even, gasp, a conservative.
Originally posted by kmax87Really?
Are you saying that moderate and Republican are mutually exclusive ideas?
How long is any one impression of a party valid anyway? Is the conservatism that swept Reagan into office a thing of the past? Are conservatives much more likely to be radicalised FOX spewing Palin champing knuckle dragging gay bashing irrational reactionaries these days?
sh saw what I was saying immediately.
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87Read Bernie Goldberg's book 'Bias'; or, if you're worried that Goldberg is a conservative shill in sheep's clothing, read The Powers That Be by David Halberstam. Both provide a good account of how intitutional ideologies can evolve separate and apart from broader cultures.
Interesting point. For the supposed American conservatism, how does one explain the "mainstream liberal media"?
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionwell how does the tabloid style that FOX employs actually sit with most Americans? I mean if the MLM is not really a voice of the people but more a manifestation of its own in-bred self agrandized sense of self-importance, to what extent then is Fox et al seen with similar contemp/disdain by the average American. Does it embarras anyone that their version of conservatism is that skewed, or are they actually on the money?
Really?
sh saw what I was saying immediately.
2 edits
Originally posted by kmax87I don't know. It's a good question. I tried to imply it when I ased sh why conservatives feel like the world is against them if they are the majority. He took me too literally so I think your question really gets to the point better.
well how does the tabloid style that FOX employs actually sit with most Americans? I mean if the MLM is not really a voice of the people but more a manifestation of its own in-bred self agrandized sense of self-importance, to what extent then is Fox et al seen with similar contemp/disdain by the average American. Does it embarras anyone that their version of conservatism is that skewed, or are they actually on the money?
I anticipate people responding to this by pointing to Nielsen ratings of viewership to say that Fox's conservative programming gets more viewers. I'd like to take a page from Bush II and preemptively counter that assertion by pointing out that it assumes that the likelihood that a person watches an opinion program that favors their political persuasion is constant across the political spectrum. As this assumption is weakened the ability for a viewership measure to well estimate the distribution of political ideology is undermined.
Personally, and I acknowledge that this is solely anecdotal, I find that conservatives, even those who are only slightly conservative, follow conservative talk radio and fox programming much more loyally than liberals follow msnbc or liberal radio.
Originally posted by kmax87I think there's a "They may be nuts, but they're OUR nuts!" mentality that helps some of Fox' more extreme personalities (e.g., Hannity and Beck).
well how does the tabloid style that FOX employs actually sit with most Americans? I mean if the MLM is not really a voice of the people but more a manifestation of its own in-bred self agrandized sense of self-importance, to what extent then is Fox et al seen with similar contemp/disdain by the average American. Does it embarras anyone that their version of conservatism is that skewed, or are they actually on the money?
If you're conservative, you grew up with NBC, CBS, ABC, the NY Times, the Washington Post and all the major pre-1990 media outlets stacked against you. It's just always been a fact of life.
Now, if right wing nuts are going to fight back on talk radio and one specific cable channel, you're naturally going to support them, even if they go overboard. When they do go overboard, the first thought that sometimes comes to mind is "Well, now they know how we felt when the NY Times had its decades of unopposed conservative-hunting."
1 edit
Conservatives need to produce legitimate alternatives to the mainstream media - something that isn't just a lot of populist ranting and wildly alarmist predictions.
There are intelligent conservative voices out there - maybe Joe Scarborough can bring them all together and form their own news network and newspaper. Reject the tabloid mentality and produce something as "intellectual" as the NY Times, only with a conservative lean.
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesYeah, and they should recruit David Brooks. There's a sensible conservative.
Conservatives need to produce legitimate alternatives to the mainstream media - something that isn't just a lot of populist ranting and wildly alarmist predictions.
There are intelligent conservative voices out there - maybe Joe Scarborough can bring them all together and form their own news network and newspaper. Reject the tabloid mentality and produce something as "intellectual" as the NY Times, only with a conservative lean.
2 edits
Originally posted by telerionDavid Brooks is conservative in comparison with the other NY Times pundits. I like him a lot - wish they'd hire a couple more people like him. (and I wish they would hire another economist to provide an alternative to Krugman's royal pronouncements).
Yeah. A they could recruit David Brooks. That is a sensible conservative.
But if Brooks was a Congressman right now, he would probably be to the left of every Republican (except maybe Olympia Snowe), and even some of the Democrats.
Originally posted by MelanerpesAlong what dimension? Brooks admires guys like Friedman and Buckley. Does one
David Brooks is conservative in comparison with the other NY Times pundits. I like him a lot - wish they'd hire a couple more people like him. (and I wish they would hire another economist to provide an alternative to Krugman's royal pronouncements).
But if Brooks was a Congressman right now, he would probably be to the left of every Republican (except maybe Olympia Snowe), and even some of the Democrats.
have to be an evangelical boob to be considered a conservative now?
Originally posted by telerionI'm basing my opinion of Brooks on the columns he writes for the NY Times. Maybe he takes a more centrist position here than he does elsewhere.
Along what dimension? Brooks admires guys like Friedman and Buckley. Does one
have to be an evangelical boob to be considered a conservative now?
Or it might be more a case of almost all the Republicans in Congress all kowtowing to the "boobs", so anyone who's an intelligent conservative is going to appear "leftist" in comparison.
I wonder what William Buckley would think about the current GOP positions and tactics.
Originally posted by telerionYou could be right in saying that the assumption may not always be a strong one.
I anticipate people responding to this by pointing to Nielsen ratings of viewership to say that Fox's conservative programming gets more viewers. I'd like to take a page from Bush II and preemptively counter that assertion by pointing out that it assumes that the likelihood that a person watches an opinion program that favors their political persuasion is ...[text shortened]... or a viewership measure to well estimate the distribution of political ideology is undermined.
I for one get great entertainment value out of watching someone like O'Reilly.
Having seen him a couple of times on Letterman, I take the view that he may not really take himself all that seriously. I see it as great theatre, where he has crafted his persona into becoming such a jingoistic confection, a perfect parody of that golden era of conservatism we fondly remember as Reaganism and Thatcherism.
If for no other reason that it gives me a reason to talk back and scream at the TV occasionally, then i think he is good value. I would hope that the vast majority that watch his shows feel similarly inclined and are happy to allow him his angry-man jig.