Michelle Malkin lobs a softball at P.J. O'Rourke today. And not in a nice, underhanded, slow-pitch way.
P.J. O'Rourke's snarky article in The Atlantic attacking Rush and conservative talk radio. I adored O'Rourke in my 20s. Now, I find him so very 9/10 and out-of-touch. And there are tons of bloggers who are so much funnier.
The article she's referring to is this one,
wherein Peej makes the claim that conservative talk radio shows, like
Rush Limbaugh, are the equivalent of preaching to the choir.
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? This is
an argument I have with my father-in-law, an avid fan of such programs.
Although again, I don't actually argue, because I usually agree with my
father-in-law. Also, he's a retired FBI agent, and at seventy-eight is
still a licensed private investigator with a concealed-weapon permit.
But I say to him, "What do you get out of these shows? You already
agree with everything they say."
"They bring up some good points," he says.
"That you're going to use on whom? Do some of your retired-FBI-agent
golf buddies feel shocked by the absence of WMDs in Iraq and want to
give Saddam Hussein a mulligan and let him take his tee shot over?"
And he looks at me with an FBI-agent look, and I shut up. But the
number and popularity of conservative talk shows have grown apace since
the Reagan Administration. The effect, as best I can measure it, is
nil. In 1988 George Bush won the presidency with 53.4 percent of the
popular vote. In 2000 Bush's arguably more conservative son won the
presidency with a Supreme Court ruling. A generation ago there wasn't
much conservatism on the airwaves. For the most part it was lonely Bill
Buckley moderating Firing Line. But from 1964 to 1980 we went from
Barry Goldwater's defeat with 38.5 percent of the popular vote to
Ronald Reagan's victory with 50.8 percent of the popular vote. Perhaps
there was something efficacious in Buckley's—if he'll pardon the
word—moderation.
I'm with Peej on this one. Mainly because I'm a P.J. suckup, but also because I think he's correct. I, too, want debate.
I want arguments to be presented that will change people's minds. I
don't, however, want to listen to Rush blather on about how "right" he
is on the issues. Have you ever listened to Rush Limbaugh? And I mean
really listened to him? It's the sound of one hand clapping.
His calls tend to go something like this: someone will call in, they
will say how much they love his show and how pleased they are to have
gone on the air, they'll make their point, and instead of Rush
commenting on their point, he will say that it agrees with his
overall point and will blather on about that. As best as I can
ascertain, he doesn't really want to talk to the people who call in: he
wants them to set him up so he can blather on about what he thinks.
It's so highly annoying. I know what Rush thinks. How can you not know what Rush thinks? For three hours a day, every Monday though Friday, you hear what he thinks. And not a whole hell of a lot more. I want to hear new and interesting points brought up and then I want to hear him discuss those new and interesting points on their merits,
not about how nicely they dovetail with his views. Rush is a very smart
man. I do respect his opinion and his way of wording things, but he has
this massive opportunity to push the debate further and he ignores it.
Granted, Rush sells and that's why he's on the air. Fine and dandy. No
hassles here, but what's the point of having callers, then? I've always
wondered this, since the very first time the husband made me listen to
Rush. Why doesn't he just devote his show to a three hour monologue,
where he blathers on about whatever he so chooses? People would still
listen in and it would be a much more intellectually honest broadcast,
in my view. After all, why do you need feedback from your listeners if
you're not going to pay attention to it? As of now, there's no
intellectual honesty on Rush's broadcast because there's no dissent: it
all the dissent gets weeded out at the switchboard. And it's too damn
bad because Rush, as I wrote earlier, is an intelligent, well-spoken
guy. This is the same format that has found its way onto every
conservative talk radio show that I've ever listened to. And I've
listened to more than a few. Actual debate is frowned upon; agreement
with the host will bring you manna from heaven. What Rush and the other
talk show hosts are better at is reinforcing the ideas and letting
listeners know that they're not alone. That's fine. I don't have issues
with that. If you need to tune into Rush or some other like-minded
alternative to hear that you're not alone in your worldview, that's
fine. Been there, done that. But Rush and his compadres are not pushing
the Grand Debate of Conservative Thought further because there is no debate.
They're not interested in bringing people over to the conservative
point of view because they apparently don't see the need for it. They're right
after all, and when you're "right," everyone else is automatically
wrong. Conservative talk radio, for the most part, is all vinegar and
no honey and Peej nailed that one squarely on the head.
Of course, however, none of this really matters because Malkin lays her
frustration with Tom Harkin's resolution on P.J.'s doorstep, as if he
was the one to blame for Harkin's idiotic amendment.
So O'Rourke opines that "the number and popularity of
conservative talk shows have grown apace since the Reagan
Administration. The effect, as best I can measure it, is nil." Perhaps
he should ask the soldiers abroad who voted overwhelmingly to put Rush
on their airwaves what the impact of his show is. Or maybe he should
head to Sean Hannity's Freedom Concert on July 8, which raises millions
of dollars for military families. Or maybe he should meet Hugh Hewitt.
Or maybe O'Rourke should use some of his frequent flyer miles and do
some traveling to major metropolitan U.S. cities, where conservative
talk radio offers rare relief from liberal orthodoxy--and where talk
show hosts have spearheaded effective activism. KSFO in San Francisco
led the Gray Davis recall brigade. KVI in Seattle was instrumental in
launching the successful fight against Hillarycare and in support of an
initiative abolishing government racial preferences.