2009.10.04
The little men behind the curtain
David Brooks had an excellent column in Friday's New York Times making the point that the evidence indicates that, while the extreme right wing in this nation has a loud voice - Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck - evidence indicates it is a very tiny minority, unable to have much of an impact on anything, not even Republican primaries:
So what is the theme of our history lesson? It is a story of remarkable volume and utter weakness. It is the story of media mavens who claim to represent a hidden majority but who in fact represent a mere niche — even in the Republican Party. It is a story as old as “The Wizard of Oz,” of grand illusions and small men behind the curtain.
Despite this, though, Brooks points out that the myth of influence endures, and becomes somewhat self-fulfilling: "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."
It's an interesting piece from a conservative writer. If Republicans want their party to ever come back, they should listen to folks like Brooks and fellow conservative Rod Dreher, who has spent his last several columns writing about the dangerous path the GOP is heading down.
Never believe that those who shout the loudest represent the most people, much less the truth.
RSS feed 
Yea, sure, if only the GOP would be more like the Dems. You wish.
A recent Rasmussen national telephone poll found 42% would vote for their district's Republican congressional candidate while 40% would vote for the Democratic opponent.
Barach Hussein Obama, umm, umm, umm, is the best thing that ever happened to the GOP since Jimmy Carter.
Comment by John R — October 4, 2009 @ 8:49 pm
Centrist Republicans have suddenly discovered the lunatics run the asylum? Pass the popcorn, this should be interesting.
Comment by Art Hill — October 4, 2009 @ 9:53 pm
"If Republicans want their party to ever come back,"
Boy that 6% margin of victory has really inflated the liberal's egos and confidence hasn't it. Statements like that are the norm now. I guess it's like most other liberal mantras. Just repeat the propaganda long enough and loud enough and people might think it's true. Let me ask this though. Did the democrats consider themselves to be a marginalized, trivial fringe when they suffered some of the largest,crushing election defeats in the history of the nation? What was Nixon's margin of victory, 22% or 23%? How about in '84 whe Reagan trounced Mondale by an 18% margin. Did the Democrats decided they should abandon their beliefs so their party could "come back"? You gys really should wake up and smell the coffee. The school kids chanting about hope and change in the name of Obama were an interesting, though creepy touch, but the recession and, to paraphrase Rahmm Emanuel, a willingness to capitalize on people's economic fears won the 2008 election. Now the liberals are in power and have promised solutions to all the country's ills. I'd suggest they stop basking in the afterglow of their 6% margin of victory, stop trying to convince the conservatives in a America to give up their beliefs and start making good on some campaign promises. If not that 6% margin of victory could quickly turn into a 16% margin of defeat in 2012.
Comment by Another Chris — October 4, 2009 @ 10:32 pm
Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Levin, Boortz are all talk show hosts (read show business) and as far as I know, none claim to speak for the GOP, no more than the RTEB claims to speak for the Dems. In fact they all claim to be conservatives and/or libertarians, not Republicans.
I take Charles Krauthammer and the WSJ seriously, talk show hosts for entertainment, the NYT,WP, and the RTEB for comedy relief.
Comment by John R — October 5, 2009 @ 7:29 am
David Brooks is no conservative.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 5, 2009 @ 7:54 am
Isn't Llimbaugh's show the #1 ranked show on the radio? Hannity #2?
Don't thse numbers speak for themselves? If you have listeners, you have influence.
Comment by Bob H — October 5, 2009 @ 8:26 am
Calling Brooks a conservative is a laugh.
Okay so, Brooks apparently had his way last year, and what happened? His long-time favorite, moderate McCain was the nominee. He lost to a socialist with the thinnest resume ever, which disproves every theory in Brooks' column.
Comment by Suzie — October 5, 2009 @ 8:27 am
I'll take the loud voice of the right wing over the "ignore facts at all costs to promote an agenda" of the left wing media any day.
Had the media done its job correctly, 0bama would not be in the White House today.
Comment by Patrick — October 5, 2009 @ 8:43 am
Bob H wrote "Isn't Llimbaugh's show the #1 ranked show on the radio? Hannity #2? Don't thse numbers speak for themselves? If you have listeners, you have influence."
If you have listeners on daytime radio programs it means that the majority of your listeners are sitting at home instead of out working.
And as For Limbaugh and Hannity's audience, why I believe they're conservatives -the one's telling everyone else to "go to work".
Comment by joe Mostowey — October 5, 2009 @ 9:01 am
"it means that the majority of your listeners are sitting at home instead of out working."
Where are you pulling this from?
Comment by Uptheriver — October 5, 2009 @ 9:09 am
Joe, Why can't people listen to Limbaugh while at work?
Comment by Suzie — October 5, 2009 @ 9:30 am
@9 Joe, this may seem new to you, but I have a radio that actually works in my office. In addition, I also have one that operates...get this... in my vehicle as well. Could I interest you in a pair?
Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — October 5, 2009 @ 9:31 am
Closed mind. Limbaugh comes on at 12. Joe has never heard of lunch?
Hannity is on from 5-6 as part of his air time, no one listens on the way home?
Completely ignored the context of my original post: Aren't they #1 and #2, doesn't that mean they have some influence ie significance?
Hard to figure out the thought processes.......
Comment by Bob H — October 5, 2009 @ 9:41 am
#9 - Joe: "If you have listeners on daytime radio programs it means that the majority of your listeners are sitting at home instead of out working."
Nice assumption, Joe.
Comment by Patrick — October 5, 2009 @ 10:15 am
Again @#9 Joe.... plus you realize nobody in this country works second or third shift jobs either, right?
Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — October 5, 2009 @ 10:34 am
I've been in the full-time workforce since 2004 when I graduated from VT. At every job I've had, I've had my radio with me and listened to it during the day when I'm in the office. When I had P/T jobs, I also listened pretty frequently, except when I worked at golf courses, because the mower engines did a good job of drowning out any headphone sets I owned. I used to listen to political talk, and it was never problematic where I worked. Now I listen to music and sports talk, and no one minds at all. In fact, of the people currently working in my office, 2 of us listen to sports talk, 3 listen to their iPods, and 2 others listen to radios tuned to Q99 or WVTF. There's not anyone who doesn't listen to music or radio, and we're a professional office with a highly educated workforce. The places where it's tougher to listen are generally the service and retail jobs, where you're on the sales floor or kitchens working. Maybe they have the overhead satellite radio systems playing elevator music or easy listening stuff...but they won't have much of a chance to listen to anything else while on the clock.
Comment by Other John — October 5, 2009 @ 10:48 am
@5
I suppose Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is no conservative, either. His backpeddling away from Beck yesterday on Fox "News" Sunday was a joy to behold.
Comment by Art Hill — October 5, 2009 @ 11:09 am
@17 Any politician in their right mind would backpeddle away from an editorialist. Why would you want to get pigeon holed into someone else's beliefs. I would assume that is common sense or just good image management.
Comment by Uptheriver — October 5, 2009 @ 11:17 am
You mean Lindsey Grahamnesty?
Comment by Suzie — October 5, 2009 @ 11:19 am
@17 And I will point out again seeing the news in quotation in the post. If Fox News is bias, than the Roanoke Times is bias. However in actuality it can be pointed out that neither is bias and the respectives editorialists at each respective organization can be argued as being bias.
Comment by Uptheriver — October 5, 2009 @ 11:21 am
Lindsey Graham is no conservative. And neither is his "partner", John McCain.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 5, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
Graham's not a conservative. McCain's not a conservative. Brooks is not a conservative. Keep expelling any but the "true believers" and conservatives will be able to hold their annual meeting in a telephone booth.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 5, 2009 @ 1:17 pm
Liberals always let you know who they fear the most by indicating who should be ignored. Sarah Palin is a prime example. Her yet unreleased book is at the top of Amazon pre-release book orders and the MSM are proclaiming it a flop. Her book already is a best seller and it will not come out for another month.
Comment by John R — October 5, 2009 @ 1:19 pm
Dan Radmacher:
No one is being expelled. But it is important to be accurate when labeling, and there should be truth in advertising. And the truth is, that while Senators Graham and McCain are Republicans, they are not conservatives. They, like MANY Republicans and Democrats are all about Washington, and their political careers.
And let us be clear and inclusive. George W. Bush (and his father) is not a conservative. Bob Dole is not a conservative. Orrin Hatch is not a conservative. Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford were not conservatives. Yet all are (or were) Republicans, who occasionally support conservative positions, but more often support Washington, D.C. positions.
If you did not do so, you should read Steven Hayward's piece in yesterday's Washington Post. His article touches on some of this.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 5, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
The 'fringification' of the political parties is in full swing. Any Democrat who doesn't tow a far left line, like Joe Lieberman, is cast away and called all manner of derogatory names. Likewise, any Republican who doesn't tow the hardline right mantra is equally castigated and made unwelcome to the party. The moderates within both parties are left largely out of either, not willing to compromise significant portions of their personal philosophies to support either side...and not generally welcomed because they won't follow the platform word for word. In general, both parties have been hijacked by an extreme minority faction within the party, and I think that has also contributed to the increased divisiveness and amount of vitriol spewed during campaigns and all other times. The Democrat Party has largely been taken over by the socialist/anti-military wing of the party, and the Republicans have been overtaken by the religious/anti-choice crowd. Simply opposing either of those 2 particular extremes is enough to warrant expulsion from the parties, as the numerous examples in recent years has shown.
Comment by Other John — October 5, 2009 @ 1:56 pm
Other John #25,
"the Republicans have been overtaken by the religious/anti-choice crowd"
Your implication is these groups are minorities in the Republican party and that's incorrect. Most Republicans are pro-life and most are religious. That we are minorities is the false premise put forth by the mainstream media, including David Brooks and the RTEB. Last year's election should provide the perfect illustration of why this thinking is wrong. McCain was Brooks' guy, and had been for years. McCain played the nice "moderate" candidate perfectly, didn't call 0bama on some of his many inadequacies, scolded other Republicans who told the truth, then proceeded to get buried.
In other words, OJ, McCain was exactly the kind of candidate you wanted. So was Bob Dole in '96. But Republicans do not enthusiastically support moderates in national elections; therefore those candidates lose.
Comment by Suzie — October 5, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
Maybe that is the case Suzie. Perhaps as time has changed my perception has too. It just seems to me that the party had gone more to the right in recent years, though I suppose it could have always been that way and I only just started seeing it for what it was. For what it's worth, I didn't like either Dole or McCain, and honestly have not been enthused about any of the Presidential candidates that I've had to pick from since I began voting in 1998.
Comment by Other John — October 5, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
It could be because I am conservative that I say this, but to me, the way the Republicans have conducted themselves this year in town-halls and at rallies has been close to exemplary; vociferous, but peaceful, and critical of policy rather than personal. They felt that if people were educated on what a government health care bill would do, they wouldn't want it. This is proving correct.
It does seem it was the other side who did NOT conduct themselves well, what with the union-instigated violence, baseless accusations of racism (ahem RTEB), and wanting desperately to keep people in the dark about the language of the bill and its consequences.
Comment by Suzie — October 5, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
@22
Lindsey Graham is no conservative. And neither is his "partner", John McCain.
Why, Glen, whatever are you saying?
@26
McCain's closest campaign advisers were the same Neocons that did such disservice to the Bush 43 presidency. William Kristol personally selected then hyped Sarah Palin for VP over the objections of many McCain staffers, effectively torpedoing his bid for the presidency. Just as they are doing with Bob McDonnell today, Republicans attempted to package and sell McCain as a moderate, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Comment by Art Hill — October 5, 2009 @ 4:03 pm
I have a different take on some of the town hall folks. I willagree that most have shown a legitimate concern over the bills proposed and stayed fairly well disciplined...but a very vocal few who have resorted to the birther cries and claims of some sort of racist policy have hurt the overall dialogue. Granted, there are too many folks on the left who are too quick to jump to calling folks racists if they oppose anything Obama says or does, and that is flat wrong too. Neither side has impressed me in the least for staying objective, and neither will earn a merit badge for productive dialogue. I had high hopes that the divisive nature of politics and society over the past few years would start to correct itself, but it has only seemed to get worse. I may go back to supporting whatever 3rd party most closely represents my views and otherwise stay out of the issues. I can't keep shoveling quick enough to not get buried in what's getting slung around.
Comment by Other John — October 5, 2009 @ 4:03 pm
What in the world is a moderate? A moderate stands for nothing, has no ideas or principles?
Look at Republican Senators Snowe and Collins. They are often lauded as "moderates", but in truth they are liberals. What moderate idea did they impart upon the so-called federal stimulus bill? Why, they cut a few million dollars off, and then they were able to support it! Is that the idea; we'll support a bad idea if it costs a little less? Or we'll support a good idea if it costs a little less?
A moderate is nothing but a fence sitter who doesn't have the courage to be either right or wrong.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 5, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
Art:
First, Bill Kristol, a McCain supporter, didn't pick anyone to do anything.
Second, neither McCain nor George W. Bush are conservatives. Nor are they neo-conservatives.
McCain is all about Washington, and all about him.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 5, 2009 @ 4:13 pm
As a moderate, you could not be further off. I take very conservative stances on certain issues...and very liberal stances on others. I cannot be considered either liberal or conservative because myu polticial philosophy is a mix of the 2. Therefore, I consider myself a moderate because I don't fall into either camp enough to really align with them. I guess if you want to get technical, I'm more a Libertarian than anything else, though I'm not even fully in that camp either.
Comment by Other John — October 5, 2009 @ 4:19 pm
Other John, I would never compare you to John McCain, George W. Bush or the liberal sisters from Maine.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 5, 2009 @ 4:26 pm
The tracking system for News Radio indicates mostly home listeners.
http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2008/narrative_radio_audience.php?cat=2&media=10
On average, people spent a little over nine hours a week listening to news/talk/information.33 This compared with a national average of 19 hours a week for all radio listening, regardless of format.
Most listening occurred at home (51.7%), followed by the car (34.2%) and work (12.8%).34 This diverged from the overall listening patterns (regardless of format), which were more evenly distributed – 39% at home, 34.8% in the car and 23.8% at work.
Comment by joe Mostowey — October 5, 2009 @ 5:02 pm
@32
First, Bill Kristol, a McCain supporter, didn't pick anyone to do anything.
The story of William and Sarah.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/palins-talent-scout/
The Standard's rebuttal.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/10/horton_of_the_beast.asp
Comment by Art Hill — October 5, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
Art Hill:
Tina Brown has never been known for objective, unbiased, or even accurate journalism, and I don't believe anything her hacks write. That said, The Weekly Standard makes it clear that Bill Kristol didn't "pick" Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate. And the Daily Beast doesn't really claim that; do you actually read these sources?
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 5, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
Glen Koontz
"pick"
Semantics, counselor.
Comment by Art Hill — October 5, 2009 @ 7:05 pm
Bill Kristol did not "pick" nor "select[]" Sarah Palin. It's not a matter of semantics, it is a matter of substance. Of truth. Of accurately relating the facts.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 5, 2009 @ 7:28 pm