I Agree With Me

P J O'Rourke is one of my favorite writters. I love the scathing satire he injects into most of his articles. This one, however, blows.

Yes, you gotta love PJ. This is one of his better ones.

But in answer to Susie's question, I know quite a few who have come to start asking questions after listening to conservative talk radio. They found it less intimidating and hateful than they had been told. And I know at least two who changed their political affiliation after realizing they were conservatives and not the liberals they had believed themselves to be. Did talk radio change their minds? No, it just educated them as to what their political persuasion actually was.

eh, I don't like PJ.
Foxfyre, I don't know a one! Not one. I think people are easily swayed, thus the need for continued investigation of all sides. In my experience, the people who listen to Rush Limbaugh (and granted I only know a few) DON'T listen to ANYTHING else. He gets them quick and converts them quickly into his drones. He's very good at what he does, if you have a certain kind of personality that he appeals to.

" I Agree With Me." Suzy, I think it is reassuring to see someone agree with you, for once.

hahaha Roger!
Well, you know me... miss popularity!

Sorry, Suzy. I'm in the same mood that prompted me to start a discussion on my missing spider. I was counting on you not to take it the wrong way.

Now I'm really confused.
I hope you find your spider though!

Suzy writes:

But you contradict yourself. If you know nobodywho has been 'converted' how persuasive could conservative rhetoric be?

If Limbaugh and others had the power you attribute to them, Bill Clinton would never have been elected president. (twice)

What conservative writers, talk shows, etc. give to conservatives is reinforcement of what they already believed. It is a forum they don't get from the average mainstream newspaper or television or radio report.

While I believe most Americans are more conservative than liberal, though many don't realize it, I don't think any of us are 100% anything. We're all a hybrid mix of values, opinions, preferences, beliefs.

It would be so much more constructive to debate actual issues as to the value, propriety, and reasonableness of each with the view of finding reasonable compromise among the manyviewpoints.

Instead we tend to debate toward the end of assigning 'evil' to one side or the other. That might be more entertaining. But it sure isn't more constructive.

"What conservative writers, talk shows, etc. give to conservatives is reinforcement of what they already believed"
Well, yeah, that's what the article is about.
"I think people are easily swayed" -
"But you contradict yourself."
That's not a contradiction, Foxfyre. People are easily swayed, but I didn't say "all people". The fact is, I have listened to Rush Limbaugh, and he has said something that, if true, I would have immediately jumped on his bandwagon. However, first I investigate other sides to the story, and find that he's lied. See, not everybody bothers to check his facts. They get outraged and become his followers without ever realizing that what he's said isn't true. Then they defend whatever it is to the death, without ever once checking for themselves!
Those are the easily swayed. For example, people still believe (are you one of them?) that congressmen don't pay into social security and make a fortune as our reps, collecting their pay for the rest of their lives, neither of which is true, but Rush said it is, so that's good enough. We have learned, finally, thanks to this admin, that if you say something often enough, people start to believe it. That still doesn't mean it's true though! People need to think for themselves, and many are not willing to.

I agree with me too.

I also agree with PJ: "I don't think drugs are bad. I used to be a hippie. I think drugs are fun."

I don't think fun is bad though, only that drug-fun should be limited to responsible middle aged conservatives. Look at all Rush accomplished while he was a drug addict. On the other hand, look what drugs did to poor River Phoenix.

For a time I enjoyed watching Bill O'Reilly, Joe Scarborough et al, but theirs is a novelty act and it soon wore thin.

I have yet to see it, but I am looking forward to Tucker Carlson's PBS show.

I also watch Bill Moyers' show, if only to keep in touch with what the 5th Column is up to.

Some of the best left/right encounters I've seen have been on the Charlie Rose show. (The Tucker Carlson/Al Franken episode was excellent, and revealed Franken for the light weight he is.)

I have to agree with O'Rourke that ideological rants by the likes of Limbaugh, Franken, Coulter and Corn generally only appeal to the already decided. They can provide a short burst of raw energy, but nothing of lasting satisfaction.

I have been looking for the Left's equivalents of David Brookes, Paul Gigot and Bill Kristol, but have found only Juan Williams. (I'm afraid that Mark Shields has reverted to his Democratic Ward Captain persona).

Any suggestions?

Look harder. Here are a few:
Naomi Klein
Greg Palast
Robert Kuttner
Lewis Lapham
Paul Krugman
Barbara Ehrenreich
Thomas Oliphant
E.J. Dionne, Jr.

Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot.
I'm sorry, but I listened to the guy for years when I was a flaming Liberal. Now that I'm a right wing Conservative, he is even less interesting than he was then.
PJ is right. He is the Shouting Man.
Can't watch television. How to put it in the common parlance? ..... They're all a bunch of wankers.

Hugh Hewitt (talk radio) is entertaining. Medved and Prager (talk radio) are sometimes entertaining.

The internet does not shout.
You read. You learn. You interact. This is good.

I asked for liberal pundits of the reasoned persuasion of Gigot and Brookes, not for ones that represent their antithesis:

Naomi Klein:

"The multibillion robbery the US calls reconstruction
The shameless corporate feeding frenzy in Iraq is fuelling the resistance"

Greg Palast:

"OK now, Mr. President, give it back - the millions stolen from Enron retirees then stuffed into the Republican campaign kitty."

Robert Kuttner

"The forum's moderator, a journalist, began by congratulating the hosts and observing that politics is discredited today because voters are sick of partisan bickering. But hold on. Is the main evil of American public life today "partisan bickering"? Or is it conservative ideology uncompromisingly wrecking public institutions? "

Louis Lapham

" The Republicans are closer to being gangsters so they don't mind stealing the election if they have to do that, while the Democrats do have some conscience,"

Paul Krugman

"If you say what is actually obvious: that these people took September 11 as a great political opportunity and used it to push both a domestic economic and social agenda and a foreign policy agenda that had nothing to do with September 11 -- that's an extraordinary charge. And the very fact that it's such a harsh thing to say makes people unwilling to see it."

Barbara Ehrenreich

"Consider the vice president, George Bush, a man so bedeviled by bladder problems that he managed, for the last eight years, to be in the men's room whenever an important illegal decision was made."

Actually Oliphant does fit the mold. I had forgotten about him. Thanks for the reminder.

E.J. Dionne isn't a flame thrower but he is a shill for the Democrats. He must be on their pay roll.

It's interesting that you view all of these pundits as fitting into a category of rough objectivity. Just who would you consider to be a firebrand of the Left.

It's also interesting that at least four of them are darlings of the Guardian Media Group. Now there's unbiased media.

What qualm do you have with Krugman's quote Finn?

Finn, my favorite liberal writer of all time is William Raspberry. You can probably pull up all his stuff by putting William Raspberry archives into your browser. He and I frequently disagree on the fine points, but he always has a well developed, well reasoned thesis with a minimum of "we're good and they're evil" rant. And he does make one think.

Nothing more than it is hyperbolic nonsense.

"If you say what is actually obvious: that these people took September 11 as a great political opportunity and used it to push both a domestic economic and social agenda and a foreign policy agenda that had nothing to do with September 11 -- that's an extraordinary charge. And the very fact that it's such a harsh thing to say makes people unwilling to see it."

First of all "these people" always makes my lip curl, but that may just be me.

Excluding the provisions of the Patriot Act which are a direct response to 9/11 (albeit overdone to some minds) what articles of a domestic or social agenda were propelled by 9/11? Faith Bases initiatives? Opposition to Gay marriage? Erstwhile amnesty for illegal Mexican immigrants? Manned missions to Mars?

What elements of an economic agenda were thrust forward by 9/11? Tax cuts?

Certainly aspects of foreign policy were propelled by 9/11, but is that surprising?

Krugman & Co begin with the premise that Bush is Evil and then proceed to try and fill in the blanks.

I have no problem with Krugman disagreeing with each and every element of Bush's total agenda, but to suggest that it was cynically advanced by pandering to 9/11 emotions is just ridiculous as well as reprehensible. It is not the argument of a reasonable person.

Not so ridiculous.

Bill Kristol, chairman of PNAC. Reasonable?
Paul Gigot: "Meanwhile, Democrats swoon before Mr. Clinton like the French before de Gaulle in 1944". Reasonable?
I don't have a problem with Brooks.
What have you got against Guardian, Finn? Or do you think all news that doesn't emanate from America must be biased?

I like William Raspberry too, Foxfyre. Have you read Joseph Perkins, maybe you should check him out.

Finn,

I do not know how one would "pander" to 9/11 except perhaps to invoke it and by my estimation Bush evoked it just about as much as any wise political team would.

My guess is that Krugman's saying that 9/11 gave Bush a lot of political capital and that Bush put every last ounce of it to use (this administration manages said advantages very well). Which I'd agree is not surprising.

Oh, 'cept because they used it in manners disagreeable to him nearly without exception (something nearly true of myself as well) he makes it sound ominous.

Well, to someone diametrically opposed to each move it can be scary.

Truth to tell I've never had use for any columnist. Krugman's a better economist than political scientist IMO.

The only time I remember paying attention to a columnist is when they break something. Like when Thomas Friedman broke the Saud Proposal.

He's an interesting one insofar as columnists go though.