I think this explains most of it. Whether its TV or radio, people 1) only have so much time and 2) will seek out confirmation for their own predispositions.
To Magellan,
Good questions.
As to the quote about the Right being more comfortable with authoritarianism, that’s nonsense. The Left agenda is to consolidate power in some brand of socialism. The Right agenda is to disperse power in a relatively free market, and by means of adherence to the Constitution.
The Left has tried all manner, and all formats of talk radio. And they can’t play in the big leagues.
I’m not sure. I hate what Rush says, but his voice is very soothing. I listen to Randi Rhodes, and A: I may like female singers, but I can’t stand her, and B: about halfway through one of her diatribes, I hear her say something incredibly false or untrue, and boom, off she goes.
The proper model for a liberal talk show is not Rush, but Howard Stern. Inclusive. Willing to examine its own questions. Curious about the world, not dogmatic. With a hefty amount of willing to be called on its own bullshit.
Oh, and entertaining as hell.
To Finn,
When you say “oversimplification,” I take it that you concede the point, in general.
For now I’m not taking my observations elsewhere, because I prefer an antagonistic audience, not a chorus of agreement.
And Magellan is right about your misuse of “fractious” and “big tent.”
Actually, I think the authoritarianism has some validity to it. I do think the people on the right are a little more comfortable with it. Obviously, it is true of the religious right, but even aside from religion, it does seem that the right is more comfortable with following the letter of the law/constitution. Maybe “more doctrinaire” is a better description.
But I think your point about the left is correct in another way. They want more and more regulation, etc. consolidated in one place. They want more regulations and in the hands of the federal government, and fewer decisions made by states.
Yes, and no. (We’re back to nuance ;))
Having divergent views does not necessarily make a group fractious.
The Republican party really, as distinct from “The Right”, has a Big Tent strategy not necessarily because it includes numerous policies planks which meld together and accept contradictions and disagreements, but because the Republican party has become very, very good at memetic combat while the Democrats have continually gotten their shorts hiked up over their ears and run around aimlessly. This really isn’t an exaggeration on my part, since as early as Gingrich the GOP flashed to “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control”. By staying on-message and on-talking-point, the GOP has largely been able to craft debates in the manner that they see fit and to throw bits to their constituents without really fully satisfying their demands.
The Religious Right, for instance, has not really seen the nation become an officially 'Christian Nation, economic purists have not seen an end to farm subsidies, right leaning libertarians have not seen an end to the drug war, and so on. But by carefully crafting much of the national debate, they’re managed to head off the progress of internal disagreements becoming full on clusterfucks.
The Democrats, on the other hand, have not even begun to practice the art and science of memetic combat, other than Obama’s brief foray into some rather basic sloganeering in this most recent election. As evinced by the healthcare slaughter, once Democrats tried to take the field they were simply butchered and the numerically inferior Republican politicans managed to control the debate almost entirely.
A side effect of this is that since the Democrats can’t control the external debate, they’re also not able to modulate or regulate their internal debate. As such, disagreements do boil over into acrimony and a lack of common ground does lead to an inherently fractious base.
Even among the right there have been stirrings of fractiousness, but they’re somewhat limited. The troubles over at Little Green Footballs, for instance, where its owner alienated a huge percentage of his base by supporting evolutionary biology is one example, but it’s not a particularly widespread phenomena as far as I’ve seen.
/$.02
It’s not exactly a news flash that the Left doesn’t like the disorganization of the free market, and wants to consolidate decision making into fewer hands.
Needless to say, they don’t like having their agenda exposed in those terms.
It’s okay, you’re allowed to be wrong.
I’m shocked. Shocked!
Well, not that shocked.
I don’t know. And think you’re right about a lot of this, but the right has much fracturing, as well. Whether it be a hard line on abortion or illegal immigration, there are sub groups that break from the party on those ideologies. Maybe they agree on enough to stick around. That’s the case with me. I chose those two issue because they are two that I often see myself not on the same page as much of the right. But what am I to do, go to the Dems, who are even more whack on illegal immigration, and taxes, even if I’m more comfortable with them on abortion.
iLie I said, I don’t know. Like you said, “nuance”. But maybe NUANCE is more accurate.
To Finn,
I think you can make your points without using words like “memetic,” (a silly recent coinage), and “fungible.”
But style aside, it’s the Left who has championed, and excelled in “the long march through the institutions.”
Adorno, Gramsci, et al.
Or do you think that the universities, the newsrooms, and the publishing houses are a reflection of the electorate? Can you discern any bias in those institutions? Hmmm?
Sure. But proper memetic manipulation allows for some rather simple and overbroad talking points which appear to address the issues but don’t. As a Doper, you at least get more credit and I assume you’re able to look at the issues and discern the deeper policy implications behind the rhetoric. But, well, you know how dumb the median intellect ends up being? Half of 'em are dumber than that 
For a large block of the electorate, those key-phrases seem to be generally sufficient. And people can often read into a candidate what they want to see, so that a candidate who promises to “get tough on illegal immigration” can be read to be saying whatever someone really wants them to be saying, anything from ‘no to all amnesty proposals’ to ‘guard dogs on the borders.’
Some certainly make that intellectual determination, but the expected Gaussian distribution will see a much larger group who stop at the rhetoric and don’t invest the time to go deeper.
Could be. Might also be nuance. 
And you’re doing a good job of creating an antagonistic audience. If you want to accomplish anything through debate, though, you should try being less antagonistic and perhaps provide cites for some of your comments:
And by the way:
Harry Reid would be one. Bob Casey is another.
- The bankruptcy of Air America is specific to the radio industry.
- Being more profitable doesn’t make you right. It doesn’t even mean that more people agree with you.
- Democrats are the real big tent party, since they include everyone from corporate interests and their facilitators, to civil rights activists, progressive greens, populist liberals, etc. (This partly why they can’t get much done, even when they’re in power. Well, that and mainstream Dems are pussies.) By contrast, the Republican triumvirate (religious fundamentalists, free market worshipers, and neo-cons) is much more cohesive in their determination to return the U.S. to the 19th century.
I think you are on to something here.
It’s not simply being right or having the same point of view, you also have to entertain people. There are people whose opinions I respect and yey I wouldn’t listen to them for more than 10 minutes.
Magellan,
Once again you make good points, and I concede them.
You’re right: the Right does acknowledge an authority, which I would call “objectively existing reality.” Have you read “The Fatal Conceit” by Hayek? And, compare Ayn Rand, Objectivism. The Left think that they can remake man, and reality. The New Soviet Man, and all that.
And yes, the Left does want more regulation (decision making) in fewer hands.
Did someone say “Howard Stern?” He’s not wildly popular and successful (in the free market) for nothing!
If you’re really going to take this into Randroid territory this is pretty much over.
Finnegan,
As to Ayn Rand, I’m referencing the idea of objectively existing reality.
This would be “pretty much over,” according to whom, exactly?
Does the Left, or does it not, want to put decisions into fewer hands, by the way.
Sure, since eliminating you would automatically be fewer.
My guess, by the way, is simply that liberals don’t turn the radio on to find out what to think today.
You have repeatedly made this assertion. Rather than demanding other people DISprove it, why don’t you back up your own statements?
Back when I used to listen to Rush, I enjoyed it because overall his outlook was positive and hopeful. Sure, he saw the world through rose colored glasses and longed for a past that never existed but I felt content after listening to him.
One of the many ‘antidotes’ to challenge Rush was Jim Hightower. I enjoyed his articles and hearing him interviewed and was looking forward to his show. The thing I remember about it was that he seemed to always whine and moan about the extravagance of the wealthy.
I believe at this time Malcome Forbes was celebrating his 100th birthday and had a huge party. Everytime I tuned in, he was complaining about the wastfulness and overkill of the thing. He never touched on the fact that Forbes had to hire many people from caterer to servers and the like. After listening I generally had a negative feeling, so I fairly quickly stopped listening to him.
One of the reasons I stopped listening to Rush is because he and his ilk now seem to be much more negative about things. Occasionally, If I come across his show he is now whining and complaining without the hope that he had when he started IMO.