Here’s another illustrative thread: Hey Conservatives! What Makes a Liberal? (thread started by Gadarene).
I must go lie down now…
I think some planks of the general conservative platform do tend to cater to stupidity and apathy. Term limits, for instance. Advocates of this seem always to come from the conservative side, even though there is no inherent reason why this position on political procedure should resonate more with one side than the other. These people suppose at the outset that the American voter is too dumb to
vote against someone who’s already in office, or is too easily persuaded by propaganda.
Or how about school vouchers? Supposedly this is the solution to all the ills of our education system; a thing too straightforward to have been thought of before. How can anyone believe this? In the first place, to be fair, a voucher has to be a real voucher–it has to pay the ENTIRE cost of a private school education. Otherwise it is worthless to anyone who can’t pay the difference. And wouldn’t we have to find a way to force private schools to accept any public school escapee who shows up at the door with a voucher in hand? Wouldn’t the state, in effect, be taking over the private schools? Any true blue conservative should be aghast at the very concept.
My liberal sister criticized me in much the above words, fininshing with, “How can you listen to Rush Limbaugh? Only idiots listen to him!”
For the record, survey shows that the average RL listener is above average in income and educaton level and far above average in political knowledge. (No doubt the same is true of listeners to liberal political talk shows.)
My sister knows that she’s much smarter than the RL listeners because she gets so many questions right on the TV game shows, which are her primary entertainment.
Javaman – I think you need a new thread for vouchers. There are several versions of vouchers and much to say pro and con. The issue is too complicated to conclude that someone is dumb just because he’s pro or anti voucher.
You make some good arguments, but weaken your case by caricaturing the other side. Supporters don’t say that vouchers are “the solution to all the ills of our education system,” but rather that they would do more good than harm.
Some supporters merely argue that they should be tried experimentally and evaluated.
Fear and paranoia do not require facts to feed itself, quite the opposite generally. Also, many educated wealthy people are insane or bigotted or repressed or suicidal, if you are using education or income as evidence of stability. The point of my criticism was not about those qualifiers, or even having a job (since none of them entail honesty, integrity or values). It was about allowing a self-described “entertainer” (a preacher to me) to pass along disinformation. By definition, one would need to know what he was talking about to learn to be afraid of it.
So, why do you listen to Rush? Does he reinforce your faith in something? Does he educate you on the issues? Does he flatter you in some way? Does he appeal to a sense of disappointment? Does he direct your anger? Or does he just give you passable ammo to use on your “liberal” sister? By the way, you don’t need a reason to listen to Rush, but you need a reason to believe him.
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/limbaugh-debates-reality.html
rjung said:
I think this is exactly as true as saying:
Which is to say that it’s a gross distortion of the other side’s views, dismissing complex issues that great minds have debated throughout the past two centuries with a single word. Which, to me, sounds rather, well, dumb. Luckily for your side, folks like Gadarene and xenophon41 show up quickly when one of you guys makes these sort of smug generalizations, keeping your foot from being in all liberals’ mouths.
Besides, the truth is obviously that neither liberals or conservatives are in general smarter, as all truly smart people are libertarians :).
I couldn’t agree more. Conservativism, taken to an extreme, is afraid of causing more damage than good with radical changes, preferring to stick with methods that are “tried and true”. I called this a “Big Picture” outlook because one needs to learn from the mistakes of those who came before them.
Not to be offensive, but another take on that statement would be “Conservativism learns from history while liberalism forgets it”… which can be true in some cases (not all, not by a long shot). But I’m more inclined to trust a (hypothetical) plan that has been proven to work, than to trust some radical thinker who jumps up and says “Here’s a theory! Let’s implement it!”
I would say that the “which side is smarter?” argument is moot. Everyone has their own ideas about what is conservative and liberal, and even inside the two parties there is disagreement about what is “true” liberalism/conservatism.
More importantly, the premise “If smart people believe this, it must be right” is flawed. People of all levels of intelligence are vulnerable to allowing emotion cloud their thinking, and to seek out only those facts that confirm what they want to believe. Just because someone (or a group of someones) is generally intelligent does not mean their opinions on everything are well-informed and rational.
For example, a few months ago I read an article that noted (with dismay, of course) that apparently the Ku Klux Klan is starting to attract followers with higher education/social class than before. I would NOT say that this is an indication that racism is becoming a more logical position. All it means is that the KKK is becoming more adept at manipulating the emotions of a more “sophisticated” demographic.
I feel that if you are forming your opinions based on what you see the respectable or intelligent people agreeing with, you are in great danger of being manipulated. How many times before have the masses been fooled? Intelligent and respected folks have defended racism, sexism, and genocide throughout the ages, and only in hindsight do we now recognize how seriously wrong they were.
So what if the proponents of a particular position ARE less intelligent/educated? The less educated people may not have the best reasoning for believing as they do, but that does not make the positions they hold WRONG.
It’s possible that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy: Intelligent person sees that the adherents of a position appear to be “dumb”, smugly concludes that as an intelligent person s/he could NEVER agree with that position, and therefore never takes the time to learn (or think about) the intelligent reasons for believing in that position. As a result, only the uneducated who may not know or can’t articulate the best arguments for a position remain devoted to it…even though in truth there may be some very good reasons for believing the position.
-
I find him entertaining. That’s the main reason.
-
His right-wing slant complements the New York Times’s left-wing slant.
Regarding your suggested reasons, Rush doesn’t “direct my anger,” because he’s never, angry. Anger is not his shtick. He’s always upbeat and optimistic.
Brian, is your appraisal of Rush is based on your own experience or on what others have said about him? I recommend that you spend one week listenening to his shows and then use your own judgment. Fess us: How many hours of his show have you actually heard?
Could you direct me to a source for this claim? (I think the last one is obvious - it’s the first two that I’m curious about). Thank you.
Izzy – I saw this reported in the newspapers around three years ago, but unfortunately I cannot give you a source.
That’s not offensive, SPOOFE, it’s just silly. If you can tell me what these “lessons of history” actually are beyond a shadow of a doubt, I shall concede the point. But while these lessons remain as malleable as written history itself, I’m going to have to balk at this assertion.
Conservatives, just like liberals, glean from history whatever supports their particular ideology and sets of assumptions.
MR
Sorry about that. I’ve put up a straw man; I need to be more careful in GD, where I rarely tread. And I didn’t mean to imply that conservative voters are dumb. I just feel that some of the most prominent proposals by conservative politicians seem to be not thoroughly thought out. I admit you could say the same about a great many progressive or liberal proposals too, but the subject of the OP was conservatism.
What are we really talking about here? Are you encouraging me to listen to a person, and not to develop for myself a comprehensive school of thought or a list of ideals based on facts and reasons? If so, you are victim of a personality cult, or cult of personality, however you prefer. Did Rush tell you the NYTimes was left? A Northern European would deem it conservative. I honestly don’t know what you see in Rush, I have nothing brewing inside me that he remotely approaches. But I failed to mention something. I think Rush is like Hitler in one important regard (forgive the extreme example, but that’s my point): He doesn’t tell people what to think, he tells them what they think.
You mentioned above average income for Rush fanatics, which means to me that his audience is white, male, and older than average. I still remember when Rush first appeared and how he single-handedly devastated the budding environmentalism in the Western US by telling people that styrofoam is good for the environment and that there are much more trees in the US than when Columbus found it. He tapped into idignation and ambivilence at the same time. He blamed the victims of society and made people feel like they were being victimized by them.
He is a demogogue to be sure, but people with too little education and who were opiniated because of it found their voice. To me, he specifically appeals to the small business males who want to be rich but have no shot at it, so they can only dream and pat the corporate bullies on the back and cheer the damage on, not having a clue, the slightest clue of what those guys really think of them.
I once heard a clip of Rush in store here in Utah. It was a women arguing with Rush over something. Rush calmly kept interupting (passive-aggressive) but the women wouldn’t stop for him. Finally, he blurted out, “So, you’re one of those soccer moms!” And hung up on her. See the biography on A&E. You’ll see why this guy is perfect for the job of rallying the troops on to the nostalgia of the past that includes the bliss of not having toxic or nuclear waste issues to legislate (see why nostalgia is important to conservatism?). Who else could easily rationalize to the rejected fragile male, full of angst, and CALMLY AND CHEERFULLY inform angry middle-class self-perceived failures why they failed (blame the enemy!) and why they should side with big money and not feel any guilt about poverty or pollution.
Rush is evidence of the power play the corporations made on unwitting middle-America, not for their hearts (religion has that covered), but for their minds. If you think Rush is productive for America, by dividing us and making enemies in families and politics, you have already written off the process. Rush and his hardcore listeners are too opinionated, too hypocritical, too unwilling to change to the developing facts. Rush hardens people, not softens them. They end up trusting institutional religion and corporations at face value while demonizing the government (which they use for their own police purposes–and Rush said the military was the only agency that “worked” and routinely offers economic data in actual dollars, not real dollars).
Absolutism is too close to mental illness for my tastes. I should warn you, December, that he might have you trained to think a certain way, but he is fresh out of ideas and never really had anything of value to say. The world needs ideas right now, not blind faith. Check all your values to be sure they are right for your needs. Do you have parents who need medicaid? Do you have children who need education? Rush’s “philosophy” best suits the slumlord, not the tenent (ideally, that should be a metaphor). When the middle-class disappears, who are you going to blame? Poor people?
Brian – Wow, what a rant!
You are probably correct that Rush’s audience tends to be older, white males.
You ask, “Are you encouraging me to listen to a person, and not to develop for myself a comprehensive school of thought or a list of ideals based on facts and reasons?” No, I’m encouraging you to listen to IN ORDER to develop a school of thought about Rush. You say you once heard a clip of Rush. I was unclear whether it was part of an A&E report, or if the radio happened to be on during his live show. How much other listening to him have you, personally done? Why not listen for a week so you can get your own facts. Then, when A&E does a hatchet job, you can make a reasoned judgment whether Rush is off-base or A&E is?
I judge the NY Times to be left based on my daily reading of it. Many of their editorials are outrageous. They have different standards of integrity for Republicans and Democrats, e.g. their discussion of Newt Gingrich’s and Hillary Clinton’s book deals. Or, their excusing of Dem. Congressman McDermott who illegally passed on to them a conversation with Newt Gingrich, which had been obtained by illegal wire-tapping. Their news coverage is outstanding, but they sometimes omit or downplay articles critical of the left. E.g., they’ve given hardly any coverage of Jesse Jackson’s income tax situation. BTW a super web site for reporting inaccuracies and biases in that paper is http://www.smartertimes.com
You wrote, “To me, he specifically appeals to the small business males who want to be rich but have no shot at it, so they can only dream and pat the corporate bullies on the back and cheer the damage on, not having a clue, the slightest clue of what those guys really think of them.” The first two words of this sentence seems to mean that this is merely your imagined view of of Rush’s listeners. FWIW I don’t fit that particular stereotype.
Well Maeglin, the father of modern conservatism, Barry Goldwater, fought for more equal treatment of blacks in the military. Without vitriol or fanfare he referred to the admirable service record the black American had in WWs I and II as well as the civil war, in spite of the limited opportunities afforded him. Citing the lessons of history he succeeded in creating the first integrated units in the air force as well as garnering top level treatment, training and equiptment for the black serviceman who merited it.
He did this before civil rights became such an issue, and he did it when it was a very unpopular stance.
In one of his last public appearances before his death he made the same argument for gays in the military. Again citing history. Gay serviceman have been a fact of military life as long as their has been a military, and the record of distinction for such need take a backseat to any other group. He gives the Sacred Band of Thebes as an example.
Basically the founding principle of conservatism is that change based on theory alone will produce unforseen consequences. Therefore, change needs to be implemented slowly and carefully, and we should not discard the way we do things lightly, as there may be hard won reasons as to why they are done that way.
If that’s not trying to learn from the lessons of the past, I don’t know what is.
Certainly, both conservatism, and liberalism have their strengths and weaknesses, but it seems either disingenuous or ignorant to think that conservatism doesn’t appreciate the lessons of the past. That’s primarily what it does.
Well Maeglin, the father of modern conservatism, Barry Goldwater, fought for more equal treatment of blacks in the military. Without vitriol or fanfare he referred to the admirable service record the black American had in WWs I and II as well as the civil war, in spite of the limited opportunities afforded him. Citing the lessons of history he succeeded in creating the first integrated units in the air force as well as garnering top level treatment, training and equiptment for the black serviceman who merited it.
He did this before civil rights became such an issue, and he did it when it was a very unpopular stance.
In one of his last public appearances before his death he made the same argument for gays in the military. Again citing history. Gay serviceman have been a fact of military life as long as their has been a military, and the record of distinction for such need take a backseat to any other group. He gives the Sacred Band of Thebes as an example.
Basically the founding principle of conservatism is that change based on theory alone will produce unforseen consequences. Therefore, change needs to be implemented slowly and carefully, and we should not discard the way we do things lightly, as there may be hard won reasons as to why they are done that way.
If that’s not trying to learn from the lessons of the past, I don’t know what is.
Certainly, both conservatism, and liberalism have their strengths and weaknesses, but it seems either disingenuous or ignorant to think that conservatism doesn’t appreciate the lessons of the past. That’s primarily what it does.
An extraterrestrial might well deem you a horrifying blob with grotesque appendages.
But since we’re dealing with the United States here, neither of these statements is relevant.
I don’t have a copy in front of me, but I believe The Way Things Aren’t: Rush Limbaugh’s Reign of Error included results of a research study that showed Limbaugh listeners thought they knew more about political events than other people, but were actually ranked lowest on accuracy and knowledge of the details of the issues involved. It’s definitely in the book; I just wish I had a copy here to cite from it.
Just speaking as a cynic, I have to ask – did Barry Goldwater advocate equal treatment of blacks and gays in all aspects of life, or just in the military? Because I’ve got a suspicion that Barry’s real motivation was to have more cannon fodder on the front lines for America’s enemies to shoot at – “better to let one of them get blasted instead of risking the lives of our all-American straight white kids”…