How did the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs come to take over the conservative movement?

[joebuck20]

When I was growing up the GOP still had respectable spokespeople. Even if you disagreed with George Will or William F. Buckley, you couldn’t deny that they were smart men, based their opinions in fact and (for the most part) were above using scare tactics.
Hell, my dad voted Republican, sometimes straight ticket, in every election up until 2008. But last year he voted for Obama, because he thought the GOP had become too much of a farce.
So how did people like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and all the other batshit crazies become the voice of American conservatism?

[Polycarp]

I think this is a very good question. I was raised by two Republicans, voted and campaigned for Republicans in my early adult years. We have a bunch of sane, thoughtful conservative Republicans on the board. I’d love to see their responses.

(And may I request that if you think ‘the only good Republican is a dead Republican’, you keep that thought to yourself as regards this thread, to see what sort of discussion on the actual issue Joe raised we can get going?

[2ply]

Politics tend to attract participation from people from the extreme ends of the spectrum more than moderates.

Limbaugh/Beck/Palin play into populism and know how to attract middle and low income people while Will and Buckley come off as intellectual elitists who won’t be able to relate to the middle class. Not that Limbaugh knows anything about being middle class, but he pretends to, while people like Wills and Buckley never pretend to act like anything other than rich men.

[BrainGlutton]

@joebuck20

When I was growing up the GOP still had respectable spokespeople.

N.B.: Don’t confuse the GOP with the conservative movement. The former once had its liberal “Rockefeller Republican” wing, until the latter took it over, in a process beginning with the Goldwater campaign in 1964 and culminating in the nomination of Ronald Reagan in 1980.

From The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America, by conservative British journalists John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge:

The exceptionalism of the American Right is partly a matter of its beliefs. The first two definitions of “conservative” offered by the Concise Oxford Dictionary are “adverse to rapid change” and “moderate, avoiding extremes.” Neither of these seems a particularly good description of what is going on in America at the moment. “Conservatism” – no less than its foes “liberalism” or “communitarianism” – has become one of those words that are now as imprecise as they are emotionally charged. Open a newspaper and you can find the word used to describe Jacques Chirac, Trent Lott, the Mullah Omar and Vladimir Putin. Since time immemorial, conservatives have insisted that their deeply pragmatic creed cannot be ideologically pigeonholed.

But, in philosophical terms at least, classical conservatism does mean something. The creed of Edmund Burke, its most eloquent proponent, might be crudely reduced to six principles: a deep suspicion of the power of the state; a preference for liberty over equality; patriotism; a belief in established institutions and hierarchies; skepticism about the idea of progress; and elitism. Winston Churchill happily accepted these principles: he was devoted to nation and empire, disinclined to trust the lower orders with anything, hostile to the welfare state, worried about the diminution of liberty and, as he once remarked ruefully, “preferred the past to the present and the present to the future.”

To simplify a little, the exceptionalism of modern American conservatism lies in its exaggeration of the first three of Burke’s principles and contradiction of the last three. The American Right exhibits a far deeper hostility towards the state than any other modern conservative party. . . . The American right is also more obsessed with personal liberty than any other conservative party, and prepared to tolerate an infinitely higher level of inequality. (One reason why Burke warmed to the American revolutionaries was that, unlike their dangerous French equivalents, the gentlemen rebels concentrated on freedom, not equality.) On patriotism, nobody can deny that conservatives everywhere tend to be a fairly nationalistic bunch. . . . Yet many European conservatives have accepted the idea that their nationality should be diluted in “schemes and speculations” like the European Union, and they are increasingly reconciled to dealing with national security on a multilateral basis. American conservatives clearly are not.

If the American Right was merely a more vigorous form of conservatism, then it would be a lot more predictable. In fact, the American Right takes a resolutely liberal approach to Burke’s last three principles: hierarchy, pessimism and elitism. The heroes of modern American conservatism are not paternalist squires but rugged individualists who don’t know their place: entrepeneurs who build mighty businesses out of nothing, settlers who move out West, and, of course, the cowboy. There is a frontier spirit to the Right – unsurprisingly, since so much of its heartland is made up of new towns of one sort of another.

The geography of conservatism also helps to explain its optimism rather than pessimism. In the war between the Dynamo and the Virgin, as Henry Adams characterized the battle between progress and tradition, most American conservatives are on the side of the Dynamo. They think that the world offers all sorts of wonderful possibilities. And they feel that the only thing that is preventing people from attaining these possibilities is the dead liberal hand of the past. By contrast, Burke has been described flatteringly by European conservatives as a “prophet of the past.” Spend any time with a group of Republicans, and their enthusiasm for the future can be positively exhausting.

As for elitism, rather than dreaming about creating an educated “clerisy” of clever rulers (as Coleridge and T.S. Eliot did), the Republicans ever since the 1960s have played the populist card. Richard Nixon saw himself as the champion of the “silent majority.” In 1988 the aristocratic George H.W. Bush presented himself as a defender of all-American values against the Harvard Yard liberalism of Michael Dukakis. In 2000, George W. Bush, a president’s son who was educated at Andover, Yale and Harvard Business School, played up his role as a down-to-earth Texan taking on the might of Washington. As a result, modern American conservatism has flourished not just in country clubs and boardrooms, but at the grass roots – on talk radio and at precinct meetings, and in revolts against high taxes, the regulation of firearms and other invidious attempts by liberal do-gooders to force honest Americans into some predetermined mold.

And there is your answer: Buckley and Will are no longer the vanguard because they were unmistakeably elitists, both socially and intellectually; Beck and Limbaugh and Coulter are Ignorance-Is-Strength populists.

[Onomatopoeia]

I think 2ply has it right, but it’s a little more than that, I believe. The Limbeckalincoulreillys also know how to play to the uneducateds’, and seemingly proudly uneducables’ fears, which is a much more potent weapon to have in one’s arsenal. Say what you will, but I think you have to admit that the conservative spokesforce has successfully turned this into an artform to be truly awed by.

[magellan01]

@joebuck20

How did the Glenn Beck’s and Rush Limbaugh’s come to take over the conservative movement?

Through correct use of apostrophes.

[joebuck20]

@magellan01

Through correct use of apostrophes.

Damn!! I guess that’s what happens when you fiddle around too much with your title.
Moderator, can you please take the apostrophes out? Thanks.

[kevlaw]

@joebuck20

So how did people like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and all the other batshit crazies become the voice of American conservatism?

Rupert Murdoch had a hunch that he could make a lot of money by converting the business model of The Sun from a newspaper in England to a TV channel in America.

He was right.

[Sam_Stone]

Limbaugh is to blame for the others. He set the standard.

But part of the problem is that conservatives don’t have a voice anywhere else. Back in the day, William F. Buckley had his own show on PBS. He had a stage to speak from. Why doesn’t PBS put on other thoughtful conservatives in a similar format?

It’s not like there aren’t any of them out there. Do you want to see what thoughtful conservative TV looks like? There’s plenty of it on the internet.

For example, watch this episode of Uncommon Knowledge from National Review. Very much an old-school debate/analysis show of the type Buckley would have done.

ReasonTV produces some high quality short videos, entertaining analysis and interviews.

There are reasonable Republicans who are very good on TV and well known: Drew Carey and Dennis Miller, for example. Miller now has a radio show that’s very popular and considerably more reasonable than Limbaugh’s show. Drew Carey does short videos for Reason.

Pajamas TV is a right-leaning online TV network, complete with regular anchors and full production studios. Some of their on-air people are easily engaging enough to be on mainstream TV.

But none of them can get shows in the mainstream media. John Stossel is the only libertarian I can think of who gets any regular airtime at all on a major network. Generally, if you want a show on MSNBC or on the Sunday talk shows, you need to be someone who A) worked for a Democratic politician, B) worked for a major newspaper like the New York Times, or C) worked your way up through the news organization, meaning you’re almost certainly a Democrat.

The fact is, if Buckley were around today, he couldn’t get a show on TV anywhere other than on Fox.

[kevlaw]

@Sam_Stone

But part of the problem is that conservatives don’t have a voice anywhere else. Back in the day, William F. Buckley had his own show on PBS. He had a stage to speak from. Why doesn’t PBS put on other thoughtful conservatives in a similar format?

I would enjoy a format like that but, off the top of my head, I can’t think of any PBS/NPR shows that are outright political advocacy or commentary whether liberal or conservative. So it’s not necessarily bias against conservatives. (They do have the Shields and Brooks segment on Jim Lehrer but that’s just a short segment in a larger show.)

There is a reasonable number of serious conservatives writing in the mainstream press that get occasional Talking Head spots on TV.

[Lumpy]

FWIW, my pet theory is that sometime in the 1980s someone influential in the Republicans made the conscious decision to turn the Republican Party into “The Party”: to emulate, as far as is possible in a democracy, the absolutism of a revolutionary one-party state. Paradoxically, this means both an increased obsession with ideology and an increased cynicism about anything other than winning and holding political power. The model the Republicans most look up to and hope to emulate today is the PRI of Mexico, which held continuous power for over seventy years.

The biggest difference, IMHO, is that old-time conservative leaders for the most part believed the values they preached. Today the people running the show are on some level or another aware that they’re con artists selling a lie; it’s just that it’s a successful lie, a useful lie for mobilizing the masses and the low-level grunts working in the political trenches.

[Binarydrone]

So… this is all the fault of the so-called liberal media? How deliciously nefarious of them!

[treis]

@Sam_Stone

There are reasonable Republicans who are very good on TV and well known: Drew Carey and Dennis Miller, for example. Miller now has a radio show that’s very popular and considerably more reasonable than Limbaugh’s show. Drew Carey does short videos for Reason.

[snip]

But none of them can get shows in the mainstream media.

:dubious: So explain how Dennis Miller got a prime time show on CNBC?

[Voyager]

@Sam_Stone

Limbaugh is to blame for the others. He set the standard.

But part of the problem is that conservatives don’t have a voice anywhere else. Back in the day, William F. Buckley had his own show on PBS. He had a stage to speak from. Why doesn’t PBS put on other thoughtful conservatives in a similar format?

I don’t think the issue is the lack of thoughtful conservatives. I don’t remember a liberal having a show like Firing Line either. The reason WFB was on was that he was charismatic in a way few others are, no matter what party, and he could handle a fairly difficult debate format entertainingly.

However, I don’t think he ever got the ratings Rush does now, and wouldn’t today either, since he was far too reasoned and intellectual to appeal to those who watch Fox. In fact I disagree with you - I think if he were around and young today he could get a show anywhere on TV except Fox. (Except maybe MSNBC). When I subscribed to National Review, there were columnists like Russell Kirk and James Burnham, and a good bit of humor and snarkiness about liberals, but no one anywhere like Coulter or Limbaugh. The John Birch Society was none too fond of Buckley, remember. I can visualize Beck being on Firing Line, and being insulted by WFB through the use of words Beck doesn’t even understand. It would be a sight to behold.

[Voyager]

BTW, these people are not the first extremists to become popular in the mass media. Im offer you Father Coughlin. I am not equating anyone’s position or politics with his - but extremism sometimes sells.

[kevlaw]

@kevlaw

Rupert Murdoch had a hunch that he could make a lot of money by converting the business model of The Sun from a newspaper in England to a TV channel in America.

Curse me for opening a link to The Sun.

From today’s paper,

THE Doncaster “hell boys” are an extreme, twisted product of a disintegrating society.

Not all the kids who go feral on Britain’s lawless streets are potential killers, of course. That takes a measure of evil that this appalling pair have in spades.

But the typical failings of Broken Britain are what moulded them into dangerous predators.

I think there is a straight line from The Sun Says to Glenn Beck.

[Polycarp]

@Voyager

I don’t think the issue is the lack of thoughtful conservatives. I don’t remember a liberal having a show like Firing Line either. The reason WFB was on was that he was charismatic in a way few others are, no matter what party, and he could handle a fairly difficult debate format entertainingly.

However, I don’t think he ever got the ratings Rush does now, and wouldn’t today either, since he was far too reasoned and intellectual to appeal to those who watch Fox. In fact I disagree with you - I think if he were around and young today he could get a show anywhere on TV except Fox. (Except maybe MSNBC). When I subscribed to National Review, there were columnists like Russell Kirk and James Burnham, and a good bit of humor and snarkiness about liberals, but no one anywhere like Coulter or Limbaugh. The John Birch Society was none too fond of Buckley, remember. I can visualize Beck being on Firing Line, and being insulted by WFB through the use of words Beck doesn’t even understand. It would be a sight to behold.

Agreed NR was thoughtful, insightful, snarky, worth reading, no matter your political views. I didn’t watch Firing Line (no PBS affiliate available) but I can imagine Buckley in real time. And your analysis is completely on target IMO.

[Der_Trihs]

I think it’s the long term result of the devil’s bargain they made with the fanatics and bigots. They decided to appeal to the people who turned away from the Democrats because the Democrats were too tolerant, not religiously fanatical enough. The Southern Strategy of appealing to Southern racists is a major example. They spent decades appealing to the bigoted, the fanatic, the loonies for votes; who therefore begin to think of the Republicans and conservatives as their Party and their movement. And who slowly alienated everyone else; the bad driving out the good.

So over time the bigoted, the fanatic, the loonies - and those willing to pander to them - joined the GOP, joined the various supporting organizations; they became the movement. And in the end, ended up in charge because by now it IS their movement. It was pretty much inevitable.

[wonky]

@BrainGlutton

From The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America, by conservative British journalists John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge:

That’s interesting, but the idea of today’s conservatives being boundless optimists just doesn’t strike the right note for me. The doom! The gloom! The put-upon martyrdom! The worldiscomingtoanendism! It’s the downfall of America! Why, back in the day…

[2ply]

@Sam_Stone

John Stossel is the only libertarian I can think of who gets any regular airtime at all on a major network. Generally, if you want a show on MSNBC or on the Sunday talk shows, you need to be someone who A) worked for a Democratic politician, B) worked for a major newspaper like the New York Times, or C) worked your way up through the news organization, meaning you’re almost certainly a Democrat.

John Stossel is given airtime on a broadcast network in primetime to express his political views. He does it on 20/20 and has had several specials which are hour long editorials for his libertarian politics. I don’t know who else gets that privilege besides Andy Rooney and I don’t know what his politics are other than “old man”. I suspect there are more conservatives and libertarians in network news who try not to express their politics on air. I could ask why the big four networks don’t give airtime on their news shows don’t let any left wingers editorialize on their primetime news programs.

@Sam_Stone

The fact is, if Buckley were around today, he couldn’t get a show on TV anywhere other than on Fox.

Buckley’s too liberal and sane for Fox :).