GrumpyBunny claimed they weren’t consistent because they were dead.
If you want one slant, you can watch CNN or MS/NBC or PBS or ABC or NBC or CBS. If you want the other, you can watch Fox. It’s like the complaints when Ralph Nader ran for President - he was competition for the Democrat.
Regards,
Shodan
I think she said they’re consistent UNTIL they’re dead.
MY point was that people who want their “right” slant are more into consistently getting their fix for it than those for the left. Hence, the success of Fox.
Do you have a cite for this?
I sympathize with the OP. I had about 2 hours of feeling this way earlier in the week. Then I remembered that 1) My life is actually pretty good, and is not going to be substantially materially affected, especially in the short term, by the election results, and 2) U.S. electoral politics is extremely cyclical – I predicted back in 2008 that we would elect a Republican president in either 2016 or 2020, just because that’s the way it goes, and I’m still sticking with that opinion. We had our chance, and they will have their chance, and we’ll have ours again.
I agree with other posters that you definitely need to get away from the media. I don’t typically watch T.V. news, but this week I haven’t even watched The Daily Show because I just didn’t need to hear it right now, even in a satiric format.
Do you really see vapidity and selfishness all around you? Maybe in the aggregate views of the electorate. But in your daily life? You can generally find the good in people if you’re looking for it.
The other thing you can do is to take positive action yourself. You can’t save the Earth, but you can recycle, or volunteer to clean up litter somewhere. You can’t solve the problem of income inequality, but you can donate or assist the poor, either in your local community or through microfunding. Be the change you want to see in the world.
This quote (and the linked article) does not support that people on the right are “more keenly into politics” – only that they’re passionate fans of Fox News. This doesn’t tell us if they’re more or less into politics than those on the left.
That cite is so far from saying that conservatives obsess about politics more than liberals that it’s pathetic. It doesn’t even address the question.
Here is a study showing the simple, self-reported percentage of Americans Reporting They Are “Very Much Interested in the [Presidential] Election”, 1980-2004.
Big surprise, a higher percentage of conservatives were “very much interested” in the 1990’s, when Clinton was the Antichrist, and a higher percentage of liberals were interested in the 1980’s and 2004, when Reagan and Bush respectively were the Antichrist.
Most studies of political engagement show that it rises toward both ends of the spectrum–highest (unsurprisingly) among consistent and/or extreme liberals and conservatives, lowest in the middle, with little difference between right and left.
I don’t remember the article where I originally read that and a quick google search didn’t find it. It was years ago and it might not have been online. But you’re nitpicking. You tell me . . . How can someone be passionate fans of Fox News but NOT be passionate about politics?
They might well be. But you said that people on the right were more passionate about (or more keenly into) politics than people on the left. People on the left might be equally passionate about politics, but with more diverse media ‘passions’. That is, some liberals passionately watch MSNBC, some passionately listen to NPR, some passionately read Mother Jones, some passionately follow Daily Kos, etc.
Conservatives are the MOST consistent voting block. Check the chart from this. They vote in heavy numbers in every election cycle. The average conservative generally cares about politics more than the average liberal. Hence the support for Fox News.
It doesn’t add up, right? I mean, the right also has websites and magazines that are well supported and don’t even talk about radio. Yet MSNBC will never get the ratings Fox does.
How do you know unless you’ve done the math? That’s a monumental task, of course – Nielsen ratings + subscriber numbers + radio listeners + website traffic + etc. – but that’s why I don’t think one can make such an assertion about one side being more or less passionate about politics.
Sure, Fox News is bigger than MSNBC – but is Fox News plus all the right-wing radio, websites, and magazines bigger than MSNBC plus all the liberal radio, websites, and magazines?
OP, I’m not sure why you posted that here. Do you think this is a lib board or something? Way too self congratulatory, but your heart’s in the right place. I like how people have responded with boilerplate partisan rhetoric, news channel wars, and election talk, as if it’s not a shared ideology. Some crowing about increasing social liberalism, as if that is related at all to economic policy. The movers and shakers of the world tend to lean social lib anyway. They’re educated and worldly. Like Fortune 500 CEOs give a shit about god and guns.
As for environmentalism, it’s actually better than it deserves to be to my cynical mind. What is the environment to the average American? That green shit on the side of the highway? People care more if it actually affects them. Like when LA’s air was so thick you could cut it with a knife. Otherwise? Too abstract. The biggest gains appeal to other factors, like jobs, economic efficiency or American energy security ('dat patriotism).
It’s even sadder when too many people don’t understand that some things really are consequentially important.
Just a small word in defense of the OP in light of this onslaught of snark. I suspect that it was the OP’s style that invited it, and the sweeping nature of the commentary, rather than any particular points of substance. Does anyone seriously disagree that both Obama and his party “…would be considered conservative or moderate in most other industrialized countries today, and in this country’s own political landscape not long ago”? Or that it really is perplexing that environmental issues aren’t of paramount importance for more voters?
I can sort of understand why the OP inspired a bit of flippant sarcasm, but it’s a little unfair. Within the vast political theater of differing values and subjective opinion, some things really are objectively and unequivocally important for the long-term future, and the decisions we make will directly impact our lives for better or for worse. It’s one thing if those decisions are made in favor of conservative values instead of liberal values, but it’s quite another when they are made by lunatics like Louis Gomert who is certifiably insane, Michael Grimm who faces 20 federal indictments and once threatened to throw a reporter off a balcony for asking about it, Joni Ernst who ran a campaign based on her record of castrating hogs and content-free right-wing platitudes featuring a general condemnation of science and education, and at least a dozen more just like them who were empowered by this last election.
Yes to the to the first part, no to the second.
Humans are wired to worry about what they can see, feel and hear. They’ll worry about the environment when the ocean reaches their doorstep.
Does anyone really think that the middle classes are shrinking? Does any one think there are fewer middle class people in the world today than there were 20 years ago?
You really couldn’t get a legitimate number even if you did all that math. How would you distinguish a single consumer from overlap?
I don’t wanna hijack the thread (anymore than this tangent already has) but I’m a little surprised by the resistance. I thought it was rather common knowledge that conservatives are more persistent political consumers than liberals. I’m not saying there are MORE of them than liberals. Just that they’re more consistently engaged.
Yes, it would be a nearly impossible task – hence my skepticism that either side can be accurately described as “more consistently engaged” or similar.
This may be “common knowledge”, but I’m not if there’s any reason to consider it actually an accurate statement.
There’s also the point that who watches the most news is a stupid way to figure out who is more engaged. Polling that asks "are you conservative? Do you donate to/volunteer for a party? Do you vote in primaries?"etc would tell the tale a little better.
Agreed. The OP reminds me of a German girl I knew who was literally in tears when Reagan was reelected in '84. German. Couldn’t even vote. Well, his party lost the midterms in his second term too, but the Republicans still held the presidency in '88. Not an unusual situation, and I look forward with confidence to a second President Clinton.
I’m 32.
Stagnant/declining real wages and having to pay for the crisis caused by “banksters” and other externalities are exactly what I’m talking about. That’s neoliberalism: profits are privatized, costs are socialized.
I’ve also gotten far too many things right, contra the statements and actions of our leaders and those who follow them. Unfortunately.
That, or perhaps it’s like Egypt, where the only political elements able to take power after Mubarak was tossed were backward theocrats, and that was intolerable to the military, many Egyptians, Washington, etc. It’s hard to believe, as the US had really constructive elements with high visibility at the end of the 90s and early 00s, which brings me to…
How come? If they were so marginal and ridiculous, why was it necessary to respond with militarized police activity? Why did movements like that lead to real change in Latin America, if they were so ridiculous? I could go on…
I don’t own a TV and don’t watch the news at all. I do read it incessantly, and I see your point, but withdrawal in disgust is not too different from apathy. The issues don’t go away, and they continue to affect those without the privilege of turning away.
I can’t really help my family in this case, but I know what you’re talking about. “Self-care” is something that came up repeatedly during those hard months of Occupy. With that said, I always think of a British WWI poster targeted at conscientious objectors, with the slogan “Be honest with yourself. Be sure that your so-called reason is not a selfish excuse.” The irony is rich there, because the ordinary folk killing each other in that war had no reason to do the bidding of the 1%ers who sent them to war.
All of those corporate media sources operate within a very small Overton Window, which is a huge part of the problem. Also, Nader did not lose the election for Gore. We all know of the shenanigans the debate commission pulled, right?
Mine isn’t so good, though the effects might be small, I’m much more worried about millions of people in the proverbial and literal crosshairs.
Yes, I do see much more of the former, rather than the latter. I don’t want to automatically exempt myself, either, which leads me to…
I’m trying, but when the change needed is systemic, I tried to use my privilege and wherewithal to make a difference, and I still can’t get a job interview. It’s embarrassing and shameful.
Exactly, and they value science, and so on. The problem is when the lumpenbourgeoisie get out of control, and numerous!
Yeah, and that’s a potentially catastrophic problem.
Exactly.
Right again. Do facts not matter anymore?
Why no to the second?
That is exactly the problem. “Told you so…”
Not in the whole world, because that includes some very large areas with some substantial degree of economic independence.