Michelle Malkin » In defense of conservative talk radio

In defense of conservative talk radio

By Michelle Malkin • February 13, 2008 10:33 AM

The most anti-conservative rhetoric against conservative talk radio these days is coming from supposedly free-market conservatives. It’s disgusting.

Author Mark Helprin’s grenade in The Wall Street Journal stands out. Yesterday, he launched an attack on conservative radio hosts who oppose presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain. Helprin sneered that their “major talent is that, like hairdressers, they can talk all day long to one client after another as they snip.”

It’s one thing to hear such petty snark coming from the left. Outraged that conservative talk radio has succeeded in the marketplace while liberals have bombed, and unnerved that new media outlets have upended mainstream journalism’s monopoly apple cart, liberals have long crusaded against the medium. Bill Clinton blamed the Oklahoma City bombing on the “many loud and angry voices” in conservative talk radio that “spread hate.” Democrats continue to deride “Republican noise machines” and are working in Congress to marginalize, regulate and stifle influential talkers—most recently by threatening to reinstitute the Orwellian Fairness Doctrine.

But now, we have establishment Republicans parroting liberal ad hominem rhetoric: Talk-radio hosts are talentless blabbermouths. Their listeners are mind-numbed robots. Or, as supposed free-market conservative and McCain supporter Phil Gramm put it in his broadside against talk radio in the Washington Post last week: “They say they have principles, but some of it is their ego and power, too. They’re well-known, and they’re used to having power.”

Funny. These trash-talking GOP politicians and pundits had no problem when conservative talk-radio hosts used their “ego and power” to help kill Hillary Clinton’s massive government health care takeover in 1994. They had no problem when conservative talk-radio hosts used their “ego and power” to galvanize support for the Republican revolution, two Bush presidential campaigns and the war in Iraq.

In major metropolitan U.S. cities, conservative talk radio offers rare relief from liberal orthodoxy—and local talk show hosts have spearheaded effective activism. KSFO in San Francisco led the Gray Davis recall brigade. KVI in Seattle was instrumental in launching the successful fight against Hillarycare and in support of an initiative abolishing government racial preferences.

Were they nothing more than empty-talking hairdressers then?

The Republican talk-radio bashers did start having problems when many national hosts harnessed popular grassroots opposition to help kill last year’s Bush/McCain/Kennedy illegal alien amnesty bill. GOP Rep. Lindsey Graham dismissed them as “loud folks.” In other words: They were making a difference. Then-Sen. Trent Lott lamented that right-wing talk-radio hosts were a “problem.” In other words: They were effective. McCain’s defenders have made common cause with the likes of ethnocentric, open-borders groups like La Raza in redefining all conservative talk-radio opposition as unacceptable “hate” beyond the bounds of reasonable discourse.

In other words: They must be shut up. Bill Clinton approves.

Those who most stridently criticize talk radio know the least about it. It is not one monolithic bloc. Disagreements among top conservative hosts are legendary. They have different interests, varying styles, and divergent strengths and weaknesses. Do they do what they do primarily for money, ego and power? It’s an embarrassingly class-warfare-tinged cheap shot.

In any case, if you’re a true free-market conservative, it’s not supposed to be a crime to make a profit. There’s no shame in making a living by sharing information and opinions—or in meeting unmet demands in the marketplace of ideas.

I’ve done it for 16 years in the newspaper, TV and blogging businesses. And I can tell you this: Talk radio has been instrumental and invaluable in the dissemination of conservative principles. Ask any author who hasn’t been able to get a fair hearing in the national press, but who has watched his Amazon.com ratings soar after a mention by a talk-radio host. Ask any local columnist grateful for a chance to see his or her reporting receive wider attention.

Helprin accuses conservative talkers who oppose McCain of rooting for a liberal presidency because their “influence and coffers swell on discontent” and they are “nostalgic” for the Clinton years. Translation: They’re all just greedy self-promoters who care more about themselves than the good of the country. Gramm leveled the same attack: “They’re people who put their dogma in front of the interests of the country.”

Cocooned conservative establishment snobs denigrate talk-radio hosts for preaching to the choir. But these same critics have no problem using the medium to market their own work. Ask their publicists. The message of the anti-conservative conservatives dissing talk radio: Self-interest for me, but not for thee.

No need to wait for a Clinton to take the White House. Clintonism is alive and well among conservative talk-radio haters on both sides of the aisle.

***

Related: Brian Maloney spotlights the hatred of Bill Maher–and P.J. O’Rourke.

BILL MAHER, HOST: Why is it, I was asking Amy this, why is it that the Republican establishment, I guess it is, have so much disdain, not just for McCain, but for the other guy who’s still in it…Huckabee? They don’t like either one of them.

P.J. O’ROURKE, WRITER: Well, I think a couple of things are going on. It’s the it’s the twilight of the radio loud-mouth, you know? I knew it from the moment the fat guy…

MAHER: …You mean Rush Limbaugh and Sean..?

O’ROURKE: …from the moment the fat guy refused to share his drugs (audience laughter). I was, you know…he never called, he never wrote. I’m ready to party, you know, come on! No, I think it’s kind of over for those people. So…

MAHER: Right, you mean the OxyContin that he was on?

O’ROURKE: Yeah, exactly. I mean, that stuff’s good!

MAHER: Why couldn’t, uh, why couldn’t have he croaked from it instead of Heath Ledger? (small audience groans)

O’ROURKE: Yeah, yeah.

I noted O’Rourke’s ad hominem Rush Limbaugh/talk radio-bashing four years ago–after which, he appeared on–yup, talk radio–to plug his latest book.

Posted in: Fairness Doctrine, Media, Rush Limbaugh

Printer Friendly

comments (109)

trackbacks (11)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#244754

On February 14th, 2008 at 10:05 am, Mr_Conservative_Cat said:

Hey Ragsy,

For a guy who has been bombastic, arrogant and a smart-ass more times than anyone can count, your sudden epiphany to gracious manners rings hollow. Your third-person devine detachment, particularly, rings phoney.

This may be a good thing. If it keeps you in check in the future and from now on, then a little good has come from mixing it up with you, otherwise an exsasperating excursion into time-wasting, were it not that some people might just be influenced to follow what has been up to now your pathetic lead.

Dakine had a great take on you. You should read it sometime for a great self-assessment.

It being an open forum, they are free…to a point…to do that.

True, but it isn’t your place to decide what the rules are. Just a head’s up.

Another thing I’ve found interesting is that, while addressing the McCain candidacy and expressing our inability to support him, nobody of that persuasion has called McCain supporters “traitors”, or whiners…, or, for that matter, much of any kind of name.

The reason for that is that they aren’t, but those who sit out the election and don’t vote the Republican ticket most certainly are from a conservative point-of-view at least, because that will ensure a likely socialist/left takeover of all three branches of then highest offices in the land; if Hillary or Obama become President, and the congress remains held by liberal democrats (likely at this juncture, though things change), then liberal socialist judges, including Supreme Cout nominees, will be appointed for life and change the face of our country in ways we can barely imagine. If anyone knowingly does that, then you bet they’re traitors. Our soldiers have died in wars on other countries defending American values from scourges which struck much less into the very heart of the operation of this nation.

But you’ll keep blathering and I’ll keep correcting you and I guess that’s just how it’s going to have to be, Ragsy.

Get the picture, professor?
#244781

On February 14th, 2008 at 10:25 am, Mr_Conservative_Cat said:

Barry,

Obvious Dakine disagrees with you. So do others who use the same technique.

I actually find your use of bold, etc. to be quite helpful in reading through your longer comments.

The only form of yelling online anyone has ever mentioned is CAPS.

This issue is obviously subjective. We disagree. Thanks for the opinion. I’ll stick with my style of posting. Done.
#244845

On February 14th, 2008 at 11:18 am, Barry F. said:

I’ll stick with my style of posting. Done.

Actually, I expected nothing less of you, given your previous commentaries. But, holding up one person that likes the repetetive use of bold print isn’t exactly a mandate.

I suspect there are a lot more readers that simply bypass the posts with the habitual use of bold print from the same person.

The problem is, you take what is said to you as a personal affront. And, to be quite honest, that his not how I intended the post that got us off on this banter between us.

I enjoy civil public discourse and debates. But it is one thing to discuss/debate and quite another to rant. Someone doesn’t have to agree with me all the time to have a discussion with them.

You’re entitled to your opinion on whether to vote for McCain or not. If you choose to cast a ballot in his favor, have at it, by all means. If I or others on Michelle’s blog choose not to do so in November, calling names and blustering that folks need to fall in line, close ranks, or whatever the quote of the day is won’t do it. Many people do not work well with intimidation. I’ve worked in and around some of the worst of society’s rejects from child molesters to convicted murders. Online bullying doesn’t make me want to kow-tow to your line of the rank and file GOP’s line to support McCain – period.

Now, since you said you are…

Done.

… on this subject, I don’t suppose I will expect a reply back.
#244852

On February 14th, 2008 at 11:21 am, Ragspierre said:

Conservatives understand just how consequential the 2008 election will be. It could very well result in the election of a Democratic president who’s prepared to reshape America culturally and economically and unprepared to defend the nation against our foreign enemies. Yet we see a presumptive Republican nominee who has too often joined the very people who seek to destroy and replace what we fight to conserve and improve. And so we wonder: Is this the man we can trust to take our case to the American people?

Many of us want a leader who believes in his core that this race is a fight for the soul of America, her Judeo-Christian tradition, her sovereignty, her courage to defeat not appease or surrender to her enemies, her belief in capitalism and limited government, and her commitment to equality of opportunity, not result. We want a leader who’s not interested in moving the country in the same direction as Clinton and Obama, only slower.

Rick Santorum

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/15624602.html

A thought…for those still capable of thought.
#244856

On February 14th, 2008 at 11:25 am, Ragspierre said:

Done.

… on this subject, I don’t suppose I will expect a reply back.

We should all be so lucky…
#244874

On February 14th, 2008 at 11:35 am, Barry F. said:

On February 14th, 2008 at 11:25 am, Ragspierre said:

We should all be so lucky…

For some reason, I’m not holding my breath that it will be the end. Color me skeptical.
#244888

On February 14th, 2008 at 11:48 am, Ragspierre said:

As the toddler son of a friend of mine used to tell his daddy…

You a hor’ble, hor’ble man…!
#244976

On February 14th, 2008 at 1:13 pm, Barry F. said:

I’ve been called a lot worse over the years.

But, I don’t think I’ve ever been called that by a toddler, just some that don’t act much older than that.
#244988

On February 14th, 2008 at 1:24 pm, Ragspierre said:

I hear you, brother.
#245280

On February 14th, 2008 at 5:43 pm, purplepeep said:

Barry F. said:
I suspect there are a lot more readers that simply bypass the posts with the habitual use of bold print from the same person.

Yup. I don’t know why someone would figure – if only they act panicked enough, scream non-stop and fume away – that somehow the white puffs of smoke coming out of their ears makes them Pope.
#245315

On February 14th, 2008 at 6:28 pm, Mr_Conservative_Cat said:

PurplePeep,

I see you’re still trying your hand at psychoanalysis. Stick with the psycho part – that’s what you’re good at. or I may try it: three brused egos in mutual consolation. Yes, bruised, not by me, but their own thin skins. Three who can dish it out but cannot take it; three who when shooting their big, fat mouths off and got taste of their own medicine saw fellow contributors applaude a momentry sense of “justice”, so to speak, particularly Ragsy, who’s been taken to task for his arrogant posturing as an authority on election result predictions on coutless occasions but can’t see what is glarigly apparent: that he’s hopelessly confused. A lawyer? I doubt it. I doubt it very much. Three people who will not vote McCain as the party gathers together to make victory happen, Romey endores him and the world passes those three by. Angry, calling others angry. So wanting in substance, they make style the issue. Brother. pathetic. truly. It almost makes it too sad to whip your collective asses – and you’ve also seen me sway others publically on this board to a rational view – there can be no question of the record.

But keep talking. In a party full of winners, it’s important to see what losers – literally – look like.

keep your day jobs, boys and girl.

As for me, I’m just warming up, thanks. And so is the rest of the party. And the movement. But you’ll three still have each other. enjoy.
#245336

On February 14th, 2008 at 6:49 pm, purplepeep said:

Mr_Conservative_Cat said:
applaude a momentry sense of “justice”

MrCC – you’re confusing “justice” with “plain talk” about common courtesy. As others have put it, it’s a “Dale Carnegie” issue with which you are wrestling. As has been noted, folks here have seen the explosive rage and wrath of everything from child molesters to stone cold killers. So bombast and angry, personal-based rantings just are not all that impressive or effective. But it’s reasonable for them to expect a bit better from commenters on Michelle’s blog. You are free to disgree.
#245341

On February 14th, 2008 at 7:01 pm, Barry F. said:

On February 14th, 2008 at 6:28 pm, Mr_Conservative_Cat said:

I thought you were…

Done.