In defense of conservative talk radio
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.
Copyright Creators Syndicate 2008
***
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.
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
- In Defense Of Conservative Talk Radio : BigMouthFrog
- Keith Burgess-Jackson » Talk Radio
- Neocon News » Daily Quick Hits 2/13/08
- silent E speaks - Conservatively Speaking from Western Waukesha County » Leave My Evil Right Wing Radio Alone….
- BizzyBlog » Mitt Romney Will Be Endorsing John McCain
- Roscoe’s Public Notes » Blog Archive » links for 2008-02-15
- Michelle Malkin » Rush Derangement Syndrome
- Rush Derangement Syndrome « Conservative Thoughts and Profundity
- Michelle Malkin » A note to Michael Steele
- Steele: GOP Convention like Nazi Germany » A Couple Things » A couple things about politics, sports, travel, and other stuff.
- Michael Steele thinks that the GOP convention looked like “Nazi Germany”, rips Rush Limbaugh - Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter strike back at Steele | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Fairness Doctrine, Media, Rush Limbaugh
Sister Toldjah
» The anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall – and how the far left still hasn’t given up
AmSpecBlog
» Carly Fiorina's Twitter Opponent

Pundit & Pundette
» Intelligence agencies knew Hasan was a traitor
Legal Insurrection
» Will The Truth Be Hasan's Last Victim?
The Powers That Be
» US Intel Knew Hasan Was Trying to Contact Al Qaeda
NewsBusters.org
» NYT's Krugman Quotes Song Proving ObamaCare Opponents' Point
Riehl World View
» MSNBC's Shuster Links Fred Phelps To Republicans, Conservatives








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.
True, but it isn’t your place to decide what the rules are. Just a head’s up.
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?
Barry,
Obvious Dakine disagrees with you. So do others who use the same technique.
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.
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…
… on this subject, I don’t suppose I will expect a reply back.
Rick Santorum
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/15624602.html
A thought…for those still capable of thought.
We should all be so lucky…
For some reason, I’m not holding my breath that it will be the end. Color me skeptical.
As the toddler son of a friend of mine used to tell his daddy…
You a hor’ble, hor’ble man…!
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.
I hear you, brother.
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.
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.
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.
I thought you were…