Asymmetrical Information

Correction: S'mores flavored Pop Tarts are delicious.

I love your sleep deprived writing. You should do more of it.

Oh, come off it, Jane. Either you've never listened to Rush or you are just playing dumb here.

Rush is a success because he's entertaining, and also articulate and relatively well-researched. Of course he has an agenda to push, but one thing he does not do is lecture. Sean Hannity is an idiot compared to Rush (compared to just about anyone, actually), but he doesn't take himself too seriously, either. Right wing talk radio succeeds for the most part because the hosts are fun to listen to. They don't whine and they don't mince words. They're worth listening to because there is a good chance you'll learn something from them.

To reduce Rush down to media conspiracy and hating feminists is just ridiculous. If you wrote a column for your print publication with this little research, I'd hope your editor would throw it back at you and tell you to try harder.

As for the supposed anemia of the right side of the blogsphere: huh? A quick perusal of the ecosystem shows that the top echelon blogs are overwhelmingly right-ish. The right side of the blogosphere has a number of "victories" to call its own, as well, including the ouster of Dan Rather and the nixing of the Dubai Ports Deal, along with pressuring Harriet Miers to withdraw her nomination. So what was it that you were trying to say?

One of the chief tenets of conservatism is loyalty to the established order. That is a much easier mentality to manipulate than the liberal converse, that all change is progress. Just look at what Limbaugh fans call themselves - dittoheads. No liberal could possibly accept that. Even those who refer to themselves as "Kossacks" vehemently disagree with Kos often.

The predictable, unquestioning nature of the extreme right wing makes them an ideal radio audience. You always know how to satisfy them on every issue. Even a cross-party divisive issue like immigration isn't a problem. The conservatives who favor employing illegal aliens are not the audience. The beer-belly brigades of the minutement are.

There simply are not enough issues that the left agree upon to make talk radio easy. How many shows can you do on Dick Cheney?

Try discussing abortion, feminism, trade, foreign interventions, education reform or any of another dozen or so issues with a liberal audience and you get extreme fracturing.

One thing mentioned is spot on, though. The liberal talk show hosts are almost all technically poor at their jobs. Big deal, I agree with your politics, you're BORING! Stephanie Miller is a striking exception. Notably, she was a radio host and comedian before she ever became a "liberal talk radio" host.

My understanding is that liberal radio hosts have a hell of a time getting and keeping advertisers, regardless of whether they can attract an audience. Advertisers won't pay to be on a show whose politics they disagree with, whether or not it has listeners, and people who control advertising money demographically trend Republican.

I haven't got data to back this up, but it seems like a reasonable possibility, and there's probably data out there on it.

I wonder if it has anything to do with the passive/versus interactive nature of the two mediums.

Joan is also right that Rush is a good entertainer and would probably have an audience regardless of his politics. That said I don't know to many thinking conservatives that pay much attention to either Rush or Hannity.

'Surely some bright young vocal entrepreneur could get similar mileage by swilling together some "giant corporate media conspiracy"'

Wow. I'd love to be a sales manager at a station that airs that show. Forget trying to sell airtime for the show itself, you won't be able to sell ads for anything the station airs at all. In fact, Air AMerica has suffered from that to some extent. A lot of sponsers won't advertise on any station that carries any Air America programming.

"I can come up with stories, of course: liberals have NPR, and three out of four television stations, "

Uh...which three out of what four? ABC and NBC are conservative, and CBS ain't nuthin'. I'm not suggesting CBS is neutral, I'm suggesting it's bupkis, squat, a non-entity.

What Njorl said.

Just look at what Limbaugh fans call themselves - dittoheads. No liberal could possibly accept that. Even those who refer to themselves as "Kossacks" vehemently disagree with Kos often.

Talk radio is a cult of personality. There's simply no way that liberals could go for that in the same way. Jon Stewart, Colbert, and to a lesser extent Maher are sort of similar figures (on television) for the left, but they have a less dictatorial style.

I disagree with the premise that conservative radio hosts have it easier because they are rigidly loyal to the established order.

In fact, I think the reverse is true. It is the left in the US that expresses rage at any departure from their tenets.

i.e.

Liberman toed the line on every issue for years. But he has backed Bush on Iraw. Consequently he was and is hated from the left as if he is nonhuman, a demon.

When GOP Rudy buys into pro-choice some conservatives may be disgusted. That can cost him votes but there is little of no suggestion of hate and fury.

However I don't listen much. And only hear NPR or radio hosts on my rare cross-country drives. My impression is that liberal radio fails because only one opinion is allowed.

Politeness can be a big factor too. The host has all the advantages when a person calls in. I have never heard Limbaugh be mean and petty. Nuts? Maybe! But not abusive. My daughter, who is far left, agrees about that.

I think the difference is one of how each segments like to accumulate power. Liberals like to direct activities from above with experts (federal programs run by bureaucrats). This modol works well with TV and NPR where a central planning is done and distributed over mostly compliant outlets.

Conservatives will usually have individuals sign on to a idea or program that works(federal programs that people sign up for). This model better on radio where each individual station has much more freedom to program what they want to program.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I suggest that it is generational. Limbaugh is mostly a reaction to the Baby Boomer left. Stewart/Colbert/blogs are a Gen-X/Y reaction to the excesses of the Bush White House.

I think, as always, the best way to explain the GOP and its adherents is to read this online book: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

Many liberals identify themselves primarily by their race, sex, sexual orientation or union membership. They furthermore believe that only people in their group can speak for them. Thus, no one talk radio host could appeal to a large number of liberals.

"I have never heard Limbaugh be mean and petty."

Limbaugh is the meanest and pettiest person with a significant public platform.

ABC and NBC are conservative...

If by "conservative" you mean "to the right of Njorl," then you're probably right.

If by "conservative" you mean "within range of 8-meter telescopes located roughly in the middle of the Republican party" then you're clearly wrong.

If by "conservative" you mean "pro-Establishment," then you're right. It's just that it's the soft-left Establishment they're in favor of.

I agree with Njorl's comments about the different natures of liberalism and conservatism. Liberals generally hate to be told what they believe unless it is preceeded by ample fact, conservatives generally love anything that reinforces an opinion, regardless of evidence. Just look at all the books out there by likes of O'Reilly, Rush, Hannity, Coulter, D'Souza, etc. meant solely to reinforce conservative opinion about culture and politics without much respect for facts. This is much less common on the left, and when it does occur, the readership is less often in monolithic agreement one book to the next (and my gut is that those books contain more hard facts). And as an industry, radio seems even less suited to a fragmented audience than publishing. There is so much competition, and you need to get affiliates all over the country to pick up your shows before you can even start to break even. Air America was successful in a few small locations where the politics were well understood (like Madison, WI), but not across the nation as a whole. Liberals would rather just listen to NPR and make up their own minds than hear Al Franken rant about something that they agree with only 30% of the time.

Plus, I disagree with your statement that conservatives are more highly educated. If you are talking about pundits and producers themselves, perhaps you are correct (but not likely), but I think part of the reason for the failure of left talk radio actually is that liberals as an AUDIENCE tend to be more highly educated and less susceptible to opinionators. Don't know where you got your FACT about conservatives being more highly educated, (maybe you've been living in the blogosphere too long) but at least in the real world of elections, those areas with highest percentages of bachelors and graduate degrees have overwhelmingly voted on the left for as long as I can remember.

Sure, on the left you do have your Michael Moores, but they have very short half lives because people get sick of hearing the same opinions shoved down their throats over and over. On the right, the same thing is perfectly acceptable.

Michael Moore has a very short half-life?!!? He's not even partially decayed yet, as far as I can tell!

I can come up with stories, of course.

And so can your commenters! Thanks, Njorl. Way to go Woodstock.

I suspect it's mostly chance. A gifted ideologue created a popular rightwing talk radio show. A bunch of fellow ideologues jumped on his coat-tails.

Likewise, a gifted ideologue created a popular leftwing web site. A bunch of fellow ideologues promptly followed suit.

The WSJ today has an article on an Internet dating service that is wildly popuar despite no market research, rudimentary design, and little customer service. Some things just happen by accident.

'If by "conservative" you mean "pro-Establishment," then you're right. It's just that it's the soft-left Establishment they're in favor of.'

What "soft-left Establishment"? Our government? The multinational corporations that own the networks? NBC is owned by a defense contracter. ABC is owned by Disney. These are not liberal entities. While ABC is not so obvious, NBC is nakedly conservative. Their news anchor is conservative. Their Sunday pundit shows are conservative. The guests they have on are demonstrably one sided in favor of the conservative agenda.

Aaah, yes, that famous conservative Tim Russert.

Njorl,

As I said, I have no doubt the networks are more conservative than you.

But they're nowhere near as conserative as me. And frankly, I'm fairly liberal, as conservatives go.

Also, NBC is the home of the Today Show, which is not likely to be confused with NRANews anytime soon.

I'm glad I'm not the only person who thinks smore flavored pop tarts are disgusting.

"Aaah, yes, that famous conservative Tim Russert. "-Posted by Klug

Yes. Russert is quite famous for his conservatism. Are you not aware of it?

agree with Njorl's comments about the different natures of liberalism and conservatism. Liberals generally hate to be told what they believe unless it is preceeded by ample fact, conservatives generally love anything that reinforces an opinion, regardless of evidence. Just look at all the books out there by likes of O'Reilly, Rush, Hannity, Coulter, D'Souza, etc. meant solely to reinforce conservative opinion about culture and politics without much respect for facts.

Dear me, it's an entire ROW of sharks, and he cleared every one of them.

The "People who agree with me are diverse in thought and opinions, the other side are sheep" argument is wrong no matter which side trys to parlay it, and wearying besides.

Arguments that are based on the assumption that your opponents are stupid or immoral typically aren't very strong, especially without any evidence of stupidity or immorality.

Njorl would benefit from reading the Groseclose and Milyo study. It's short and it has graphs.

Well, the Liberals at Daily Kos figure that talk radio is a forum where the megaphone is controlled by the host, and blogging is a forum where just anybody can talk.
Specifically, where anybody can post a reply that casts doubt on what the host is saying.
If you want someone to tell you that what you believe is right, you go to talk radio. If you want someone to prove to you that what you believe is wrong, go to a blog.

Njorl: Uh, no, I'm not aware of him being famous for being conservative. I'd love to know how Russert is famously conservative.

There is nothing quite like a self righteous comment that explains why one side is more successful "because of their own stupidity."

That's like the "Bush got elected because he is so dumb when he didn't act as dumb as we know he is, everyone was impressed" comments.

Perhaps its just the same reason why Bill Gates has a lot of money. He saw an opporuntity, and took a large risk and it paid off. Then he built upon that with some good business sense.

Nah, that would require paying a compliment to icky conservatives.

Rush Limbaugh is a success because he's experienced and knows the medium. He got his start in the early 1970s as a disc jockey. Some of his liberal critics act like some rich, white guys plucked him out of nowhere and used their resources to make him an overnight success.

I haven't listened to him regularly in years. But as Joan writes, he is very entertaining. That's what drew me to him in 1988. Of course, if you're liberal, you might find him offensive. (Likewise, a militant atheist will find George Carlin's bits on religion amusing. By contrast, a believer might take offense.)

Hannity goes his start in college radio.

They're not just sitting in front of a microphone for a few hours a day reading propaganda written and approved by some rich, right-wing, white guys. To make it in talk radio (or acting, broadcasting, or journalism), you do need some talent. Your product, or whatever you want to call it, improves through experience and effort.

Same with Bill O'Reilly. He got his start on television in the mid-1970s. He didn't just come out of nowhere.

I also remember Limbaugh saying once (before Fox News and even the Internet), "I am equal time," meaning he balances what the networks, the NY Times, Hollywood. etc. produce. No doubt lots of conservatives felt that their views were minimized, ignored, or attacked by the major outlets, so they found alternatives with Rush.

There are successful liberal radio talk show hosts such as Jim Hightower. He suceeds because he's experienced and no doubt talented.

A liberal talk show host has to watch what he says for fear of offending some group or other. It makes them boring. Rush not only doesn't worry about giving offense, he often intends to - and doesn't worry too much if his scattergun attacks hit a few conservatives, too. It's just more interesting listening to someone ragging on everyone than to listen to someone either avoiding giving offense to anyone, or ragging on such a restricted range of targets that he repeats himself continually...

Woodstock, data from the GSS consistently shows that conservative Republicans are the most highly educated group, followed closely by liberal Democrats; the least educated groups are moderate and conservative Democrats. The point was not that "Republicans are smarter"; it was that they are not measurably dumber, which is what most Democrats claim when presented with the ideological monoliths of talk radio and academia.

I'm still sticking with my "random chance" theory, but an alternate idea occurs to me:

Conservatives have jobs.

Radio is the medium for people doing something else at the same time.

The Internet is the medium for people with time to burn.

Please, Megan. Just because liberals or progressives are less educated on average doesn't mean the portion of that population who read blogs aren't highly educated. And if you look at demographic statistics from places like Talking Points Memo, you'll see that readers there are much more educated than average. Whether or not they're more educated than the average conservative blog reader, I don't know. But you shouldn't be so hasty and sloppy with your arguments, even if you are suffering from jet lag.

Where do you read that she says blog readers are less educate? She just points to stats to make it clear that "repugs are stupid thats why they listen to talk radio" is probably not accurate. What you read between the lines seems to tell us more about your biases not Jane's.

Dittos for the other posters who pointed out that Rush is a skilled professional entertainer, who found a need and filled it. And his audience is not made up of dummies. They are far better educated than the population at large.

Tom Hazlett had one of the best explanations of Rush's popularity, back in 1995: Limbaugh's secret sauce:

-----------quote------------
What the [Clinton] White House does not understand, and will not understand even after I explain it to them, is that the key to Rush's success is the very totem they insist on dragging out to save themselves. It is the liberal media dandies off whom Rush plays, whom he mocks with unending glee and merciless buffoonery. There have been other conservative talk-show hosts. But Rush--each and every time he takes to the air--gives the listener some politics and a bonus: He sticks his finger in a liberal's eye.

He does it not by meanness, as the clueless wine-and-cheese crowd whines. He does it by joyously celebrating the existence of an alternative medium--his parallel universe--where the prevailing pieties of the liberal elite carry no weight whatever. The condescension of the elites is Rush's launch pad. He blasts off at the very moment his show begins, bellowing that his is the "only information superhighway you'll ever need."

The boastfulness strikes much deeper than the liberals will ever know. When Rush barks that listeners tune only to him, "because I'll tell you everything you need to know, and I'll tell you what to think about it to boot!," the anguished White House monitors and their electorally challenged minions cry that legions of mindless "dittoheads" are taking their orders from a talk-show lunatic.

In fact, Limbaugh is sparking a huge reaction by mimicking the very liberals who decry him: This is Rush's impersonation of the all-powerful network news anchorperson, saying out loud what is the subtext in any of the auspiciously introduced and expensively produced national news shows. Their rectitude, their certainty, their values spark Rush's counter-attitude. He's just as cocksure, and he's actually honest about his edge. It is a spoof, and the spoofees don't get it. Ha, ha, ha!

...It is against the backdrop of a news media obsessed with the tragedy of American life, fascinated by the do-gooders of government, bent on giving shortshrift to the decency and hope which the American Dream has inspired, that Rush Limbaugh roars. The sanctimony of your typical news story about homelessness, racism, poverty, AIDS, crime, the environment, schools, taxes--the sappy subtext that says, "I, the muckraking reporter who knows so much more than the complacent uncaring middle-class bigots whom I will soon expose, am here to set this country straight about its priorities"--triggers the wildly enthusiastic response, and the huge numbers for Limbaugh. The Ditto Master explodes the taboo, saying aloud what the liberals whisper between the lines--while expecting those they scorn to remain politely seated.

.... It has become a truism that the hard-working, play-by-the-rules fellow is a sap, and that his life will ultimately amount to no more than the death of a salesman.

.... This is offensive to those who see their schools, tax base, neighborhoods, and daily lives made less palatable by such a reordering. ... the middle class is accused of more crimes than ever before. Wife beating is said (erroneously) to skyrocket on Super Bowl Sunday; divorce skirmishes routinely result in child-abuse charges; the business owner is subject to myriad social regulations that--when inevitably crossed--criminalize the act of producing output to be consumed by one's fellow man. Oops! I said, "fellow man." Guilty!

The mainstream media dutifully report such "news" to those who work, parent, build, and pay taxes. Dressing up stories with attractive, articulate newspeople and extravagant production values, the old-line news outlets consider the common people incapable of conscious consideration of the underlying subtext. But those who are nagged and scolded for causing homelessness and poverty and a pitifully underfunded government tend to figure out quite a lot, given time.

Rush is middle-class revenge. He speaks their language, harbors their hopes, believes in their values. ....

When he is bitterly attacked as a maniac, a hatemonger, or a bigot, it raises his ratings through the roof. Not because he is such things but because he is not, and because his listeners know it.
------------endquote-------------

Henry (both posts) and markm make good points. I'd like to further suggest that timing is a factor. Right wing talk radio took off in the early 90s. Pre-Fox news, television was wildly liberal. The internet was in it's infancy. There was no where else for conservatives to go. There was an entertaining national host (Limbaugh) as well as a group/herd/flock/cabel of local talk show hosts that were entertaining and right wing. There was a polarizing Democrat in the White House for everyone to bust on. It is always easier to gain audience share when your side is out of power. Luck, experience, and entertainment value came together for right wing radio.

Today, you have a polarizing Republican in the White House and until about six months ago, you had a Republican controlled Congress. There is a war going on. It is always easy to gain audience share busting those in power. Only now, there is an alternative to radio. Younger people tend to be more liberal and more tech savy, thusly, the libs are more pronounced on the web.

Perhaps its just the same reason why Bill Gates has a lot of money. He saw an opporuntity, and took a large risk and it paid off. Then he built upon that with some good business sense.

Bill Gates has a lot of money because he was born into a rich family.

Rush Limbaugh was recently detained at Miami International Airport returning from the Dominican Republic with a bottle of Viagra (for which he had no prescription). Hmmm...

I think liberals are just far more likely to be listening to music in their cars.

At least in my experience, liberals/progressives are far more into the music scene than conservatives.

"why right wing blogging is so comparatively anemic"

Rather than join the political argument, I'd like to hear more about why you believe right wing blogging is comparatively anemic. Is there hit data or something we can look at?

If spewing venom and hatred on immigrants is entertaining then yes Rush and Hannity are top notch entertainers.

Anybody who attributes Bill Gates' degree of wealth to having been born into a rich family is being exceedingly silly. No, he's not rags to riches, and yes, he had some good fortune and no small degree of ruthlessness. The level of his success, however, cannot be attributed to his family's pre-existing wealth.

Regarding the thread in general, do some of you understand how fatuous you appear when attribute the differences between those you agree with, and those with whom you don't, to the fact that those with whom you agree having a very long list of very positive qualities, and those with whom you differ having a very long list of undesirable qualities? It is like listening to competing junior high cliques talk about each other in the school cafeteria. Sheesh.

Woodstock, data from the GSS consistently shows that conservative Republicans are the most highly educated group, followed closely by liberal Democrats; the least educated groups are moderate and conservative Democrats. The point was not that "Republicans are smarter"; it was that they are not measurably dumber, which is what most Democrats claim when presented with the ideological monoliths of talk radio and academia.

Although liberal Democrats score highly on years of education, or post-graduate degrees awarded, this is actually a misleading statistic. A significant percentage of those advanced degrees are teachers getting Masters in education. Whatever one thinks of the modern academy, all those PhDs in English are signs of intelligence; masters degrees in education are a sign of having a central nervous system.

Woodstock, data from the GSS consistently shows that conservative Republicans are the most highly educated group, followed closely by liberal Democrats; the least educated groups are moderate and conservative Democrats. The point was not that "Republicans are smarter"; it was that they are not measurably dumber, which is what most Democrats claim when presented with the ideological monoliths of talk radio and academia.

Why don't we go in the other direction and assume that the Democratic claim is correct re talk radio and your claim is correct re conservatives not being dumb. Does this say anything other than, talk radio thrives in the shallow end of the conservative pool? I mean, the data doesn't say that ALL conservatives are extra-clever-smarties. So, is your question why talk radio cannot be skimmed from the stagnant end of the Democrat pool? Or, is the issue one of engagement? Why does political involvement inspire the dumbest conservatives (Talk Radio) and the not-so-dumb liberals (Daily Kos)? Certainly the Kossacks are not geniuses, and they are starting toward silliness of late, yet I would put them a notch above the talk radio conservatives. So, we have the great unwashed section of the conservatives running the talk radio and the Mediocre (but not stupid?) wing of the Democrats on the Webz. The larger mass of stupids dems being disinterested in political left-wing radio and the smaller, mediocre wing of the Conservatives not caring enough to put establish a respectable (non-Freeper) web presence.

The problem (and with a name like Jane Galt I'm not sure why you would wonder so disparagingly about this) is that radio (and the internet) lends itself to the thinking type (conservatives), whereas, TV lends itself to the feeling type (liberals). Talk that is logical, which most 'black and white' approaches to reality fit comfortably into and depend on, are only obfuscated by imagery.
Non-argumentative persuasion, which most 'shades of gray' approaches to reality fit comfortably into and depend on, require a multi-media approach to generate the feeling that is necessary to achieving receptivity to the message.

Isn't it pretty obvious?

Conservatives tend to have families and live in suburbs. They commute to work, and therefore listen to the radio. Liberals tend to live in urban environments. Just look at the county-by-county map in 2004.

Njorl

Sorry you're so uninformed about the provenance of the term "dittohead". You could gain something from this reference. But further, I myself heard several instances of new listeners describe what Rush himself claims--that it's hardly ever a case of him telling listeners what to think, but rather folks being delighted (and, in the early days when he wasn't as widely known, startled) to find someone in the media saying what they already thought but never heard from the MSM.

Leftists seem to be able to really anger individual segments of their broad coalition, and radio personalities may have a hard time keeping them all together.

I don't remember the station, but there was a leftist host on a radio station out west somewhere. They decided to sponsor a gay rodeo, in which a bunch of gay cowboys could compete in trying to lasso cows or whatever.

This generated howls of protest from PETA, who was concerned about the cows.

I just can't see a similar thing happening on the right, where for instance the pro-life folks really get the anti-tax folks mad... So leftist radio hosts really have a hard time keeping all their various sub-groups in line.

The explanation is simple. Liberals have subsumed under that rubric a variety of groups that basically can't stand each other and have little or nothing in common (e.g., environmentalists, feminists, minorities, frank leftists, blue collar union members). Liberal politicians dance around this problem by trying to see each group separately, but talk radio essentially puts them all in the same room.

What could one possibly say that would be applauded by environmentalists but would not infuriate union members, or conversely? ("Save the trees, get rid of jobs?" or "Drill everywhere to create blue collar jobs, to hell with the owls?") What could one possibly say that would be applauded by feminists but would not infuriate minorities, or conversely? ("Men are scum, emasculate them at every turn?" or "Bitches, support your man no matter what he do?"). Same with the dichotomy between hard core Marxists and blue collar guys; rhetoric a Marxist would approve of would cause apoplexy among union members, and conversely.

You see the problem. Liberalism lacks a central thematic core. Conservatism has as its central tenet that the U.S. is a great country, and has a great people, both of which while not perfect, have generally tried to do what is right, and have broadly been a force for good.

That message has broad appeal. Liberalism's shaky alliance of Balkanized pressure groups does not admit of such an overarching theme, and thus no one spokesman (not spokesperson, thank you, since no such word exists) can garner much support.

I'm not so sure about that Occam. Last time I checked American conservativism seem to be split between ranting anti-immigrant homophobes and businesses that want to exploit underclass labor.

What could one possibly say that would be applauded by feminists but would not infuriate minorities, or conversely? ("Men are scum, emasculate them at every turn?" or "Bitches, support your man no matter what he do?").

Well, I can guess why minorities and feminists might want to avoid conservatives, if members of that group have this kind of perception of them.

Ryan- Those are actually pretty accurate re-statements of what I've heard real life liberals say. *shrug*

Joan, I'd credit "the nixing of the Dubai Ports Deal" to the left, Lou Dobbs, and MSM (USA Today).

After reading some comments, I think the obvious answer is that leftist are way to full of themselves to entertain eachother. There's also the discordant logic, makes it hard to string together material.

Howard Stern is probably the liberal version of Rush Limbaugh.

A liberal Rush would be anti-establishment. Rush rails against the 'liberal establishment' but in talking for 'middle America' he is quintessentially part of the system. He talks to an audience of 15-20 million above averagely affluent white males, who control most of the wealth, businesses and political organisations (of the conservative stripe) in the country. Think all your doctors, dentists, lawyers, bankers, accountants, small business owners etc.

Don't underestimate the importance of ClearChannel in this. ClearChannel was a Hicks-Muse company, Hicks-Muse backed the buyout of the Texas Rangers making GWB his fortune. ClearChannel is the network that banned the Dixie Chicks during the 2004 election.

Radio in the US is controlled by a handful of conglomerates, mostly of very conservative political persuasion.

Liberals were late to the internet (think Matt Drudge) but they have made tracks. Arguably, the internet is the liberal talk radio.

I should add to this that the other liberal Rush Limbaugh is, of course, Jon Stewart.

He's entertaining and (like Howard Stern) he spends much of his time spitting on shibboleths. Which is what Rush L is-- entertaining.

I think The Daily Show has an audience of 2-3 million, v. Rush's 15-20m, which tells you about relative power in the US ;-).

I've probably listened to less than two hours of Rush in my entire life, but I found him to be refreshing because he refuses to be bound by the endless political rectitude of the day. I suspect he annoys liberals because what he is saying is true, they know it's true, and it makes them apoplectic to hear it.

The attacks always seem to be against him personally, not what he is saying.

You had me up until "gross S'mores flavoured pop-tarts". That clear factual error calls into question the rest of your post's reasoning. Please do more fact-checking in the future.

Entertainment is, for the most part, the evocation of strong emotions in an audience. It can be any emotion; horror movies scare us, action movies excite us, comedies make us laugh, porn arouses etc. There are even movies, revenge fantasies, like "Raw Deal" or "The Punisher", which evoke hatred. They give us a focus and outlet for hatred. They sell tickets because it feels good to hate.

That is how Rush Limbaugh entertains. He provides easy and pleasant hatred experiences in which his audience can indulge and share. It is like getting on a roller coaster with a bunch of friends, except instead of thrills, there's hate. Instead of screaming as it plunges down an incline, you call in blather about feminazies.

To indulge in a movie like that once or twice a year is understandable. It's human. To wallow in it every day is a bit sick.

"The attacks always seem to be against him personally, not what he is saying."

While it is true that there are many personal attacks on him, which he merits by the way, there are also many annotated refutations of his frequent lies.

"Njorl would benefit from reading the Groseclose and Milyo study. It's short and it has graphs."

In that paper, they establish arbitrary standards (conveniently omitting editorializing, the most conservative part of the media) which come to the conclusion that:

"Fox News’ Special Report is approximately one point more centrist than ABC’s World News Tonight (with Peter Jennings) or NBC’s Nightly News (with Tom Brokaw). In neither case is the difference statistically significant. "

And we are supposed to take those jokers seriously?

He provides easy and pleasant hatred experiences in which his audience can indulge and share.

Are you talking about Rush or Kos?

"Don't underestimate the importance of ClearChannel in this. ClearChannel was a Hicks-Muse company, Hicks-Muse backed the buyout of the Texas Rangers making GWB his fortune. ClearChannel is the network that banned the Dixie Chicks during the 2004 election."

Wow. That is a remarkable triple-bank shot.

Njorl, I'm still waiting to hear about Russert.

And Kevin Bacon once did an interview on a Clear Channel station!

Klug

You might quote the next line as well. ClearChannel's political stance is well known and was a feature of the 2004 campaign.

Getting access to the major air markets for a liberal radio show would be very difficult. They are sown up between a handful of conglomerates.

You aren't going to see ClearChannel playing Al Franken, soon, I shouldn't think. I think the Dixie Chicks are off the blacklist, though ;-).

(to be fair, the normal criticism of ClearChannel is that it is *bland* rather than politically motivated)

That's a fair criticism ; )

I can come up with stories, of course: liberals have NPR, and three out of four television stations

Liberals have ALL television stations. Are you seriously of the belief that there are any television stations that are even remotely conservative? Although far left FoxNews - with left-wing commentators like Brit Hume - occasionally includes conservative voices, it generally uses those in the far .00000001% of the left, like Mara Liasson, as commentators.

Next thing you know, Jane will be saying that there might even be one or two major newspaper editorial boards that are moderately conservative. I mean, I read the left-wing Wall Street Journal editorial page every day, and no reasonable person would ever believe it is anything but moderately progressive.

Maybe it's an FOB (though neither did I get off a boat nor does it feel that fresh so its time to retire it) thing that I tune in more to immigration than other issues but from what little I have heard Rush and his cohorts have to say on it has never come across as anything less than hateful or bigoted . Jon Stewart/Bill Maher/Colbert are harsh on the Right but they aren't bigoted by any means.

The people listening to radio between Noon and three are white men, salesmen and small businessmen. They listen to Rush.

I think talk radio is about sharing, about enriching the audience. Generally a conservative type of agenda would do well. A progressive agenda depends more on portraying the world as enemies to overcome. Talk radio is a poor way to create an image of enmity and camaraderie against the foe.

Progressive issues work, sometimes, on talk radio, but less often than conservative issues. The feedback of one-on-one and broadcast to many works for sharing information (news talk, gardening, pet care, etc.). For rabble rousing or defining an image of care-taking, though, there isn't enough feedback and a tendency to too much factual information.

The internet is actually much better for generating direct and indirect feedback. People comment, write on other boards or blogs, podcast, email each other. There is no reason that conservative issues don't thrive, and they do. Check out 'Walt At Random' and his library and personal topics. Comfortable and conservative. But for liberals, the ability to dredge up 40 year old photos and pass them off as current, recycle decades old newspaper reports, and you get an incubator for 'social activism'. Note the revival on my web site, DraftResource.com, of horrors over horse slaughter. Grr. Not that I equate all liberals with trolls .. Some of my best friends are trolls, er, liberals.

I saw one of John Wayne's last interviews on the Merv Griffin Show. Wayne claimed to be a liberal -- he would listen to all sides before forming an opinion. Since then I have been careful to distinguish between a conservative (promote status quo) and liberal (promote change) point of view, and the generally accepted liberal social agenda of providing handouts to win votes, and conservative social agenda to build a strong society based on sound business strength. Or something like that. Both sides manage to do some good.

"Njorl, I'm still waiting to hear about Russert."

His show, for which he chooses the guests, has a large disparity favoring Republican and conservative think tank guests. His producers claimed that this was because Republicans were in power, however, the disparity was in place when Clinton was president with a Democratic congress, when Clinton was president with a Republican congress, and did not stop when the Democrats took control of congress, in January. He still books Republicans and their mouthpieces much more than their counterparts.

You also have the notes from White House advisors pointing out options to get out stories through friendly venues like Russert. There is the evidence of his incredible soft-ball interviews with Bush and Cheney, his dishonest hype about social security, his completely one-sided coverage of the lead-up to the Iraq war etc.

Is Russert Bill Kristol or Paul Gigot? No. But he is certainly conservative.

Will Allen, I was responding to a comment which stated that Bill Gates has a lot of money because of his outstanding personal qualities. That is not the case. He was born rich, which gave him the opportunity to fool around with computers and not bother finishing college. Someone who had to worry about the long-term consequences of his choices would not have had that option.

"You see the problem. Liberalism lacks a central thematic core. Conservatism has as its central tenet that the U.S. is a great country, and has a great people, both of which while not perfect, have generally tried to do what is right, and have broadly been a force for good. "

That's surprisingly close, but not quite there.

Liberalism does have a central theme - expanding personal freedom. The problem with freedom is that everyone's freedom impinges upon everyone else's. A philosophy that enshrines the status quo, because "the U.S. is a great country, and has a great people," is not going to risk annoying its members nearly as much as a philosophy that seeks change. Many of those who seek those changes disagree with eachother. The status quo, though, is usually the same to everyone.

"Is Russert Bill Kristol or Paul Gigot? No. But he is certainly conservative."

Russert a conservative? Please, he worked for Pat Moynihan and Mario Cuomo, fercrissakes. They are/were both far, far left-wing politicians.

That's about as funny as calling Paul Gigot a "conservative". He appeared regularly on the far, far, far left-wing PBS! Moreover, he also ran the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which, as I pointed out above, all reasonable people would admit is moderately progressive.

Getting access to the major air markets for a liberal radio show would be very difficult. They are sown up between a handful of conglomerates.

This neatly dances around the issue. Air America flopped dismally, despite having access to, inter alia, New York and LA. At least in their case, it wasn't access, it was content. Can't blame corporate America for that one. They were pushing a product that wasn't wanted.

Question for Njorl: assuming your remarks were not satirical (hard to tell), where would place Kim Jong Il? Middle of the road, leaning rightish or so?

I wonder if the sitiuation in question (no commercial Liberal talk radio) has more to do with the nature of the broadcast industry than it has to do with politics and demographics. (Aside: I'm going to generalize, oversimply, and not back up my assertions with facts here, because I haven't got time, and I'm not in any way an expert on this.) The radio broadcasting market is a tricky one, highly regulated, and (I belive) dominated by a relatively small number of very large players. The common story is that this is why there's very little variety in radio as you go from place to place. I'm not sure I really buy that, because every town that has a Country, an Adult Contemporary, a Classic Rock, and a hip, youth-oriented Pop station also has a Wal Mart, but that may partially explain it.

I certainly don't think that only Conservatives are cranks who like to spend their commute having their asinine opinions validated by a loudmouth with a Communications degree, I have plenty of at least anecdotal evidence to suggest otherwise.

Liberalism does have a central theme - expanding personal freedom.

Through laws mandating use of compact fluorescent light bulbs, neutering of all dogs over the age of four months (see www.healthypetsca.com), and coercively redistributing income from earners to non-earners (all liberal proposals or policies)?

Expanding personal freedom? Very Orwellian.

Uh, Njorl, IMHO, that's kind of weak beer. I was thinking that I hadn't heard about his stint at the Heritage Foundation or something. Okay.

Njorl: "(conveniently omitting editorializing, the most conservative part of the media)"

What a peculiar notion.

I'm on a list-serv for editorial writers (~300 people) and if as many as 10% of them are conservative in any reasonable sense of the term, that would be a lot. When the "conservative caucus" meets for dinner at national conventions, we usually manage to scare up eight to 10 writers out of some hundred-plus attending the convention.

Will Allen, I was responding to a comment which stated that Bill Gates has a lot of money because of his outstanding personal qualities. That is not the case. He was born rich, which gave him the opportunity to fool around with computers and not bother finishing college. Someone who had to worry about the long-term consequences of his choices would not have had that option.

I fool around with computers, AND finished college. How come, by your own thesis, I'm not something like twice as rich as Bill Gates?

And as for people who DID have to worry about the long-term consequences of choices...Sam Walton, Dave Thomas.

Does your logic have ANY consistency, other than the trolling element?

anony-mouse, why do you invariably respond to my comments with personal attacks?

It is a simple fact that Bill Gates was born rich.

So is that a "no"?

*blink* did Purple just use a personal attack to respond to logical examples and a (reasonable) question?

Purple - It is a simple fact that Bill Gates was born rich.

Granted, Gates parents were wealthy and gave him a good education. But he made $20,000 when he was 14 (back in the 70s) running a business while still in school. That takes a little talent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#Early_life

Someone who had to worry about the long-term consequences of his choices would not have had that option. Perhaps you mean 'short term?' The long term consequences of his choices have been fantastic.

... But you don't have to be rich to fram around with computers. I've done it. I have friends from working class families who have done it (and gone on to be quite successful.) Granted, he got access to some technology others wouldn't because of where he went to school. but they sold TRS-80s at radio shack so that technology was not too hard to come by.

Liberalism does have a central theme - expanding personal freedom.

This NRA member and hunter begs to differ.

Liberals are indeed about freedom. Expanding freedom to have sex with whomever and whatever with no consequences whatsoever. Expanded personal freedom from incarceration for those who can successfully whine about bad childhoods. Freedom to illegally enter the US with zero consequences (OK, some "conservatives" are in on that.")

Freedom to criticize Islam? No, that's hate speech. Freedom to defend your life from criminals? No, that's vigilantism. Freedom to form an all-men's golf club? No, that's discrimination.

Mind you, I'm not saying that conservatives are all about freedom, either. I'm just saying that the argument that liberals are about freedom is nonsense.

Actually, Foxfier, I just asked a question. anony-mouse's reply was, predictably, another insult.

The question is not "Why is Rush successful?" The answer to that question, after all, is obvious: Because he's good at using the radio medium, he had a lot of experience in radio before he started talk radio, and because there's a receptive audience.

The question, rather, is why there's no comparable figure on the left. Why does the left tend to not do as well in talk radio?

I wrote a long comment on that question, and then realized that my answers are just as dubious as anybody else's. I have no clue here.

Njorl,

I get that you're trying to pretend that liberals are all about trying to "expand personal freedom" -- but let's get real. Libertarians are all about expanding personal freedom. Liberals, like conservatives, are about controlling people's behavior. It's just that liberals and conservatives disagree about the behavior that should be controlled.

See, among the residents of my perfect libertarian world are a happily married, alcoholic, cigarette-smoking gay couple with a closet full of assault rifles. This gay couple owns a clear-cut logging and strip mining business that pays no/minimal income tax and operates in a world with complete free trade and no minimum wage. And oh yeah, during the working day these happily married, gay, adoptive parent private business owners sometimes legally use cocaine, watch porn and loudly tell nigger jokes where all of their employees can hear them.

There's about a dozen things in my perfect libertarian world that "personal freedom loving" liberals would want to make illegal. And there's a different dozen things that conservatives would want to make illegal. So stop pretending that as a liberal you're all enlightment, free thinking, and inspired intellectual rebellion. Absolute bollocks. You're just like a conservative, only about different things.

Rob,
I think you are brainwashed about what liberals think.

I, like most liberals, don't give a damn about gun control. Those who do, do almost nothing about it.

Liberals, like the ACLU, have gone to court to protect the rights of the Ku Klux Klan to engage in hate speech. What liberals believe is that you have every right to engage in hate speech, and that others have the right to make you suffer the consequences.

There is a broad area of speech that is criminal - the speech involved in planning a crime is conspiracy, dishonest speech in business can be fraud. Hate speech is criminalized when it can be shown to be crime, such as inciting or ordering violence.

As for criticizing Islam specifically, MOST liberals who speak of Islam criticize it. It is the generalisations from Islam to all muslims to which liberals usually object.

DRB,

" Libertarians are all about expanding personal freedom."

Libertarians are all about deluding themselves about the nature of personal freedom.

There's a saying, something like, "Your freedom to wave you fist stops at my nose."

It's a little too simple. At some point, your fist waving interferes with people walking down the street.

Should your stripminers be allowed to dump mercury in my drinking water? They aren't putting the mercury down my throat, so they aren't harming me. Should they be allowed to poisen my air? I'm the one inhaling, so it's my fault if I'm poisoned. I should have taken steps to purify my air.

Libertarians also delude themselves about what denies freedom. Poverty and institutionalized bigotry are far more oppressive than most governments.

"See, among the residents of my perfect libertarian world are a happily married, alcoholic, cigarette-smoking gay couple with a closet full of assault rifles. This gay couple owns a clear-cut logging and strip mining business that pays no/minimal income tax and operates in a world with complete free trade and no minimum wage."

Happily married - fine with me.
Alcoholic - As an alcoholic myself, in my 18th year of sobriety, I have no problem with that. Now if they're still drinking, I hope I have access to the protection of local police, because I'll need it.
Cigarette-smoking - With all that drinking, I hope they have a good flame retardent house. Being enlightened libertarians, I'm sure they paid to have anti-fire measures installed. I'm sure the local regulatory commission will ensure that they get what they pay for.
Closet full of assault rifles - Habitually drunk people with assault weapons? No. They are putting their fist in my nose. It is an unreasonable threat to my safety. Fear is injury. A suituation in which a reasonable person would feel menaced is assault. They can have all the assault rifles they want as long as they are not inflicting menace on others.
Gay- Knock yourselves out.
Clear-cut logging and strip mining - Provided they are not doing it on land that I own through my government, that they are not poisoning the commonly held resources (including but not limited to water, air and ambient temperature)excessively, hack away. If they are harming these commonly held resources, they are putting hteir fist in my nose.
Cocaine- I see no logical reason for coke to be illegal while alcohol is legal. Snort away gay neighborinos. Though be advised that I won't want to listen to you while you talk at 500 words a minute and say absolutely nothing.
Watch porn - As long as no laws were broken in production of the porn have at it. If laws were broken viewing the porn can possibly be a furtherance of the crime. I am assuming that in this libertarian paradise, that there are no simply prudish laws.
Racist jokes at work - Fine. As long as they do so in a way that does not menace their employees, which would be virtually impossible unless they engaged in racist hiring practices. The racist hiring practices would be a denial of freedom to the excluded group.

Njorl,

I suppose if you define "liberal" to exclude people on the left who believe in restricting personal freedom, while simultaneously defining "personal freedom" to exclude things you don't like, then it all works out well for you.

"I suppose if you define "liberal" to exclude people on the left who believe in restricting personal freedom, "

Absolutely, and I am justified in doing so. Lenin was a leftist, but wasn't remotely liberal. This confusion is common due to the conflation of economic and political philosophy on the left/right scale.

'...while simultaneously defining "personal freedom" to exclude things you don't like, '

This is not so. I am not saying that getting wasted and blasting away with an assault rifle isn't a matter of personal freedom. I am merely pointing out that no freedoms are absolute. All freedoms exercised by one individual restrict the freedoms of another, sometimes negligibly, sometimes critically. The focus of a liberally oriented government is to attempt to delineate where one person's exercise of their freedom unacceptably restricts another person's freedom. This is in oppostion to a libertarian worldview in which that delineation is left to individuals to resolve with eachother.

I support a liberal, rather than libertarian view because I do not believe that all individuals are equally endowed with the capacity to protect their rights, and see no reason why a person's rights should rely on individual rather than collective actions. Libertarianism is most popular among those who are best situated to be good custodians of their own rights. They tend to be (but are obviously not restricted to being)white, male, born into families without economic hardship, intelligent and healthy. All of those things are advantageous in individual confrontations in disputes over rights.

Njorl, it would be helpful if you could name some specific people and organizations that you regard as "liberal" so that I can examine their beliefs for evidence of contracting personal freedom. As it stands, you've written off Pelosi's, Clinton's, and Kennedy's support for gun control as not counting for some reason, and many universities with speech codes as "not really liberal."

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying your definition of "liberal" seems to be a little idiosyncratic.

The focus of a liberally oriented government is to attempt to delineate where one person's exercise of their freedom unacceptably restricts another person's freedom.

That's a perfectly sensible thing to want to do--and one that conservatives almost certainly would support--but it isn't the same as saying that liberals consistently want to expand personal freedom. Indeed, they could be actively working to contract it on virtually all fronts and still meet the above definition.

Indeed, I believe many liberals/leftists/whatever are working to contract freedom in ways that matter to me, often in the name of other people's "rights" that I don't think of as rights at all.

Purple, have you never met people who dropped out of college and played around with computers? There are lots and lots of them. Many of them did reasonably well during the internet boom, but more than a few of them are suffering those long-term consequences. Somehow, I suspect that if Bill Gates' parents weren't as wealthy, he'd have dropped out of college and played with computers *anyway*.

Berkeley liberals are going tong and hammer at expanding personal freedom.

Read the whole thing. If the Berkeley liberals expand personal freedom any more, they'll need secret police.

"Some measures will be popular and easy, like a car-share vehicle on every block and free bus passes [which they will force landlords to pay for - ed]. But others will be bitter pills, such as strict and costly requirements that homes have new high-efficiency appliances, solar-powered water heaters, insulation in the walls and other energy savers."

(BTW, I'm a former Berkeley resident, i.e., an escapee.)

Actually, Foxfier, I just asked a question. anony-mouse's reply was, predictably, another insult.

Actually, it was a reasonable interpretation of your logic and a follow-up question based on extensive prior experience. Fool me fifty times, and so forth.

I'm not surprised that you (claim to have) found it offensive; you're quite the master of baiting hooks on one hand, then batting your eyes innocently when the game warden shows up. It's like seeing the mold of a devious six-year-old impressed upon an adult with most of the distinguishing features transferring intact.

Unfortunately, once distilled, your assertion about Bill Gates in this thread reduces to "I'm right, you're wrong, hey -- look over there, someone's insulting me!" Too bad. You seem intelligent on some ocassions, but extraordinarily immature on all ocassions, and the latter impulse is evidently winning.

"but it isn't the same as saying that liberals consistently want to expand personal freedom."

I would replace your use of "consistently" with "generally".

For starters, I bet Kennedy and Pelosi firmly believe their stance on gun control will increase the freedom of their constituents. If you believe that there are law abiding citizens who are deterred from taking reasonable, and lawful actions for fear of being shot by criminals, then gun control is a liberal course of action. I happen to not agree with their premise. I think there are better recourses to the problem than interfering significantly in gun ownership rights. However, Kennedy and Pelosi are restricted to acting on their knowledge and belief.

University speech codes can be very variable. I have no problem believing that some of them could be illiberal. However, there are many instances where a student's speech can be construed as being supported by the University. The theory of the modern American University is that the student body itself is an instrument of the education process. If a student is using any University resources in speech which contradicts the mission of the University, they are justified in curtailing that speech. In such instances, it isn't the business of the University to be liberal or not, it has a job to do.

Personally, I believe that the University would be best served in guiding students to deal with these situations themselves. Dealing with racists should be considered part of one's education. If the speech is not harmless, pursue action against the harm done, not the speech.

I bet Kennedy and Pelosi firmly believe their stance on gun control will increase the freedom of their constituents.

That is precisely what I mean by defining "personal freedom" to mean "what I favor politically and not what I dislike."

Conservatives could just as easily justify banning abortion as increasing the "personal freedom" of their unborn constituents, who of course get no freedom at all if they wind up in the medical waste bin.

When you said liberals favor increasing "personal freedom," you said liberals favor something that nobody opposes. But the devil is in the details, and as it happens my conception of freedom is often different from that of most liberals.

I haven't been brainwashed, I've just been paying attention.

Missed this earlier (it is hard to get to my many fans):

"Question for Njorl: assuming your remarks were not satirical (hard to tell), where would place Kim Jong Il? Middle of the road, leaning rightish or so?"-Posted by Occam's Beard

Kim Jong Il is a left wing extremist on economic issues and a right wing extremist politically.

Kim Jong Il is a left wing extremist on economic issues and a right wing extremist politically.

Fascinating. Leftist sympathizers usually (current Chinese government excepted) view economics and politics as inextricably intertwined, indeed, consider the latter as following from the former.

If I understand this correctly, you're defining left/right as promoting/resisting change, respectively? And you'd consider Castro to be a right wing extremist politically too?

The problem with that definition (which historically has its origins in the French National Assembly, of course) is that it leads an intellectual Moebius Strip if someone (e.g., Castro) promotes a massive change, then resists any further change. By the change/stasis definition, Castro went from extreme left-wing to extreme right-wing, which doesn't make much sense.

A more productive definition, IMO, is that left/right give pride of place to the collective/individual, respectively. By this definition, Kim Jong Il and Castro are both extreme left-wing, and always have been. This definition, unlike the other, also naturally implies where they stand on, e.g., property rights.

To throw some nuance onto what I think is an incorrect assessment, I suppose there's an argument that KJI's reliance on Juche (Korean nationalism) as one of his central tenets is a little right-wing. But it seems to me that darn near all dictators (left or right) are nationalists of some sort. Is nationalism right-wing? Maybe.

Dunno. I suppose to get a gauge of what Njorl thinks, we should ask what a left-wing extremist looks like.

For starters, I bet Kennedy and Pelosi firmly believe their stance on gun control will increase the freedom of their constituents.

Darn, for a while I thought Njorl was working from the same definition of "liberal" that I learned before socialists hijacked it (when dinosaurs walked the earth, to younsters like Jane). By that definition, there hasn't been a liberal in the House or Senate for at least two decades. But no, here he has presented the Orwellian concept of taking away freedom in order to increase it...

Ryan W:

Granted, Gates parents were wealthy and gave him a good education. But he made $20,000 when he was 14 (back in the 70s) running a business while still in school. That takes a little talent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#Early_life

Someone who had to worry about the long-term consequences of his choices would not have had that option. Perhaps you mean 'short term?' The long term consequences of his choices have been fantastic.

... But you don't have to be rich to fram around with computers. I've done it. I have friends from working class families who have done it (and gone on to be quite successful.) Granted, he got access to some technology others wouldn't because of where he went to school. but they sold TRS-80s at radio shack so that technology was not too hard to come by.

They didn't sell TRS-80's at Radio Shack when Gates got his start - in fact, the TRS-80 BASIC compiler was clearly derived from either Microsoft's first product (Altair BASIC) or from an imitation of it. I'm almost the same age as Gates. I was in college when Intel invented the first microprocessor. I saw a computer just once during my high school years, on a tour of the local college computer center - the college had just ONE computer, which required a large air conditioned room of it's own, and a staff of at least a half-dozen people to tend it. It also did the highschool scheduling and any other computer work they had (if any), although it had about as much computing power as the microcontroller in the keyboard I'm typing this on - and the dual-core Pentium in my computer would beat the supercomputers of when Gates and I were in college.

But yes, although Gates was very lucky to start learning computers early, there were thousands of others with the same experience, and tens of thousands of poor kids a few years older who got the same experience by working at a computer center. Gates had the ability and the foresight to see something that could be done with that, that no one else could see, or had the intestinal fortitude to bet his career upon.

On the third hand, being a rich kid makes it easier to take huge risks. You don't starve if you fail, like I would have if I had put all my time and effort behind my best guess at a programming language for microcomputers in the early 1970's... (If your parents are rich and influential enough, you can even be a drunken bum until 40 and still become President.) Also, being able to use free time on Harvard's computers to run simulations until the actual Altair 8080 hardware became available was a big boost to Gate's infant business that would have not been available to many poor kids.

Last time I checked no-one in this country smart enough to apply for food stamps "starves if he fails."

I think most people on this thread are missing the regional nature of these distinctions. For a long time, the broadcast media were (still are, but less now) dominated by the Northeast and the West Coast. To the extent that their management, advertisers, and much of their audience were dominated by urban concentrations on the coasts, they tended to be more liberal than most of the rest of the country.

Talk radio has to work being spread out across the whole country, which means that it can be heavily influenced by the South and West and Midwest--places which are substantially more conservative than the coasts. Advertisers, local stations that must be sold on the program, and listeners are all spread across this large region.

It's too simple to really map all the political differences into liberal/conservative, of course. Densely populated places have different concerns, different situations, and different sensible policies than sparsely populated ones. Issues like gun control and public transit are almost unrecognizeably different when looked at from the perspective of people living in a big city, a suburb of a big city, or a small town 50 miles from the nearest reasonably large city. Policies on education and civil rights and welfare and crime are very different depending on demographics and racial mix and history and a thousand other things that differ from place to place.

And the core thing to remember, which almost everyone seems to miss, is that left/right are relative measures, not absolute ones. Tim Russert is to the right of Jesse Jackson and to the left of Pat Robertson, and it's not meaningful to talk about him being a leftist or a rightist except in comparrison to others.

Perhaps the US left/right spectrum isn't a very good model on which to attempt to place third world nightmarish dictators. Similarly, it's not all that helpful for modeling the inferred political positions of Jesus, Mohammed, or even George Washington or Thomas Jefferson. It doesn't even do that good a job modeling the modern political position of, say, the Catholic Church.

To the extent the model is any use at all, it's useful for modeling differences between basically very similar politicians who want to show how they do differ. Nobody running with a hope of getting elected in 2008 is really all that different from the current regime. I mean, Hillary will want better (provided by government) medical care, and McCain apparently will want more bring-them-democracy-even-if-it-kills-them wars, but nobody's going to nationalize the Fortune 500, impose eugenic breeding policies, re-impose Jim Crow laws, etc. The actual range of policies is fairly narrow. (This is a feature, not a bug.)

It's a profound question. I mean that sincerely.

I don't understand the left-wing viewpoint. And therefore
there great big hunks of the world I can't make sense of.

By that I don't mean that I couldn't imitate it if I tried.

Of course I can. Of course I can imitate the exact same
thing repeated a thousand times.

Njorl is almost typecast.

But I don't understand how he got to be like he is or how
he maintains it.

As an aside, it's disappointing, even frightening, that
there seem to be so few templates for people to think in.

Oh, well. I just put my foot in my mouth. I should have
read more comments.

Njorl started off conventionally -- I thought I recognize
this! But after reading more I realize he's doing his own
thinking.

That's not to say I agree with him. But it's not the script
from central casting.

Left-wing extremism in politics is anarchy. There are few if any good examples of it because it is such a disastrous system. Either anarchy or totalitarian nationalism can preside over radical redistribution of wealth, just as both could preside over a drastic concentration of wealth.

One of the more anarchic settings was the American west. In that setting we saw egalitarian distribution of land, and the creation of extreme wealth by those who exploited lawlessness. There have been dictatorial regimes that confiscated and distributed wealth, and others that have used their power to promote the best possible industrial climate.

Comments are Closed.