Many people have commented that political discourse has become more extreme, more violent. I suppose, compared to the uniformity that prevailed in the 1950s, that’s true. It’s undoubtedly true that the vast increase in the means of communication had a major impact. After all, the NY Times set the agenda for “news” back then. There were three TV networks. The TV news heads read the Times to find out what the "news" was and reported it the way the Times reported it. Walter Cronkite ended his show with the tag-line “and that’s the way it is.” They determined what the “news” was and what it meant. With the exception of pamphleteers like William F. Buckley and his National Review, if there were differing views they had no part in the public conversation because they had no voice. They may have screamed at their black-and-white screens "that’s not the way it is” but nobody heard.
Cable TV, the Internet and computer technology had something to do with increasing the rancor in the public square. But technology by itself doesn’t explain it. After all, if the NY Times view was really the overwhelming view of most Americans, the proliferation of media platforms would simply find more people saying the same thing.
Technology allowed major alternative views break through. It turned out the the Times did not reflect the views of most of the American people. In fact, it's the NY Times that should be labelled as the alternative, if alternative means a small minority. Gradually, the people who held the “Times View”™ recognized the fact that it had serious competition as the "voice of the people." Rush Limbaugh’s success is based on the fact that he validates the beliefs of a very large part of the American public. Of course “talent on loan from God” has something to do with it, but Limbaugh’s secret is no secret at all, he says what a lot of people are thinking and does it in an interesting and entertaining way.
The people of the “Times View”™ realized that they could no longer express their beliefs in soothing, anodyne tones of the 1950s. So they ramped up the volume. They stopped ignoring the people who did not believe as they did, but started calling them names: racist, sexist, homophobe, bigot, knuckle dragging Neanderthal, baby killer. And those were just the terms that can be printed in a family newspaper. It got worse, much worse.
Another factor was neatly illustrated by Thomas Sowell’s description of Derrick Bell: a man who was put in an impossible position by the ruling Liberal class.
If you are the recipient of an unearned prize, and you are aware that those around you know you got something you did not deserve, you become very angry at the ones who put you in that position. But if you value the prize more than your honor you lash out at the people who tell you that you have something you did not earn. You recognize very clearly (but you’ll never, ever admit) that the people who gave you something you didn’t earn and the people who resent it both look down on you. And you hate that. Which explains Barack Obama who was awarded a Nobel Prize ... for being black.
If you are the recipient of an unearned prize, and you are aware that those around you know you got something you did not deserve, you become very angry at the ones who put you in that position. But if you value the prize more than your honor you lash out at the people who tell you that you have something you did not earn. You recognize very clearly (but you’ll never, ever admit) that the people who gave you something you didn’t earn and the people who resent it both look down on you. And you hate that. Which explains Barack Obama who was awarded a Nobel Prize ... for being black.
3 comments:
I'm not sure I agree with the public square part. True, there are the crazy and hysterical on the Democrat/Left/Progressive side of the political divide, characters who did not exist during the Liberal Hegemony of the 50's and 60's. Think of Maher, Alan Grayson, Michael Moore, Whoopie Goldberg, Roseanne Barr and Maxine Waters.
But the dominant tone of the progressive in the public sphere is moderation, not hysteria. Sure, take them away from the media spotlight, plop them in a trendy bar or restaurant surrounded by simpatico buddies and even the most restrained, ironical Democrat-in-media will say the most outrageous, contempt-laden shit about the Right and America. But in the public square the reasonable and restrained tone is everything.
That tone, not ideology, is the weapon they use on the Frums, Rabinowitzs and Noonans of the world, conservatives who are more eager to be thought smart and reasonable than allied with the yahoos and gun-owners who make up their idea of the Right.
Style and conformity to the ruling ethos govern that world. Always has. In that manner Washington-New York-LA and their little satellites are no different than any other royal court. Style rules. It is the mark of belonging. Frum can stay at the court so long as he carries himself the right way and can be counted on to sniff disdainfully at Tea Partiers, Palins and Rush Limbaugh.
Allen Drury said it over 50 years ago in "Capable of Honor:"
"Stand tall in Georgetown."
What got me thinking about this was a column by Leonard Pitts who is the second most widely distributed “progressive” columnist in the country. And let’s not forget Krugman, Maher, Matthews, the women on the View and their ilk. On our side we have George Will, David Broder and Cal Thomas who are models of civility, even piety. So that’s why I disagree with your characterization of Liberals in the public square. Rush Limbaugh is in a class by himself who uses good humor and parody to skewer his opponents and rarely slips into tastelessness. Try doing three hours of improvisation 5 days a week and you wonder how he does it.
You may be right that sweet reason is the way the Left keeps their pet Republicans (I don’t call them Conservatives) in line, but somehow I doubt it.
Be Breitbart
It's not sweet reason. I wish that it was. It's what they drink and where they drink it; what they wear and when they wear it; what movies/plays/books they consume and why they say those cultural tokens are good.
It wasn't sweet reason that made Obama attractive to David Brooks, or made Sarah Palin repellent to Christopher Buckley and Peggy Noonan.
As you recently pointed out it was to maintain her status in NYC that D. Rabinowitz stabbed Rush in the back.
Stand tall in Georgetown!
Ed Gillespie said something right on point on a TV program a while ago. He was on another show, a panel with a liberal, debating the issues. He felt the moderator was even-handed. But during a commercial break the moderator and the liberal began to talk about a previous weekend - where they had attended the same event (together, it turned out), where they had dined afterward and who they had seen. Gillespie was excluded from the entire sidebar.
But it's not ideology. Ideology is the reason why Richard Stengel or Charlie Rose never criticize the clowns on their side. Stengel and Rose don't see Maher or Goldberg as a clown; Maher and Goldberg are just good liberals who are safe enough and vulgar enough to say openly what Stengel and Rose really think.
But Frum and Bill Bennett and Michael Medved and Dorothy Rabinowitz can't do that. Style is trump with them.
They are also ex-Democrats. That's a little clue.
Freesmith
Post a Comment