HOW ANGRY IS TOO ANGRY?

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

To get back on subject, I think this thread demonstrates that the overall tenor of politics breeds this sort of angry discourse. Some political scientists actually think that this sort of "angry" public discussion is actually a healthy part of the process. We fight out our differences on TV and radio waves, instead of on battlefields or in bloodless coups.

In other words, don't worry. Both radio and the political process will be fine.

For what it's worth, I disagree with you.... but I'm not angry with you.... yet! ;D

I'm a little further down the trail than you. (That's cowboy talk meaning: I'm getting old.) I know the historians remind us the discussion and disagreement have always been a core element in our American system but there are some changes taking place in how that verbal warfare plays out that are very worrisome to me.

Most of us used to go to work but come quitting time we turned work off. (There have always been a few people that we call workaholics who wouldn't or couldn't turn it off.) Then came the beeper and then the cell phone and then the wi-fi/3G computers and family life and personal down-time changed for many of us... almost all of us.

The political debate used to be seasonal. There came a moment during or following the battle when legislators turned out the lights and went for a drink or a poker game WITH THEIR OPPONENTS which did for their political health what turning off the lights and turning off work did for the rest of us.

24/7/365 foaming-at-the-mouth politics is something different than what past generations endured. You may have found some political scientists who approve of "angry" political discussion but I remain unconvinced. Part of our language today includes the phrase "going postal" and in the years following we have found that workplace violence can take place is other work environments also.

Can you contemplate a day when our language might include phrases like "going legislative" or "going talk studio"? Employers get consulting advice on how to reduce workplace tensions. I hope we can find ways to reduce the public political tension.

So here is my contribution to the tension: Require that legislators always travel from their homes to the capitol (state or federal) and back by stage coach. (No radios or cells phones allowed in the stage coach.) That means more legislators will be spending weekends at the capitol city... where they can return to the great American heritage past times such as playing poker and consuming adult beverages in bi-partisan gatherings.

Who knows. I might even win the Nobel Peace prize for this idea. :

P.S. The alternate plan is to simply allow the entire radio industry go into bankruptcy liquidation.

 

[gr8oldies]

No need for Congress to reside in DC full time. Let them teleconference from their home districts; show up to pass stuff a few weeks out of the year. Make the lobbyists travel to every congressional district.

 

[gr8oldies]

We now can hurl insults at complete strangers across the country. Back to radio, if there really was a market for people speaking in measured tones saying things like "my esteemed opponent" it would be there. The other day in Congress the Goldman Sachs guy was being questioned with obscenities.

 

[Holland Cooke]

"Goldman Sachs guy was being questioned with obscenities."

And Olbermann didn't bleep 'em!

if there really was a market for people speaking in measured tones saying things like "my esteemed opponent" it would be there.

Your-point-being: the marketplace is dictating the status quo.
Doubters would point out that The Big Company that owns The Big Stations also owns the Limbaugh and Beck shows.

To that point: Comments also invited on this related topic:
http://hollandcookemedia.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/has-glenn-beck-peaked/

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

The focus of this conversation has been the change in civility (and lack thereof) in our country.

We cannot ignore some organic changes. The idea of having legislators telecommute is tempting, but when I need to settle differences and learn to understand a person, I value some "face to face time" and will go to expense and inconvenience to participate in face-to-face.

The next (related) issue is not a political statement... as in Federal power vs. states rights... just an observation of changed reality. A LOT of people today work for national companies. (I know, MOST people work for SMALL companies, but the definition of "small company" in the political world is 2,000 employees or less.) These employees and their managers and their lobbyists, even if they are all apolitical, have a vested interest in seeing more and more policy and regulations and law in NATIONAL SCOPE. If the success of your company is the ability to move rising talent from Texas to Boston to Colorado to Indianapolis, these employees get grumpy when their benefits change, their traffic laws change, their tax laws change radically every time they move.

Many of us who latch onto partisan politics forget the wants and needs of the "mobility blessed" neighbors we have. What political party or faction speaks for them? And when they speak for themselves, it can be easy to go to a Tea Party event or a Coffee Party event and say something outrageous. After all, Mama is a 1,000 miles away and will not be washing your mouth with a bar of bath soap.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

So here is my contribution to the tension: Require that legislators always travel from their homes to the capitol (state or federal) and back by stage coach. (No radios or cells phones allowed in the stage coach.) That means more legislators will be spending weekends at the capitol city... where they can return to the great American heritage past times such as playing poker and consuming adult beverages in bi-partisan gatherings.

I like this idea!

Of course as someone else pointed out, they could do the job from an office in their home town via teleconference, but that would still allow them to lock themselves in a room and hide from the masses.

What the real answer would be, of course, is having a part-time legislature, but that's not realistic. The government is just too big to hope for that now, and it's also unrealistic to expect a shrinkage in the size and scope of government. They've made too many promises to the people for too long to just "cut the cord", so to speak. At this point, the best we can hope for is a change in the attitude of the American people. This sort of thing seems to be cyclical, so sooner or later, the tone will cool down again. Mainly from a lack of interest. The economy will turn around, people will be working again, and they'll be too busy watching American Idol to go to town halls and yell at their congressman.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Of course as someone else pointed out, they could do the job from an office in their home town via teleconference, but that would still allow them to lock themselves in a room and hide from the masses.

Let's talk theory of "representative democracy" for a moment, something that the Talk Radio people for all practical purposes don't touch.

Your post suggests that the legislators should get out and mingle with the masses. And that is the often voiced theory of government I hear booming from my boom-box. Legislators are not to have a mind of their own. They are simply puppets who push the voting button exactly the way 800,000 back home would push the button if they each had one.

So. In this day of technology, let's give everybody their own button and do away with senators and congressmen. I can smell the stink of that already!!!

I have this wild subverted idea that the American form of government involves recruiting one of your fellow citizens to devote some of their time to becoming an expert on issues. If you serve on the local town board, just of smidgen of your time. Serve in congress? Plan on 18 hour days. Your job when you sit down at that desk to push the vote button is the vote the way I would vote and my neighbors would vote IF, IF we had all met with experts, read all the reports, gone to the location to be affected by the vote (site of new dam, site for new prison, terrain map of new expressway, etc.) The idea is the we pick one of our neighbors who has the human ability to absorb the facts, interview people representing both side of issues and figure out who is sensible and telling the truth, what is good for our country, our civilization, not just today but for the long term. Then this neighbor takes on the fiduciary duty to vote on behalf of the rest of us.

And in this theoretical world of "representative democracy" we would expect media people, whether talk, print, video or bloggers, to give us valid information on both the topics under consideration, and the behavior and credibility of the people we have elected.

What we have is a political system that resembles rabid fans of two rival high schools "talkin' trash" as they file into the stadium for the annual grudge match between two football teams.

So. Do we want statesmen to represent us or do we want obedient political hacks?

Talk radio could almost single-handedly turn our nation around.... if they were not so intent on being so sophomoric.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

I agree with the representative republic stuff. The politicians are supposed to do what they think is right, not what the mob demands at that very moment. That's why we were set up as a republic. I'm a firm believer in the isolation of politics from the whims of the crowd.

I also agree that talk radio can turn the nation around. In fact, it's done so before. I think it will do so again, despite the tenor of the discussion. The system is strong enough to tolerate stuff like this, and like I said earlier, it may even be better off that people let their steam out via radio and TV. The only reason we think things are worse now is because we have much easier access to the worst of the worst.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

Holland Cooke, in the thread about had Glenn Beck peaked, provided us a clip of a 1957 movie " A Face In the Crowd" starring Andy Griffith, Patricia Neal, Walter Mattheau (sp), and Lee Remick (sp). A great clip that whetted my appetite to see the entire movie. You can view the entire movie at You Tube, search under movies: Andy Griffith A Face In the Crowd. It's presented in 13 parts, (parts 1 -12 are 10 minutes each and part 13 is 6:30). A very different acting role from Andy of Mayberry or Matlock. The movie is interesting and worth watching, in my opinion.

Watching this film might make you wonder what the big radio / TV talk show folks actually say when the mic is off. How much is an act? Think Greta Van Sesstren (sp), who was on CNN, a more left leaning network, now on right leaning Fox. So does she really believe what she's saying or is she simply going along, because Fox gave her a better gig than CNN? If the networks had been more right leaning, would have Rupert Murdock have made Fox a left leaning network? If conservative views became the mainstay of network radio/TV who Murdock change his network to being a lib network? The Washington Times, a right leaning newspaper is own by Rev. Young Sun Moon, most probably don't share his "religious" views, but the head of the "mooneys" saw a business opportunity and now runs one of America's leading conservative newspapers. Politics does make some strange bedfellows. The question is does Rev. Moon really believe what his paper publishes or is he simply trying to make money by saying what those readers want to hear.

Broadcasting is a business. Radio stations change formats, not because the owner likes Country music better than Big Band music (he/she may actually prefer Big Band music), but they can't sell Big Band music due to the elderly demo, so Country sells to that valued younger demo, and even though the owner hates Country music, his station plays it, because it does sell. This is the nature of business. Which begs the question, how much of what we are hearing on talk radio, cable TV is real and not just a vehicle for the host, their guest consultants, and the station/network to make money. What is really frightening is that many people get their news from Rush/Hannity/Beck, or Rachel and Ed. Even scarier still is others get their news from Leno/Letterman/Comedy Central. Are we seeing the "dumbing down of the message" to appeal to the masses, who for many don't really want to be bothered studying the issues, so we package it in a simply fun way selling them any point of view just to make a buck?

 

[jerry367]

We now can hurl insults at complete strangers across the country. Back to radio, if there really was a market for people speaking in measured tones saying things like "my esteemed opponent" it would be there. The other day in Congress the Goldman Sachs guy was being questioned with obscenities.

This isn't about NPR-style radio.

People keep confusing "being rational" with being calm and milquetoast. Nothing could be further from what I'm saying. When I say a host should be "normal" or "rational", I am a talking about a style where the host maintains a variety of opinions LIKE MOST AMERICANS, that doesn't neatly fit into one ideological hope chest. Really, outside of Rush clones, WHO do you know in your everyday life who has such a rigid and one-sided agenda where all their opinions point strictly in one direction NO MATTER WHAT? Probably nobody. That is very telling.

As if I even need to point this out: A person who holds a variety of opinions can also be as heavy handed and entertaining and insuting, if you like, as SAVAGE!

There are individuals with FIERY opinions who will argue and debate to the death, who can be entertaining---ALL without selling their soul to march in lock step with some ideological cult.

That type of host would be FAR more relatable.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

I don't disagree with any of that, but I think you are projecting your listening habits onto the average "listener". Most people listen to these guys for maybe 30 minutes at the most. It's not like they have time to hear every side of a complex issue. As a result, you have guys like Hannity who reset every break. They talk about the same topic for the whole show, and this is what seems to work.

There are hosts like what you want, they just don't do very well.

 

[Silkie]

I'm wondering if any of them will announce that the new Census commercial has discreetly added that if we don't answer the Census we won't know how much health care is needed. You know, how angry will people get when they find out their health care is a rationed appropriation based on the Census?

In a nutshell, people get angry. It is just rather unusual that everyone gets angry at the same time, on both sides of the aisle for their own reasons.

The solution for government: Get over yourselves.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I am a talking about a style where the host maintains a variety of opinions LIKE MOST AMERICANS, that doesn't neatly fit into one ideological hope chest. Really, outside of Rush clones, WHO do you know in your everyday life who has such a rigid and one-sided agenda where all their opinions point strictly in one direction NO MATTER WHAT? Probably nobody.

Depends on your geography, my friend.

I live in a county that typically votes 95% down the Rush/Hannity/Beck dogma. 5% will vote Democrat in a routine election. It was rather ground breaking and earth shattering when Obama got 20% of the vote!

When I go to a local restaurant I always expect to hear at least one table in earshot doing a replay of the R/H/B talking points of the day. I recently sat in a booth behind a guy wearing a tee-shirt proclaiming: "Liberalism is a Mental Illness". Many of the churches regularly have guest speakers who are also guests of R/H/B broadcasts and rallies proclaiming that "God loves Republicans and Conservatives". I have to remind myself that I have lived in places that match what you have described and the conservative/liberal/independent ratio may have been 33%/33%/33%.

I think this neighborhood, this county, this region may be a bit different than where you live, Jerry367.

 

[jerry367]

I don't disagree with any of that, but I think you are projecting your listening habits onto the average "listener". Most people listen to these guys for maybe 30 minutes at the most. It's not like they have time to hear every side of a complex issue. As a result, you have guys like Hannity who reset every break. They talk about the same topic for the whole show, and this is what seems to work.

There are hosts like what you want, they just don't do very well.

I'm not talking about any in-dpeth dissection of an issue. I'm talking about the typical, shallow setting up of a simple conversation topic that is not ahereing to one constant ideology.

 

[jerry367]

I live in a county that typically votes 95% down the Rush/Hannity/Beck dogma. 5% will vote Democrat in a routine election. It was rather ground breaking and earth shattering when Obama got 20% of the vote!

When I go to a local restaurant I always expect to hear at least one table in earshot doing a replay of the R/H/B talking points of the day. I recently sat in a booth behind a guy wearing a tee-shirt proclaiming: "Liberalism is a Mental Illness". Many of the churches regularly have guest speakers who are also guests of R/H/B broadcasts and rallies proclaiming that "God loves Republicans and Conservatives". I have to remind myself that I have lived in places that match what you have described and the conservative/liberal/independent ratio may have been 33%/33%/33%.

I think this neighborhood, this county, this region may be a bit different than where you live, Jerry367.

I can almost guarantee you that a large portion of that majority of conservatives in YOUR neighborhood, are hypocrites whose lives are mittered with contradiction and inconsistancy.

Such is the life of an ideologue.

 

[Silkie]

Re: Tea Party not guzzling THIS Kool-Aid!

After Beck, Rush, and their legion of local wanna-be's have been wailing about The Police State, where's their anger over this show-us-your-papers deal in Arizona?

Wouldn't it be funny if all they could produce were a host of screen names that they carefully devised, like hcscruiser (or choose the initials of your choice and make it a possessive), and then have to explain that they were really your boat or your car? ;D

 

[DonTheTrucker]

I can almost guarantee you that a large portion of that majority of conservatives in YOUR neighborhood, are hypocrites whose lives are mittered with contradiction and inconsistancy.

Such is the life of an ideologue.

This is why I shouldn't even be trying to have a conversation with you. You're the exact thing that you're bashing here. A closed minded ideologue that does nothing but make generalizations.

But, I'll try one more time.

Remember the Dubai Ports debacle a couple years back? The Bush Administration wanted to contract port operations out to Dubai World? Rush was the only host that I can think of on radio that supported this. Meanwhile, all of his "clones" as you call them, publicly disagreed with him and called him out on it. I seem to remember Hannity even having Rush call his show (or vice versa) and arguing with him about it.

The Right isn't as monolithic in mind as you think it is, and the Left isn't as monolithic in mind as Rush or Hannity say they are. In other words, you're the exact same thing as they are. Except they're getting paid millions to say it, and you're posting on a message board.

 

[satech]

I live in a county that typically votes 95% down the Rush/Hannity/Beck dogma. 5% will vote Democrat in a routine election. It was rather ground breaking and earth shattering when Obama got 20% of the vote!

That's "vote Democratic." As much as the Republans would like us to believe otherwise, we still have the Democratic Party and a Democratic majority.

Sorry... I know you probably didn't even realize your minor mistake, so I apologize if you meant no ill will against members of the Democratic party, but in general, I'm just sick and tired of this silly Faux News name game of leaving off the "-ic" because the right-wingers don't want the positive connotations of "democratic" to be associated with their Democratic opponents.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

Faux News name game

It's FOX News. I know you don't realize your minor mistake, but the name of the network is Fox News.

What's this about name games, again?

By the way, the guy you're attacking is on your side. Lighten up, Francis.

 

[cklw800]

I think he's joking. I think he knows it's FOX news. He's attempting to equate the organization with "faux pas", even though "faux" is pronounced differently. It's how it looks in print I suppose.