I've done tons of those quizzes. They always say I'm a libertarian leaning conservative.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Where is the Center
- Thread starter Goat Rodeo Cowboy
- Start date
I've done tons of those quizzes. They always say I'm a libertarian leaning conservative.
Small government is obviously a relative term. A government that doesn't take half of your money and tell you what to eat, say or do in your free time is small enough for me.
I think you have proposed that: There may be 310 million variations of "What is a valid political position/view" in this country. "There is no middle. There is a collection of political views... there may be an average but no middle." seem to be your mantra.
It rolls off the tongue so easily to say: "Government should be small. Only big enough to do what is necessary."
I suspect we will end up recognizing that there may be 310 million definitions of what would be the proper sized government if we could all wrap our brains around 'libertarianism' as a concept.
Good point. That's why we have a Constitution to put limits on the reach of government.
The libertarian concept is really focused on the potential problems of government over-reach, the possibility of an oppressive government.
Tell me how libertarianism proposes, if it were to become the dominant political philosophy in our country, to deal with oppressive persons. If you reform government and emasculate it so that it has no ability to interfere with the individuals who are citizens, how do the small weaker citizens get any relief from the stronger more oppressive persons in their midst.
I grew up on a small, small farm that was pretty well surrounded by a giant plantation style farming operation. The big operation had their own "company town" and my uncle operated their company-town water and gas distribution system. Fortunately for us, this operation had something of a 'benevolent dictator' mindset. But some of my early values were shaped by the tales that floated our way about life a few miles away around the legendary King Ranch owned by the Kleberg family. They seemed to run that part of the world their own little way.
I did radio in a town where the mayor was not-so-affectionately talked about behind his back as "Little Hitler". He owned the biggest business operation in town. At any time at least half the city councilmen were employees of his company. At any time at least half the school board members were employees of his company. For several years the owner of the radio station where I worked and this businessman had a stand-off in which in a test-of-wills they did not do business with each other. Finally they buried the hatchet and resumed doing business with each other. I had to deal with the man with him knowing that I knew the history. Every day was like walking on egg-shells.
When I moved to the South a few years ago, my wife retired and since we were living in an area where her ancestors had lived 150 years earlier on their way to the Ozarks, we began digging for local details and history. A local church allowed us to examine the hand written journal of the church secretary from 125 years ago which gave us quite an insight into life in the hills where "the law is a day's horse-ride away". It helped me understand where some of the churches got the idea they should be so meddlesome in the personal lives of people in the community. If a man got drunk and began beating his wife, there was no 911 in the 1800's. It was a day's ride to the sheriff's office, and a day's ride for the sheriff to come out and see what was going on. We had a government that could not protect it's people so the Baptist's of the South created a church that would discipline it's people as though it were the government.
It could be argued that the Ku Klux Klan came into existence because the North created a weak level of government in the South that only a libertarian could love and some of the citizens took it upon them selves to provide services their government was not allowed to provide.
Having participants in our political process who have libertarian views may help keep us more practical and more honest, but actually transforming our government to the format libertarians dream of..... would soon become a nightmare. There would be no force to deal with the people in our midst with "The Little Hitler" mentality.
How would I know? I'm not a libertarian, nor an anarchist.
You could make that argument, but it would be wrong. The Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democratic party of those days. It was a pushback against Reconstructionist policies that some Southern whites considered punishment for their parts in the war. "Libertarianism" didn't create the Klan, and the Klan didn't "provide services". It was a terrorist group meant to intimidate Republicans and black people (who were also mostly Republicans).
Last edited:
A
Avid Listener
Guest
You describe a situation that is best solved through prevention. You also describe a situation in which the authority of government has already be co-opted by the ruling elite. That's a problem that is as old as civilization. Before there even was a government, there were strong individuals who accumulated power for themselves. You just described the modern equivalent of a medieval lord in his castle, or a wealthy shepherd in ancient times with many retainers beholden to him.
You are also limiting the role of government to simply dealing with miscreants after the fact. There is much more to government than simply disciplining those who misbehave.
We are participants in a forum hosted by a board dedicated to broadcasting, broadcasters, and the FANS of broadcasting. We routinely find ourselves venturing into topics like this because there is significant controversy in our nation over how radio broadcasting is dealing with the programming that provides information to listeners about civic affairs and politics.
When is it appropriate for a broadcaster to simply make time available to material that listeners flock to even if the material does nothing to enhance the listeners full understanding of the topic?
Is it wise for a government that has determined that broadcast frequencies are a limited resource that must be granted to those who will use them for the "highest possible value to the discourse of the nation". It can be argued we have crossed that bridge a few years back. That thinking today is considered Old School. Today we simply license broadcast channels to those willing to pay the highest price... even if that results in prostituting a significant 'natural resource'.
If one is a 'true believer' in the concept of limited government, the concept of minimum intervention in the lives of people, why would one stand by and encourage a form of "Talk Radio" that routinely preaches for a government that reaches into the lives of people with oppressive actions. You don't have to identify as even a Small-L libertarian to be supportive of policy that would keep daily life as simple as possible for the average citizen.
Today's Talk Radio caters to the crowd that forces people to spend time and money on useless mechanisms so they can be voters; that forces people to divert taxes intended for the support of public schools to a new breed of schools for people who are too good to send their children to public schools; that directs local law enforcement people to harass people who do not carry the proper papers on their person so we can fill the jails build by the private prison industry. How many more issues are there which are controversial today that fit this same pattern?
Why would a national that is founded on the idea of freedom for all be part of a franchise-granting, license-granting mechanism that rewards business people who choose to spread a one-sided discussion that has the potential to un-balance the somewhat fragile process of self-government?
When is it appropriate for a broadcaster to simply make time available to material that listeners flock to even if the material does nothing to enhance the listeners full understanding of the topic?
Is it wise for a government that has determined that broadcast frequencies are a limited resource that must be granted to those who will use them for the "highest possible value to the discourse of the nation". It can be argued we have crossed that bridge a few years back. That thinking today is considered Old School. Today we simply license broadcast channels to those willing to pay the highest price... even if that results in prostituting a significant 'natural resource'.
If one is a 'true believer' in the concept of limited government, the concept of minimum intervention in the lives of people, why would one stand by and encourage a form of "Talk Radio" that routinely preaches for a government that reaches into the lives of people with oppressive actions. You don't have to identify as even a Small-L libertarian to be supportive of policy that would keep daily life as simple as possible for the average citizen.
Today's Talk Radio caters to the crowd that forces people to spend time and money on useless mechanisms so they can be voters; that forces people to divert taxes intended for the support of public schools to a new breed of schools for people who are too good to send their children to public schools; that directs local law enforcement people to harass people who do not carry the proper papers on their person so we can fill the jails build by the private prison industry. How many more issues are there which are controversial today that fit this same pattern?
Why would a national that is founded on the idea of freedom for all be part of a franchise-granting, license-granting mechanism that rewards business people who choose to spread a one-sided discussion that has the potential to un-balance the somewhat fragile process of self-government?
Bingo! Thank you!
I couldn't have asked you to be a better "straight man" in setting the stage for the discussion.
Talk Radio today DAILY encourages a move in political directions that will get our government out of the way fo today's "equivalent of a medieval lord in his castle". Today's tax rates for the Castle-owning lords are too high! How are we going to have productive Lords in their castles unless we cut their taxes. After all, only lords living in castles are capable of creating new jobs. Talk Radio makes plenty of time available for the political doctrine that "we must quite wasting tax money feeding the hungry including hungry children, because we must make sure the lords living in castles don't get angry and quit creating jobs."
Another Bingo moment.
You say it is a mistake to wait until someone becomes a miscreant and deal with the offending behavior after the fact.
But if you are going to mount a strong support of simple government, a government that never offends the sensibilities of the 'small l Libertarian'... then draw me a picture of this government that contains "much more than disciplining those who misbehave". Are you describing a government that barges into peoples lives with rules and policy that says "Thou Shalt Not do This... and certainly NEVER do THAT!" Tell me how a fully libertarian community goes about creating a society where no one dares or wishes to become a miscreant.
You guys for over 100 posts now have done your best to shoot down the ideas that (1) there is a middle (2) that the middle plays a valuable role. There are always people who want a "do everything government".... and there are always peope who want a "do the least possible government". A nation, a civilization survives for the long-haul when STRONG PEOPLE work from the middle to referee and reshape the extremes at both edges.
In the early days of Talk Radio there were signs that some people really saw it as a communication vehicle where STRONG PEOPLE could quietly play the role of an honest broker to make the extremes aware of the benefits and the dangers of various political schemes.
Maybe we need to write a new verse for that old classic about The Day the Music Died. "I drove my Chevy to the Levy.. but the Levy was Dry". The new verse could pay respect to The Day that the dream of Effective Talk Radio died.
Last edited:
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Sorry, but today's talk radio merely preaches to the choir.
But, your misrepresentation of the principle of capitalism creating jobs and prosperity is a beautiful example of bogus agitprop. It is the job of parents to feed their children. It is the job of government to maintain an environment where people who want to earn a living for themselves and their families have the opportunity to do so.
The days of "scarce spectrum" are long gone. There are now enough bandwidth alternatives to Over-the-air broadcasting that we no longer need to honor that tired old myth of the "public" airwaves. True, they need to be regulated the same way that the rivers need to be regulated so that boats don't crash into each other, or that highways need to be regulated so that vehicles don't crash into each other. But there is no need in the 21st century for government to "police" broadcasters" as some sort of super nanny to protect the people from what the broadcasters might say over the airwaves. And even less need for the government to attempt to involve itself is social engineering. There is not a single solitary government agency or bureaucracy that ever achieved any sort of sustained positive result in any social engineering project.
What will you do next? Try to convince us that being a "community organizer" is a real job?
There's no "need" for government to do anything, at least using the language you use. Government, in and of itself, comes from the factory with no rules. Government does what its people want it to do. It's like my computer has no "need" to write the words I write, or use the programs I use. I have set the parameters that my computer operates with. Same with government. The people set the parameters for what they want. So the people wanted someone to control language over the airwaves. It was caused by certain broadcasters exceeding the bounds of decency. In society, someone had to play the part of the referee or umpire. There's no "need" for that person unless we determine we want such a person.
I've heard a lot of conservative hosts talk about waste in government spending, and I think that resonates with people who are probably more in the center of the political spectrum. A local example: a few years ago in my state, a proposed tax increase (dedicated mostly to transportation) was put to the voters, and it failed by a 60% margin. I live in a Democrat, liberal state, and the tax increase was promoted by the local Democratic party, and the initiative still failed miserably.
After the election was over, a local Democrat politician said "I think it failed because the people want to see their money's worth." The people did not trust that the State government would spend the tax money wisely.
If there is a "center", perhaps it consists of people who just want a government that governs fairly, effectively, and efficiently, without demanding more and more money out of their wallets. Perhaps they just want to see their money's worth.
How this concept could translate into talk radio is anyone's guess. Maybe it would fail miserably.
Too sensible.
Here's what I've learned about radio programming: It's built around passion. That's the word I hear all the time, regardless of format. You want to create and attract passion. You do that with the songs you play, with the talent you hire, with the topics you discuss, and with the sports you focus on. Passion. Not everything attracts the same kind of passion. Sensibility and passion aren't the same thing. So back to the topic, where is the center, and why don't we hear it more in news/talk, the answer is because it's too sensible and doesn't always create the kind of passion required to drive phone calls, foreground listening, and TSL. Sure there are a lot more people in the sensible center. But they just nod their head, agree, and move on. They're not going to ACT. And what you want is an active listener.
So you're basically arguing that government censorship of radio is compatible with "small government"?
The proper small government role of the FCC is a technical one. Bandwidth allocation, making sure stations don't go dark, power restrictions to keep interference to a minimum. Everything else is a waste. EEO requirements? A waste. Public file nonsense? A waste. Censorship beyond obscenity purposes? Not only a waste, but blatantly unconstitutional.
The FCC has a place in telling a radio jock that he can't drop F-bombs on the air. They don't have a place telling him that what political views he can espouse or what guests he has on the show.
Last edited:
And to the best of my knowledge, they've never done that.
Requiring tons of paperwork in order to discourage controversial discussion is de facto censorship. But even beyond that, we've seen the FCC nosing around newsrooms lately. Make no mistake, there are people on this very board that would throw a party if the FCC got back into the content business. Mainly because they think it means it would get them a job in the industry.
That gets slapped down every time it comes up. As I said earlier, government does what the people want. So some people complain that their radio station is biased, and it's the FCC's job to respond. Otherwise, people will complain the FCC isn't responsive to the public. They're stuck in the middle. Right now, they barely have enough staff to keep up with all the pirates that keep popping up. They're not looking for extra work.
The "tons of paperwork" wasn't meant to "discourage controversial discussion." It was meant to demonstrate that a station is serving the public. All that paperwork cost the station AND the FCC money. That's why it was done away with. But the question still remains: How do you ascertain that a station is serving the public interest & necessity when no one is actually checking? We could do away with the IRS if people would pay their taxes honestly. But we all know they don't.
Last edited:
Is anybody today requiring tons of paperwork from you?
So you are telling us that you have visits from the FCC in your station's newsroom checking out how you do it. Once? Multiple time?
Make no mistake about it, there are people on this very board who would like to engage in adult conversation right here on the board. You do not have to "body slam" people with verbal improvised-explosive-devices if you, also, enjoy conversation.
You have shared with us that when you do your radio show it is done with dignity and respect. Why would you not employ a bit diplomacy when we try to take the animal called "Talk Radio" and hold it in our hands the way a veterinarian would a small puppy and examine the critter tenderly, with love and respect and then discuss the well being and future prospects of the puppy?
The broadcasting industry through the years sent a message to the Congress and to the regulators: We are a grown-up industry now. Could you please remove the training wheels and let us navigate our business like other lines of business operate. So the changes were made. You no longer put on a license application what your programming format will be. You no longer have the draconian elements of the Fairness Doctrine to navigate. A lot of businesses are required to justify to the government the fairness of their efforts to meet the EEO requirments, so that is not some kind of straight-jacket placed only on the broadcasting industry. So what is it with people on these forums who are cowering in their closets, sucking their thumb and crying that there is a communist or a bureaucrat or something scary under the bed and you are having trouble sleeping at night.
When I ask questions, I try to be thoughtful and mature about it. But I long since got past the youthful phase of life where one is afraid of being embarrassed by asking what someone else thinks is a dumb question. So yes, now and then I ask a question that gives the opportunity for someone to grab it and run around the room proclaiming: "Look- he isn't one of US. He is one of THEM!"
There are people around the world who would like for broadcasters in their country to have the freedom broadcasters in our country have.
There are people around the world who would like to have the freedom to come out and have discussions on an Internet forum the way we can. Why are so many of us more interested in shooting each other in the foot than we are in having adult conversation?
Let me guess. That is what someone who has a political view in the middle would say. And we sure don't want to encourage that kind of heresy do we.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
In a real world, a practical world, a world where people don't ride unicorns, the problems of total chaos are so clearly self-evident that only a sophomoric troll would attempt to sell the argument that there is no need for some degree of rules. I suppose that's why you put the word need in scare quotes.
There is a need to ensure that once one person is transmitting on a particular frequency, other transmissions don't interfere. That's why stations need to be regulated as to what frequency they are allowed to use, how much power they're allowed to broadcast, etc. Such regulations are often recognized as being "common sense", a scare commodity nowadays, especially in this forum.
As for "the people" wanting someone to control the language over the airwaves, that's hogwash. The original purpose of regulation of broadcasting was to maintain proper controls over the technology, as I just mentioned. It was the action of enterprising pressure groups who persuaded the government to get into the censorship business. That's one of those things that a small, but very vocal minority demands while the vast majority of people just don't give a damn about.
No, the FCC assumed that role. They serve as content police because they want to, not because a law says that they have to. The law created the FCC and gave them the power to write regulations that had the power of law, though they were not, in fact, laws. That's the case with most regulations promulgated by Executive Branch bureaucracies. That's also the sort of "big government" that both libertarians and conservatives have a problem with.
Then there are some big holes in your knowledge.
Last edited:
How about offering real proof instead of just your usual whininess?
- Status