and read about the End of Conservatism. (//%22http://www.newsweek.com/id/112770%22)
quote:
David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter . . . writes in his smart new book, "Comeback," "the evidence suggests that a more consistent, more principled, more conservative administration would have been even more soundly rejected by the public than the unpopular Bush administration ever was." As Frum documents, every Bush policy that conservatives decry is in fact wildly popular. Public support for prescription-drug benefits ranges from 80 to 90 percent. And every Bush policy conservatives favor is regarded by the public with great suspicion. A majority of Americans regard the Bush tax cuts as "not worth it," and would prefer increased spending or balancing the budget to cutting taxes. In the one area where Bush remains unfailingly popular with conservatives—foreign policy—public support has also collapsed. According to the Pew Research Center, the number of Americans who believe that military force can reduce the risk of terrorism dropped sharply between 2002 and 2006, from 48 percent to 32 percent.
In other words, according to Fareed Zakaria -- and David Frum -- modern conservatism is now quite unpopular in America, and unless core changes are made, will go the way of the dodo bird faster than anyone thinks.
I read this last night and thought perhaps this board might like the opportunity to comment on it.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
and read about the End of Conservatism. (//%22http://www.newsweek.com/id/112770%22)
quote:
David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter . . . writes in his smart new book, "Comeback," "the evidence suggests that a more consistent, more principled, more conservative administration would have been even more soundly rejected by the public than the unpopular Bush administration ever was." As Frum documents, every Bush policy that conservatives decry is in fact wildly popular. Public support for prescription-drug benefits ranges from 80 to 90 percent. And every Bush policy conservatives favor is regarded by the public with great suspicion. A majority of Americans regard the Bush tax cuts as "not worth it," and would prefer increased spending or balancing the budget to cutting taxes. In the one area where Bush remains unfailingly popular with conservatives—foreign policy—public support has also collapsed. According to the Pew Research Center, the number of Americans who believe that military force can reduce the risk of terrorism dropped sharply between 2002 and 2006, from 48 percent to 32 percent.
In other words, according to Fareed Zakaria -- and David Frum -- modern conservatism is now quite unpopular in America, and unless core changes are made, will go the way of the dodo bird faster than anyone thinks.
I read this last night and thought perhaps this board might like the opportunity to comment on it.
Rovians, Busheviks and Dittoheads ...all your fault. Way to go dodo birds! Good job.
Shift happens in politics.
A very good example is the southern Christian conservative base which overwhelmingly put Carter in office in 1976. In 1980, the only southern state Carter carried was his home state of Georgia.
Now is a good time for essay writers to expound upon their philosophies and get them published, it's an election year. I take essays like this with a grain of salt. I'm sure there are plenty of other essayists who are finding evidence that liberalism is dying out.
The country is shifting to a more moderate political atmosphere right now. Far right conservatives have been marginalized this election cycle, it doesn't mean conservatism is dead. It might mean that the Christian right might get the message that some of their core wedge issues are dying out, like abortion or gay marriage.
quote:
modern conservatism is now quite unpopular in America, and unless core changes are made, will go the way of the dodo bird faster than anyone thinks.
They've talked alot about this on Air America.
Oh, wait, never mind. The only liberal talk radio station doesn't exist anymore because of no listeners.[xx(]
The End of Conservatism, National Review, 2000
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Nzk5OWM2OTc4ZWU0ODU0MGNkY2IwOTg1MTExNGY4ZDg=
Or better yet:
House Veterans Readjust To Liberal Trend in South - The End of Conservatism, NY Times, 1975
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40611FB3559157493C7AB1789D85F418785F9
- - -
This book says Liberalism died in 1979:
http://www.amazon.com/End-Liberalism-Second-Republic-United/dp/0393090000
The NY Times ran an article declaring Liberalism dead in 1969:
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20F14FF3C5D1A7B93C5A9178CD85F4D8685F9
Declaring an idea dead is always a bad idea. One would have thought communism would die with the failed experiment of the Soviet Union. Or fascism or national socialism with the Nazis. Or democracy is Cuba when Che executed the political prisoners.
Those ideas didn't die in those extreme situations, it is unlikely the base of conservatism in the United States will die whether it morphs or stays the same. Though I'd so like to see a conservative split between religious ideology and other values (namely let the social agenda die).
I think this is kinda funny, because it's not the first time! Remember the barrage of articles and press about the death of the conservative movement during the first Clinton election.
I'm going to try to pull some of the old articles when I get a minute.
As for Air America, they really killed themselves. I think there were things that they could have done to prosper, but they couldn't be quantified like most Talk Radio. The potential advertiser was always at risk of being the subject of attack, or of unknowingly sponsoring a verbal attack on a member of their boards.
Al Franken's show was based entirely on anger, and sometimes this overflowed to the industries and people that were his potential advertisers.
I used to get it on my XM Radio and there was one guy that just unleashed an endless stream of F-bombs against the president. That's when I realized that they had no hope of acquiring advertising dollars. Instead, every 15 minutes they would make a plea for people to go to their website and donate.
The reason I posted this wasn't necessarily to declare conservatism dead (which is a statement i don't even think the author himself really believes), but to see what y'all think of the current demands on conservatism, and where you think it's headed. It seems pretty obvious that for a variety of reasons the conservatism as practiced from Reagan to present is under considerable strain in the marketplace of ideas. Bush's own speechwriter of all people is writing a book about it. We'll obviously have to wait till November to see just how much -- or if I'm eating crow -- but all indicators so far point that direction.
The difficulty, I think, is that within modern conservatism is the idea that conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed. In other words, the central tenets are sacrosanct and immutable, and it's the elected officials who implement it who are flawed. I think you see that perfectly played out in the responses to a McCain candidacy. Because he doesn't toe all the necessary lines, he's considered a traitor to the cause. And that's one of the more pleasant characterizations out there.
But what if, as Shrum is suggesting in his book, it's the tenets themselves that have failed?
And CF, I have no idea where the evangelicals will go if they leave the Republican party. They simply aren't mainstream enough to start a viable third party, and the Democrats are nothing but hellbound hedonists to them. And certainly a bloc with power and money won't just roll itself up and step out of politics of its own accord. I mean, isn't that why Huckabee's still in the mix? To prove that evangelicals are still a force to be reckoned with?
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
I think this is kinda funny, because it's not the first time! Remember the barrage of articles and press about the death of the conservative movement during the first Clinton election.
I'm going to try to pull some of the old articles when I get a minute.
As for Air America, they really killed themselves. I think there were things that they could have done to prosper, but they couldn't be quantified like most Talk Radio. The potential advertiser was always at risk of being the subject of attack, or of unknowingly sponsoring a verbal attack on a member of their boards.
Al Franken's show was based entirely on anger, and sometimes this overflowed to the industries and people that were his potential advertisers.
I used to get it on my XM Radio and there was one guy that just unleashed an endless stream of F-bombs against the president. That's when I realized that they had no hope of acquiring advertising dollars. Instead, every 15 minutes they would make a plea for people to go to their website and donate.
Air America failed for other reasons, as well. It wasn't lack of content, or for lack of a sympathetic audience. They were competing against the leftie blogosphere which in essence pitted community building (the web) versus one way communication (the radio). Personally, I think that's for the better, because love em or hate em, dKos and affiliates have been a real rallying point for what you might consider a new progressive movement, and were central to organizing it, not just in providing it with thinktank-style fodder. AA tried to approach that idea, but were limited by the nature of their medium.
At the same time, they were notoriously hard to find. In Chicago, a certified lib bastion and an excellent market for it, AA changed channels on the dial several times -- going from FM to AM at one point -- and even went off the air completely at least once. From what I've read they just didn't manage their money well, either.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
I think this is kinda funny, because it's not the first time! Remember the barrage of articles and press about the death of the conservative movement during the first Clinton election.
I'm going to try to pull some of the old articles when I get a minute.
As for Air America, they really killed themselves. I think there were things that they could have done to prosper, but they couldn't be quantified like most Talk Radio. The potential advertiser was always at risk of being the subject of attack, or of unknowingly sponsoring a verbal attack on a member of their boards.
Al Franken's show was based entirely on anger, and sometimes this overflowed to the industries and people that were his potential advertisers.
I used to get it on my XM Radio and there was one guy that just unleashed an endless stream of F-bombs against the president. That's when I realized that they had no hope of acquiring advertising dollars. Instead, every 15 minutes they would make a plea for people to go to their website and donate.
Air America failed for other reasons, as well. It wasn't lack of content, or for lack of a sympathetic audience. They were competing against the leftie blogosphere which in essence pitted community building (the web) versus one way communication (the radio). Personally, I think that's for the better, because love em or hate em, dKos and affiliates have been a real rallying point for what you might consider a new progressive movement, and were central to organizing it, not just in providing it with thinktank-style fodder. AA tried to approach that idea, but were limited by the nature of their medium.
At the same time, they were notoriously hard to find. In Chicago, a certified lib bastion and an excellent market for it, AA changed channels on the dial several times -- going from FM to AM at one point -- and even went off the air completely at least once. From what I've read they just didn't manage their money well, either.
You're right about that! Evan Cohen is quite the crook. He funded the network with borrowed funds from a non-profit he was director of, and then never paid them back (nearly a million bucks). When the station began to fail, he was caught stealing money from the employees checks that was supposed to be paid to cover HMO expenses. Both these embezzlements were finally paid back as a condition of sale when Piquant bought them in 2004.
I'm not sure who's running the org now. They are still on my XM dial, but I'm leery of turning the channel there while I'm in the office. Don't want to get hit by any F-bombs.
Ok, just turned there. Some guy named Tom Hartman ranting about how government should have oversight over business, and how privatization leads to corruption. Sounds like a show for FOTD.
I've never touted that privitazation leads to corruption. I do strongly believe that if government is efficient then there will be oversight that is responsible to protect and defend the people. Under this current regime, not the case. Their pants are down below their knees and they can't figure it out after 8 years.
The idea that it was strictly poor management and the blogosphere which tanked AA doesn't hold water.
If there was a demand, the arbitrons would have shown it, therefore it would have driven ad revenue, and it would have been solvent.
Conservative talk radio has continued to prosper. I believe the reasoning is that even for moderates, they are more tolerant of an intelligent approach to politics, even if it's a bit too far right for them, rather than some guy dropping F bombs or Al Franken pretending to be a political genious.
Products for which there is a demand will always sell. Products which don't- they fail or have to be subsidized.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
The idea that it was strictly poor management and the blogosphere which tanked AA doesn't hold water.
If there was a demand, the arbitrons would have shown it, therefore it would have driven ad revenue, and it would have been solvent.
Conservative talk radio has continued to prosper. I believe the reasoning is that even for moderates, they are more tolerant of an intelligent approach to politics, even if it's a bit too far right for them, rather than some guy dropping F bombs or Al Franken pretending to be a political genious.
Products for which there is a demand will always sell. Products which don't- they fail or have to be subsidized.
Come on.....those talking heads are commedians. Their listeners do it for laughs. Give me a break. Most their schpeel is malarky.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
The idea that it was strictly poor management and the blogosphere which tanked AA doesn't hold water.
If there was a demand, the arbitrons would have shown it, therefore it would have driven ad revenue, and it would have been solvent.
Conservative talk radio has continued to prosper. I believe the reasoning is that even for moderates, they are more tolerant of an intelligent approach to politics, even if it's a bit too far right for them, rather than some guy dropping F bombs or Al Franken pretending to be a political genious.
Products for which there is a demand will always sell. Products which don't- they fail or have to be subsidized.
Come on.....those talking heads are commedians. Their listeners do it for laughs. Give me a break. Most their schpeel is malarky.
As long as their schpeel sells Snapple, they will continue to exist. Like it or not. [:D]
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
The idea that it was strictly poor management and the blogosphere which tanked AA doesn't hold water.
If there was a demand, the arbitrons would have shown it, therefore it would have driven ad revenue, and it would have been solvent.
Conservative talk radio has continued to prosper. I believe the reasoning is that even for moderates, they are more tolerant of an intelligent approach to politics, even if it's a bit too far right for them, rather than some guy dropping F bombs or Al Franken pretending to be a political genious.
Products for which there is a demand will always sell. Products which don't- they fail or have to be subsidized.
And as a product, it's obviously still viable. It's still on the air in a variety of markets and on XM. Someone's listening to it. Not you, obviously, and not me, but it still has a niche. Does it approach the popularity of right wing radio? No, but that's my argument: the people who would've been listeners voted with their feet and chose the blogosphere rather than the radio.
And it's absolutely true that a poorly run station can affect audience share and ad revenue. Management lied about initial capital raised, negotiated bad deals with the stations who were carrying them in major markets, didn't pay staff on time, if at all, let talent disputes get out of hand, etc. That's structural and strategic weakness, and you bet it'll show up on arbitron.
There's still a market out there for lib stuff, which is why Olbermann is all over MSNBC, and Stewart and Colbert are so lionized. It just ain't on the radio.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
The idea that it was strictly poor management and the blogosphere which tanked AA doesn't hold water.
If there was a demand, the arbitrons would have shown it, therefore it would have driven ad revenue, and it would have been solvent.
Conservative talk radio has continued to prosper. I believe the reasoning is that even for moderates, they are more tolerant of an intelligent approach to politics, even if it's a bit too far right for them, rather than some guy dropping F bombs or Al Franken pretending to be a political genious.
Products for which there is a demand will always sell. Products which don't- they fail or have to be subsidized.
And as a product, it's obviously still viable. It's still on the air in a variety of markets and on XM. Someone's listening to it. Not you, obviously, and not me, but it still has a niche. Does it approach the popularity of right wing radio? No, but that's my argument: the people who would've been listeners voted with their feet and chose the blogosphere rather than the radio.
And it's absolutely true that a poorly run station can affect audience share and ad revenue. Management lied about initial capital raised, negotiated bad deals with the stations who were carrying them in major markets, didn't pay staff on time, if at all, let talent disputes get out of hand, etc. That's structural and strategic weakness, and you bet it'll show up on arbitron.
There's still a market out there for lib stuff, which is why Olbermann is all over MSNBC, and Stewart and Colbert are so lionized. It just ain't on the radio.
XM recently announced that they are dropping all but a few select Air America programs.
It seems they can't make enough money selling Extenz, Enzyte, and the other penu$ enlargement products to support the continued programming (not kidding, that's what their pushing as ads!).
I think (and it's my personal uneducated opinion) that if liberal talk radio is to succeed, it will need to be funded by private donation only.
Programs like The Daily Show are very popular and well funded by sponsors because they bill themselves as satire, offering instant gratification. Originally, the daily show was a spin-off of Saturday Night Live's news skit, so the format was familiar.
John Stewart is very careful about how hard he presses his political agenda between the satirical. The Daily Show appeals to a generation that has adopted them as the news. They are young people that constantly need to be entertained to be stimulated (oh crap! I sound like my dad!). A second and smaller demographic for the daily show is folks like me who understand Stewarts agenda, and know better than to take what Jon says as fact. I love the show because it's darn funny!
Three of the young folks (21 to 28) directly surrounding me at the office, have never (or at least very infrequently) watched the news, with the exception of the daily show. you can't discuss a single topic with them unless John Stewart has touched on it. They don't watch the news because it's "boring."
The good news is they have no idea when the election is! [:D]
Well for the most part Air America is attempting to capture this same demographic, but they don't have the instant gratification programming necessary to do it. They are for the most part either angry or boring, or both.
So I wouldn't defend them too much!
I listen to NPR and the BBC news. I often thank goodness for both. [8D]
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
I think (and it's my personal uneducated opinion) that if liberal talk radio is to succeed, it will need to be funded by private donation only.
NPR anyone?
Content, entertainment value, and talent are all major areas of what drives Arbitrons and Nielson's and therefore ad revenue for talk and information programming in broadcast media. Not management, or direction.
If there were anything sustainable about AA, it would have more wide-spread distribution and would be more solvent due to more ad revenue. That has more to do with their financial problems. If it would have been a runaway hit, there is little Evan Cohen could have done to efff it up. There have got to be enough libruls in the Tulsa area to support at least a .3 market share or whatever the lowest rated Spanish station is in this market.
I think I will write an essay now about how liberalism is dead because Air America is still teetering on the brink of extinction while Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, and Savage continue to prosper. [:o)]
There is no doubt that the wave of ideas that Ronald Reagan represented no longer has the ring of truth. This era, marked by deficits, exploding military budgets and an attack on privacy, has never been conservative. Reagan and his followers were and are radical social activists. Has it worn thin. D*** straight. Do we have anything other than discontent to replace it? No. We need a leader who can sense and then put into words the evolving new consensus.