SALZMAN: Flying under the radar
By Jason Salzman, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published September 27, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
In 2005, we were facing a vote on whether to allow the state government to keep five years' worth of tax money that would otherwise have been refunded to taxpayers.
That was Referendum C, you'll recall, and it sounds boring, especially in today's media climate as exemplified on Thursday by the Rocky Mountain News' front-page headline, "Three ring circus," with photos of the presidential candidates and President Bush.
Ref C was tedious, but the dailies served up intelligent and interesting coverage anyway, explaining why the state wanted the money and what the alternatives were - mostly cuts in government services.
The 2005 coverage in the dailies, as ably tallied by the Ref C opponents at the conservative Independence Institute, included three multipart news series, more than 50 opinion columns and editorials, and more. In the period between Aug. 1 and Sept. 26 alone, the dailies ran 116 news articles.
Now, three years later, we're looking at Amendment 59, which would, as a Sept. 19 Rocky editorial put it, "essentially make Ref C permanent, except that TABOR surpluses would be put into the State Education Fund rather than flow into general revenues."
Amendment 59 would also sunset the state's current requirement to increase education spending at a specified rate each year and free up the legislature to decide for itself how much to spend on education and other priorities.
You'd be forgiven if you didn't know about Amendment 59, because it's received only cursory coverage since Aug. 1 (a total in the dailies of fewer than a dozen articles, with little or no detailed analysis).
But Amendment 59 is the most important among Colorado's 18 amendments. Not only are untold billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars affected by Amendment 59 in the long term, but it addresses basic governance issues and spending that affect all of us.
Journalists by necessity weigh the importance of election stories against one another all the time. They should think back to the importance they attached to Ref C in 2005, and treat Amendment 59 accordingly.
Limbaugh bias. Responding to an issue I raised last month, Clear Channel's Kris Olinger e-mailed me that she won't add a lefty commentator to KOA radio's Colorado Morning News, to balance the daily one-minute commentary by conservative Rush Limbaugh. It's a plug for his show, but it functions as political commentary.
I'm not talking about adding a left-leaning talk show host to KOA for three hours daily. I understand, as Olinger put it, that KOA "leans right and male." Listeners can go elsewhere for liberal talk shows.
I just want a liberal commentator for one minute during KOA's morning newscast, which is supposed to be fair and accurate, to balance Limbaugh.
Olinger rejected my suggestion of Jim Hightower, who would be perfect for the chatty KOA show. You can still listen to Hightower at 8:33 a.m. on KGNU-AM (1390).
Olinger wrote that Hightower would be expensive (he's actually free), and he doesn't have the name recognition of Rush. (Who cares?)
Olinger asked why I'm not demanding that National Public Radio add more "conservative content" to its morning newscast, implying that NPR has a liberal bias.
I'd be happy to do this, but Olinger didn't provide any evidence of bias at NPR, so I can't demand balance there. And the early-morning programming on Colorado Public Radio KCFR-AM (1340) is mostly national news, not local like KOA.
Stop the polls. Here's a Denver Post headline on Thursday: "Poll: Obama regains lead from McCain in Colorado."
A month ago, the Post gave us this headline: "McCain edges past Obama in new Colo. poll."
These snapshot polls are getting more irrelevant by the day. The space should be used for articles about issues and where the candidates stand on them, not the alleged one-day popularity of these candidates.
I'm looking for journalists to sign my "No-More-Stories-About-Individual-Polls" pledge. To sign, you must agree that, for the remainder of this election, any story about polling should focus on polling trends, summarizing a series of polls over time, not a single poll.
Jason Salzman, president of Effect Communications, is the author of Making the News: A Guide for Activists and Nonprofits. Reach him at salzmanj@RockyMountainNews.com.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
September 27, 2008
7:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
No "evidence of bias at NPR"?????
Jason, surely you jest? You don't see any liberal bias at NPR? Then you must be very, very left wing. NPR reeks of liberal bias.
September 27, 2008
10:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
blacksho89 writes:
Mike, what Jason said is "...but Olinger didn't provide any evidence of bias at NPR...".
See, it is Kris Olinger's responsibility to prove bias. Common sense doesn't count.
September 27, 2008
10:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Salzman writes:
Ok, Mike, it's possible you are right. But be specific. I'm sure you can point to an example or two of liberal bias at NPR, and I could point to an example or two of conservative bias there.
Please provide proof that, as a whole, NPR is very, very left wing.
Or, it mgiht be easier to focus on Morning Edition, the drive-time show. That's the one Olinger was referring to. Provide evidence of liberal bias, please.
September 27, 2008
5:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Anyone who can't tell the difference between NPR (a serious news program no matter what bias you infer) and Rush Limbaugh (blatant propaganda) is either a child, brain dead, or dishonest. Ms. Olinger is speaking for her employer, who is undoubtedly more interested in the bottom line than any high-falutin' ideas like fairness or serving the public interest. They have their profitable radio niche: tell white males how tewwibly unfair the world is to them. To market to that niche they must keep things simple and uncomplicated--and you don't do that by introducing competing points of view. Indeed, a regular technique used by talk radio shows like Limbaugh is to present only a singular point of view on any given matter.
As for evidence of NPR's "bias", I distinctly remember in March, 2001, hearing an endless parade of current and ex-military officers speak in support of our invasion of Iraq. No one, I mean no one (on NPR), was questioning the rightness of the war once the President decided to launch.
September 27, 2008
5:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Ms. Olinger doesn't dispute Limbaugh's (or by extension KOA's one-sidedness). Instead she points the finger elsewhere so as to divert our attention.
September 27, 2008
9:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
Jason,
Please allow me to address the sensible half of your column. Amendment 59.
You are most accurate when you state it is the permanent continuation of the pack of lies that passed Ref. C. No one knows how much money it provided nor where those funds went. Now they want to create a permanent slush fund with "EDUKASHUN" scribbled on in in crayon. Ref C was always just step 1 to killing TABOR. Now they are trying to put a permanent end to our refunds, as most of us warned before the rest bought that pack of lies. There is also a proposal to make it almost impossible to initiate a measure onto the ballot. Between the two of them, they fully outline how the elite will keep us peasants on the outside and away from any decisions that they can make for us. Guess you have to be a member of the elite before you are worthy of offering laws or spending your own money. Excuse me, the elite are quite willing to "give you the shirt of the other guy's back." When it comes to their shirts, or their pockets, it's a private matter.
Vote NO on everything but 47, 49 and 54. Keep us peasants in charge of deciding on our own where the money we earn should go. Keep your ability to initiate laws and you keep politicians on notice that we are their employers.
Still, don't trust a politician any further than you can kick a hat full of bricks with your bare feet.
September 27, 2008
9:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
yaakovwatkins writes:
Who cares whether a radio station is biased? Under the first amendment they are allowed to be.
More infuriating is Saltzman's idea that Rush needs to be balanced with another person. There are more than two sides to the political debate. In the current financial crisis (for instance), there seems to be at least five groups. (My apologies to the people I have missed.)
1 Don't do anything.
2 Let the feds nationalize the whole financial structure.
3 Bail out the credit card companies.
4 Bail out the mortgage holders.
5 Bail out both the credit card companies and the mortgage holders.
How do you provide balanced coverage with two commentators?
September 28, 2008
2:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
GetReal writes:
Salzman-
http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives...
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/st...
Any comments?
September 28, 2008
4:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
StanMorris writes:
Anderson writes in support of Mr Salzman about no interruption on the "As for evidence of NPR's "bias", I distinctly remember in March, 2001 hearing an endless parade of current and ex-military officers speak in support of our invasion of Iraq. No one, I mean no one (on NPR), was questioning the rightness of the war once the President decided to launch." I wonder how Anderson got the word out two years in advance. But I guess he doesn't remember the cheer leading for the Anti-war marches in March of 2003, by Scott Simon and Neal Conan.You would think something meaningful was happening. I guess Anderson doesn't listen to "Democracy Now!" one of NPR's sillier efforts.
And here I just started out to remind Mr. Salzman of the lugubrious pomposities regularly broadcast by Daniel Schorr who found a comfortable career on NPR after being fired by CBS for lying, no small accomplishment in itself. But that was many years ago and no one remembers.
September 29, 2008
10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
What about the Leftist agenda of KOA's sister station, 760? The channel is called "Progressive Talk." Surely that is a suitable counterbalance to KOA's conservative commentators!
Certainly KOA doesn't advertise that it caters to conservatives, so at initial glance, it might seem "neutral." However, most people listening to it will make the decision to stay put or flip the channel within minutes, usually based on political affiliation. I doubt even the morning "news", which is nothing more than sports and entertainment gossip with some shallow analysis of financial goings-on in the economy, lures very many liberals.
In plugging for Rush, the station is in a sense simply preaching to the quire. A plug for a lefty would likely accomplish nothing more than chasing away a few closed-minded conservatives from listening the show. It would probably hurt ratings rather than help.
There are other, more neutral or even left-leaning venues for those who are politically neutral or left-leaning and who can't turn down their radio for Rush's one minute plug.
Making mountains out of mole hills.
September 29, 2008
10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
StanMorris, I distinctly remember Scott Simon pooh pooing the anti-war movement, and thinking what an arrogant a__ he was, but, oh well.
As far as I can tell, Democray Now has no affiliation whatsoever with NPR, but such distinctions obviously do not matter to you.
September 29, 2008
10:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Yaakov/Squire spencerr:
Radio is a limited medium. Not everyone can get their voice on the radio, and not everyone can hear what radio is out there. As I've mentioned before, KOA's broadcast range is significantly greater than most radio stations in Colorado. You can hear it all the way to the Nebraska border. By contrast, you cannot hear 760 am until you're about 30 miles east of Denver (not that this listener is pining to, since it's the same schlock as heard on right wing talk radio). Again, Limbaugh (and 760) is propaganda.
September 29, 2008
11:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
anderson,
I don't see how it matters how far 850 specifically reaches. AM radio is a highly ignored source of media, most of which is dedicated to foreign language stations, Christian stations, and talk radio.
850 seems to be the sole exception, but only between five and nine in the morning. Otherwise, it plays mostly conservative talk radio (except for the ride home, which is mostly neutral chit chat except when John Caldera gets on it).
I suspect that 850 caters to conservatives most of the time because that is the only way it has found to get decent ratings between nine and five during the week.
Salzman is playing watchdog to something that happens for less than 1 minute every day during its only truly "neutral" program. It is simply advertising for its own program that takes place later during the day. It does not make sense for 850 to advertise a liberal's show for a competing one minute every morning for two reasons; 1. There are no overtly liberal 850 shows, so it would have to advertise something happening on 760 and 2. Advertising liberalism to 850 listeners is mostly ineffective because most KOA listeners are conservative.
It does not make business sense to do what Salzman suggests.
September 29, 2008
12:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
The AM radio audience is huge. I can tell in part because of the many ridiculous and often hateful arguments made on these threads to the RMN.
The radio stations have a duty to serve the public interest, not just their bottom line.
Salzman is making an appeal to fairness. The bottom line is not just the bottom line.
September 29, 2008
12:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Per Arbitron, KOA has the largest audience of any radio station (AM or FM) in the Denver/Boulder market. It is the second most listened to radio station in Greeley, and the top AM station in Colorado Springs.
http://www.arbitron.com/radio_station...
September 29, 2008
1:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Anderson, you said, "The radio stations have a duty to serve the public interest, not just their bottom line."
Depends on your ideologies. If you value collectiveness over individual rights, you might think that way.
Besides, "the public interest" is objective. I may think it is within the public interest to spoon feed far right wing conservatism to the AM audience. You and Salzman may think it is within the public interest to force radio to be just like television and generally give a liberal perspective.
I argue that the bottom line dictates the public's best interest. 850 strives to be profitable, which means they have to appeal to the most people possible, which to them means conservative talk. More people enjoy their program than otherwise would if you forced them to play news all day or Air America.
Anyway, mountains out of mole hills.
September 29, 2008
1:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Anderson, forgive me, I said "Besides, "the public interest" is objective." I meant, subjective. Begging your pardon.
September 29, 2008
1:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
I don't know, spencerr, but I'm guessing KOA (like most long-distance am stations) was huge in this area prior to the advent of talk radio (late 80s). Nonetheless, I admitted in my first post above that talk radio sells, and that's why they do it. The bottom line is the bottom line, no matter how trashy the content.
Also, I listen to KOA for the baseball and football games and I am not the conservative audience you're thinking of.
September 29, 2008
1:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
spencerr, I've been consistently critical of Air America, so why did you just assert that I would "force" them on the public, i.e., misrepresent my position? Media conditioning?
One technique used by propagandists is to repeat a concept over and over again. It clearly is effective.
You certainly are speaking from ideology. The U.S. constitution recognizes the concept of "public interest". Yes or no?
September 29, 2008
1:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
No, Anderson,
I should have also included sports in my list of what AM stations do. I occasionally listen to a Broncos game or a Rockies game on KOA, 760, or 630 as well.
Also, while much of the ratings are gotten for what you would call "trash" (essentially, most listeners like when someone with an opposing position calls in and gets ripped to shreds by the host), I see nothing wrong with someone with a particular view rattling off politics to like-minded (or even unlike-minded) listeners.
I, for one, really enjoy listening to Rosen and to a lesser extent, Rush. Rush is more guilty of the pomp that goes with what you would call trash, but Rosen does a very good job of emphasizing that his views are those of a hardcore republican and that liberals see things differently. He also explains himself, so that at least if you do not agree with him, you can understand from where he is coming. I think that is pretty responsible, especially when no rules dictate that he has to be responsible.
Anyway, Rush and Rosen and most other con talk show hosts are not inflammatory to the listeners. They project their views on us, but most do not advocate violence or even intolerance of liberals.
September 29, 2008
1:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Anderson, you misunderstand me. I said, "You and Salzman may think...." I meant it as a hypothetical, though clearly I could have used a little more outrageous scenarios to clarify that point.
And I do base most of my opinions here or anywhere else off of my own ideological views. There is nothing wrong with that.
Furthermore, I stand by my statement that public interest is subjective. Trying to be a little more "neutral" about it, I think there are two sides to this argument.
On the one hand, clearly, high ratings mean that a greater amount of people tune in and (we'll assume) gain a higher level of satisfaction. I don't see how this is against the public interest.
On the other hand, you can argue that "neutrality" is in the public's interest. I don't argue this, but I don't think it is necessarily invalid. That being said, I don't value the public interest as much as I do individual liberties.
September 29, 2008
2:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Anderson, I certainly did not mean to offend.
Have a nice evening.
September 29, 2008
2:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
I imagine we all see things through an ideological prism. It helps us make sense of our world. The problem is when ideology overtakes our sense of reality.
So you recognize the idea of the public interest or not? It sounds like you're arguing it does not exist, but then you say it does. Assuming that there is a public interest (I do; "We the people" and this and that weird), I accept that it is subjective. But like any issue amongst a group of people, we have to come to an understanding. I'm saying that radio must serve the public. In any case, it's enshrined in law.
As for your "You and Salzman may think..." you clearly misrepresented my position, as well as, I'm sure, his, by suggesting that we would want to "force" am760 on the public. And your comment was straight out of talk radio's playbook: find a villain (in this case am 760); exaggerate or misrepresent another's position (usually the villain but in this case mine and Salzman's), as a way to support your argument. Propagandist techniques. Are you buying the word of propagandists?
I posted KOA's ratings in response to your claim that their audience is not significant. You said: "AM radio is highly ignored".
Finally, "intolerance of liberals (i.e., anyone I oppose or who opposes me)" is the theme of right wing talk radio everywhere. Who are you trying to kid? Did you read about that guy in Tennessee that shot and killed a bunch of "liberals" at the Unitarian church?
September 30, 2008
6:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Anderson,
You are getting a little too intense. I should have left it at "news all day." I'll admit from this conversation and prior ones with you that you are for neutrality on the radio. I should not have made reference to Air America. And usually, Rush and Rosen do not even mention Air America. When they slam the media, they mostly attack the supposedly "neutral media" that dominates our mainstream. Rush calls them the Drive By Media, and he seems to rip on MSNBC the most. They don't mention stuff like Air America except to say that it has no listeners.
Did you hear about that guy in the Springs who shot and killed a bunch of conservative Christians? People are unstable on all sides of the isle. Rush and Rosen don't preach intolerance. They preach that conservatism is right and that liberalism is crack-brained, but they don't teach their listeners to hate liberals. They don't tell them to kill liberals. Some of the more closed minded listeners may come out of Rush's show with the idea that liberals are stupid. I used to think that way. I don't anymore, nor have I since before I graduated from university.
Rosen will be the first to admit that liberals simply value things differently than conservatives and that they are just as smart. I have actually heard him condemn conservatives who argue with liberals on the basis that they think that they are smarter, harder working, or otherwise better. Jason Lewis out of Minnesota, who gets time on Rush's show a lot, is another good one. I want to say that the only one I have heard who has preached a little intolerance is the Savage Nation.
September 30, 2008
7:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
And my definition of what's in the public interest is different than yours. Here is my definition of "in the public interest."
-a policy, regulation, or lack thereof that serves the interest of the greatest amount of people.
Since the greatest amount of people take interest and derive some sort of pleasure in 850 most of the time when it is playing conservative talk radio, as specifically measured by ratings, which not coincidentally help the bottom line, 850 KOA is currently acting in the public interest by playing said talk shows. Here is the caveat; if KOA was encouraging its listeners to commit crimes or foster feelings of hate toward others, it would not be in the public interest. Conservative talk definitely does not do the former, and I argue that it does not do the latter either.
I also feel that the public interest is served better by liberty than by regulations.
September 30, 2008
7:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Here is a hypothetical attack against liberal policy and liberals in general. "Dingy Harry (Harry Reed. Rush calls him Dingy Harry a lot) the other day shot down another clean coal plant. The average cost of heating a home for a family of four has risen 40% over the last two years, no thanks to such liberal policy-makers."
Rush calls the politicians names sometimes, which is the closest he gets to preaching hate. John Edwards is "the Bread Girl." Liberal is a bad word, but only because in our minds, their policy is flawed. We don't hate them. Nor are we taught to.
September 30, 2008
12:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
You deny that talk radio preaches intolerance for liberals, then you give us examples to that undermine your argument (Rush's name calling). Whatever.
The Tennessee killer stated he hated liberals and from what we know he killed on this basis. The Colorado Springs killer who shot up the conservative church was one of their own. To pretend that these are the same is just disingenous. Moreover, you again use a favorite talk radio technique (and as I discussed above, by KOA's Olinger): when confronted with an issue (in this case that argument that talk radio fosters intolerance, or that it is unfair), point the finger elsewhere. The pointing the finger elsewhere doesn't counter the argument of intolerance or unfairness. It only points us to the "other" that we are conditioned to loath.
They're pulling your strings, but you don't recognize it. The free market at work selling ideas: hate, intolerance, resentment. Talk radio does less to promote conservatism than it does to promote disliking whoever is different than you (or who you perceive is different than you). It operates on emotion, not on reason.
You may not be old enough to have seen WF Buckley Jr, but you can still see representatives of conservatism on Charlie Rose (to give on example) these days, talking like adults, and not like teenage bullies.
September 30, 2008
12:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
"Since the greatest amount of people take interest and derive some sort of pleasure in 850 most of the time when it is playing conservative talk radio, as specifically measured by ratings, which not coincidentally help the bottom line, 850 KOA is currently acting in the public interest by playing said talk shows."
You deny the propagandist nature of talk radio. By your measure, Hitler's youth corps, too, was acting in the public interest.
September 30, 2008
12:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Rush did not tell that man to hate liberals, nor did any other talkshow host.
And to compare conservatives who bash liberals to Hitler's youth is an unfair argument. Conservative talkshow hosts sometimes resort to namecalling, but they don't preach violence or hate. They simply preach that conservatism is right and liberalism is wrong.
Sounds more to me like you have problems with free speech, especially when it is coming from a conservative venue.
And they are not pulling my strings. I have been a conservative since I was an eight-year-old and randomly decided that Bush was better than Dukakis (spelling?). I don't even listen to them but once in a blue moon, and they spend more time confirming facts that I already knew and giving me reassurance that I am correct than teaching me anything new.
You said, "Moreover, you again use a favorite talk radio technique (and as I discussed above, by KOA's Olinger): when confronted with an issue (in this case that argument that talk radio fosters intolerance, or that it is unfair), point the finger elsewhere."
I was responding with a ridiculous answer to your flawed argument. A liberal-hater kills a liberal, and you correlate that somehow with Rush Limbaugh's rhetoric. Even if he was a Limbaugh listener, the fact that the man was unstable is the only fact that you can glean from that murder or any other politically inspired murder (unless they can actually prove that either Johnson or the Mafia hired Kennedy's killer).
anderson, "was" is the key qualifier for your argument that I am being disingenuous. Was. Was. Was. Not anymore. Just an unstable human being who hated Christianity so much that he decided to kill a bunch of Christians.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden inspire class envy and ultimately class warfare when they puts out commercials and speak on the topic of making new programs or expanding existing ones based upon revenues coughed up by rich taxpayers. Much of the premise of current American liberalism is based on class envy. Poor Americans have murdered rich ones based on this.
Shall we go ahead and stifle American liberalism and the free speech American liberals enjoy because their appeal to class envy has caused murders?
September 30, 2008
12:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Sounds like China's version of communism...you can only say publicly what the government approves. If the government does not deem it to be within the public's best interest (i.e. its own best interest), the gov't outlaws it.
It's funny how a communist nation's tactics are strikingly similar to the tactics of one of our major parties. The funny thing is, you guys don't think that knife cuts both ways. Stifle conservative thought as much as possible, but when it comes to claims that the media, which operates over publicly-controlled air waves, is liberally biased, you stick your fingers in your ears and speak in gibberish as loudly as you can.
You want your cake and eat it too. Luckily, most Americans, even the liberal ones, don't buy cutting out free speech.
September 30, 2008
1:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Anderson, You are showing your true feathers.
1. You spend most of your time on the RMN defending the mainstream media and academia, claiming either that there is no good evidence that they are liberal or that it doesn't matter.
2. Then, you turn around in favor of muting Rush Limbaugh and other conservative mouthpieces on the basis that they are not in "the public interest," which you have defined according to your own liberal ideology.
September 30, 2008
1:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
"Rush did not tell that man to hate liberals, nor did any other talkshow host."
Whatever. Stay in denial. And whenever you feel your arguments aren't gaining traction, you can always fall back (as you do here) on drawing a line between liberals and conservatives (the Hatfields and the McCoys, the cowboys and the Indians, the white hats and the black hats, the good guys and the bad guys, your side and "their" side). After all, isn't that the message you hear day in and day out, from whatever media you turn to?
September 30, 2008
1:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
You're right spencerr, I don't divide the world into a binary: liberals and conservatives, and whenever I hear someone vociferously stick to this frame, I am ever skeptical.
September 30, 2008
1:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Okay, so when I give a good response to your arguments, which I did, you claim that I "always fall back on drawing a line between liberals and conservatives."
What it comes down to is that when someone says something you don't like, you want it banned from the airwaves, but the rhetoric that you like, coming from academia and the mainstream media, is what is good for the collective, i.e. in the public interest.
September 30, 2008
1:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Free speech for everyone but the conservatives. Free speech for America-hating academics. Free speech for everyone on government controlled airwaves except conservatives.
Note the lack of binary talk. So it comes down to this. There are a lot of different perspectives, but the only wrong one is the conservative one.
September 30, 2008
1:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Your arguments since I have been arguing with you lead to one conclusion.
Conservatism is not in "the public interest," while everything else is.
September 30, 2008
1:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Whenever I observe someone blindly defend academia and the mainstream media and then turn around and invoke the government to stimy freedom of speech that would effectively close forever the only media outlet that one group, the conservatives, have, I am skeptical.
September 30, 2008
3:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
spencerr's rhetoric:
"blindly defend academia"
"stimy freedom of speech"
"close forever the only media outlet that...the conservatives have"
"what is good for the collective, i.e. in the public interest".
Talk radio techniques used by spencerr:
--prop up a straw man (repeatedly saying that I'm for stifling speech when I've not advocated such a thing. Salzman specifically argued for the addition of a different perspective on KOA--not to subtract Rush. I didn't advocate any specific solutions)
--impunge those who disagree with you by assigning a suspect name (calling me a liberal)
--divert our attention from issues or arguments at hand (a version of the red herring)(Finger pointing as discussed above. Also, introduction of unrelated subjects: academia and "mainstream" media. Change the subject.)
--Smear your opponent or his argument by naming known villains--as many as you can, as often as you can, even if they are not related to anything in the discussion (academia, Obama, Biden, mainstream media, communism).
--make lots of rhetorical arguments.
--draw a line in the sand, and frame everthing in terms of us and them (or liberals and conservatives) engaged in a battle. Never acknowledge concepts such as "we" or "the public".
--portray yourself or your "side" as a victim (e.g., of the "liberal" media)
--when confronted with inconsistencies, or wrong-doing (in this case, talk radio propaganda), deny, deny, deny. After all, it's not about truth, honesty or anything weird like that. The important thing is winning. Machievelli told us so.
October 1, 2008
6:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Anderson's technique,
When someone poses an argument based on many points, focus on the weakest or most flawed point, and ignore the rest. Look at the thread up above and note the missing counterpoints in your threads. You always hit one or two of my points, but my argument still stands without those points, not that you did a very good job of refuting the ones you did address.
Then, when his opponent counters the argument, he says, "whatever." Way to argue buddy.
The fact is that one of my main points was that Salzman was making a mountain out of a mole hill. This column was a gripe about a one minute plug for Rush.
Then he starts lying - "prop up a straw man." Regarding the subtraction of Rush. I will admit that this started with adding someone else and not subtracting Rush, but here is where the conversation turned. "The Tennessee killer stated he hated liberals and from what we know he killed on this basis. The Colorado Springs killer who shot up the conservative church was one of their own. To pretend that these are the same is just disingenous. Moreover, you again use a favorite talk radio technique (and as I discussed above, by KOA's Olinger):"
In the previous paragraph, Anderson starts actually attacking conservative talk show hosts. I was rolling with the punches from that point on. Why are you attacking Rush's rhetoric (and that of other hosts) if you don't want to subtract. I took it as implied. And I sincerely apologize if this is not where you were going with it.
And there are three undeniable facts about your arguments, Anderson. 1. Every time I have argued with you about it, you defend academia and say "who cares" when someone points out that most of the faculty is liberal. 2. When someone claims the mainstream television and newspaper media is liberal, you blow it off as an urban legend. 3. You have been arguing in recent threads that the fairness doctrine should be enforced. You have been a little shallow about this, bouncing back and forth between adding a liberal plug to 850 and getting rid of talk altogether, which hurts conservatives more than liberals (ignoring everyone else) because conservatives are the only ones who listen to talk radio.
Lastly, when backed into a corner, you just start throwing punches.
October 1, 2008
7:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Here are my specific responses to your mudslinging attacks on me.
I already addressed your accusations of strawmen.
"--impunge those who disagree with you by assigning a suspect name (calling me a liberal)" Come on now. You are not being fair to me. I have admitted that I think liberals are intelligent, and even if I called you a liberal, it wasn't with venom. I live in a world where I am conservative and I enjoy arguing against liberals and/or liberal policies. If I called you a liberal this time around, which I don't believe I did, it was intended only to define the boundaries of our arguments, not to offend you or to be mean to you.
Red Herring; Okay, when did I divert attention. I think you were the one who used the red herring when you sent us off on the tangent of attacking conservative talk radio rhetoric. You said, "Finally, "intolerance of liberals (i.e., anyone I oppose or who opposes me)" is the theme of right wing talk radio everywhere. Who are you trying to kid?" This is the line that started us on our tangent. Before this line, this topic was not a centerpoint of anyone's argument. You did this yourself.
"--Smear your opponent or his argument by naming known villains--as many as you can, as often as you can, even if they are not related to anything in the discussion (academia, Obama, Biden, mainstream media, communism)." Not so, I made a mistake with the Air America comment. I did not know it would ruffle your feathers that much. My Obama Biden comments on the other hand were simply in response to you inferring Rush was responsible for the Tennessee murder about which you spoke above. My counterpoint was that liberals largely appeal to class envy in their rhetoric, which has led to deaths, so shouldn't we be able to group liberals in general (ignoring everyone else) in with Rush as far as the hate mongering goes?
October 1, 2008
7:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
"make lots of rhetorical arguments." Okay, this makes no sense. Here are three definitions of rhetoric via http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictio.... 1. The art of speaking or writing effectively. 2. skill in the effective use of speech. 3. Verbal communication.
By definition, anything that comes off of either of our keyboards fits into the definition of rhetoric. And so what? My rhetoric is different than yours, but yours is just as strong, even if the political undertones are superficially more subtle.
"portray yourself or your "side" as a victim (e.g., of the "liberal" media)" Uh, yeah. The fairness doctrine as applied to public radio waves is intended to hurt conservatives. It is pushed by liberals (Again, I am ignoring the other sides). Ronald Reagan did a lot toward stopping the enforcement of it. He was our conservative champion in this fight.
"when confronted with inconsistencies, or wrong-doing...deny...Machiaveli." What inconsistancies? What wrong doing? Mudslinging has always been rampant from both sides in the everlasting political clash of the titans between the two dominant political parties in America. You just ignore it when it comes from one particular side and get your panties in a bunch when it comes from the other. Then you accuse me of denying. Who is in denial? I admit that Rush is not nice when he talks about liberals. However, I will stop denying when you can produce evidence that proves that Rush has ever told a listener to murder a liberal or even hate a liberal. He makes fun of them. It is garbage. It is entertainment, but that is why he is the most popular...he has never told one of us to hate or to kill. On the contrary, Rosen and most other famous con talk show hosts are very fair.
I challenge you to listen to Rosen today or tomorrow. 850 KOA from 9 until 12. You have to let me know if and when so that I can hear the same things you are hearing. Then, you can tell me it is trash and exactly why you think it is trash.
I guarantee that he will not call anyone anything rude and that the context in which he uses liberal and conservative will not be meant to foster hate.
October 1, 2008
10:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
spencerr, I cannot possibly address all your points in your careful crafted reply, but let me hit on a few and hopefully cut to the chase:
As for rhetoric, see definition 2a: insincere or grandiloquent language. I would restate this definition as thus: when someone argues with assertions that are in dispute. For example, when you say I'm for "styming freedom of speech" obviously I would disagree that I'm opposed to freedom of speech, and no one who doesn't already have a hat in th ring is likely to draw that conclusion either. Rhetoric is wholly unpersuasive, except to those who already agree with your point of view. So when you use it, you're losing me. Maybe you're hoping it will appeal to someone coming along.
Talk radio makes heavy use of rhetoric in their attempt to stir up the emotions of their audiences. Their audiences, in turn, tend to echo this sort of language. That's one way I can tell (I think) who listens to a lot of talk radio.
October 1, 2008
10:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
"I think"
I don't listen to a lot of talk radio. I listen to a lot of FM music, but I do occasionally listen to Rosen's show, and I sometimes catch the very end of the Rush show, which is usually a caller patting him on the back.
I would say that by your definition of rhetoric then, it would be a point of view that is derived usually from fact. The stuff Rush and Rosen says is completely true most of the time, though it paints liberals and ESPECIALLY their policy in a negative light. I argue that the rhetoric is valid, as is the rhetoric of the liberals. And I understand how it has little value in persuasion.
However, I think you took a lot of things that I wrote wrong.
I meant nothing negative to you, Salzman, Barack, Biden or liberals in general in these threads. My reference to Air America was a mistake, and you and I should just nix the entire conversation about attacking conservative talk (you) and my accusation of you subtracting conservatism (because it was derived from your attack of it) because it was all a tangent.
I will make attempts, in the future, to explain the reasoning behind the rhetoric that I use when arguing with you.
My issue with all the things that you and I ever talk about is this.
You seem (seem being the operative word) to defend everything liberal (regarding academia and the media) that comes up as a topic, but you seem to switch sides when the topic changes to conservative media.
October 1, 2008
10:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
You just come off as hypocritical. For instance, you have in the past invoked the fairness doctrine to kill all talk radio on AM waves. That would affect conservatives to a much greater extent than it would liberals, though it would affect both.
On the other hand, you pooh pooh conservative rants about liberal bias in academia and the media. It is convenient for you that the fairness doctrine only covers am radio. It is also strange to me that "the public interest" seems to mean equality of political rhetoric over the AM waves but not necessarily in the classroom or on the television or newspaper.
October 1, 2008
10:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
You asserted earlier that talk radio doesn't preach intolerance. I said nonsense, and cited the Tennessee killer of liberals. Obviously, no one could show a direct causal link between his decision to murder and Rush Limbaugh. The point is, he and others are exhorted (by talk radio) to hate those who are different than him.
The problem is, you're in continual denial of the propagandist nature of talk radio, much less the problems this causes, and you like others are unable to distinguish between it and other media. I've given you all the clues, e.g., a single point of view, but that doesn't seem to register with you.
Last night Charlie Rich interviewed Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH). The Senator was clearly frustrated that the compromise on the financial package had been voted down. One remark made was that people were focusing on this as a "Wall Street bailout" (a clearly rhetoric phrase you hear over and over) rather than action necessary to prevent the economy from spiraling down. Rich pressed him on why the former message was primary. Gregg kept referring to demagogues (without specifying anyone). Rich asked him someone along the line of "why do they do this"? Gregg surmised, amongst other things, that "ratings" were a cause.
Talk radio is engaged in demagoguery. Of course, they aren't the only source. Should we let the demagogues run this country?
I will try to listen to Rosen, but, you know, all the talk radio I've listened to is more or less the same.
October 1, 2008
11:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
spencerr: "You have been arguing in recent threads that the fairness doctrine should be enforced."
"you have in the past invoked the fairness doctrine to kill all talk radio on AM waves."
False. I have never advocated for the Fairness Doctrine. What I've said is that I don't know enough about it. What you and other talk radio faithful tend to do when someone talks about the problems of talk radio, is to immediately bring up the Fairness Doctrine (a different subject) as you are conditioned to do.
October 1, 2008
11:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
"On the other hand, you pooh pooh conservative rants about liberal bias in academia and the media."
Yep.
"It is convenient for you that the fairness doctrine only covers am radio."
Others (not me) have responded to this particular issue on these threads. I guess you weren't paying attention.
"It is also strange to me that "the public interest" seems to mean equality of political rhetoric over the AM waves but not necessarily in the classroom or on the television or newspaper."
You want to conflate academia and media? Okay, I've heard enough silliness. Go back to the comfort of talk radio--where never is heard a dissenting word. Here's your victim card. Flash it whenever someone talks about fairness in media.
October 1, 2008
11:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
"I would say that by your definition of rhetoric then, it would be a point of view that is derived usually from fact."
It may or may not have a factual basis, but see again, dictionary definition: "insincere or grandiloquent language".
"I argue that the rhetoric is valid, as is the rhetoric of the liberals."
Why? Sounds like you're for the Machievellian idea that the ends justify the means.
"And I understand how it has little value in persuasion."
It depends on your audience. In any case, why use it then?
October 1, 2008
11:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Okay, forget conflating academia and media. Let's instead conflate radio with television. Why not? FCC controls it all. My argument still stands. Liberals dominate one, and conservatives dominate the other (television/newspaper and radio respectively). Yet, somehow, we must find a way to get equal footing for liberals in radio.
The rest of your drivel is based on the (already-explained) false premise that I am a regular talk radio listener.
The rhetoric that I use is based on facts spun conservatively. It is based on conservative ideology. Sometimes, I forget that the political intricacies of any given subject are not immediately apparant to others. I guess, you included.
Forget education. You still come off as hypocritical when you defend supposedly "neutral" visual media and then prop up Salzy's arguments about giving equal plugs to liberals on radio.
October 1, 2008
11:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Why is it in the public interest to put up with nearly subliminal propaganda posing as news in the visual media and not in the public interest to tolerate overt and blatant conservative propaganda in the radio media? At least Rush is honest.
Dan Rather and his current and former colleagues on evening world news are not so forthcoming. Neither is the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, or the majority of other "neutral" news sources.
Sure, that UCLA study that I always cite depends on an arbitrary and subjective line drawn, but it is the best that anyone yet has done.
October 1, 2008
12:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
I think, Anderson,
Your problem is that you seem to think that you are a run-of-the-mill average American with neutral views. You have forgotten that you are wearing t(a)inted sunglasses.
You throw out your own rhetoric and assume that it is fact, and then attack my rhetoric based on it.
You keep brandishing knives that cut at least two ways.
October 1, 2008
12:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
And personally, the means does justify the end, assuming that the end is a world where people go about their own business and stop thinking that they can conjure up a little more government in their strive for elusive perfection.
However, when arguing with someone, that is not good enough. I feel that I have been fair to you. Instead of resorting to personal attacks, why don't you tell me how what I said is flawed or wrong? Why don't you ask me to explain my rhetoric so that you can effectively argue against it instead of swinging blindly into the dark.
October 1, 2008
12:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
And I admit that I may have gotten the fairness doctrine confused with a similar measure.
And I do apologize. My memory is not perfect. I had thought that I had battled you about fairness doctrine before, but if I have, I can't find the thread...so I apologize.
October 1, 2008
12:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
"Why don't you ask me to explain my rhetoric so that you can effectively argue against it instead of swinging blindly into the dark."
Again, dictionary definition of rhetoric (2a): "insincere or grandiloquent language". How do you argue against insincerety?
A fair argument implies that the parties are sincere in their statements and that they stand on common ground. When insincerity enters the picture, the common ground is eroded.
"And personally, the means does justify the end, assuming that the end is a world where people go about their own business and stop thinking that they can conjure up a little more government in their strive for elusive perfection."
Have you ever read (maybe as part of your liberal education) Orwell's "Animal Farm"?
October 1, 2008
12:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
"Sure, that UCLA study that I always cite depends on an arbitrary and subjective line drawn, but it is the best that anyone yet has done."
That study, as I recall, didn't include talk radio. Did it?
October 1, 2008
12:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
anderson,
That study included only sources that feigned neutrality. Some media sources had conservative biases, such as Fox News and Washington Post???, but most had liberal bias.
Of course, everything in this world is gray and depends upon the listener or reader's perspective. Stalin might read the NY Times and think it conservative compared to his paradigm.
By the way, I apologize for bringing up fairness doctrine with you. I seriously thought that we had had conversation on it. I have just read through all blogs with that keyword, and while I have found you opining on it, you seem to be pretty reserved about any conclusions on it.
October 1, 2008
12:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
You said, "Again, dictionary definition of rhetoric (2a): "insincere or grandiloquent language". How do you argue against insincerety?"
Well, then, if I can explain it to you, then it must not fall under your definition of rhetoric.
The thing is, I can back up every inch of my "rhetoric." In my own mind (without leaning on Rush and Rosen), the world is full of liberal conspiracies, such as liberals invoking government to kill the only real conservative outlet, talk radio...but I can back it up 100%.
October 1, 2008
12:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
I propose to you, Anderson, that Rush is the most popular talk show host because he is the most effective at drumming up emotion using a soap opera-like repetitive format. When I do listen, I don't get very much from him.
Jason Lewis and Mike Rosen are much different, however. They are economists who bring a conservative economists perspective to the table. Rosen's talk show is not unlike his column (and in fact, usually his column is ripped off straight from his show). I would say that while he certainly attempts to give the conservative perspective on whatever political issue is at hand, he is not trying to drum up emotion.
October 1, 2008
12:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
I have never read animal farm? Have you ever read "Atlas Shrugged" (I haven't, but I am going to), or perhaps "A Brave New World."
I haven't read the former, but the latter is a very interesting commentary on the liberal atmosphere in which we could live given that politics keeps moving in the same direction.
October 1, 2008
12:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Unfortunately, my lit. classes were dominated by a weirdo who never showed up to class and a hippy who decided to scrap the syllabus in favor of sixteen weeks of Emily Dickenson and a feminist book called "The Robber Bride."
October 1, 2008
1:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
My mistake, it has been about eighteen years since I read "Brave New World." It is actually a quite interesting satire on both capitalism and socialism going into the future. There is a lot of Fordian assembly line type stuff, but it is also a commentary on losing individualism and a commentary on loose morals of America. It would be wrong of me to simply say that "Brave New World" was completely about liberalism.
It is simply a satire based on (and poking fun at) H.G. Wells' socialist utopian writings, but less simply, it makes fun of capitalism and other social issues of the era. It is an easy read. It was forced reading when I was like eleven.
October 1, 2008
1:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
I confess I haven't read Brave New World, although it is an acknowledged classic.
I have read Atlas Shrugged and everything else by Ayn Rand. If you want a philosophical argument for laissez-faire, she is yours (despite its length the book is actually fairly easy to read except for Galt's speech (about 80 pages)). But next time you argue for laissez-faire, and I disagree, know that I know the arguments.
Animal Farm is pretty short, and it's actually a critique of communism (written in the context of Orwell's time). But it also talks about the use of propaganda (my point in mentioning it). You may have heard me or others use the phrase "some are more equal than others". That is from Animal Farm.
October 1, 2008
2:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Orwell was a bit of a socialist himself, wasn't he? He hated Stalinism, but he was a self-described socialist.
It is a shame that Americans hide behind two broad terms, liberal and conservative. I prefer more specified terms such as socialist or laisez faire capitalist. I guess, after the witch hunts of the McCarthy era, one would be quite hesitant to openly call himself a socialist though.
October 1, 2008
2:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Orwell, like many intellectuals of his generation, was enamored by socialism but later became somewhat disillusioned. The classic book on that subject is Arthur Koestler's "The God that Failed".
As I mentioned before, there are not many socialists in America, rhetoric notwithstanding. We are by and large a society influenced by liberalism (in the classic sense, not the na-na-I-hate-you sense of talk radio).
October 1, 2008
2:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Have a nice evening, Anderson. Talk to you the next time my rhetoric offends you (just kidding).
I only peak at Salzman so that I can fish for someone, like you, to fight with. I spend more time on the Rosen column, but I foresee that my presence around here in the near future will diminish, so I'll see you when I see you.
October 3, 2008
5:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
"As I mentioned before, there are not many socialists in America, rhetoric notwithstanding. We are by and large a society influenced by liberalism (in the classic sense, not the na-na-I-hate-you sense of talk radio)." - anderson
I have not read your lengthy discussion with spencerr. I just read the final comments and it sounded interesting.
I usually ignore Salzman columns because he is such a twit. I find the responses to his trite nonsense much more interesting than his actual words.
Anyway, your comment that I posted above was bizarre.
I'm curious how you cannot see that at least half of this country favors socialistic endeavors. They may not all be socialists since I do not believe that half of this country is able to articulately describe the differences between a capitalist and socialist society. But, they certainly have no problem voting for socialists.
So, this country may not have true studied socialists, but it certainly has an extremely large share of folks who could (and have) easily favor socialist programs. Barack Obama's programs are almost exclusively socialist in nature. I read his "blueprint" for America. The man's answer for almost any problem is an increase in government power.
Also, to say that this country "by and large" adheres to a classical liberal ideology is just plain odd. Classical liberalism is largely equivalent to modern day libertarianism. If your assertion were true, why is the Libertarian Party so far behind in the elections? And why is Obama, the opposite of classic liberalism, leading in the polls? And how could the Democrat Party exist in a society that you described?
October 3, 2008
6:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
John_II, great post!
I gave up on flinging about the accusation of socialist against "liberals" because no matter how you look at it, 95% of them don't advocate all production of scarce resources being turned over to the government.
I have a personally-created addage I like to use...American liberals are all either socialists or pawns of the socialists. That latter part goes for the enviros and anyone else who will fall for the populist pandering of the democrat party. The few socialists to which Anderson refers are the ones who are actually aware of it.
Where do you draw the line at calling someone a socialist though? There are people out there who want only socialization of healthcare and wish for everything else to be market-based. In that sense, you can accurately call that person both a socialist and a capitalist.
When I am trying to piss people off on here, I will start throwing around the term freely, but I don't think it is completely accurate.
And you're also right about a classical liberal being more like an American libertarian. American political terms are completely divorced from those same terms in Europe and elsewhere. A citizen from Britain would be unable to have a conversation with a person from America on the topic (unless one were educated enough).
Anyway, if I remember correctly, Anderson is mostly mad at me because I throw around a lot of conservative rhetoric without providing links to facts. I also mistakenly stated that he was a hypocrite for invoking fairness doctrine to stimy conservatives in the media but turns a blind eye to the liberal media bias.
Besides the point. Good post.
October 8, 2008
12:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
spencerr asks: "Where do you draw the line at calling someone a socialist though?"
One test is to look at how the other guy describes, and/or thinks of himself (important that you can put yourself in another's shoes, or at least imagine what it's like). If your moniker does pass this test and if it's, moreoever, accompanied with, as you say, an intent to piss someone off (or to misinform), then it's clearly inappropriate.
It wouldn't be fair or accurate for me to call George Bush a fascist just because he wants to restrict some personal freedoms in the name of security no more than it is fair or accurate for you to call Barack Obama a socialist just because he favors some form of nationalized health care.
It would be accurate to talk about socialized medicine, but that's a different thing than socialism.
October 8, 2008
12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Anderson,
Not to mention a greater redistribution of personal incomes that would move money from private industry into government...that is also in line with socialism.
However, point taken. I have since learned that while compared to me, someone like you would be more of a "socialist," since you basically believe in private production as a foundation of our economy, it is not fair to call you one.
I will take personal liberties, in the future, of suggesting someone is a socialist if a) their rhetoric suggests it and b) it is intended simply as a matter of fact statement and not an insult. (unless I am just in the mood to piss someone off. yes, I am a little more immature than you)
I think that John II smartly points out that many Americans subscribe to some degree of socialism (in our mixed economy, which by definition is not purely capitalist) without even understanding that they are doing so.
October 8, 2008
12:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
And I think you drawing similarities between Bush being a fascist and Joe Liberal being a socialist is just a little unfair. Socialist, I don't think, is in and of itself a derogatory term, though it tastes bad many times when it leaves my mouth.
Fascist is undoubtedly a derogatory term, and there are many aspects of socialism very similar to fascism (for instance, I could argue that the fairness doctrine is government's attempt to keep public thought in line with its own agenda, something fascists definitely did, though admittedly, they used fear and a strong government fist to do this rather than simple policy).
I think your argument is valid, but communist is to socialist what fascist is to conservative (or right wing) (more or less, though by definition, a lot of appeal to similar aspects of socialism is rampant in fascism too).
October 8, 2008
12:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Of course, after reading my last post, I have assumed that liberal = socialist = fairness doctrine, when truthfully, it is fair to cut socialist out of the equation.
October 8, 2008
1:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Put it this way: most Americans believe in (or accept) a market economy. Socialists do not. So we have this market economy infused by ideas of liberalism (we believe in progress in a society and as individuals). The long disagreement has been over what controls are needed within a market economy. We had this debate over 100 years ago. Laissez-faire was implicted rejected after the American people experienced the "gilded age" and its robber barons.
I disagree with your remark that communism/socialism and fascism/conservatism are just degrees of one another. These terms all have distinctive histories and meanings and they are not the same.
October 8, 2008
2:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
anderson,
communism is a specific type of socialism, but (without referencing a definition), I would argue it has negative traits (such as destruction of personal freedoms) that basic socialism as proposed by Marx and Engels are devoid of. I once had a very liberal economics professor tell me that an easy definition for communism was "socialism in practice." I would say that is fair, considering that all the economies in our world (developed anyway) are either communist or mixed. With the exception of a few 19th/early 20th century experiments (that failed miserably), there have been no other true experiments in socialism.
I also had a very liberal history professor teaching on "the age of Fascism" who, if she had to stick fascism somewhere on a political spectrum, would have said that it is more conservative than liberal, though I argue now against that because there was a huge appeal to the collective well-being, which is mostly absent in conservative thought of present day.
Anyhow, it is an interesting discussion, but...it I suppose it is all a matter of perspective.
October 8, 2008
2:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
And I basically disagree with your first point too, although I suppose it is all about perspective.
Our economy is a mixed economy, meaning that it is a mix of capitalism and socialism, with a much bigger emphasis on socialism during this and the last century as compared to the 19th century. I read somewhere the other day that government composes approximately 20% of our current economy as compared to 5% at the turn of the twentieth century.
Anyway, for its robustness, the foundation of our economy leans heavily on capitalism. However, for reasons of equity among the population and providing safety nets during bad times, we have increasingly leaned on socialism in recent years. Its strong point is universal compassion toward "the little man." I would say that your term "liberal" from your last post would be more accurately defined as "socialist." That being said, we live in a mostly capitalist world, and most democrats (and liberals in general) basically agree with the capitalist aspect of our system. They just believe more heavily in the equity and safety nets that the socialist part of our economy provide.