Conservative commentators are having great fun with a report that, in the wake of the mid-term elections, Democrats are looking for liberals who might host radio call-in shows and counter the perceived influence of Rush Limbaugh and his clones. They are right to laugh, even if it is for the wrong reasons.
Conservative commentators are having great fun with a report that, in the wake of the mid-term elections, Democrats are looking for liberals who might host radio call-in shows and counter the perceived influence of Rush Limbaugh and his clones. They are right to laugh, even if it is for the wrong reasons.
Indeed, if the word “liberal” meant what Rush and his cronies insist that it means—a politically correct, pro-big-government ideologue—there would already be plenty of liberal talk radio shows. Talk radio succeeds on the snappy epigram, the easy answer and the gross oversimplification—Left or Right.
Of course, most of us who are categorized as liberal these days used to be called moderates, and moderates make lousy talk radio hosts. (For one thing, we aren’t angry all the time.) Some Indianapolis Eye readers may remember local TV personality Dick Wolfsie’s experiment with a call-in show some years back—a couple of informative hours of courteous discussion of issues, from a variety of perspectives. It didn’t last, despite the personal appeal of the host. At the time, I asked a relative who owned radio stations why it had failed. He explained that there is a particular audience that tunes in to talk radio, and that audience doesn’t want reasoned discussion—it wants red meat.
There have been a number of academic studies of talk radio and its listeners, and they suggest a big feedback loop—people tune in to have their prejudices confirmed, to validate their worldview by hearing it from others. Except for people like my husband, who listen to find out what “those wackos” are saying now, regular listeners tend to be angry white guys in their late forties and fifties, who already think—if think is the word—the way Rush and his pals do. These shows do not change people’s opinions—they confirm them.
In the real world, of course, problems are not so easily reduced to left/right, good/evil, us/them. As I tell my students, principles may be simple, but their application usually isn’t. We believe in the simple principle of religious liberty—does that mean that churches should be allowed to discriminate? To ignore zoning laws? Refuse to pay taxes? We believe in free expression—what about obscenity? Libel? Flag burning? Letting the KKK rally at the Statehouse? We believe in equality under the law—what about Affirmative Action? Same-sex marriage? Racial profiling? There are two sides (or more) to most of these issues, and thoughtful people understand that. As I tell my students, I’ll know they learned something in my classes if they use phrases like “It depends” and “It’s more complicated than it seems” more often.
Democratic deliberation requires a consideration of other citizens’ views and opinions, and a reasoned rebuttal if we find those positions untenable. Out of that discourse—or so the theory goes—will emerge policies most likely to be acceptable to the majority of citizens, and thus seen as legitimate exercises of state power. The policies may not please everyone; indeed, they may be exceedingly wrongheaded. The democratic process is often frustrating and time consuming and inefficient. Representative democracy beats hell out of centralized control, but that doesn’t mean it is tidy or simple or infallible. It is anything but.
Talk radio’s “ditto-heads” do not have patience for the ambiguities of real life or the heavy lifting of political process. So-called “liberals” offering up a different set of sound-bites and bumper-sticker philosophies would just create a different variety of ditto-head. Listeners who want thoughtful analysis of issues, point-counterpoint discussions, and commentary devoid of demonizing and harangue are probably listening to public radio or reading the New York Times.
