Are conservatives dumber than liberals?
 

In the New York Times story announcing the plans for a liberal radio network, a choice quote from Rush Limbaugh's boss is buried on the second page:

"Some radio executives said they simply did not believe liberal radio could become good business. Among them was Kraig T. Kitchen, chief executive of Premiere Radio Networks, one of the nation's largest radio syndication arms with the programs of Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Reagan and Dr. Laura Schlessinger, among others. Though Mr. Kitchin said he was a conservative, he also said he would have pursued liberal programs had he thought there was money in them. He ascribes to the popular view in the industry that liberal hosts present issues in too much complexity to be very entertaining ? while addressing a diffuse audience that has varying views.

"Individuals who are liberal in their viewpoints can be all-encompassing," he said. "It's very hard to define liberalism, unlike how easy it is to define conservatism. So, as a result, it doesn't evoke the same kind of passion as conservative ideologies do.""

TBTM hopes that those conservatives who visit this site read that comment carefully. Mr. Kitchin seems to be saying that they depend upon Limbaugh's audience, and listeners to conservative talk radio in general, to be simplistic thinkers.

How do conservatives feel to hear Limbaugh's boss saying that Rush depends on a non-thinking audience for his success?
-----------------------

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/index.shtml

That statement don't make conservatives pay any taxes or help protect things that don't directly effect them (the planet, wildlife, etc) so I doubt they will care.

Call a conservative stupid, he won't care.

Tax him $0.02 and he organize a protest.

tax a liberal $14,000,000 and I'm sure he'd be happy to pay so long as it makes minorities and illegals more dependant on the government :)

Tax a conservative $14,000,000 and I'm sure he would be happy as long as it went for building more bombs and prisons.

I think the reason liberal talk radio and liberal editorial news tv shows aren't very successful is because in that enviornment liberal politics can't hold up to scruitny. A lot of liberal policies when it comes down to it don't make any logical sense.

Sorta like the anti war stuff. Its easy to just spout off the usual rhetoric how war is bad, civillians killed, bush is a facist, american imperialism yada yada, without having any solution of their own.

Sure conservative politics is simpler and easier to understand. It's more logical and concrete.

Liberal media is the norm, why would people listen to talk shows for more of it

i think the dumbest people are ones that pigeonhole themselves as anything.

Sorry people....

"left" and "right" are merely distractions....

Did you miss this part of the article?

Though Mr. Kitchin said he was a conservative, he also said he would have pursued liberal programs had he thought there was money in them. He ascribes to the popular view in the industry that liberal hosts present issues in too much complexity to be very entertaining ? while addressing a diffuse audience that has varying views.

"Individuals who are liberal in their viewpoints can be all-encompassing," he said. "It's very hard to define liberalism, unlike how easy it is to define conservatism. So, as a result, it doesn't evoke the same kind of passion as conservative ideologies do.""




Even Rush's people admit that the problem is "liberals" aren't as brainwashed as you.

Troll.

Name me a conservative University aside from Oral Roberts U. There is a reason Universities are hotbeds of liberalism.

Republicans/Conservatives are anti-science and anti-education. Republicans are followers. Simpletons. Halfwhits.

Then why do you support nazism?


Lets not confuse religion with politics. Most of the wealthy people in this country are republicans.

You may be right, but can you post a statistic to prove that?

It is a fact that the richest man in the world is a Democrat.

And why do you think that is? Why would the uber rich support socialist / democrat? Would it be in their best interest? No.

If the green party took control and lightened the tax burden on corporations and the neo-rich, you would see alot of rich fuckers jumping on the green party bandwagon.

The rich go where the rich are loved. Who better to woo rich old white men than a party of rich old white men?

Use some common sense next time.

Hot young naked chicks maybe? :winkwink:

As a conservative, I?ll be the first to admit that your average liberal is more intelligent than your average conservative. But, you have to ask why? There is a long tradition and romanticism around the liberal intellectual. Conservatives, conversely, tend to be lean more towards pragmatism and the tangible. This is why you?ll find more liberals in academia, and more conservatives in business. Those who fancy themselves as intellectuals are far more likely to ascribe to liberalism than conservatism because that?s where they?ll feel at home.

That?s not to say that there aren?t conservative intellectuals. There is a strong tradition of conservative intellectuals. Individuals like Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Dinesh D'Souza, William F. Buckley, Jr., Ayn Rand, Norman Podhoretz, Bill Kristol, David Horowitz, and Daniel Pipes all immediately come to mind.

Moreover, you?ve got yahoos like Serge_Oprano who purport to be conservative and patriotic, but don?t really know the first thing about conservative philosophy and come across as complete idiots. The equivalent of Serge on the left is equally ignorant, but because the liberals outlook is rooted in socialist doctrine associated with the intellectual elite, people mistake them for being more intelligent than they actually are.

That's rediculous......

I can't think of any off hand, but i'm sure there are plenty of liberal radio personalities. TV on the other hand is loaded with liberal hosts - i.e. oprah, dr phill, rosie (when she was on), Bill Mahr (back on again this friday on hbo).

Liberal thinking varies dramaticly from person to person, I think somewhat more than conservative thinking does. There are social liberals (abortion, race/sex relations, death penalty, crime, etc.) and economic liberals (higher taxes, more government, more social programs, etc.), and within those groups there are some very radical elements - PETA, ELF, HCI, etc. Real conservatives (as distinguished from republicans, who are little different from democrats) usually share the same point of view on a great deal of core issues and thus make a good target for focused programming like talk radio.

In addition, many liberals stances are not necessarily practical in and of themselves but as a means to an end of reaching some sort of Star Trek-esque utopian world. Since we don't really know how to do that, a lot of what has been tried so far has either failed or resulted in horrible situations like 20th century communism.

These differences have nothing to do with intelligence, they have to do with idealism vs. pragmatism. I suspect the reality of life lies somewhere in between.

As was said, however, most daytime TV talk show hosts tend to be liberals, so I don't understand what the problem is.

Here's an interesting quote

KARL ROVE, Bush's long-time political guru and White House advisor:
"As people do better, they start voting like Republicans...
...unless they have too much education and vote Democratic,
which proves there can be too much of a good thing."

Totally depends on how you define intelligence

If its intelligence as defined by "getting by" I would say they are equally intelligent. But if its intelligence in terms of nuance and complexities, liberals win hands down.

However, if it's intelligence in terms of "real world" practicality and "conventional wisdom" there's nothing better than a conservative mindset--since the world is reduced to absolutes, it [ostensibly] is simple to navigate and easier to communicate about.

That's why liberals [unless they use parody and satire] will always make crappy telepundits/talk radio commentators... how many times have you heard some local guy call in and discuss
how Sartre's idea of NOTHINGNESS from an existentialist perspective conflicts with the real everyday manifestations of the Nietschzean will to power within a background post-MacLuhan consumerism? You don't... complexity, nuance, and cultural texture can't be reduced to a "DITTO, RUSH!"

I'm not, of course, saying that just because a person is versed in Foucauldian genealogical discursive analytics that they are necessarily more intelligent... it just means they tend to demand more details. Details that won't fit in between the Insurance and diet supplement commercials. The common denominator is SIMPLICITY and [seemingly] CLARITY [due to the exclusion of detail, nuance, and background that liberals seem to obssess about] and that's why Talk Radio is conservative heaven.

Of course, talk to a Buchananite and he/she would argue that Hannity and crew are "false conservatives'....but that's another thread

:thumbsup

It is the hosts personality (liberal or conservative) that is the driving force behind the popularity of a talk show, not their points of view.

Some of you are comparing people who have purely entertainment talk shows, where they rarely if ever get into politics, with Rush Limbaugh.

Rush tells his followers who to vote for, what to call their senators and chant, where to protest, when to jump, and how high. He spreads political propaganda which his followers then repeat over and over again, even on boards like this one.

Oprah does not tell people who to vote for or try to brainwash them into believing everything some political leader tells them. Rush is a mouthpiece for the right wing political machine. Oprah is an entertainer who talks about meaningless nonsense all day.

Right wingers, with Rush, CNN, Fox, and talk radio and all the rest have the machinery in place to easily brainwash people who can't think for themselves.

Anyone who thinks that the current media in the U.S. is not biased to the right is just falling for the very propaganda we're talking about.

Hmmmm so if you had an engaging liberal host, you'd have a hit show? There must be a dearth of liberal charm out there since the only liberal that had some talk show traction [and failing miserably recently] is Donahue.

lol

:)

Besides... all this talk of who's smarter, liberal or democrat is misleading cuz a lot of college grads start out liberal...then as they buy homes, pay taxes, start to worry about crime, their jobs, their career trajectories, etc etc they become more and more conservative.
Liberals would call this "selling out", conservatives would call this "growing up." I call it "Life."

It's certainly not defined by how well you can string together a dozen 5-star words in a quippy sentence. There are plenty of folks on the right side of political fence able to discuss complex philisophical theories without resorting to "Ditto, Rush!" Folks that believe otherwise are not only underestimating their opponents but also largely responsible for the change in power we've seen in the last few elections.

Elaborate discourse on theories is great, but the real world runs on answers. I'm sad to report that most liberals are, by and large, lacking in the answer department.

Thanks for validating my point. The conservative answer is nice and short and easy to digest. The liberal answer is long......process driven... lots of positioning. In the post 9/11 mindset this is deemed wishy washy crap--you're either with us or you're not, you're either up or you're down, [fill in whatever false dichotomies float your boat here]. That's the conservative appeal. Truth... in a can! :thumbsup

I wonder what percentage of Rush's listeners actually agree with much of what he says or listen to scoff at what he has to say. I used to occasionally watch his TV show, not because I liked what he had to say, but to scoff at what he had to say. I thought he was good comedy. I feel the same way about Hannity and Bill O'rielly. I watch their shows and yet they make me want to slap my TV around. I tend, not to watch those that I agree with, but those that I don't agree with.

Sometimes it's long and process-driven, sometimes it's knee-jerk. There are idiots in all walks of life, my pedigree chum. For every Dittohead there's a BUSH=HITLER rabid lefist; doesn't mean either of them have done their homework.

Because you see conservative viewpoints as overly simplistic groupthink doesn't make it so. Can the Left take a really hard look at itself - the consequences of its failures, the credibility of its critiques, the viability of its goals? Can it begin to shed the arrogant cloak of self-righteousness that elevates it above its own history and makes it impervious to the lessons of experience?

No. While I do acknowledge that there is a lot of nuance in conservatism [Dinesh D'Souza's 'rational discrimination' theory and Ann Coulter's critique of feminism, to name just 2 recent examples] these are definitely easier to [shall I say] CAN and FEED to the listener than the simplified BUSH = Hitler standard Gore Vidal/Mailer/Chomsky slogan. Conservative slogans more easily feeds into middle class sensibilities and fear than BUSH = Hitler... cuz that other canned stuff doesn't resonate far outside of a campus. The reason the BUSH = HITLER line doesn't sound so appetizing is because its been 28 years since America's Vietnam experience and we've recently been hit by the 9/11 attacks. Both idelogies have nuance but conservatism is definitely easier to package and pass off as SIMPLE [albeit due to historic circumstances] than leftist pacifism.

Ditto! :thumbsup

Totally depends on the idiots doing the judging :)

To merchantilists, Adam Smith was an idiot. Now, every neo-liberal supply sider would gladly fellate him. So, I guess its not a question of whether liberals or conservatives are dumb / idiots...but a question of what sells....

And being a porn webmaster, that's what I focus on....conversion! :thumbsup

Fine, I'll agree with that, but your original point was:There is a big difference in nuance and complexity between conservative arguments themselves and how well they are packaged for mass consumption.

In any event, not all issues require elaborate drawn-out discourse from atop an ivory tower. A big towering plate of spaghetti is complex, and you can solve it with a simple fork. Especially if you stab hard and turn it repeatedly.

Bob Jones University?

:glugglug

agreed

From a business standpoint, liberals tend to be anti-business so they are less likely to respond to ad pitches, which is a consideration in for-profit radio.

As for me, I'm pretty much libertarian.

I guess poor people are smarter than rich ones, that's why they're mostly Democrats?


Because Democrats want to take money from the rich and give it to the poor.

"Tax the rich, feed the poor
'till there are no rich no more"

Nice imagery. :)

Whoa! Fellow libertarian!

I have the same reaction, usually, to Larry Elder. But you gotta admit, the appeal of conservative talk shows is their appeal to PRACTICALITY. The ability to make the listener say "Wow, that's common sense."
As Interlude points out above, there are complexities involved in the theories behind the slogan, but the slogan is what CONNECTS...it is what sells.

Couldn't agree with you more.
However, people like their politics delivered to them differently. Conservatives are very in your face. Liberals like to sugar coat it. Therefore, the hosts personality must be a certain way for it to be entertaining to the target viewer.


I agree in part with you except for Bill Mahr. However, the other hosts i mention do in fact make sure you know what their view point is on abortion, spanking, econmic issues, gays, child adoptions to name just a few. Regardless who the host is - it's all for entertainment value. Like I said - it's all about the way you prefer to discuss your politics.

I for one like Bill Mahr - because he is an in your face Liberal...with many of the same values I hold...... Liberal social agenda - Moderate/Conservative economic agenda.

The thinking person's political stance.

Believe it or not, those who identify as conservatives are a diverse lot.

# There are paleoconservatives such as Pat Buchanan, whose supports protectionism, isolationism, intervention in Iraq, etc. It's ironic, because this strain of conservative resonates more with labour than mainstream conservatives. Nonetheless, they are they have been around the longest in the 20th century, hence consider themselves pure conservatives.

# There are libertarians, who oppose all government, but are socially liberal.

# There are theo-conservatives, such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, et al., whose agenda is strongly rooted in their religion and comprise the "religious right". Their main issues are abortion, morality, etc.

# And, finally there are neo-conservatives, who are primarily "reformed" liberals such as David Hororwitz, Bill Kristol, Bill Buckley, et al, who are vehemently pro free market, oppose tarrifs, sanctions, etc., and care more about America's international agenda than its domestic agenda.

There are others groups as well, but by and large this represents the coalition of conservatives.

True to a degree, although when it comes to radio personality or not, conservatives (or libertarians) suit the radio format much better than conservatives. They can boil down issues to palatable chunks (or soundbytes) that translate well on radio. Liberals have a tendency to overcomplicate even the simplest of issues, which works on t.v. but not radio. Donahue on the radio would be lame. Michael Kinsey would be even worse.

That would be me. :) I just wish libertarian arguments are as easy to package as neoconservative arguments. :(

Touche'

LOL.....



btw....where are all the libertarians?!?! You'd think in porn at least 90% of the people would be libertarian....the one group who is unamiguous in its defense of personal liberties.

Actually I think libertarian arguments are the easiest to package simply, but the tenets are so simple that people don't understand them.

Libertarianism's motto should be:

"Freedom and liberty! Got a problem with it? "

One of the problems with the libertarian party is that they have been taken over by the Republicans. Many of the right wing social conservatives I hear from claim to be libertarian. Why? I think it's because they believe it adds credibility to their propaganda. If they are just republican robots, then no one listens to them. If they claim to be libertarian, and support the republican party 100%, it sounds better. I think there are a few talk radio hosts in this group as well. Libertarians in name only.

Radio host Larry Elder is libertarian on many issues.

What I meant by "easy to package" is "easy to package AND SELL"... Sure, the benefits of abolishing the Minimum wage would be easy to package into "Jobs for everyone who wants one!" but... it will be a hard sell.

I read Harry Browne's website sometimes.

http://www.harrybrowne.org/

He seems to hate Bush more than he hated Clinton, and that's saying a lot. :)