We need more discussion on the intersection of media and culture. -Matt Moon
I just read John Derbyshire's brilliantly timed article, "How Radio Wrecks the Right" in AmConMag. I first picked it up at CPAC but had no time at the conference to read the article, until just now. Derbyshire argues that the mainstream perception of conservatism is the lowbrow version from the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Ingrahams, Savages etc. Derb does not discredit lowbrow conservatism entirely, he rightfully believes however that the public perception of our movement should be somewhat more than this. Derb quotes liberal E.J. Dionne, when he said: "The cause of Edmund Burke, Leo Strauss, Robert Nisbet, and William F. Buckley Jr. is now in the hands of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity. ...Reason has been overwhelmed by propaganda, ideas by slogans."
This reminds me of a point made by Peter Hitchens in his book, "The Abolition of Britain" when describing the effects of destroying the BBC monopoly in favor of the free market on television airwaves.
"Far from restricting television the authorities encouraged it. Winston Churchill insisted that television cameras should record the Queen's coronation in 1953, giving the new medium its greatest fillip. A Tory government then went on to destroy the BBC monopoly, brushing aside traditional Conservatives who feared the moral effects and listening only to those whom the free market was sacred above all. Lord Reith, the founding genius of the BBC, had warned that it was only the brute force of monopoly which allowed his corporation to take a conservative moral position. He was rapidly proved right, as competition for ratings became the unanswerable argument for laxer and laxer standards of taste and language, and bolder and bolder excursions into pornography and violence."
Before any libertarian goes ballistic, let me say, that I support the free market option any day. What we are seeing with lowbrow conservatism is simply radio entertainers working to increase ratings in the free market. But if this is the base of conservatism in the free market, I will happily compare it any day with its counterpart on the left. While MTV may not consider itself political, it is no doubt driving cultural liberalism. MTV works to build ratings just as our lowbrow side does with terms like "Washington Compost" and "New York Slimes." Lowbrow conservatism is 30,000 miles above lowbrow liberalism.
Derb is right though, that this mainstream perception of conservatism only consisting of these radio entertainers is a problem. The pie is not fixed, and the answer is not to diminish or even criticize these successful radio personalities but to build, build build. Uncommon Knowledge, a program by Peter Robinson and revived by National Review, is a terrific show. Peter Robinson, a former Reagan speechwriter, is no Buckley (nor does he pretend to be) but this show gives conservatism more than a fare shake and has some solid content. Dinesh D'Souza, an original thinker, can challenge the best on the left and is incredibly well rounded. Whether it's the religious department, history department, political department or the cultural department, Dinesh can concisely articulate the strength and superiority of conservatism. It is often said that converts to Catholicism are better communicators for their new found Religion than those born into it. Dinesh, born in India, is a phenomenal voice for American conservatism. More D'Souza is a great thing for conservatism.
Both highbrow liberalism (NPR) and conservatism (Firing Line, Uncommon Knowledge) have existed, in large part, not from free market demand but from public funding, which is a poor reflection of our culture. Ultimately, we have a cultural problem where the need to be constantly entertained, even with our news, is paramount to all else. In short, the problem is not the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Ingrahams, Savages; the problem is with us, let's demand more.
