From David Brooks’ column today:
Just months after the election and the humiliation, everyone is again convinced that Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and the rest possess real power. And the saddest thing is that even Republican politicians come to believe it. They mistake media for reality. They pre-emptively surrender to armies that don’t exist.
They pay more attention to Rush’s imaginary millions than to the real voters down the street. The Republican Party is unpopular because it’s more interested in pleasing Rush’s ghosts than actual people. The party is leaderless right now because nobody has the guts to step outside the rigid parameters enforced by the radio jocks and create a new party identity. The party is losing because it has adopted a radio entertainer’s niche-building strategy, while abandoning the politician’s coalition-building strategy.
The rise of Beck, Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and the rest has correlated almost perfectly with the decline of the G.O.P. But it’s not because the talk jocks have real power. It’s because they have illusory power, because Republicans hear the media mythology and fall for it every time.
41 responses so far
1 sinz54 // Oct 2, 2009 at 12:15 pm
It is common for a defeated political party, unable to criticize its own standardbearer without causing a party split, to claim that it lost the election because it “betrayed its principles”. That is, it lost because it wasn’t ideologically pure enough.
That is what the party faithful, the base, want to hear. Because it reassures them that they are right on the issues, and there is no need to compromise with those of other points of view. Instead, they feel free to scapegoat moderates for their party’s loss.
In the 1980s, the Dem Party faithful had that attitude in the wake of Carter’s landslide loss in 1980. Carter had been a moderate. So they nominated doctrinaire liberals instead: Mondale in 1984, Dukakis in 1988. But all the while, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was formed, and moved the Dem Party to the center, over the opposition of its liberal base. They started winning in 1992, when they talked like moderates.
Now the GOP is in the same boat. The party faithful think that Bush lost because he “betrayed GOP principles.” Actually, Bush lost because he screwed up Iraq and then he screwed up the economy. But the party faithful love him (and love Cheney even more), so they are looking for another answer: That they were right all along and it’s the moderates who are at fault.
2 WillyP // Oct 2, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Funny, coming from the likes of Frum and Brooks, who have about 1/100 the following of the people they criticize.
I’ll re-ask Levin’s question: David, how many books have you sold?
3 groverge // Oct 2, 2009 at 2:02 pm
The data in Brooks’ column might actually cause some GOP leader — Pawlenty? — to find the cajones to take on the Limbaugh/Hannity/Beck/Levin screechers, endure the switchboard meltdown, but ultimately endear himself to independents, moderates and conservative Democrats who have lost confidence in Obama, but want no part of the nutjob wing of the GOP. Timed right, a “Have you no decency, sir?” rebuke to some crazy radio rant could catapult the right person to the head of a “new” GOP. He/she might not win in 2012 — it looks like the GOP is hell-bent to follow Palin or Romney off the cliff — but by 2016, that person might look good.
And WillyP seems to have missed Brooks’ point altogether — you can make an awful nice living with a daily radio audience of 12-13 million people, or a million readers, but you can’t win the White House with just those people.
4 WillyP // Oct 2, 2009 at 2:23 pm
No grover, you have missed the point. Who do you follow to get votes: someone with a large following, or someone whose name is virtually unknown?
5 SFTor1 // Oct 2, 2009 at 2:40 pm
WillyP,
You sound like you don’t have a point of view in the world, or that policy positions simply don’t matter. All you seem to care about is to find some demagogue somewhere with the largest following, and follow that person. (Can you name a few demagogues of that sort from recent history, Willy?)
Is this really possible? Are you really that principle-free? And you think someone like Levin, a brooding patriarch with an anger management problem, has anything to offer the majority of the American electorate?
Enough electrons wasted on this.
6 WillyP // Oct 2, 2009 at 2:47 pm
I tend to follow politics from the point of view of IDEAS. In other words, I like supporting people and candidates with coherent, practical, and beneficial ideas.
David Frum and Brooks like to focus on how like their candidate is to get a pass with the liberal media, to which they are both pathetic sycophants. This is evident in nearly all their writings, and even where they are currently (and in the case of Frum, no longer…) published.
Mark Levin would and has mopped the floor with Mr. Frum, because he is a) mentally superior b) a litigator and c) not afraid of what his enemies think of him.
7 groverge // Oct 2, 2009 at 2:51 pm
WillyP — One more round, then I agree with sftor1:
I guess the easiest response to your question is, “Barack, who?”
The point of L/H/B/L’s “leadership” is not to get people to the polls to vote for Republicans or conservative — which David Brooks, I think, demonstrates they are really not much good at — but to lead you to the television or radio to tune in to their shows and watch the ads so they can make money (or to lead you to Amazon to buy their books for the same reason). Period.
8 WillyP // Oct 2, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Pathetic. And David Brooks is looking for what? Circulation and attention – the same two things you claim are the main drivers for “L/H/B/L.” You act as though it is impossible to seek profit while remaining genuine. What separates talk radio from Brooks/Frum is popularity and intelligence, two things that your ideal authors both lack considerably.
There is a real snobbery in some conservative circles. It echoes liberal elitism. Buckley was not an elitist, and you don’t have to be when you are advocating winning ideas for the whole country… not just a stuck up minority and the slavish followers who are too afraid to question master.
9 WillyP // Oct 2, 2009 at 3:26 pm
And really, this-
I guess the easiest response to your question is, “Barack, who?”
is an idiotic response. David Brooks and David Frum have been around long enough to know whether they’ll make a splash. Reinforcing, Brooks writes for the Times, and Frum USED TO (case in point – he is no longer there!) write for National Review. Ah yes, and Frum also ran a spectacular race as one of Giuliani’s advisers. That worked out well.
I think that about sums up their credentials.
10 EscapeVelocity // Oct 2, 2009 at 4:23 pm
David Brooks hears the Leftwing media mythology and falls for it every time.
Wasnt Rush 1994 GOP “Man of the Year?”
Get out of your bubble David Brooks. Or stay there and enjoy it. But dont expect any respect from those you sneer at and belittle.
11 EscapeVelocity // Oct 2, 2009 at 4:29 pm
This outrage over Pick you Current Conservative Pundit of Choice and Place Here….is the manifestation of the Lefts and the Elites frustration over losing control of the MicroPhone and Video Camera, via the expansion of Media, even Rushbo coming in from the AM wasteland.
Just imagine if the reverse were true, that the media was dominated by Conservatives with their favorite “DINO commentators” and the new voices, popular and successful stormed the airwaves were Leftwing. You would be mad too, having spent you life as a DINO sucking up to the Conservatives and then all the sudden real Leftwingers made you irrelavant and a DINOsaur.
LOL!
Now we have RINOsaurs in the media….visciously attacking the new media….as the old media dies.
12 wittymoniker // Oct 2, 2009 at 6:58 pm
It’s the “real Rightwingers” that have become irrelevant. You can thank the “Current Conserviteave Pundant of Choice” group for that. Us RINO’s are (unfortunately) quietly waiting in the wings to rebuild the party, once you finish burning it to the ground.
13 ltoro1 // Oct 2, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Great, so Rush, Beck, Hannity, etc. don’t have any influence. Would Frum please stop talking about them then. Let’s see if he can at least make it one week.
14 midcon // Oct 2, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Unforunately the conservative base continues to believe the mythology. How many times do you hear the pining for Reagan and the glory days? If the foundation of the GOP is the conservative base, the will probably be pining for many more years.
According to the latest ABC/Washington Post poll, 43 % of Americans now identify themselves as independents, the most in over a quarter of a century. Only 21 % identify themselves as Republicans (a continuing slide) (lowest since 1983) and the number of Democrats has gone down to 32%.
Now you can spin this any way you want including completely ignoring the numbers, but it is clear that the GOP cannot win county dog catcher on it’s own. In fact even if all the Democrats stayed home, the GOP would still be outscored by the independents. Of course, given the numbers it appears that same could be said regarding the Democrats but 32% is has a much greater probability of success than the 19%.
So for all those who disdain us independents – ya can’t win without us and further there may come a day when we actually get organized into a real party. Then the GOP will be forced to form a coalition with the Democrats to win anything!
15 aDude // Oct 2, 2009 at 9:23 pm
The problem is that one has to differentiate between success in the media and success in politics. If you can get 20% of the audience in a given radio market (like Rush does), then you are a mega success. If you get 20% in a political contest, then you are a complete and utter failure. Beck can get 2 million viewers and he’s breaking cable records. McCain can get 59 million votes and he’s an also-ran.
I’ve posted in here before – at the presidential level the Republicans did much better before Rush than after Rush. Not that it’s a direct cause and effect thing, but with the exception of the Congressional elections in 1994 it doesn’t appear that conservative talk shows (both radio and cable) have helped the Republican Party.
Here is one way to look at it. Imagine a candidate for the Republican nomination in 2012 who believed in rolling back the top tax rate to 20%, eliminating all taxes on interest and capital gains, rolling back non-defense government spending until there is a balanced budget, pushing free trade, and limiting the power of unions, would that be a good thing? Now, imagine that the same candidate is also opposed to the state putting Christianity in the public schools, believes the earth is 4.5 billion years old, doesn’t believe that there’s some gay conspiracy to force all women to wear Birkenstocks, doesn’t think Obama is a Muslim Nazi, and isn’t in favor of rounding up illegal Hispanics, putting them into internment camps, and loading them into boxcars to be shipped back south. The Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity triumvirate would crucify that candidate. And because there really is no other media outreach to Republicans, that candidate would have zero chance of getting the nomination. Is that a good thing?
16 sdspringy // Oct 3, 2009 at 12:38 am
Midcon’s claim to fame as an independent will loose some luster as those same independents come to terms with their votes for Obama. A four year apology tour, gee thanks Independents.
The lust Frumm seems to show towards any conservative getting more media buzz than him is getting alittle old. And now we will get to read through Parts 1,2,3,4,5, reviews of Palin’s book, can hardly contain myself.
Since Frumm seems to think of himself as an intellectual conservative, perhaps he could devote a small portion of same intellect towards current Dem policy. Instead of running down every conservative recieving more media time than himself.
17 EscapeVelocity // Oct 3, 2009 at 12:46 am
when they talked like moderates. —- sinz
Actually, the Dems lost the House and eventually the Senate when they “started talking like moderates.”
George Bush didnt lose an election for president, he won both.
18 EscapeVelocity // Oct 3, 2009 at 12:50 am
Christianophobia is running wild!
19 balconesfault // Oct 3, 2009 at 6:37 am
Christianophobia is running wild!
Yes indeed – so much so, that when the President of the United States calls himself a Christian, there are millions of people who refuse to believe it!
Since Frumm seems to think of himself as an intellectual conservative, perhaps he could devote a small portion of same intellect towards current Dem policy.
Not sure how welcome that would be – if Frum spent much time on a real assessment of Dem policy, we see a lot of carping at the edges, whining about style versus substance, and demonization, he’d be being attacked for just being an Obama mouthpiece.
20 midcon // Oct 3, 2009 at 8:07 am
sdspringy // Oct 3, 2009 at 12:38 am “Midcon’s claim to fame as an independent will loose some luster as those same independents come to terms with their votes for Obama. A four year apology tour, gee thanks Independents
Just for the record sdspringy, I voted McCain. So not all independents voted for Obama. Still, my point stands – the GOP cannot even win dog catcher without the independents. So, when the GOP wants to have a chat with me about issues, I’ll be around. Until then the base can hunker down in their bunkers. At 19% the GOP is forced to seek coalitions or will continue to lose. It isn’t rocket science.
21 Chekote // Oct 3, 2009 at 10:05 am
Great analysis by Brooks. This is why I didn’t understand why McCain was so concerned about pleasing the “base”, i.e. radio talk show listeners, in his selection of a VP. Mac won despite the “base” and in the general election one must move to the center. With the nomination in hand, why bother with what K-Lo and the other puritans at national review have to say?
I do have one criticism regarding NM’s use of photos of Rush showing him overweight. Rush has lost quite a bit of weight and on his appearance on Jay Leno he looked fit. So why keep using old photos? It is beneath the tone NM is trying to set.
22 jjv // Oct 3, 2009 at 10:30 am
He did not nail it, in the sense that he lumps all talk show hosts together. The rise of the GOP almost precisely matches the rise of Rush Limbaugh. The others are simply not in his league. Moreover, the talk show hosts have taken on more importance as other conservative voices have been stilled. I have never watched Beck, cannot stand to watch or listen to Hannity and have seen O’Reilly maybe twice all the way through. Without them right now conservatism would be voiceless and weak. The wise elected Republican should keep an eye on them for energy and a feeling for where the base is, but denounce detours into birtherism and the like. Except for Beck all of these folks were part of he Repubican dominance of 1994 to 2006. What kind of conservatism takes a three year period and says “gee, it must be the talk show guys causing us irreversible trouble?” It makes no sense.
23 Chekote // Oct 3, 2009 at 11:08 am
jjv
I thought the analysis was on point regarding the limited impact that talk radio has on poll results. Rush and others attacked Mac and Huck throughout the primaries and yet said candidates came in first and second. Brooks is right on this.
24 EscapeVelocity // Oct 3, 2009 at 11:34 am
t is beneath the tone NM is trying to set. — Chekote
Because the NM isnt trying to set a tone.
They are just demonizing Real Conservatives.
25 EscapeVelocity // Oct 3, 2009 at 11:36 am
What kind of conservatism takes a three year period and says “gee, it must be the talk show guys causing us irreversible trouble?” It makes no sense. —jj
The ones who are Christianiphobes.
26 balconesfault // Oct 3, 2009 at 11:55 am
chekote: This is why I didn’t understand why McCain was so concerned about pleasing the “base”, i.e. radio talk show listeners, in his selection of a VP.
I don’t think he wanted to be attending rallies throughout the fall with hundreds of people in attendance, instead fo thousands.
But one has to remember that the Religious Right has always been willing to play the long game. In this case, they really had no interest in McCain winning, and were willing to withhold their support for what they already viewed as a likely losing cause in order to “prove their power”. McCain understood this, and cowtowed by putting Palin on his ticket without almost any real familiarity with her except that fundamentalists loved her, and fellow neocon William Kristol was willing to testify for her.
For the Dr. Dobson wing, this worked great. They got tons of fundraising off of Palin, and leapfrogged her over a list of other far more experienced and qualified candidates for 2012. And if she loses in 2012 … even if she gets the nomination and loses in the general election – you can bet she isn’t going away any time soon.
27 balconesfault // Oct 3, 2009 at 11:59 am
ChekoteRush and others attacked Mac and Huck throughout the primaries and yet said candidates came in first and second.
Yeah – but check out the success of Operation Chaos!
Meanwhile, why does escape hate Jesus so much that he considers a criticism of a multimillionaire talk show jock to be an attack on Christianity? I missed the part of the Sermon on the Hill that went “Blessed are the Bloviators”
28 LFC // Oct 3, 2009 at 3:20 pm
ltoro1 said… Great, so Rush, Beck, Hannity, etc. don’t have any influence. Would Frum please stop talking about them then. Let’s see if he can at least make it one week.
They have a lot of influence on the GOP base. They have very little influence on independents. In fact, they seem to be turning them off.
If the GOP thinks it can take elections with just its base, then by all means they should go for it.
29 sdspringy // Oct 3, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Balcon, and Frumm and Brooks analaysis is flawed where Mac in concerned. If the Mac is the independent moderate the press portrayed he should have drawn more Independents and Moderates.
The VP is no pull, certainly Edwards did not help Kerry, and who remembers Gore’s VP.
Balcon’s statement that the fundamentalist loved Palin is not correct either. Nobody knew who Palin was until her name was released as a possible VP canadate. Of course they liked her views once those views were talked about but that was well into the campaign.
So Mac. the moderate, Republican maverick should have pulled all those Rinos, Independents, Moderates, Powell style Rep, even without a conservative VP. But did not. Even if Mac had selected Lieberman, he would have still lost the election. VP never mattered either in the loss or possible win.
If you argue otherwise how could Bush get elected twice with the most hated man in America as a VP.
VP is not that big of a deal.
So the Republicans lost not because of the VP or because Mac was not moderate enough. We lost because everyone wanted “hope and change”. Maybe some conservatives stayed home but not enough to make that big of a difference. Maybe some Independents went to Obama because of policies, or fiscal issues, but mainly just for change. And after 4 years of this change they will all run back.
30 sinz54 // Oct 4, 2009 at 11:17 am
escapevelocity:
PROVE IT.
Show me examples of Dems talking like moderates before November 1994.
And when you do, keep in mind who the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the Senate were in 1994. Moderates????
31 sinz54 // Oct 4, 2009 at 11:24 am
sdspringy:
HE DID. For a time right after the GOP convention.
Right after the GOP convention, McCain had pulled slightly ahead of Obama in the polls. FiveThirtyEight.com had McCain to win a close election. And Dems were getting VERY nervous.
And then, in September, the U.S. economy fell off a cliff.
McCain made an ass of himself–suspending his campaign to go back to Washington to deal with the crisis, where he accomplished absolutely nothing–and then resumed his campaign.
And then, McCain made an ass of himself again, in the debates with Obama, coming off as sputtering and obsessed with earmarks, while Obama came off as cool, confident.
I keep repeating it and repeating it:
THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT IN THE WHITE HOUSE SCREWED UP–and the public despised him for it.
Historically, not since 1876 has a highly unpopular President been succeeded to the White House by a candidate from his own party.
McCain kept talking about “reform”–but he never explained just what needed reforming. He couldn’t come out and say Bush’s policies had been flat wrong on Iraq and flat wrong on the economy. If he did that, the GOP base, hated McCain anyway, would have walked out.
So McCain was trapped between a highly unpopular President, and a party base that still liked the President more than they liked him. This is the same trap that Humphrey was in in 1968. And he lost too.
The GOP must come to grips with what Bush did wrong. You can’t offer a positive program to the public that they will accept until they believe that the next Republican president won’t repeat Bush’s mistakes.
Reagan could never have won, if people thought of him as another Nixon.
32 sdspringy // Oct 4, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Conservatives did come to grips with the things Bush and the GOP did wrong. This mainly was the increase in government and no responsible fiscal policy. Thus the conservative saw no difference between Bush and Mac., whereas the Frumm Republicans were just fine with both problems.
While the Dems were always posied to run away from the war, no matter which one, and for any reason. Conservatives saw the only redeeming quality of Bush was to stick and finish. And here we are after an election of a Dem proclaiming the necessity of the “necessary war” and the Dems are again poised to run as fast as they can.
The “GOP” / Frumms are always ready to throw Bush under the bus, and Obama is continuing many of the Bush policies and we still have the likes of Sinz54 proclaiming another apology is required.
33 EscapeVelocity // Oct 4, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Look, Brooks can endorse Barrack Obama for president, but he has lost all credibility as a conservative in doing so…..ditto Buckley Jr.
34 sinz54 // Oct 5, 2009 at 9:36 am
sdspringy:
Conservatives were a day late and a dollar short:
In the 2008 GOP primary debates, the only two candidates who had anything negative to say about the economy were Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. All the others said the economy was doing well, and Bush should get credit for it. In National Review, Larry Kudlow said that the U.S. economy was “the greatest story never told”; and in column after column, that magazine kept touting how well the economy was doing.
Finally, Alan Greenspan actually said that the complexity of the derivatives markets and the credit markets helped reduce risk.
BTW, I had been subscribing to an investment newsletter, Growth Fund Guide, which for years had been warning its subscribers about just this problem. Another investment newsletter, Dow Theory Letters, did likewise.
So it’s not like no one could have forseen this. Some savvy investors did. But in the political arena, conservatives, for the most part, did not.
35 DFL // Oct 5, 2009 at 9:58 am
The Republicans lost in 2006 because most Americans believed that the adventure in Iraq was a waste of blood and money. Brooks supported that war. The Republicans lost in 2008 because of the Iraq war combined with the Wall Street debacle. Brooks supports the war in Iraq and is chummy with Wall Street. Perhaps David Brooks and his policies are what got the Republicans into trouble.
36 EscapeVelocity // Oct 5, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Show me examples of Dems talking like moderates before November 1994.
Bubba Clinton and the DLC
37 Joe In NH // Oct 5, 2009 at 5:12 pm
In line with what Brooks is saying, it must be remembered that the fact that you have a few million Americans who take one side of an issue AND are very vocal about it doesn’t really mean much anymore in a country of 300 million. A recent poll found 35% of Democrats think Bush knew about 9-11 coming in advance and did nothing about it. Another poll has over 25% of Republicans saying Obama was not born in Hawaii. Here we are talking about millions on the left and right who the vast majority of people, ie, people in the middle, think are crazies. I realize the birther poll is suspect to many because it was done for Kos, a known left blog,even though by a reputable polling company but the point here is that 1 or 2 or even 4-5 million ditto heads and $1.89 will get you a coffee (at Dunkin Donuts and not Starbucks) but won’t get you the White House.
38 sinz54 // Oct 5, 2009 at 5:58 pm
escapevelocity:
True, Clinton acted moderate.
And you’ll notice, Clinton went on to serve two terms, and retired with a much higher approval rating that Bush did.
Don’t you get it? When the public wants change, it’s the public officials who are perceived as out of step in their own districts that get the shaft. Clinton was smart enough to change with the times.
39 balconesfault // Oct 5, 2009 at 7:12 pm
A recent poll found 35% of Democrats think Bush knew about 9-11 coming in advance and did nothing about it.
Well, remember that in the same poll, 15% of Republicans thought Bush knew about 9-11 in advance, as well.
My belief is that per normal for Rasumssen, the question was vastly oversimplified – the way the question was put, it is likely that many remembered the whole “Bin Laden Determined to Strike” memo stuff, and conflated the fact that Bush was aware Al Qaeda wanted to attack America, and the accusation that Bush knew something was coming down on 9/11 and did nothing to stop it.
We see that same sloppiness from Rasumssen on their healthcare polling – they seem determined not to ask about specific portions of the healthcare bill, instead just asking things like “Do You Support Obama’s Healthcare Bill”. Which explains that while 65% of the American Public respond favorably to the question of a Public Option, about the same percentage tell Rasmussen that they oppose Obama’s plan. Which makes one wonder if they want a Public Option without the other stuff … or if they’re just generally misinformed.
Whichever the case – Rasmussen doesn’t seem interested in finding out.
40 Goliath Has Nothing to Fear from These Davids « Calvin Freiburger Online // Oct 6, 2009 at 4:13 pm
[...] Nothing to Fear from These Davids October 6, 2009 — Calvin Freiburger David Frum is promoting David Brooks’ latest column, in which Brooks says: Just months after the election and the [...]
41 prm79 // Oct 6, 2009 at 6:56 pm
You and Brooks need to quit riding the coattails of real conservatives…I’m sick of bottomfeeding, spineless RINOs throwing this grassroots movement under the bus. Your no better than that evil man on MSNBC, Janine Garafalo, who thinks tea partiers are racists.
You must log in to post a comment.