RSS Feed MenuTalk-show radio host Michael Medved was once addicted to hitchhiking.
In his teens, Medved, now with a weekly talk radio audience of more than 7 million, passed the time by thumbing his way across the country – once traveling from New Haven, Connecticut to San Diego, California in the week before finals in college.
“I think that everybody in adolescence wanted to do something that is adventurous and daring. A lot of my contemporaries did drugs, and my particular addiction was this feeling of going hitchhiking,” Medved told FrumForum.
Hitchhikers are often picked up to allay the boredom of a lonely drive – those who thumbed paid their fare in conversation. It’s no wonder, then, that Medved has found success in talk radio.
Answering questions, Medved is intensely thoughtful, mulling over questions – he’s not passive but endlessly reflective. It makes for a slightly slower conversation, but perhaps it’s just a function of the enormous journey he’s undertaken.
Just a short sampling of his life reveals an dizzying depth of experience: entering Yale at the age of sixteen, Medved studied with the likes of Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman and upperclassman George W. Bush; he was standing in the ballroom when Robert F. Kennedy was shot in Los Angeles’ Ambassador Hotel; in the sixties, he joined the burgeoning anti-war movement, waving signs and chanting slogans before giving it all up in the 70s; he wrote screenplays and became a well-known film critic in the 80s and 90s.
He got his start from Rush Limbaugh, who invited Medved to guest host his show. From this, Medved got an offer to host a show in Seattle, which then expanded frantically as his audience grew nationally.
Medved’s journey continues, and he finds the conservative movement is changing – in some ways, for the worse. Undoubtedly, Medved is committed to the conservative cause. But he feels increasingly ill at ease with the course of the movement, and in particular, it current vehicle for progress: the tea parties.
“I don’t think that my personal outlook has changed substantially in recent years, but I believe that the conservative movement has changed, and as a result, my attitudes have altered to some extent,” said Medved. “The rise of a group of individuals… that I have dubbed ‘crazy cons’ – people who say stuff that almost everyone knows not to be true, but nonetheless proves provocative and entertaining - [has] developed a certain amount of traction in the conservative world.”
A sense of close-mindedness has gripped the conservative movement, says Medved. Case in point: a regular columnist for conservative website Townhall.com, Medved recently submitted two innocuous articles – one arguing that President Obama isn’t actively trying to damage the economy, and another holding that Canada isn’t evil. Both articles were ferociously criticized by readers.
As a member of the talk radio community, Medved is uniquely positioned to comment on its trajectory and current problems. The problem with talk radio? The incentives for radicalism, he replies:
The imperative for someone like me – a very successful audience on talk radio would be 7% of the available audience at any given time – you can get 7% or 8% by talking extraordinarily one-sided, shrill nonsense.
The talk radio game is intensely competitive – a game of ferocious jockeying about ratings. Medved tells an anecdote about Rush Limbaugh to reveal how the cutthroat nature of the industry dictates the policy stances of talk radio figures.
Back around 2006, Medved and Limbaugh supported President Bush’s initiatives for immigration reform. “Rush and I were only people on the radio who were pro-immigration and supporting the president,” Medved told me. “This is a deeply moral and profound issue… Rush used to scrupulously avoid the immigration issue because he had the same sort of visceral objection that I did.”
The turning point was the Dubai Ports deal in 2006, when a state-owned firm based in the United Arab Emirates attempted to purchase the right manage some American ports. Both Limbaugh and Medved supported the deal, even as conservative talk radio host Michael Savage worked with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to kill the deal.
“Rush was caught on the wrong side of this… Rush was defending the administration,” said Medved. Caught off guard by being out-positioned by Savage, Rush “decided he was never going to be outflanked on the right again… He went from supporting immigration reform and resisting nativist craziness to embracing it with a vengeance.”
The pandering of the talk radio community has led to some bad decisions, says Medved. Specifically, he’s incredulous that some talk radio hosts are forwarding the notion of Obama as a willful and malicious destroyer of the economy:
You’ll never convince Americans that Barack Obama is deliberately trying to wreck the American economy. Why in the name of God would Obama want to [do that]? It’s a daily theme on Limbaugh’s show – and of course it’s a theme on Beck’s show – and it’s profoundly influential!
A dedicated student of history, Medved’s fear is that this type of talk will turn voters off, and ultimately hurt the conservative cause:
My vision of American politics, having been involved in politics since the age of 11, is that people generally vote against the side that scares them most, rather than for the side that inspires them most. And one of my biggest concerns is that in direct contrast to the genial, affable, optimistic conservative of Ronald Reagan, we now see a conservative message that sounds scary and dark that could ultimately snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this November.
Medved’s view of the tea party movement is not much more generous. Among his most serious concerns: the changing demographics of the United States. An electorate that is becoming less and less white provides imperatives to reach out to minority communities, he says, and the tea parties are an impediment:
There is no future for an all-white party in America… in 2008, 74% of voters in exit polls identified themselves as White. We’ll never have a number that high again. As recently in 2000, it was 81% … In that context the tea party is a problem. Although I don’t believe that the tea party is racist, it is essentially all white. And there is no future for the Republican Party chasing more white votes.
Having been an active and vocal member of the ‘60s anti-war movement, Medved also turns a skeptical eye towards the idea of tea party demonstrations:
Where did people get the idea that taking buses to go to Washington, D.C. and dressing in colonial garb and carrying anti-Obama signs in a way to win power? The one big lesson of the anti-war lesson should be that demonstrations accomplish nothing.
Medved argues that the protests against the Vietnam War were counter-productive because they turned voters against the anti-war position and led to support for Nixon. “Nixon reached the peak of his popularity after the mobilization on Washington on November 15, 1969,” said Medved. “Why? Because Nixon was so great? No! Because people hated the hippies!”
In essence, what Medved would most like to see changed about the tea party movement is to change their methods of engagement. Drawing from his own experience, he said: “What works is shaving your beard, putting down your sign, dropping your guitar, and going out and working precincts… joining the Republican Party and getting involved in Congressional races. Protest does not lead to power. Politics leads to power. “
By not wholly endorsing the tea party movement, Medved sets himself apart from much of the talk radio commentary of the right. “The idea of an enforced [talk radio] party line is destructive and needs to be resisted… I think that there is a political correctness on the right; and just like political correctness on the left ought to be resisted, political correctness on the right ought to be resisted,” said Medved.
Another striking example of Medved’s unique blend of conservatism is his fondness for responsible stewardship of the environment. “I style myself as a green elephant. I like national parks. I enjoy hiking. I think it’s good to preserve the environment. I’m proud of the fact I’ve planted over thirty trees on your property… I’m not like Glenn Beck, who celebrated Earth Day by cutting down trees.”
But why is he so different? Part of it comes with a dedication to his personal principles, rather than the dictates of industry pressure. “Most [talk radio hosts] are obsessed with radio,” as an end in itself, said Medved. “Yes, I care about the success of my show, but I really do care about the issues and the overall cause more. I decided a long time ago that I would rather damage my media career than identify with positions that no responsible or sane individuals would hold.”
One might assume that criticism of conservative dogma would hurt his personal prospects. But Medved appears to have carved out a niche out as a respectable, reasonable and modern conservative. “Beck has made a career out of being crazier than everyone else… it appears, based on the last six months, that we are doing very well by trying to be saner than everyone else!” said Medved.
Speaking with Medved, one comes to the conclusion that the deep roots of his success and worldview harkens back in a very real way to his hitchhiking days, when he escaped the set himself apart from his peers by wandering the American interstate system. “I’ve always been a sucker for the romance of America,” said the popular talk radio host. In a different way, his voice continues to provide accompaniment to millions on the open road, all across the nation.
Asked for his secret to hitchhiking success, Medved gives a particularly illuminating answer. “I found that you did better with a jacket and a tie.”
Follow Tim Mak on Twitter: www.twitter.com/timkmak
ktward // May 2, 2010 at 3:04 pm
… [at] Townhall.com, Medved recently submitted two innocuous articles – one arguing that President Obama isn’t actively trying to damage the economy, and another holding that Canada isn’t evil. Both articles were ferociously criticized by readers.
No surprise there. TH has become an echo chamber for the likes of ‘convert everyone’ Coulter and karate Chuck. George Will survives there only because his vocabulary and intricate prose are too many grade levels above TH readership. (Sunday is snark day in our house.) RedState’s even worse: I was banned there years ago– not because I abused or even stretched the limits of comment policy, but because I presented a substantive argument that pro-choice was not tantamount to pro-abortion.
The talk radio game is intensely competitive – a game of ferocious jockeying about ratings.
Precisely why I’ve never been a fan of talk radio. Strictly tunes or NPR. Medved’s rationality won’t change my mind– and I don’t hold any hopes that he’ll peel away Rush fans: they listen because he tells them what they want to hear.
In light of the realities of the echo-chamber paradigm among the masses, I extend to Medved my every hope for the successful expansion of his show.
TerryF98 // May 2, 2010 at 3:21 pm
I think it says something about the Right Wing that to be considered “Brave” you only have to share orthodox views!!!
msmilack // May 2, 2010 at 3:31 pm
good story
sinz54 // May 2, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Michael Medved is a creationist and a Fellow of the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute sees creationism as the “wedge” that will overturn modern science and replace it with “a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions”–and which will remove “materialism” from American society.
http://www.discovery.org/fellows/
If we’re forced to hold up Medved as a paragon of common sense, we’re in trouble.
It’s a little late for conservatives like Medved to still be denouncing Darwin.
sinz54 // May 2, 2010 at 3:48 pm
ktward: RedState’s even worse: I was banned there years ago
I was banned from RedState too.
ktward // May 2, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Terry makes a keen point. But beyond ideo tenets, it’s as much about topical integrity and credible discourse:
‘Brave’ = Rational.
Rush = Certifiable.
ktward // May 2, 2010 at 4:17 pm
If we’re forced to hold up Medved as a paragon of common sense, we’re in trouble.
I’m reminded that my local Jehovah’s Witness doorknockers also courteously present as thoughtful and rational.
Pro-science rational Righties seem to have nowhere to turn.
sinz54 // May 2, 2010 at 5:32 pm
ktward: Pro-science rational Righties seem to have nowhere to turn.
We’ve still got a few. None of these is a creationist:
Jim Manzi
John Derbyshire
Charles Krauthammer
Derbyshire and Krauthammer have both written columns denouncing creationism.
Derbyshire, of National Review, is also an atheist. Which makes him a braver member of the conservative movement than Medved.
aDude // May 2, 2010 at 5:35 pm
ktward has pointed out why politics has become so depressing for us old-style conservatives. Where does one turn if one believes in limited government, low taxes, and limited personal and commercial regulation, but is also pro-science and doesn’t hate gays, Hispanics, or other minorities?
ktward // May 2, 2010 at 5:37 pm
@sinz54
After scratching my head over the ‘redigestation error’ message, I later learned that RedState bans grew to be quite the phenomenon. From wiki:
The site’s moderators often ban users who disagree or dissent permanently from the site. It is possible for banned users to have all diaries they have ever published replaced with messages designed to offend them. Banned users are often greeted with an error message reading “601 Database redigestation error.” The site moderators’ unwillingness to entertain dissenting viewpoints is a much discussed topic among moderate Republicans and progressives on other political blogs and internet discussion sites.
ktward // May 2, 2010 at 5:42 pm
Derbyshire, of National Review, is also an atheist. Which makes him a braver member of the conservative movement than Medved.
Brave indeed. I’d pay money to see a cage match between him and K-Lo.
mlindroo // May 2, 2010 at 5:45 pm
Medved wrote:
> My vision of American politics, having been involved in politics since the age of 11,
> is that people generally vote against the side that scares them most,
>rather than for the side that inspires them most.
> And one of my biggest concerns is that in direct contrast to the genial, affable,
> optimistic conservative of Ronald Reagan,
> we now see a conservative message that sounds scary and dark
> that could ultimately snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this November.
Looking at the polls I’m starting to wonder if Obama & the Democrats at last are on the road to recovery. Obama’s job approval ceased its downward slide about six weeks ago when Congress approved health care reform [ http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html ]. Health care reform itself remains relatively unpopular but the gap has narrowed since late March [ http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/healthplan.php ]. The other Pollster.com key metrics (right track/wrong track, state of the economy, national House ballot) are also improving … in most cases the GOP is still ahead and much work remains but the gap is narrowing.
—
I think Medved is right: assuming the economy is in better shape six months from now, Obama (like Reagan in ‘82) will be able to make a positive case that his numerous reforms are starting to bear fruit, that much has been accomplished and voters should give “hope and change” a chance rather than returning to the failed policies of 2000-06.
MARCU$
JimBob // May 2, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Michael Medved is truly reprehensible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4IBOd8iueU
http://www.villagevoice.com/2000-11-14/news/conservatives-white-supremacists-take-to-florida-streets/1
Oldskool // May 2, 2010 at 6:25 pm
I second, or third, the notion that if he’s in the sane wing of the Right, they’re in deep Limbaugh.
rbottoms // May 2, 2010 at 6:56 pm
Where does one turn if one believes in limited government, low taxes, and limited personal and commercial regulation, but is also pro-science and doesn’t hate gays, Hispanics, or other minorities?
The Democratic party. You know, the guys trying to fix the mess your party made of things.
rbottoms // May 2, 2010 at 6:59 pm
Lance Orton, the man who alerted the NYPD of the suspicious vehicle that was later found to be loaded with a bomb, was not eager to speak to reporters today.
The Vietnam vet did not want to give his name or comment on Saturday night’s commotion. But Orton, a t-shirt vendor, did end up giving some sound advice to his fellow New Yorkers: “See something, say something.”
Watergate 1972, now Times Square 2010.
Another non-Chickenhawk, Vietnam vet & brother saving the day again.
mpolito // May 2, 2010 at 7:46 pm
“Where does one turn if one believes in limited government, low taxes, and limited personal and commercial regulation, but is also pro-science and doesn’t hate gays, Hispanics, or other minorities?”
The GOP, by seeking to preserve traditional marriage, and enforce immigration laws, hates gays and Hispanics. Huh? In any case, the GOP cannot change to accomodate your views. Voters like yourself are said to exist in droves, but actually do not. The GOP cannot alienate millions of members (social conservatives) to meet the desires of a bunch of may-not-exist potential voters. Besides, the party is big enough for different views on these issues, as long as you are willing to accept people who are socially conservative but also in favor of higher economic regulation and/or pro-union.
Sunny // May 2, 2010 at 10:56 pm
sinz54 // May 2, 2010 at 3:48 pm
“If we’re forced to hold up Medved as a paragon of common sense, we’re in trouble.
It’s a little late for conservatives like Medved to still be denouncing Darwin.”
Well, just a few things on that.
First, it’s entirely possible to be completely sensible about some issues, and not sensible about others. I have no problem at all, for instance, deferring to Noam Chomsky’s authority on linguistics.
Second, Darwin’s original theory has already been, not denounced, but certainly modified from survival of the fittest to survival of those species best adapted to whatever environment. Mapping of the genome helped — it’s simply a change in allele frequency over time.
Third, I have a soft spot for the IDers, at least some of them. They seem like people of strong faith *and* inquiring minds, trying to find a way to harmonize those two internal imperatives in the face of people who swear dinosaur bones were planted by Satan to trick Christians. I’ve spent my entire 46 years believing that 1) God _is_, and 2) that evolution best explains my particular physical existence at this juncture in the space-time continuum. When I’m paying attention, I can see a “miracle” in the honeysuckle taking over my privet hedge, the fact that the stomata of plants open wide in relief after being flooded with water, expelling oxygen and accounting for how good everything smells after a rain; in nearly all of theoretical physics; in childbirth; etc. Was it Einstein who said either everything is a miracle, or nothing is? I think most IDers get the sense that everything is a miracle. Unfortunately, they don’t seem to grasp that it’s antithetical to the scientific process to start with the conclusion and work backwards, but I do understand that impulse to find some middle ground which can still strongly affirm that sense of the miraculous while not rejecting the objective discoveries of science.
It’s like trying to harmonize Plato and Aristotle, or mythos and logos. It can’t really be done, but it’s not hard to understand why someone would want to.
SpartacusIsNotDead // May 2, 2010 at 11:51 pm
aDude wrote: “ktward has pointed out why politics has become so depressing for us old-style conservatives. Where does one turn if one believes in limited government, low taxes, and limited personal and commercial regulation, but is also pro-science and doesn’t hate gays, Hispanics, or other minorities?”
The implication here is that the GOP believes in limited government, low taxes and limited personal and commercial regulation, but this is clearly not the reality.
If I recall correctly, no GOP administration in modern history has decreased the size of government as a percentage of GDP. The Democrats, however, did do this during the Clinton Administration.
As far as taxes go, Reagan and Bush 1 signed onto the then-largest tax increases in history. Only GW Bush insisted on all tax cuts all the time. Of course, he left the country with the largest deficit in history at that time and a Great Recession to boot.
As far as limited commercial regulation, well, you’re right about commercial regulation. Of course, the amount of regulation should never be the issue. Instead the issue should be the effectiveness and consequences of regulation. On this basis, it’s not at all clear that the perpetual GOP opposition to commercial regulation is good for the country.
Limited personal regulation? Teri Schiavo.
SFTor1 // May 3, 2010 at 1:51 am
Michael Medved is a creationist?
What the hell is wrong with him?
sinz54 // May 3, 2010 at 9:34 am
rbottoms:
The Democratic party does not believe in limited government, low taxes, and limited regulation.
So I could never be a member of that party.
Unfortunately, we now have two polarized parties: A GOP whose base loves Sarah Palin; and a Democratic Party who is represented by you.
If you are representative of the Democratic Party, no way in hell could I be part of that party.
sinz54 // May 3, 2010 at 9:59 am
Sunny: I have a soft spot for the IDers, at least some of them. They seem like people of strong faith *and* inquiring minds, trying to find a way to harmonize those two internal imperatives in the face of people who swear dinosaur bones were planted by Satan to trick Christians.
There are other people trying to harmonize Christianity and the Theory of Evolution, while still accepting both. Take a look at the BioLogos website, or look at Ken Miller’s books or YouTube videos.
The Intelligent Design proponents aren’t trying to harmonize Christianity and the Theory of Evolution. They’re trying to wreck the Theory of Evolution by replacing it with a call to some (unnamed) “Intelligent Designer” who, wink-wink nudge-nudge, their Christian audience will understand to be their God. Not that monolith from the movie “2001: A Space Odyssey.”
The heart of the Theory of Evolution is evolution by mutation, differentiation, and natural selection. It adequately explains the variety of life on Earth today. The Discovery Institute doesn’t like it because it doesn’t reserve a special role for God.
Invoking an unnamed Intelligent Designer, who (unlike natural selection) is beyond scientific analysis or study, is not a scientific theory. It’s a religious philosophy.
Privately, they admit this, though they don’t publicize it. The Discovery Institute published a so-called “Wedge Document,” in which they said that their main gripe against science is that it has provided natural explanations for natural phenomena, which (in their view) removes God as the moral standard by which our actions are to be judged. It’s not just evolution that offends them. It’s psychology, psychiatry, anything that might suggest naturalistic explanations for human behavior, and so undercut the notion of moral responsibility. That’s a valid concern. I too am appalled at the horrors wrought by moral relativism. (Orwell’s “1984″ was about a horrific totalitarian society run on the basis of moral relativism.) But the answer to that is NOT to destroy science, but to rework your philosophy to deal with the science. Ken Miller is trying hard; go read some of his stuff.
Tim Mak is a poor journalist indeed, if he could go through an entire interview with Medved and not ask him about these issues. Maybe he was just unaware that Medved had these views.
BTW: I had submitted a diary to FrumForum in which I dissected the views of creationists. It was rejected as not relevant to FrumForum. But evidently, going through an entire interview with a creationist (Medved) without asking him about it is perfectly cool.
Just swell.
ktward // May 3, 2010 at 1:22 pm
@Sunny:
The very second that religious supposition is injected into scientific study, the science becomes invalid. It can no longer withstand scrutinous peer review. So it’s junk. Every scientist in the world worth his microscope knows this. Yet, the IDers don’t ‘get’ why they themselves and their ID theory are dismissed by the scientific community. An informative read:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9452500//
Religion and science are fundamentally at odds with one another: science requires evidence, precise methodology. Religion requires nothing more than belief.
This fact does not inherently foster moral contradiction for people of faith. Many scientists–biologists & evolutionists even–subscribe to a religion in which they personally believe. But the IDers are compelled by their religious radicalism to ‘prove’ the existence of God.
Can’t be done: bottom line, unexplained phenomenon is never scientific evidence of the existence of God.
But sinz underlines the subtext at the heart of all the drama: that morality–moral responsibility–is only born of religion, one’s belief in a higher power. Today, on so many levels, such a concept is unmitigated nonsense.
Tim Mak » Michael Medved: Talk Radio’s Most Courageous Host // May 3, 2010 at 1:32 pm
[...] Read more at: http://www.frumforum.com/the-bravest-man-on-radio [...]
LFC // May 3, 2010 at 2:39 pm
The heart of the Theory of Evolution is evolution by mutation, differentiation, and natural selection. It adequately explains the variety of life on Earth today. The Discovery Institute doesn’t like it because it doesn’t reserve a special role for God.
I’ll never understand this view. There is no small percentage of scientists who believe in both god and evolution. Before the Big Bang, science has no explanation for how the heck everything started. It’s not a denial of current science to believe that your concept of god kicked everything off, or even that god was a guiding hand to the whole process with humans as the final intended “product”.
So why is it so hard for so many people to accept a place for both god and evolution?