the Conservative Entertainment Complex

[kimmy]

David Frum coined an interesting phrase yesterday :

The problem with the Republican leaders is that they’re cowards, not that they’re fundamentally mistaken. The real locus of the problem is the Republican activist base and the Republican donor base. They went apocalyptic over the past four years, and that was exploited by a lot of people in the conservative world. I won’t soon forget the lupine smile that played over the head of one major conservative institution when he told me that our donors think the apocalypse has arrived, that Republicans have been fleeced and exploited and lied to by a conservative entertainment complex..

The "conservative entertainment complex". One assumes he's talking about Fox News, Fox Nation, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck's various enterprises, websites like Bretibart.

I think this part was interesting: "I won’t soon forget the lupine smile that played over the head of one major conservative institution when he told me that our donors think the apocalypse has arrived".

The Obama win in 2008 was good for that institution, because angry/frightened conservatives opened up their wallets and started donating to them.

The Obama win in 2008 was good for Fox News and Rush Limbaugh too. Fox was already on top during the Bush years, but after Obama was elected their ratings went through the roof. Obama's re-election is great news for Fox and Rush because legions of angry frustrated right wingers are going to be tuning in for the comforting anti-Obama media personalities and group venting.

Joe Scarborough's reply to David Frum:

Conservatives have been lied to by people engaging in niche marketing and made tens of millions of dollars engaging in niche marketing. And I'm a capitalist. God bless 'em, they can do whatever they want to do. But that's not an electoral strategy. That's a business strategy for them.

-k

[Argus]

I've asked the question before: Why would anyone not rich vote for these guys? Why do legions of middle Americans troop out to the polls for them, or even work hard on their behalf? What do these people see or think that I'm not getting? I flick through the news channels, all located together on my dial, and occasionally pause on FOX. It's not really a news channel like CNN. It's more of a discussion and propaganda channel. Every story is designed to outrage people. I think they've been covering the Libya consulate thing 24/7 since it happened, for example. Nothing appears on FOX but government screwups and injustices, and talking heads who repeat the mantra that higher taxes means economic disaster, that regulation hampers business and costs jobs, that unions are unfair and destroy America's competitiveness, and that whatever is good for Wall Street is good for America. This is ALL people are seeing when they watch or listen to these types of shows.

You can't tell them their taxes are already among the lowest in the industrialized world, that their 'entitlements' are miserly compared to most civilized nations, or that they work harder, for less benefits than just about anyone anywhere outside a third world country. They'll look at you like you're speaking a foreign language (and foreign = untrustworthy). National health care means socialism, and you know what that means! Right! Joseph Stalin! Bread lines! Gulags! They don't think of places like Sweden or Finland, and literally can't imagine that for most people lives there are better than theirs.

They are wrapped up in the American mythology perpetrated by cowboy movies and the right wing. They believe every man, however poor, is just one hard working effort away from being rich. They don't know and won't believe that income mobility there has been declining for years and is now lower than in some third world countries, never mind Canada or Germany. The American mythos is one of the independent, hard working man, taking care of his own, on the frontier, gun in one hand, bible in the other, needing no one's help. It's a mythos the 'conservative entertainment complex' adores, and does its best to perpetuate, regardless of how far it diverges from reality.

[bush_cheney2004]

....The Obama win in 2008 was good for that institution, because angry/frightened conservatives opened up their wallets and started donating to them.

The same can be said for the Democrats when faced with presidential defeat in 2000 and 2004. The birth of "Air America" radio can be directly traced to the desire for a competing "Liberal Entertainment Complex", later joined by MSNBC's turn to the left. The former failed miserably because sponsorship requires support from businesses that have the same agenda as the "evil" conservatives. MSNBC has faired better but not in the ratings war vs. Fox.

In the end, whether conservative or liberal, the voters (and viewers) are still American. Watching from Canada is not only out of context, it is out of the country.

[eyeball]

Which is somewhat closer to reality, notwithstanding Colorado and Washington of course - a couple of the most realistic places on Earth, bar none.

[cybercoma]

I've asked the question before: Why would anyone not rich vote for these guys?

The American Dream. People that aren't rich are just rich people that haven't made their fortunes yet, according to the dominant culture.

They believe every man, however poor, is just one hard working effort away from being rich. They don't know and won't believe that income mobility there has been declining for years and is now lower than in some third world countries, never mind Canada or Germany.

Exactly.

Edited November 11, 2012 by cybercoma

[kimmy]

Air America and MSNBC never had the kind of influence with the Democrats that Fox and Rush have with the Republicans.

As Republicans ask questions like "what happened?" and "what do we do now?" in the aftermath of their defeat, the are getting lots of advice from a lot of different sources. They will be skeptical of a lot of advice they get from sources they perceive to be liberal, but they ought to be skeptical of advice they get from the "conservative entertainment complex" too. Because the "conservative entertainment complex" wouldn't mind a bit if conservatives remain angry and frustrated. It's good for ratings.

I saw last week that Steve Schmidt, one of the "old style" Republicans, is calling for Republicans to stand up against extreme rhetoric coming from people like Donald Trump and Rush Limbaugh. He argues that being associated with those guys is damaging the Republican brand. He's right.

The reaction from some, like the site I linked, is to say "bah, Steve Schmidt is an idiot! He lost the last election, so why should we listen to him now?" But there's a big difference between losing the 2008 election and losing the 2012 election. 2008 was virtually unwinnable for the Republicans; 2012 was very winnable but they blew it.

They also blew 2 very winnable senate races by selecting imbeciles to run in those races. They could have easily retained the Indiana senate seat if incumbent Republican Richard Lugar had been selected to run, but he was defeated in the primaries by Tea Partier Richard Mourdock. Apparently Lugar was too liberal for the voters who turfed him in the primaries. But Mourdock was too extreme for the general electorate, and the Republicans lost a senate seat that should have been a gimme. Defeating Claire McCaskill in Missouri should have been a gimme too-- she just wasn't very popular, and Republicans thought this seat was a sure pick-up. Until Todd Akin came along. Once again the Tea Party influenced the Republican primaries to pick a candidate that was too extreme to win a general election.

The Tea Partiers respond to this with "oh yeah well there were moderate Republican senate candidates who lost races too! Like Scott Brown!" Well, Scott Brown lost a close race in the bluest blue state to one of the Democrats' star candidates. That's a lot different from throwing away two seats they should have won easily.

Yet, there are apparently Republicans who believe that the mistake they made in 2012 was in being too moderate. I'm sure that Democrats hope they keep on thinking that straight through 2016. But Republicans who want to do better next election should consider what went wrong in this election and be skeptical of talking heads who tell them that being *more* conservative is the right strategy.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

Air America and MSNBC never had the kind of influence with the Democrats that Fox and Rush have with the Republicans.

True, as their "progressive" message does not sell well to a wide radio or cable television audience. And of course that means much less advertising sponsorship.

...Yet, there are apparently Republicans who believe that the mistake they made in 2012 was in being too moderate. I'm sure that Democrats hope they keep on thinking that straight through 2016. But Republicans who want to do better next election should consider what went wrong in this election and be skeptical of talking heads who tell them that being *more* conservative is the right strategy.

It wasn't the end of the world for Democrats when Republicans prevailed in two previous presidential elections and some mid-terms. The GOP is not dead, and will live to fight another day. Fewer Americans even bothered to vote.

[kimmy]

True, as their "progressive" message does not sell well to a wide radio or cable television audience. And of course that means much less advertising sponsorship.

I think that the left-wing counterpart to Rush Limbaugh is Michael Moore. And he kind of illustrates my point, in reverse: without George Walker Bush to gripe about, ol' fatty just isn't relevant anymore.

It wasn't the end of the world for Democrats when Republicans prevailed in two previous presidential elections and some mid-terms. The GOP is not dead, and will live to fight another day.

That's certainly not in doubt. What's in doubt is how they approach the next battle. Will they take this election as a reality-check and wake-up call, or will they move further in the direction they're going? Some in the party are arguing that the election results show that the extremists are damaging the party; others in the party are arguing that the election was the rejection of the Republican establishment and that the Tea Partiers are the ones who can rebuild a winning party. There's going to be, as Steve Schmidt put it, a civil war between these factions. And right now, John Boehner is in the middle of it, as he's receiving not-too-subtle warnings from the Tea Party side that if he concedes even an inch to President Obama on taxes, they're going to mess him up.

Fewer Americans even bothered to vote.

By and large that's true, but interestingly there is one group that turned out in record numbers: the evangelicals. They hit the polls in unprecedented numbers-- casting 27% of all votes, and voted overwhelmingly for Romney-- 78% to 21%... and they still lost.

That ought to be very sobering news for the Tea Partiers. Those who have been saying "if we nominate a *real* conservative, then our base will turn out and we'll win the election!" out to check the exit polls. Because their base *did* turn out, as never before, and they lost. They can't get more votes by going farther in the direction of CrazyTown.

-k

[cybercoma]

They can't get more votes by going farther in the direction of CrazyTown.

-k

Yet for some reason the post-election criticism seems to be that Romney was too moderate during the presidential run. If only he stayed true to his positions in the primaries, then all those newspapers and media outlets that criticized him for being a liar and a serial flip-flopper would have had no ammo. If he was further Right then he would have had more support. Frankly, I hope next election they double-down on being as far right fiscally and socially as possible. I want to see the Republicans get their fascist theocracy, so the irony of them going after totalitarian theocratic regimes can be fully realized.