The Nation's Melber on the Beck-Brooks Fracas
October 05, 2009 1:09 pm ET by Karl Frisch
The Nation's Ari Melber takes a look at the fight between Fox News' Glenn Beck and New York Times columnist David Brooks:
Perhaps we still do not understand the current Obama backlash.
David Brooks caused a small stir on Friday by arguing that conservative radio hosts are, paradoxically, a lot like well-behaved children. They are seen – splashed across magazine covers and endlessly profiled – but not heard, politically, since they do not swing elections.
"The talk jocks can't even deliver the conservative voters who show up at Republican primaries," Brooks observed, reminiscing about how McCain's media detractors could not stop him in South Carolina last year.
After the summer of townhalls and what's shaping up as the autumn of Glenn Beck, however, it is hard to see things through Brooks' bifocals. Besides, as the top conservative at the Times and an alumnus of Rupert Murdoch's Weekly Standard, Brooks is peering out from within the conservative media ecosystem. He is, unavoidably, in direct competition for opinion leadership with the "talk jocks" he knocks. Which makes it especially odd for him to apply an electioneering metric to opinion media.
[…]
It is no accident that the two biggest forces countering the new President do not practice electoral politics. The opposition party may whither, but there is still the movement and the man. Both have the Obama administration's attention.
[…]
There were few signs for alternative policies, let alone the alternative political party. The same is true, naturally, for their leader.
Glenn Beck has a long list of concerns about the country's direction. Yet since Obama's election, his most successful efforts have focused on attacking members of the administration and (putative) allies. He is trying to stop Obama, not jump-start the mid-terms.
[…]
By his own count, Beck began assailing Van Jones on July 23 and continued for weeks, up until the September 6 resignation. Fox aired hundreds of segments on Jones. Congressional Republicans, however, were less interested. In the past 9 months, Jones' name has only surfaced on the floor of Congress in eight instances (according to the Congressional Record). Brooks argues, however, that "Republican politicians" follow Beck at every turn:
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 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.
Melber's piece is well worth reading in its entirety.











The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles




Wow! That is a nearly perfect observation, IMO. Despite being a life long Democrat, I have to say I am saddened and outraged at the direction of the GOP in the past 10-12 years. Middle ground is so far away now days. Used to, the fringe of each party was recognized for what they were. They had little influence. Now, the GOP is completely at the Beck-on call of their fringe element. Even more unfortunate for those who used to be moderate Republicans is that the fringe now has its own highly successful cable news network.
If anyone is in doubt as to who is running the GOP they are simply blind. The sad part is this: In the GOP of today, Richard Nixon's domestic political ideology would be labeled as radical marxist/socialist thinking by people like Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh.
I love it really, those idiots would rather rot in H3ll than realize that their message will never persuade middle America. Their hope is to change how middle of the road people think instead of trying formulate a message that coincides with them. I say, more power to them, it's amusing to watch them do this to themselves.
Better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven?
Brooks may have a said a thing or two in time but he is a weak exception. Note that most all the johnny-come-way-way-too-latelys in the Republican Party were all quiet as Palin defined them, defined them in terms of their base's core beliefs. It is the base which would have been pandered to even in a McCain admin. You all saw McCain stoop to the bottom, don't let him off the GD hook. Some see Bush as moderate yet he seeded these theofascist reality free freaks throughout the government. They may find a new person to be their face who claims to be "moderate" and the media will feed that, but should any repub be elected in 2012 they will feed out of trough of extremists to fill positions in the government. They will name right wing ideologues to the SCOTUS.
The question is, how will the liberal media, blogs etc etc help the republicans shed their skin for appearance sake by 2010. The media will push it. The repubs have seen polls they know they have a richly deserved problem, will liberals help them save their skins?
Look at Graham, the "new" voice of reason, you didn't hear him being critical of Palin, no he rooted for their totally unprepared ideologue to get into the WH. He even became a fan of torture when it suited him. Pawlenty the "moderate" has hired a slew of far right dirty tricksters and all around slugs to run his campaign.
None of these people have a dimes worth of difference in them.
If any of these Republicans really had an once of principles in them, they would have quit their party many years ago. They don't. They love what Palin, Rush and Beck stand for they just don't like being caught at it.
Don't help them prepare their con job for 2010. Please do not help them with this transparent con. Any "civil" war in their party is for show. If there was real substance to it, why didn't it start 8 years ago?
The Republican party is in the sorry circumstances that it finds itself because of the policies it foisted on the nation, and the disastrous results.
David Brooks supported all of it. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
~
The Republican's continued failures would then eventually lead to the marginalization of the toxic personalities on AM Radio, and a return to mature, responsible governance on BOTH sides. If the party learns from this, they, as well as America, will be better for it.
Niche-Building vs. Coalition Building. Very good analogy.
I hope the short term failures of the current Hard-Right Republican Party leads them to longer-term success as a remade Center-Right, Populist/Libertarian party, with the Social Conservtaives and Christian Funny-Mentalists releagted to the hinterlands, where they belong.
If not? If the right collapses into two or more squabling, permanent minority parties with completing agendas, no plans to form a coalition and thus no hope for ever attaining majority status again?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Well... I could live with that too. :)