I've Changed My Mind on the Obama-Fox Showdown

Here's what nobody seems to know: whether we're a liberal nation or a conservative one.

For a long time the conservatives convinced us that we were, largely, in our souls and pocketbooks, conservative (even though the Republicans have, in recent memory, not gotten more than 50% of the national vote). But then we elected a young black president and it seemed that somehow we'd been transformed into liberals.

When Wall Street collapsed, we became, suddenly, populists with dual right-wing/left-wing zeal and a rising conservative heartland backlash against statist control. Then there was the long health care summer with an inexplicable but seemingly growing revulsion to a national health care system.

And then there's Fox. For more than 10 years, Fox News, with its dedicated right-wing views, has been the only real success in television news. Partly because of our odd relationship to success (if you make money, you're mainstream), and partly because Fox was so mesmerizing, so attention-seeking and attention-getting, we came to believe--still believe--Americans are a pretty grotty right-wing bunch. As it happens, the Fox audience is, tops, only 2 million people, and yet, because of its flamboyance and success, it manages to convince the rest of the media that conservatism is the national mood.

Continue reading on newser.com

 

 

Follow Michael Wolff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NewserColumns

Comments

[HeevenSteven]

I highly recommend "The Death of Conservatism" by Sam Tanenhaus. A concise, 120 page history of the modern conservative movement, it's roots, and where it is today.

Although the title is an overstatement, ( I guess the publisher thought it was a better hook than calling it history ) it is a very readable and interesting look at the underlying philosophy. Tanenhaus illustrates why the movement is so far from it's founders today, hence the Death in the title.

[StevenM]

The problem is that “conservative” and “right wing” as well as “progressive,” “liberal,” or “left wing” are merely empty labels which every generation can appropriate and give them new meanings. The terms “right wing” & “left wing” no longer refer exclusively to late 18th century French politics, no more than the term “liberal” exclusively refers to someone who believes in Lockean notions of laissez-faire economics and the mistrust of organized political power. There will always be “conservatives,” but what this term will mean years from now is impossible to predict.

[thefoundersrock]

"no more than the term “liberal” exclusively refers to someone who believes in Lockean notions of laissez-faire economics and the mistrust of organized political power"

In what alternate universe does liberal mean mistrust of organized political power. All liberals do all day long is try to give more power to the government!

[StevenM]

One thing people often forget (or never knew) is that the definition of “right” and “left” shifts over time. And so the notion that we are a “center-right” nation is almost true by definition. What people seem to ignore is the very real fact that in the last two hundred years the center has been slowly, yet clearly, shifting to the left. The beliefs of most present-day “conservatives” would have been seen as somewhat progressive some fifty years. So even if we are a “center-right” nation, it is an absolute undeniable fact that the “center” has been, and continues to, shift left.

[Michael Shanley]

Left is the way to progress, hence the term progressive...it will always move left..ironic huh?

[JillQ]

Conservatives continually say we are a center-right nation but no one calls them on it. What proof or facts back up that statement? I wish the next time a Dem strategist is on the air he/she would ask how they come to that conclusion; all evidence is to the contrary.

[Eikinkloster]

"Conservatives continually say we are a center-right nation but no one calls them on it. What proof or facts back up that statement? (...) all evidence is to the contrary."

Ok, I'll call you on this. What is your evidence?

[oldngrumpy]

"Liberal" became a slur during political campaigns and was once associated with extremist environmentalists who were vilified for their "no compromise" stand and their somewhat over the top protests. People still have some reluctance to think of themselves as liberal.

In spite of this, when polled on individual issues a large percentage (70+%) find themselves supporting the "liberal" side of the issue. It seems no one wants to be called a liberal, but they also don't support casually entering into war, destruction of our environment, corporate control of government, and most other "liberal" issues.

Liberal doesn't carry the impact it once did as a label. People are not as reluctant to be associated with modern liberal issues. Consequently, the right wing has shifted emphasis to "socialist" as their slur of choice. Few actually understand the various economic systems at work in the world and simply associate socialism with several of our past enemies. Americans are basically intellectually lazy and don't mind taking the mental shortcuts necessary to turn an economic system into a slur that they neither understand nor properly respect.

[HeevenSteven]

"For a long time the conservatives convinced us.."

I think it's been media figures doing the convincing. Every Sunday the MSM would trot out it's big "analysts" on the Sunday pundit shows to tell us it's basically a conservative country.

I've heard Newsweek' Jon Meacham say it so many times I want to puke. He kept saying right through the 2008 landslide, right through all the polls indicating that the public actually does want socialized medicine. A few weeks ago his blurb in Newsweek tells us that if we pull back in Afghanistan, our enemies will triumph. Who do ya think he's talking too? The conservative majority in his head.

[jsgaetano]

Well, the conservatives bought up all the media outlets, so really you're both right.

[KHAAANNN]

The oddities of Cable are the reason for the FOX NEWS "phenomenon".
On Cable, with over 500 channels on average, a viewership of 200-500,000 is considered OK, whereas on broadcast TV, that would get you canceled so fast it would snap your neck.
In that venue, 2 million viewers (I guess they count everyone in the bowling alleys, bars, VFW halls, and airports as "viewers") is a great success.
HOWEVER, in reality there are more GAY MEN in the USA than there are dedicated FOX NEWS watchers.
Bring that one up next time your Beck-Hanni­ty-watcher starts spouting off about how "popular" FOX NEWS is.

[johnsopinion]

"I guess they count everyone in the bowling alleys, bars,
VFW halls, and airports as "viewers"

hahaha, probably.

sorta like our local newspaper who also counts in
their "circulation" the papers they give away to entice
people to subscribe.
their advertising charge is based on .... you guessed
it..... the circulation total!

[Freesia2]

I hope you're right. The more marginalized they are the better. The Fox crowd should live in the ditch, in the cracks, whatever tiny space outside the mainstream because not only are they woefully ignorant and unpleasant - but the politicians who court them are about as reprehensible. It's downright unhealthy what they spread and their riveted viewership are in fact the people who destroyed the Republican party. The whole neoconevangelical crowd who despise facts much less education. It could end up being a defining moment allowing conservatives to reclaim a little self respect and take their party back. Rupert Murdoch has done all he can to rob them of it.

I hope you're right. Obama is a very smart man with remarkable patience to see a plan through and I wouldn't put it past him to be doing just that.