Quote:
Originally Posted by nik-
Yeah, I don't know if I really buy that. People aren't really listening to right wing radio because they want help deciding who to vote for. Those stations and personalities are just base reinforcement.
You're probably right when it comes to primaries, which tend to get more radical, but for big picture voting, these people who listen to those programs have already made up their minds.
|
Right, but this is what I'm saying, the purpose is served through intimidation. "Either get behind what we're selling, or we'll endorse the other guy."
And it goes even deeper than that. The people promoted to these positions don't get their by accident, nor based on merit. Laura Ingraham can say she is free to write or say what she wants, but she has a megaphone because she behaves accordingly. She says what she likes because they like what she says.
When you're dealing with black and white, blue and red, right or wrong, the position you support can be distorted. The people who listen to right wing talk radio are probably never going to vote democrat, but, the depth of their conservatism is influenced by what they see and hear.
That's how a multi-term politician who was more or less a lock in his gerrymandered district can lose a primary to a guy who's never run before and raised 200k.
It really is quite impressive, and partly why the US conservative movement has become so hard line; you can't show any weakness or vulnerability. You have to out conservative your opponent, and if that means going off the deep end, well, that's where you go.
Whether it screws with the party at the federal level doesn't matter, because this isn't about reverting to bygone attitudes, it's about slowing progress as much as possible. The status quo is profitable. Any thing that can distract from meaningful policy initiatives and prevents bipartisan efforts to effect change is a desirable outcome. That's really what is driving this, creating an environment that is toxic towards bipartisan legislation.