Response to Conservative/Liberal Talk Radio

Response to Conservative/Liberal Radio
9-30-05
‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’
Read the original post (Conservative/Liberal Talk Radio) which prompted these responses at:

http://criticalactions-what-isyour-opinion.blogspot.com/2006/01/conservativeliberal-talk-radio.html

Friday, September 30, 2005 (This is my answer to Jeff’s response tagged below z-bar (zzzzz).

Jeff, thanks for your response.
You make some interesting points.
As I begin this response, I include an excerpt from my this-morning devotion, written by Lloyd John Ogilvie, a former chaplain of the US Senate – because it’s an enlightening lead-in to the problem we discuss:

• “Marriages are crippled, families are hurt, friendships are destroyed, companies are unproductive, cities are blighted by unresolved social problems, and government is often debilitated by people who become party to acrimonious discord because of loyalty to their parties rather than what’s best for the nation.” (This theme is resounded again in a current article written today.)

First, I prefer not to put things into a political context (liberal or conservative for that matter), even though conservative/liberal-talk radios are political arms. The meanings of the words: liberal and conservative (LC) have been misrepresented and ill defined. To be a liberal has become a stigmatization. To be a conservative no longer has the connotation (meaning) of the traditional conservative of years past. If you could pull out all the extremist elements (normally lumped in one or the other) and how you suggest they react (Both sides indulge in personal attacks. Have you heard of Ann Coulter?), then there could be an honest, rational discussion.
You are right about liberals not having a cohesive voice, for there is no one to lead.
It’s the fanatical rhetoric taunted on the LC-talk shows that lumps each other to be the norm of their respective parties. Of recent the so-called conservative voice for agenda and message has become discombobulated, because many of the traditional conservatives have backed away, speaking out in disagreement with the administration. There are progressive liberals and conservatives of the traditional values that we in either stream may proudly identify with or respectfully disagree. These truly responsible progressive leaders must be our advocates in practice and persuasion to bring back rational thought-processes for civility in politics and governance. The practice and persuasion must first be born of a respectful character in the masses, lead by citizens who demand better from their representatives or others who may callously erode ethics in governmental and political processes.
The ballyhoo of radio-talk shows, irresponsible political hacks, and other extremist --- to some extent, are a reflection of the character of America’s citizenry. Yes, the airwaves support what we listen to, regardless of content. That’s the reality of commercialism.
On a brighter note two US House Representatives, good decent men, a Republican and a Democrat, have recognized the degeneration of respectfulness within the US House of Representatives and are trying to do something about it. I salute them for their efforts through the Center Aisle Caucus.
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/il15_johnson/021605center.html

• Washington, D.C. - U.S. Reps. Steve Israel (D-Long Island, NY) and Tim Johnson (R-Urbana, IL) announced the formation of the Center Aisle Caucus today alongside Former Speaker of the House Thomas Foley (D-WA) and former House Republican Leader Bob Michel (R-IL). The Center Aisle Caucus will be an inter-party group of House Members committed to working cooperatively to promote mutual respect and discourage personal attacks and achieving a more respectful and civil climate for conducting the nation’s business.

Government and politics need more level-headed voices, who refrain from biased-political instincts --- rather to serve the common good of all people, like David Gergen. http://www.davidgergen.com/ Gergen has worked for Republican and Democrat administrations. More Chuck Hagels (R) would serve our country with great honor.
David Brooks gave an excellent summation on the mark when he says politicians need Deaniac hyper-partisanship to organize hatred around our top leaders; it’s this hate-mongering-type partisanship that keeps breeding an infectious disease. LC-Talk-radio disease!

• http://select.nytimes.com/2005/09/29/opinion/29brooks.html?th&emc=th (also in full print in today’s editorial section of N&O) Excerpt: “Will we learn from DeLay's fall about the self-destructive nature of the team mentality? Of course not. The Democrats have drawn the 10-years-out-of-date conclusion that in order to win, they need to be just like Tom DeLay. They need to rigidly hew to orthodoxy. They need Deaniac hyperpartisanship. They need to organize their hatreds around Bush the way the Republicans did around Clinton.”

One may listen to LC-talk radio with an understanding of its biased content. It is raw politics, used too many times to distort truth. A steady diet could lead to nausea or, in the worst, a bedeviled inflated bloviation. Neither adds to the good of civil discourse. If things improve it will begin with you and me. Will we have the decency to exercise prudence in respectfulness and demand the same from those who purport to represent us?
I’m not sure what you meant by your question: Is this not voice of the people being the voice of g-d?
Best wishes,
Cornell
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
9-30-05
Cornell,
I read the forward you sent out regarding the ongoing battle of the media libs and conservatives with much interest. The conservatives indeed do have an agenda and are not ashamed to spell it out. Liberals for the most part have difficulty in putting forward their actual viewpoints, i.e. the desire to reduce liberties claiming that it is for the common good to follow their dictates.
Today's liberals cannot enter into logical discussions to backup their political goals. Most will not tolerate reasonable disagreement with their positions. Some will go off on non-linear tangents and emotional appeals to make their arguments. A few will go on a personal attack of their opposition.
Conservatives make the effort to expalin their positions in rational terms. To be sure, some can be abrasive and sarcastic-- this is a methodology to break through the cynicism of the masses that these media pundits rely upon for ratings. It's a tough audience out there and it takes a measure of 'schtick' to build and hold that audience. Consider that those such as Limbaugh, Boortz, Hennety, et al, could not remain on the air without commercial support.
Is this not voice of the people being the voice of g-d? Or is this all just more grist for the millstone of public consumption?
Regards, Jeff