On Conservative Paranoia
Steve Benen is puzzled by the widespread and completely baseless paranoia among conservatives about the prospect of the "fairness doctrine" being reinstated. He links to this article by Marin Cogan of the New Republic who, after investigating the matter, concludes that there is almost no support within the Democratic caucus or among media-reform advocates for reinstatement of the doctrine. Cogan writes:
For example, throughout 2005, as the situation in Iraq continued to deteriorate, virtually every conservative talking head in the country insisted that the apparent slide into chaos in Iraq was a creation of the liberal media, that the media as a whole was refusing to report the "good news" in an effort to harm President Bush. Right wing radio hosts went as far as organizing their own mission to a Iraq to report the "success" that the mainstream media refused to report.
This was at a time when the conservative movement was ascendant, when Republicans controlled the presidency and both chambers of Congress and less than a year after an election in which they held on to the presidency and added to their majorities in the House and Senate. It was at a time when the conservative media had reached its apex of power and influence and when liberal voices were nowhere to be heard on television. And yet talk radio and other bastions of conservative thought still wallowed in deep paranoia. They continued to rant about imagined conspiracies of liberal "elites" in the media, in academia, in the judiciary, in the intelligence agencies, etc.
The sad reality is that this kind of conspiratorial delusion is central to the worldview of most movement conservatives. It doesn't go away when they're in power and return when they're out of power. It's just there all the time.
Democrats may scratch their heads over why this has lately become a right-wing obsession, but the paranoia is not without precedent. The prospect of being in the opposition often brings out the worst in conservatives -- paranoia and self-pity. Plus, when the conservative coalition seems threatened, there's no better way to unify the party than scaring up liberal bogeymen.That explanation makes sense intuitively, but the reality is that this has very little to do with conservatives being out of power or any external events. Paranoia is endemic to modern movement conservatism, whether or not the Republican party happens to be in power. It is a central feature of the conservative world view.
For example, throughout 2005, as the situation in Iraq continued to deteriorate, virtually every conservative talking head in the country insisted that the apparent slide into chaos in Iraq was a creation of the liberal media, that the media as a whole was refusing to report the "good news" in an effort to harm President Bush. Right wing radio hosts went as far as organizing their own mission to a Iraq to report the "success" that the mainstream media refused to report.
This was at a time when the conservative movement was ascendant, when Republicans controlled the presidency and both chambers of Congress and less than a year after an election in which they held on to the presidency and added to their majorities in the House and Senate. It was at a time when the conservative media had reached its apex of power and influence and when liberal voices were nowhere to be heard on television. And yet talk radio and other bastions of conservative thought still wallowed in deep paranoia. They continued to rant about imagined conspiracies of liberal "elites" in the media, in academia, in the judiciary, in the intelligence agencies, etc.
The sad reality is that this kind of conspiratorial delusion is central to the worldview of most movement conservatives. It doesn't go away when they're in power and return when they're out of power. It's just there all the time.
posted by A.L. at 10:09 AM
9 Comments:
It's not surprising that Benen is puzzled, since he's pretty much clueless to the world around him.
This isn't paranoia, but based on statements made by liberals. Harry Reid tried to use the power of the government to threaten Disney/ABC when they were going to show the docudrama Path to 9/11. Regardless of the accuracy of the film, or if it was any good, Reid had no right to do this. No conservative ever threatened any TV station that showed Oliver Stone's blatantly fictitious JFK, which Stone tried to pass off as "historical".
On three separate occassions, Barack Obama attempted to shut down anti-Obama advertising through the Justice Department.
Many statements made by Democrats (and some Republicans, including Trent Lott) stated they were for the FCC re-implementing the Fairness Doctrine.
As far as what conservatives believed in 2005 regarding Iraq, the liberals in Congress (Jack "Benedict Arnold" Murtha, for example) and in the media were doing absolutely nothing to help the situation, as if the liberals were living in the past trying to revive the days of the Vietnam War protests.
Conservatives aren't paranoid. It is liberals in denial about liberal "elites" being in the media, academia, the bureaucracy, etc.
I think the right wing has tactical rather than structural reasons for its media paranoia:
* It's all about "working the ref" and keeping reporters worried that they've appeared biased when they haven't.
* Colbert was right about reality's liberal bias, but if they can taint real news in the eyes of their followers, it won't matter how much bad news is reported since it won't be believed.
* They've got to protest what those "coastal elitist reporters" are saying in order to keep that narrative alive.
* Finally, they've drank some of their own kool-aid after spouting it long enough.
There was some interesting discussion of a possible political link between the Fairness Doctrine and 'net neutrality' in the Boston Phoenix last week. The idea is that telecom companies are trying to fragment the anti-NN coalition by making it sound like NN would require web sites to carry opposing views. Crazy, but the paranoid right is predisposed to hear these things.(http://thephoenix.com/Boston/News/72033-Fair-is-foul/)
I would have thought that the Republicans would welcome the Fairness Doctrine, given their constant whine about the "liberal media". You'd think that they'd be happy since, were it enacted, it would level the playing field for them. But the fact that they're whining about it indicates one of two things:
1. The media really isn't liberal.
2. They don't really want a level playing field.
Or it could be that both are true.
The people doing the most ranting are the conservative media stars like Limbaugh and Hannity who personally feel threatened that they might not make as much money with "Fairness" in play.
The fact that the media is now in 4 bazillion different delivery methods doesn't sink in to the lizard brain me first mentality.
Give it up guys, the old FCC thing is never coming back. It just makes you look stupid worrying about it.
Paranoia is a hallmark of extremism. The far left is every bit as paranoid as the right (9/11 was a Bush administration conspiracy is a favorite meme, for example).
Taking a global view, the U.S. tilts toward the right vis-a-vis europe, latin america, and most other parts of the world. Our right wing is a little more extreme and unhinged because people who would be considered "extreme right" in most countries are mainstream in the U.S.
By contrast, the Conservative party in Britain (for example) would qualify as centrist democrat in the U.S.
Depending upon where in the ideological spectrum a given country is, different personalities are attracted to each party. Conservatives in parts of Latin America tend to be more sane and reasonable than the left -- since some countries tilt so far left that the leftist nut jobs are considered mainstream.
The point here is not to blame the ideology per se. I don't think conservatism itself is the root of evil in the Republican party. It's the type of people who are attracted to "mainstream" conservatism -- ideologues -- who are the problem.
Judging by Fox News and the right-wing blogs, the Republican Party in this country attracts people who wrap themselves in ideology and are generally less thoughtful -- personality types who have little desire to challenge their own assumptions. The bankruptcy of that way of viewing the world is only evident when they are forced to actually govern, and I think the result speaks for itself. Obama is stressing a "big tent" moderate philosophy, which at its core is an attack on ideology. It's no mystery why this resonates. 8 years of domination by the Republican Party has driven home the ineffectiveness and incompetence inherent in rigid ideology.
Frankly, reinstating the fairness doctrine would put many media hosts and outlets out of business.
This is a good thing.
It would push those that continue towards the left - that is from the right so they'd be going in a leftwards direction.
Reinstate the Fairness doctrine. It should not apply to the internet though. Break up the media conglomerates by reinstating old (very old now) rules on ownership.
Now, your problem is solved and we'll start to have reporting of facts as unbiased as they can be told in this world.
And while you're at it, let the League of Women Voters control debates again.
Fat chance on all my wishes!
Truth is the enemy of Conservatism.
I do think that media monopolies need to be broken up. Even with the new distribution mechanisms (or really just with the addition of the interwebs), monopolies will continue to be a problem. Net neutrality is incredibly important, but more traditional/legacy media aren't necessarily going away anytime soon. There is an ongoing problem with conglomeration, but I have no expectation that it will be fixed anytime soon.
Geez, you all have some really good kool-aid there or you aren't hearing yourself.
Hank--when the big breakup comes, stay in Cambridge. Don't worry, we'll sell you food.
Scott and slag seem to believe that there is no such thing as liberal bias in MSM. My god, the reporters after the election could not contain their glee. Even Matthews said openly that it was his "job" as a journalist to advance the Obama administration agenda. Now if that isn't shilling, I don't know what is.
And gmknobl actually wants the U.S. version of Pravda (put Olbermann in charge, he'd like that).
Sorry to burst your bubble, but from where I sit, truth is the enemy of socialism (as evidenced by all those left wing goverments that have traditionally had a problem with truth and open media), and it is you that drink the kool-aid.
Personally, with views like these, it is no wonder that I am, with others, preparing for the possibility, however remote, of a breakaway republic right here.
If that happens, Olbermann will have to fly to LA via Canadian airspace.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home