Air America Update
March 23, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall
There’s something about Air America that has been disturbing me more and more lately. Chuck Colson puts his finger on the problem here. Why do non-conservatives assume that conservatives are mindless bigots driven by fear and hate, fooled into taking orders from certain higher-ups who tell us what to do?
This is what I constantly hear on Air America–I am not exaggerating. This seems uncharitable at best and bigoted itself at worst. Now follow the results of promoting this view of conservatives: conservatives are scary and irrational, therefore the way to deal with them is not by trying to understand their positions (which are, of course, not reasonable) but by convincing as many people as possible of their evil.
The result of this assumption on Air America is a nearly complete lack of addressing the actual arguments conservatives put forth for their positions. Instead, I hear many emotional appeals pleading with people to understand how dangerous and scary we are and arguments against our supposed motives: “Conservatives really hold this position because they’re greedy (or power-hungry, or arrogant, or have a need to feel superior, etc., etc.), and that’s wrong! So don’t be a conservative!”
I could repeat all of the above, exchanging the word “conservatives” for “Christians,” for I hear nearly as much against them on Air America.
For those who would argue that conservative radio is no different, please understand I’m not saying that every conservative talk show host is reasonable, but can you point to any liberal equivalent to Dennis Prager on Air America? On the whole, I hear much more sincere addressing of ideas on the conservative side. This is because we think your arguments are worth addressing, and we respect you enough as people to do it. We think you’re wrong, not evil, so discussion is the natural direction to take.
A word to my liberal friends: maybe we have good reasons for the positions we hold. And maybe, just maybe, we actually believe those reasons out of principle and because we want the best for our society. And isn’t there just the slightest chance that we actually care about people? Until you accept this and begin to charitably engage our arguments, the quality of political discourse will fall lower and lower until it becomes nothing but power moves to shut the other down (as is already the case at many Universities and with many judges.) A group has only two options for getting its point across: reason (through discussion and argument) and power. I implore you to not abandon reason.
Related posts:
- Air America!
- More Misunderstood Motives
- Souled Out to Propaganda and Hypocrisy
- Update on the Dateline NBC Special
- Speak Boldly, As We Ought To Speak
- Book Review: Reagan’s Children by Hans Zeiger
Posted in Amy's Posts, Main Page, Politics
content rss
April 3rd, 2005 at 11:13 pm
by Tyler Watson at 11:31AM (PST) on Mar 23, 2005
“Why do non-conservatives assume that conservatives are mindless bigots driven by fear and hate, fooled into taking orders from certain higher-ups who tell us what to do?”
I do think this goes both ways. Even Prager said that liberals are driven more by emotion than reason. There doesn't seem to be a respect for the rationale behind the other side's thinking there either. I'm not a liberal – though I am more liberal than Prager. I agree with your last paragraph. I wish all sides would deal with their opponents more charitably. I wish liberals would acknowledge conservatives' concern for people. Similarly, I wish conservatives would acknowledge liberals' reason. To borrow your wise statement, maybe, just maybe, all sides have good reasons for the positions they hold.
Re: Air America Update
by Amy at 01:51PM (PST) on Mar 23, 2005
Tyler, thanks for the comment–that's an excellent challenge, and I think there's something to what you say here. I would like, though, to clarify a couple of points:
First, I've never heard Prager say that liberal positions are driven by negative emotions of hate, anger, etc. (with the exception of narcissism in the case of things like atheists suing to not have to see anything related to God in the public square, lest they be offended). His point is merely that they allow their feelings about “what is good for people” to override the proof of actual results (e.g., in the case of bilingual education.) So even in this case, Prager is not discouraging dialogue by maligning their intentions.
Second, Prager does engage those who disagree with him through on-air conversations. Part of the point of my post is that because liberals think conservatives are not genuine, but have mean–even evil–motivations, they assume there are *not* any good reasons to discuss, so they dismiss meaningful dialogue. But Prager does not assume that liberals couldn't have good reasons for their positions. On the contrary, Prager demonstrates that he grants that the other side *might* have good reasons just by interacting with them on his show. This is in contrast to Air America, which does not grant the possibility, and therefore does not interact with reasonable conservatives on their shows (at least, from what I have heard–I would love to be wrong about this).
Obviously, Prager thinks that the people who disagree with him do not have the best reasons for their positions, or he would hold their positions! But he is still willing to examine and challenge himself by making sure he understands the opposing side and by engaging in meaningful dialogue. He can only do this because he grants that they *might* have good reasons. And that's all I'm asking for.
Re: Air America Update
by Tyler Watson at 05:33PM (PST) on Mar 23, 2005
I wouldn't say liberals as a whole think conservatives are not genuine but mean any more than conservatives think the same of liberals. Both sides question the motives of their opponents to the point of avoiding debate. I would venture to guess that it is a small, vocal group on both sides who villify and demean their opponents. It just happens that several of these voices are on talk radio.
I really don't know why I commented on this post since I think the talk radio medium has been detrimental to the American political process. (That's a sweeping generalization, so take it with a grain of salt. Not everything out there is bad.) I've said several times that I mourn the fact that the loudest and most sensational voices command the most attention. While I appreciate the fact that these voices get people interested in politics and the political process, I think that the sensationalism in today's political opinions is disenfranchising many and polarizing the country to negative degrees. Who are the best selling authors and the most listened to radio hosts? Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, Michael Savage, Al Franken, etc. While I won't say their opinions are invalid, I think it's a sad state of affairs that because of their popularity, they get to determine much of the tone and content of the political discussion in America. Yes, they are popular because they resonate with the populace, but I fear that they take the easy road of demonizing the opponent instead of listening to them, asking questions of them, and respectfully debating them. When Air America was first announced, I audibly groaned because in my opinion, having a liberal talk radio network wouldn't help a thing. It would rally the base (which is important to a degree), but it wouldn't help the tone of the political discussion.
Prager might be an exception to the rule – I can't honestly say since I've never listened to him and the only thing I read from him was the blog post I mentioned in my first comment. If he engages in respectful debate with those he disagrees, fantastic. When I listen to, on occassion, Sean Hannity, Larry Elder, or John and Ken, to name a few, the majority of callers and guests agree wholeheartedly with the hosts. When the 1 in 10 that dissent are allowed to speak, they are usually deemed irrational at best, or stupid at worst and then ridiculed once the host hangs up on them.
Re: Air America Update
by Amy at 09:45AM (PST) on Mar 24, 2005
Your point is well taken. Michael Savage is a complete disgrace and I heard John and Ken ranting about how Christians are Nazis the other day. I might have a skewed view of talk radio since I only really listen to Prager regularly, and I do think he is somewhat of an exception.
Re: Air America Update
by Micah at 06:34PM (PST) on Mar 24, 2005
It would be a very odd thing if conservatives and liberals were exactly equal in their poor behavior toward one another. It is of course true that there are miscreants on both sides.
That said, there is a very large segment within the intelligentsia of the left that believes reason to be the “slave of the passions”, as theorized by Hume (and Hobbes before him). Other luminaries of the Left are even more extreme in their rejection of reason, Nietzsche, Foucault, Derrida, etc. It should not surprise us, then, if there is some affinity between the political Left and the philosophical Left. If reason is merely a tool of the powerful, or an ancient artifact of a bygone era, we would expect those who believe this not to employ it.
That's not to say there aren't reasonable people on the Left. There are. There's also those on the Right who reject reason (though there are more on the Right who say they believe in reason yet are nihilistic, including our SC Chief Justice). But the rejection of reason is a much bigger part of the Left's intellectual heritage than it is of the Right's.