I'm so glad David Brooks finally just said it: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Glenn Beck simply aren't as powerful as everybody makes them out to be. For all the attention they get, and all the headlines they generate, and all the energy people spend debating and worrying about them, in the end they are just entertainers. Their effect is marginal.
I'm glad it was Brooks who called them out, because he's one of the few who really can. He's got the conservative chops to do it, and he's brilliant at bordering that line between ripping someone apart and keeping it civil.
Personally, I find most of what these blowhards say neither shocking nor all that insightful. But perhaps that's because I simply refuse to allow myself to be shocked. (I'd like to be think I'm still open to insight.) I do think they are effectively poisoning the way in which issues of race and culture and history (and therefore politics, which is all race, culture and history) are discussed in this country, and they've contributed to much of the us vs them mentality we have in our political system. But in the end, they aren't leading that shift so much as standing abreast the wave and beating their chests.
Of course, the same goes for Michael Moore and his ilk. Are they good at generating attention and polarizing a debate? Absolutely. Do they really make much of a difference at the polls? I doubt it.
Comments