The 2011 Conservatives “Culture of Negativity,” as voiced by Limbaugh Et Al: Part I

2 Jan

Limbaugh’s negativism, or the GOP “Culture of Negativity:”

For a time before Ronald Reagan became President of the United States, Reagan took to the air and was broadcasting the message of America’s conservatives. President Reagan’s message was genuine, it came from the heart, but supported by the mind.

There are those who say that Rush Limbaugh took over Reagan’s role as spokesperson for America’s conservatives, nothing can be further from the truth!

While Ronald Reagan’s message was positive, full of optimism and pride, Rush Limbaugh’s message, and thus of his many followers, is full of negatives, they are preachers of the doom and gloom.

In addition to having over twenty million listeners, Rush Limbaugh has a large number of “clones,” or Rush Limbaugh’s wannabes, if you would. The list is quite large, it is made up mostly of a group of so-called “journalists,” and due to first amendment rights, they are essentially accountable to no one, but to themselves, to their sponsors, but mostly to their audiences. These so-called “media-gurus,” are more entertainers than they are journalists; they are not even political commentators since they seem to put what they perceive to be the desires of listeners, and sponsors, often ahead of their own convictions.

On the left side of the political spectrum, another group, one that counters the Limbaugh wannabes, operates, and functions based on the same politically [miss]guided principles. Many of those on the political left, much like the Limbaugh contingency on the right, are made up of entertainers who function under the guise of being journalists; their main outlets are MSNBC, CNN and untold number of other airwaves outlets, most operating in a similar manner to the Limbaugh’s group that uses primarily Fox News, but also many radio shows.

The two groups of “commentators,” have a number of things in common. The first, and most disturbing, has to with their inability to see anything positive in the opposing groups. They generally seem to overlook that the world is not made up of black-and-white situation; the world is nearly always constructed of various shades of gray.

Another item that is very disturbing is their tendency to revise history, and to make up facts as the move along. Since most of these operatives control the channel of communication that they use (i.e. the microphone, etc.,) it is nearly impossible to challenge them, regardless how far they may be from the truth.

The fact that these media “gurus,” especially those on the right, offer mostly negative messages (by speaking of problems rather than to offer solution,) by broad-brush generalized discussion, which is more based on opinions than on facts, is a dangerous trend. As well-informed, and as well-educated as the American public may be, when untrue, revised, or “facts” made of half-truths, come from the “new-media” (a form of the “bully-pulpit,” if you will,) the information becomes very confusing, and often even dangerous.

In addition to being “revisionists,” many of the media gurus tend to use semantics to maker their points, and to confuse their public. Much of today’s political discourse between right and left has to do with semantics, and is confusing, if not outright misleading. Augmenting semantics as a strategy, with few, if any, exceptions, these media gurus also often bring personal agendas to the table.

The phenomena of Political advocates using the media to spread their message, is not a new approach in democratic societies; it is now, and always was, a part of the political discourse for nations with a democratic form of government. The ease of disseminating information, however, enhances the ability media gurus to spread their views, and to pro-actively shape their public image. Coincidentally, the added ability to improve communication skills that the media gives politicians, often makes “media-politicians,” much more dangerous since they often become more adept at forming and maneuvering public opinion. The fact that live political events can be shown the public, in real-time, is not only new, it is can be a highly effective means for manipulating what may really be happening. What cameras elect to show, and how a commentator chooses to describe events, are but two tools media gurus use to guide the public, and help form its political opinions, and views.

The character of the political arena in the United States, by virtue its ability to cause a great deal of real-time communication, has evolved into a more impersonal environment. Even though some of the images from the past, those such as the ones of cigar smoke-filled back-rooms, may never go away. Secret deals by male dominated politicians do not have the role they did a few years ago. With pocket-size digital cameras, television outlets willing to expose anything that could appear to have negative nature, secrets are nearly impossible to keep. Candidates must be “transparent” on their own since if they try to hide anything of public interest, it will leak out and have much more negative impact than it would have had if it were voluntarily offered by the candidate.

Taking advantage of the ability to communicate, politicians use the true and tried mean of getting public attention, offering negative predictions, the more radical, or outlandish a prediction, the more public attention it is likely to get, providing it is at least somewhat believable. Rumors, even if they are unfounded, often become an effective political tool, as are revised historical facts, or well-disguised made-up statistics. The successful media political gurus are very adept at techniques that are required to “massaging” information so it help their cause, whatever it mat be.

To date, in the 2010, and likely continuing into the 2012 election, the media politicians on the right political spectrum seem to have a significant edge over those on the left. The more successful gurus, such as Limbaugh the leader of them all, offer a number of gimmicks to support their claims. Limbaugh, for example, has a tool by which the percentage of his “facts” are true is measured, using his own yardstick, his facts are nearly always over 90% correct. Glenn Beck, the school dropout, has the Beck University, often brings “academicians” to his show, as he “modifies” historical facts, and manipulates semantics to make his point. The above two effective political media gurus are not unique; most of their cohorts are not much different from these two if they are to be measured by credibility versus the level by which they manipulate facts.

The Culture of [political] negativity:

The 2010 midterm election in the United States, an event that was marked by negativity, was supported by “facts on the ground,” and was delivered by many, but primarily by the so-called “tea party.” The tea party benefited immensely by the right political-media, primarily by Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity of Fox News. Other Fox News personalities such as Bill O’Reilly, and others, helped the tea party but did not quite offer the proactive support that did Beck and Hannity.

Rush Limbaugh the undisputed voice of American political conservatism with an audience of over twenty million, and influence beyond challenge, did support the tea party, but Limbaugh support was more guarded since he desired to maintain a more balanced support from the political right. Rush Limbaugh with his: Limbaugh Institute for Conservative studies is desperate to be respected by academia, especially since he, himself was unable to graduate from any college.

Limbaugh blatant introduction to the “culture of negativity,” came with his “shot across the bow,” as soon as Obama was elected when “the Rush” stated without equivocation that he wanted President Obama to fail!

When suggesting to Limbaugh that the President failing meant the country failure, he responded by suggesting the he meant mostly the President’s policies, but the he nevertheless wanted the President to fail.

A partial list of leading “political media gurus:”

The “Left:”

Rachel Maddow
Bill Maher
Chris Matthew
Laurence O’Donnell
Pete Olderman
Ed Shultz

The “Right:”

Glenn Beck
Ann Coulter
Sean Hannity
Laura Ingrahamm
Rush Limbaugh
Bill O’Reilly


One Response to “The 2011 Conservatives “Culture of Negativity,” as voiced by Limbaugh Et Al: Part I”

  1. kourtnie January 17, 2011 at 11:17 am #

    how do i join

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: