If you listen enough, you learn that all of these guys have their own form of BS to offer in addition to some rather solid information on current events/legislation. Hannity is the one most apt to provoke boredom in me mainly because of an insistence on ramrodding his talking points over the attempts of his callers to gain some further enlightenment or merely to express their own frustrations with politics as is. I get the sense that Hannity never quite listens to the voice on the other end of the phone line.

Boortz is the rude, infuriating one who rides roughshod over his callers in a more abrasive (as opposed to droning) manner than Hannity. But the occasionally self-deprecating Boortz offers a bonus of inviting a more soothing, pragmatic, and engagingly conservative black voice substitute for him in his absence.

Savage often comes across as a savage with a deep fury running through his opinions, but he can be engaging and sharply intelligent when he isn’t being misogynistic beyond belief (as a female I resent that deeply).

Now after the above rambling, I will offer that I don’t listen to any of these shows to gain any great intellectual insights (I seldom see evidence that any of these personalities are engaged in intellectual pursuits) because I suspect that careful reading/research will yield more in that respect than these people who make a lot of money by stirring up the political arguments (this is not to say they are hypocrites, only to say that they are entrepreneurs more than teachers).

I consider myself reasonably intelligent if not that well-read in serious subjects (call me a dilettante). I became mildly interested in politics while working for a political science professor nearly two decades ago. He called himself a libertarian, but I think he sympathized more with a progressive agenda, leaping at the chance to participate in a conference in Cuba. Needless to say, the longer I worked with him, the more I came to support a more Rightish viewpoint.

I suggest that these “entertainers” in the political arena do offer easy access to the universe of political ideas for those who are politically naive. They can be persuasive. They offer an alternate view of reality from that given by the mainstream media outlets.

I have found that alternate reality to be accurate and sharp, street smart so to speak. And rarely boring. I only have to listen to a few minutes of liberal drivel to find my eyelids beginning to close, which is quite dangerous when in the midst of traffic.

Conclusion: These men and women can hurt the Right. I don’t believe they have that much except for offending the elites on the Right who may be operating from envy of their vocal ability to reach out to voters and to move them to action (and, of course, envy of all that syndication lucre). I offer the hypothesis that without these voices crying in the liberal wilderness the Right would be even more diminished than it currently is.

I think the question of the role of talk radio and promotion of conservative philosophy is a good one, but Mr. Derbyshire’s article isn’t worth a response.

You’re right this man is a joke.

It is true there are certain issues where there can’t really be any compromise, and a debate about “value” can distract from more obvious “necessities.”

It seems to me that the real issue for the United States at the moment is that Obama’s Presidency and maybe the one after Obama (presuming both last two terms) will be quite possibly the last Presidencies in which America is the world’s superpower. The problem is how does America adjust to this: what does a conservative foreign policy look like in a world where China, India and possibly others can stop the US acting: given as well how much foreigners whether in Europe or the Middle East or Asia resent the United States’s arrogance over the past eight years (believe it or not as a Briton the kind of scornful contempt that a Donald Rumsfeld treated the UK with has made a real impact on people here- and whereas America pre-Bush had a blank cheque to cash with the UK, our popular support for the US is much more conditional now)- what is the conservative approach to foreign policy.

If as looks true, the US banking system is technically insolvent- then what is the conservative response. Is the economic model of depending on borrowing to stimulate growth a good one- personally I think the conservative movement in the US neglected its intellectual roots by forgetting to fight inflation and just concentrating on stimulating growth- using monetary policy as a Keynesian tool to manage demand- which is why the US (and the UK too under the same logic) are in the mess we are in now.

Lastly what is the conservative approach to a society as a whole. Are conservatives willing- as Jerry Fallwell did after 9/11- to use language which invites the break up of society- which lauds in Fallwell’s case Al Quaeda because they bombed gays and feminists. Can conservatives believe that homosexuals and feminists and liberals are part of the same nation as them? I admit there is a problem with liberals not recognising the right to being prejudiced- but there is a glee on the right in being prejudiced that is striking and potentially destabilising. What happened to conservatives remembering their Hobbes- that there is no summum bonum- only summum malums to be avoided?

I would really love to know what he is talking about here. This statement almost makes it sound like Derbyshire feels the 1950s Right is preferable to today’s.

I mean, this whole “dumbing down” only happened after conservatives figured out that a lot of people actually liked (gasp!) the Progressive and New Deal ideas, and accepted them as part as the liberal (in a classical sense) tradition in America. Only then were conservatives able to get beyond the confused paranoia of McCarthy (or whoever) and lay out a good response that had clarity and focus.

People have always felt a little queasy about Rush, but look – I honestly think he does a service. Those who are able to stomach talk radio might even be inspired to look deeper into the conservative tradition, because trust me, it often starts with the lowbrow and ends with the high, and not vice versa. Talk radio can be a segue into the better things, but nobody (unless they have really good professors and are already interested; ie, a poli sci major) just starts reading Edmund Burke out of nowhere.

And yes, talk radio does not have the same reach as television, but comparing it to shows like the Daily Show and Colbert Report is ridiculous. Those shows rely on out of context clips and cheap jokes to maintain their numbers. There is nothing of substance there, and it is unfortunate that people consider them a form of news.

Of course Conservative voices have similar opinions on some issues, but I believe there is enough variation out there to keep it interesting. Tucson’s talk radio has finally been shaken up and I think other towns should follow. We now have an FM station with Ingraham, Boortz, O’Reilly, Savage, etc. But we also have a local morning host (who is fantastic!). Since he discusses local issues, its different from anything else on the air. Perhaps we’re just behind in the times, but I think other smaller towns should follow.

Last point – the other side has never had much variation or intelligence compared to the conservatives out there. For the last 8 years its been nothing but “Bush lied” and “we miss Clinton!” Now its all about Obama and tingling of the leg…