There were two genius Talmudists who served as rabbis in
adjoining Lithuanian communities from 1900 to the mid-1930s, Rabbi
Meyer S. Cohen and Rabbi Joseph Rosen. Rosen was known as a bit of
an eccentric who usually has long hair in photographs; he could not
tear himself away from studying for a haircut. Once they were
debating some fine point of scholarship and they reached an
impasse. Rabbi Rosen came up with a plan for arbitration: “Let’s
call an ignoramus and lay out the issue. Whatever he decides, we
will do the opposite.”
That story resonates in my mind as I ponder the strange case of
Air America. The air is once again seeping out of its balloon. This
liberal talk-radio venture has been moribund almost from inception,
making philosophers wonder: “Is there life before death?” For some
time it has been propped up by various foundations, yet even that
foundation has not provided proper support. Crawl before you walk,
they told us as kids, but these guys have been crawling so long
their employees are all ready to walk.
They are technically in bankruptcy, with a buyer named Stephen
Green waiting in the wings for approval by the presiding judge.
What that means in layman’s terms is: one set of lenders will get
swindled while Green will get the network at a bargain basement
price — and get it free of those pesky old obligations. Still, it
is far from clear whether Green needs to give thanks for getting
this turkey. Its anti-capitalism has nothing to be ashamed of from
its business side; it has no obscene profits, only chaste
losses.
But why?
It used to be a conservative shibboleth to snicker in dismissal:
why, the thought of it! Of course liberal talk-radio was doomed,
because liberalism was dead. Only a few raggedy professors, a few
old old-money harpies and the occasional pony-tailed malcontent
still bought the antediluvian Democrat line. Realignment was
reality. The great debate in our public life had been conducted and
the winner had been coronated. Americans would give Air America the
air because it was not fresh. Liberalism was yesterday’s news and
it was bad news. Case closed.
Then came the midterm Congressional elections of 2006. Democrats
were suddenly in the ascendancy and sent Nancy to the speakership.
Liberalism was alive and well and living in a walk-up in
Georgetown. It cashed in; no more discredit in the cards. Liberals
stood in their overalls and chanted “Liberalismus uber
alles!” The bloggers ran through the streets in their pajamas.
The Democrat symbol, the ass, was displayed everywhere with great
pomp. It was morning in America and Kofi Annan was brewing. So why,
oh why, would Air America capsize like the Hindenburg? Oh,
the inhumanity!
Nor is it lack of golden talent that caused the loss of all
those gold talents. Al Franken may lose his sense of humor when it
comes to politics, but he is still a man who has earned a living in
comedy for many years. Janeane Garofalo is an excellent actress and
comedienne; how bad can she be without a script? Yet they can’t
sell lib ads to sponsor their ad libs.
Also, this year they added Stephanie Miller in many of their
markets. Steph is a super radio talent who used to have a
successful show on KFI in Los Angeles, despite being the only
liberal on the station. She does great production pieces with funny
voices and sound effects, and in the early '90s one of the treats
for me in visiting L.A. was enjoying her show. So if liberalism has
a real voting base and the network has some real talent, why does
it consistently tank? Not just money-wise, which could be
attributed to poor management, but even ratings-wise.
The answer is in that story. It is a mistake to think liberals
first believe what they do and then think conservatives are stupid
for disagreeing. The process works in reverse. Their disdain for
ordinary people with traditional values is so overwhelming that
whatever such people believe is by definition backward. They form
their views by listening to the ignoramuses and then positing the
opposite. Views forged in the crucible of a God-centered
consciousness are inherently illegitimate.
Therefore a forum built upon the open exchange of ideas renders
them impotent. It is more than a strategy to call their opponents
stupid. It is not just a way to cover up the weakness of their
arguments. Identifying the other side as obtuse is itself the
sine qua non of their worldview. Individual applications
of that premise are an auxiliary phenomenon. Naturally all this
makes for bad radio. If I disagree with you because your point is
wrong, I can express that civilly and interestingly. If I assume
your point must be wrong because I know you to be a Neanderthal, a
good dialogue will never evolve.
