Egocentrism: Progressivisms Achilles Heel as Revealed in Criticism of Conservative Talk Radio

May 2011

Brien Farley Marquette University brien.farley@marquette.edu

www.libertyorlies.com

As part of my nearly year-long analysis of Conservative talk radio, I have read and heard a considerable amount of criticism of the genre. I do not here refer to criticism of styleThe hosts voice is too whiny, He isnt as funny as he thinks he is, Too many commercials! but to what Ill call existential criticism - that which claims Conservative talk radio is a poisonous strain of mass media of which the American public forum would do well to rid itself. There is no shortage of such criticism at all levels of media, from the New York Times to local blogs. The majority of it, however, boils down to one basic premise: Conservative talk radio is polarizing the American public through the use of misinformation and hateful, racist and reactionary rhetoric that enflames anti-social passions. Comprising this premise are, of course, sweeping presumptions about the content of Conservative talk radio, the effects of that content, and the audience listening to it. It has been my observation, however, that rarely do critics employing these presumptions provide any empirical evidence to substantiate them. They, many of them prominent journalists and commentators, level their charge with impunity, fully expecting their audience to accept it at face value. This editorial disposition is suggestive of a mindset one might encounter in a child, not yet at the age of reason, who, for example, hates cheese. She cannot fathom how anyone could possibly like cheese and believes there is something wrong, perhaps even evil, about those who do. This state of understanding is called egocentrism. Eventually, the child grows and though she may continue to find cheese personally offensive, learns to appreciate the reality that other people do not, and that they are not necessarily in the wrong for having preferences different from her own. She makes that crucial leap in cognitive development in which she realizes that her particular distaste for a thing does not amount to conclusive evidence that the thing itself is intrinsically bad or that those who find the thing appealing are somehow being fooled into doing so or warped in their inclinations. Too many critics of Conservative talk radio, it would seem, have yet to make this crucial leap. For countless commentators who ought to know better routinely present cases against Conservative talk radio built upon demonstrably fallacious arguments, flagrant biases, and groundless presumptions, yet seem utterly blind to having done so. I contend that this blindness is the result of an egocentrism that characterizes the modern American Progressive/Liberal movement and is the true source of its accelerating decline in the market place of ideas.

To illustrate, I will analyze two articles representative of the genre of existential criticism of Conservative talk radio. It is important to note that these articles are written not by obscure Liberal activists, but by prominent authors Eric Alterman, Danny Goldberg, and Paul Krugman. Article 1: Listen Up, Progressives: Talk Radio Matters 1 This article was written by Eric Alterman and Danny Goldberg for the Center for American Progress, a Progressive think tank. Goldberg, currently president of Gold Village Entertainment, has worked in the professional music business with major musical acts as a personal manager, record company president, public relations advisor and journalist since the late sixties. More relevantly, from 2005 through mid-2006, he served as Chief Executive Officer of Air America Radio which went into Chapter 7 bankruptcy in January of 2010, two months prior to this article being published. Eric Alterman, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, is a professor of English at Brooklyn College and City University of New York, and a professor of journalism at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. He writes for The Nation, Worth, Rolling Stone, Mother Jones, and The Sunday Express (London); serves as a history consultant to HBO Films; and has authored seven books, including the national bestsellers, What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News (2003, 2004), and The Book on Bush: How George W. (Mis)leads America (with Mark Green, 2004). In the article, Alterman and Goldbergs primary argument is that Progressives obsession with FOX News, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and the pro-torture and anti-science op-ed writers on The Washington Post op-ed page has caused them to take their collective eye off the real well-spring of polarizing rhetoric in American political discourse: Conservative talk radio. They point out that the audience for Conservative talk radio is, more than twice the collective audience for the three TV network evening news shows combined, more than five times the audience of the three network Sunday news shows, nearly seven times the combined audience for cable news shows, nearly 10 times the audience for NPR's Morning Edition and All Things Considered, and 16 times the audience for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. They observe that, as these numbers indicate, we're not looking at the one place where most Americans get their news. And 9 of the top 10 talk radio shows are hosted by implacable conservatives. Alterman and Goldberg use these numbers to emphasize the urgency of their point: Progressives can no longer dismiss the impact Conservative talk radio is having on American politics, and should act accordingly. By act accordingly one assumes the authors mean that Progressives who bemoan the state of affairs in which our leaders must operate ought to focus their outrage on Conservative talk radio and expose, once and for all, the conservative misinformationand on too many occasions hateful, racist and reactionary rhetoric it broadcasts day after day. Appropriately, the authors seek to lead by example, citing a number of claims made on Conservative talk radio demonstrative of such rhetoric: When the White House and members of the media mention code words like diversity and 'equality' what they are really proposing is communist revolution. Osama bin Laden's remarks about global warming are almost identical to those of the average, run-of-the-mill leftist, like Obama or Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi or the entire Democrat Party.

The global warming scam is an effort by the left to destroy capitalist economies?" President Barack Obama was advised by the Fort Hood Shooter." American prisons can't safely hold terrorists. European, Canadian, and Australian health care is inferior to American health care. Obamacare will employ government death panels to ration care.

This is a fine start to a compelling editorial. One awaits with great anticipation the dropping of the other shoe: the crushing evidence that reveals these claims as factually misleading, hateful, racist and/or reactionary. Alas, the other shoe never comes. Other than Obama was advised by the Fort Hood shooter, no evidence of the factual inaccuracy of any of these claims is provided. For Alterman and Goldberg, to merely list these claims with the implication that they are misleading, hateful, racist and reactionary is enough. Doing so is indeed revealing, not of the evils of Conservative talk radio, but of the authors inability or unwillingness to see beyond their own Progressive world views. For, as sensational as the claims above may seem, each identifies an issue about which there is considerable and legitimate disagreement between Progressives and Conservatives. Naturally, Progressives who are sympathetic to government administered social justice see no danger in terms like diversity and equality. Many a Conservative, however, has pointed out instances in which these terms and concepts have been euphemistically employed to violate individual liberties and property rights in a manner consistent with Marxist philosophy. Conservatives, Libertarians and a vast community of scientists and economists have produced countless evidence-based arguments supportive of the assertion that global warming is a manufactured crisis the proposed solutions to which would have disastrous impact upon free-market economies. There is considerable evidence suggesting that, for all its flaws, the American health care system is vastly superior to socialized models in operation elsewhere. In other words, what Alterman and Goldberg cite as instances of Conservative misinformation are merely instances of Progressive/Conservative difference of opinion. They provide nothing in the way of factual argumentation to illustrate how and why one of these opinions is superior to the other. To validate their position, they instead rely upon a rather sophomoric fallacy in logical argumentation known as begging the question. It goes like this: the Conservative position (on any given topic) is misleading, hateful, and reactionary because it is Conservative, and everybody knows that Conservatism is misleading, hateful and reactionary; therefore Conservative talk radio, being the primary bearer of the Conservative message, is misleading, hateful and reactionary. I have encountered this reasoning quite often in criticism of Conservative talk radio. Frankly, it is beneath the pay grade of Alterman and Goldberg, and it is somewhat surprising they would employ it here as the point of their article is to rally Progressives to rethink their tactics on how best to stem the flow of polarizing Conservative misinformation. One would think that among their recommendations would be to eschew tactics which have so utterly failed in the past, such as the use of shallow and fallacious arguments about the evils of Conservative speech. Clearly, based on the authors own numbers, this tactic has done nothing to dissuade millions of Americans from tuning in. Not only do Alterman and Goldberg not warn against this tactic, however, they rely upon it.

Why is this? What would lead accomplished professors, authors, journalists, activists, politicians and businessmen to employ such puerile argumentation in support of a cause in which they believe so passionately? What would induce them to embark on a self-examination as to why they are losing ground in so crucial an arena in the war of ideas and yet perform no actual selfexamination? This failure to recognize the deficiencies in ones own position is a trait highly indicative of egocentrism. In their publication, The Miniature Guide to the Human Mind2, Drs. Linda Elder and Richard Paul identify nine egocentric tendencies to which the human mind is naturally prone. While all persons are susceptible to these dispositions, the egocentric person is absolutely convinced that his understanding of things is the absolute truth. This conviction leads to errors in observation, judgment and behavior that diminish a persons effectiveness in the real world while ensuring he remains blind to the actual cause of his abatement. Particularly resonant among Elder and Pauls nine egocentric tendencies in light of Progressive criticism of Conservative speech and Conservative talk radio are: Egocentric infallibility - The natural tendency to think that our beliefs are true because we believe them. Egocentric righteousness - The natural tendency to feel superior in the light of our confidence that we are in the possession of the truth. Egocentric blindness - The natural tendency not to notice facts or evidence which contradict our favored beliefs or values. Egocentric absurdity - The natural tendency to fail to notice thinking which has "absurd" consequences, when noticing them would force us to rethink our position. Egocentric memory - The natural tendency to "forget" evidence and information which does not support our thinking and to "remember" evidence and information which does. Egocentric hypocrisy - The natural tendency to ignore flagrant inconsistencies between what we profess to believe and the actual beliefs our behaviors imply, or inconsistencies between the standards to which we hold ourselves and those to which we expect others to adhere.

Again, all of usProgressives and Conservativesare susceptible to these tendencies. The degree to which we succumb to them, however, is the degree to which we diminish our powers of critical thinking as well as our credibility in the eyes of others when such a character flaw is made manifest by our behavior. In the realm of argumentation, a common behavior indicative of egocentrism is the unconscious employment of bias. The science of social psychology explores the human capacity for bias and defines certain mechanisms by which it affects our thinking and behavior. Selective Perception describes a means by which we cope with the onslaught of sensory information we encounter every day by interpreting, categorizing, filtering and prioritizing this information in a manner consistent with our existing beliefs and values. While this mechanism is natural and necessary for survival, it can also lead us to limiting our awareness of the outside world, i.e. we see what we want to see, hear what we want to hear.3 In relation to Conservative talk radio, an example of this mechanism at play would be discussion of tax-payer financed

public employee benefits. Conservatives have been passionately decrying these expenditures for years while Progressives have largely dismissed the issue as irrelevant minutia. Thus, when Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, a favorite among Conservative talk radio listeners, took office and enacted cuts to collective bargaining privileges for public employees, Progressives believed themselves to be blindsided, were completely unprepared for the debate, and despite vociferous objection, failed to stop Walkers cuts from becoming law. Selective Exposure involves what external stimuli we allow ourselves to encounter. In todays multi-faceted media market, for example, media consumers can choose from numerous information and entertainment options. The potential exists to limit oneself to only those media outlets which reinforce our existing belief systems. Obviously, excessive participation in Selective Exposure can lead to an extremely narrow view of the outside world and render an individual intellectually unprepared to engage in productive debate.4 For example; a Liberal who listens only to mainstream media outlets will likely find herself completely unaware of the perils of unrestricted federal entitlement spending. Conversely a Conservative who listens only to Conservative talk radio or FOX News will likely be unable to effectively debate the nuanced landscape of immigration reform proposals. Assimilation and Contrast Effects involves the degree to which we accept or reject persuasive messages based on our assessment of how close or far they are from our current point of view. Therefore I may reject as radical a view that is, in reality, not that far from my own on a given issue, or accept as valid a view that is far from my own, based on my perception of what is being communicated or who is communicating it.5 This dynamic may well be at play in Progressives tendency to reject common sense arguments about the need for fiscal conservatism merely because they are commonly heard on Conservative talk radio, or Conservatives dismissing a worthy charitable effort because, in presenting itself, it employs perceived code words such as social justice, inclusion and multicultural. To read Alterman and Goldberg, however, it would seem the above phenomena are vulnerabilities to which only Conservatives are susceptible. The size and scope of the comically misinformed members of the Tea Party movement clearly demonstrates that just about anyone can embrace reactionary ideas if they are exposed to them repeatedly and without contradiction, and talk radio offers a great forum for this. In their minds apparently, Progressives are those enlightened individuals impervious to bias, open to all manner of media and opinion, and willing to accept or reject arguments purely on their merits without regard for who is making them. Everyone else is at the mercy of Conservative media programmers masterfully exploiting psychological tendencies such as selective perception, selective exposure, and assimilation and contrast effects to increase listenership and further polarize the electorate. This is egocentrism gone rampant. Political and cultural polarization motivated by Conservative talk radio is a reality. Alterman, Goldberg and many others decry it as a crisisthe result of a nationwide brainwashing campaign in need of urgent attention by concerned Progressives and, according to some, the federal government. Conservatives see this same polarization simply as a natural reaction to the

opening of a once monopolistic media landscape to alternative viewpointsvia Conservative talk radio, cable television, the Internet etc. some of which resonate more profoundly than others with citizens free to choose to whom and what they will give their attention. That some would see this flourishing of free information and intellectual diversity as something to be stopped is telling. Talk Radio Matters Alterman and Goldberg caution their readers. They are correct. Clearly they and their allies in the Progressive movement have no idea why.

Article 2: Climate of Hate 6 This article, written by Paul Krugman, appeared in the New York Times on January 9, 2011, a day after a shooting in Tucson, Arizona left six dead and 14 wounded. Krugman has been an Op-Ed columnist with The New York Times since 1999 and is a professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University. He has authored 20 books and more than 200 papers in professional journals and edited volumes. In 2008, he was awarded the Nobel economics prize for his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity. Krugman is well known for his unapologetic Progressive perspective and his hostility toward Conservatives, their policies and proposals. In Climate of Hate, however, he seems to have outdone himself in the extent to which he demonizes the political Right and, more importantly, the unprofessionalism with which he does so. Krugman opens Climate of Hate immediately declaring what every Progressive was thinking at the time: When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen? Put me in the latter category. Ive had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach ever since the final stages of the 2008 campaign. I remembered the upsurge in political hatred after Bill Clintons election in 1992 an upsurge that culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing. And you could see, just by watching the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies, that it was ready to happen again. The Department of Homeland Security reached the same conclusion: in April 2009 an internal report warned that right-wing extremism was on the rise, with a growing potential for violence. Egocentric presumptions here are legion: the expectation that readers had the same first impression as he; the suggestion that something sinister emerged late in the 2008 campaign; the identification of what emerged in the wake of Bill Clintons election as political hatred which led to the Oklahoma City Bombing; that the crowds at the McCain-Palin rallies are complicit in such terrorism; and that the 2009 DHS report on right-wing extremism was a credible study. Of course, Krugman, being an experienced columnist, is here grabbing the audience with a compelling lead. But again, even an opinion columnist needs to bolster his bluster with something more than hackneyed presumptions, particularly when accusing whole swaths of the American public of aiding and abetting mass murder. Krugman does provide some factual information - a report from Politico.com citing a surge in threats against members of Congress. He neglects to indicate whether these threats are coming from the Right of the Left, but the

implication is less than subtle. something about the current state of America has been causing far more disturbed people than before to act out their illness by threatening, or actually engaging in, political violence. Krugman quickly informs readers what that something is. Theres not much question what has changed. As Clarence Dupnik, the sheriff responsible for dealing with the Arizona shootings, put it, its the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business. The vast majority of those who listen to that toxic rhetoric stop short of actual violence, but some, inevitably, cross that line. Krugman goes on to explain that its not merely a lack of civility that lies behind the rising tide of violence, but what he calls eliminationist rhetoric. Here, he provides neither examples nor a definition of what exactly eliminationist rhetoric means. With a bit of digging, however, one finds that the term was originated in the 1996 book, Hitlers Willing Executioners about the Nazis effective use of eliminationist anti-Semitism to seduce the German people into participating in and supporting the Holocaust. The use of the term in reference to the American Right was later popularized by Seattle-based freelance journalist and blogger, David Neiwert, in his book, The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right. Wheres that toxic rhetoric coming from? Krugman asks. Lets not make a false pretense of balance: its coming, overwhelmingly, from the Right. Its hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be armed and dangerous without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P. Actually, its hard to imagine how someone in so public a position as Krugman could make so sweeping and easily refuted a charge. Immediately after this editorial appeared, the blogosphere was sharing a post by attorney and talk radio host, John H. Hinderaker, pointing out that Representative Bachmans armed and dangerous quote was made in an interview with him and co-host, Brian Ward, in which she said, Im going to have materials for people when they leave. I want people armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax, because we need to fight back. In other words, she was seeking to arm her constituents with information so that they could prove dangerous in debate.7 Many others made mention of instances in which Democratic politicians have employed what could be identified as eliminationist or violent rhetoric as well. For example, candidate Obamas famous "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," quote from a 2008 campaign fundraising event in Philadelphia; Representative Pete Stark (D-California) telling a reporter to get the f*** out of here or Ill throw you out the window; or Representative Mike Capuano (D-Massachusetts) urging local union members to stand in solidarity with Wisconsin protestors, declaring Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary. Krugmans primary concern here, however, is eliminationist rhetoric in the media. And theres a huge contrast in the media, he explains. Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and youll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you

wont hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill OReilly, and you will. Perhaps. On second thought, with a closer listen to Progressive media you will hear Ed Schultz saying, He is an enemy of the country, in my opinion. Dick Cheney is an enemy of the country....Lord, take him to the Promised Land, will you? See, I dont even wish the guy goes to Hell, I just want to get him the hell out of here. Montel Williams urging Representative Michelle Bachmann (R-Minnesota), So, Michele, slit your wrist! Go ahead! I mean, you know, why not? I mean, if you want to or, you know, do us all a better thing. Move that knife up about two feet. I mean, start right at the collarbone. And Mike Malloy wishing, Im waiting for the day when I pick up the newspaper or click on the Internet and find that hes choked to death on his own throat fat, or a great big wad of saliva or something, whatever. Go away, Limbaugh, you make me sick.8 Eliminationist rhetoric? Oddly, Krugman seems unaware of such rhetoric on the Left. He goes on then to point out that Beck and company are only part of the problem. It is the American peoplesome of the American people and their penchant for hate-speech as entertainment that is the most distressing aspect of this climate of hate. Of course, the likes of Mr. Beck and Mr. OReilly are responding to popular demand. Citizens of other democracies may marvel at the American psyche, at the way efforts by mildly liberal presidents to expand health coverage are met with cries of tyranny and talk of armed resistance. Still, thats what happens whenever a Democrat occupies the White House, and theres a market for anyone willing to stoke that anger. But even if hate is what many want to hear, that doesnt excuse those who pander to that desire. They should be shunned by all decent people. Here Krugman does not go so far as to recommend that this shunning be facilitated by government intervention. He recommends, instead, some real soul-searching. Its really up to G.O.P. leaders. Will they accept the reality of whats happening to America, and take a stand against eliminationist rhetoric? Is it possible that a man of Krugmans credentials is unaware of defamation and hate-speech laws already in place prohibiting what would, in reality, constitute eliminationist rhetoric? Does he really believe Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill ORielly et al disparage individuals or groups, not because of their political philosophies, but because of their race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexual orientation (the definition of hate speech)? Does he sincerely think that the vast and growing audience of Conservative media tunes in because they want to hear hate? No one but Krugman can know the answers to these questions. But when it was eventually revealed that, Jared Loughner, the Tucson shooter, had no affinity whatsoever for Conservatism or Conservative media, there was no retraction from Krugman or the many others who accused Conservative media and its audience of bringing about the bloodbath. The presumption, as grievous, unsubstantiated, and transparently biased as it is, prevails unchallenged on the pages of the New York Times and much of the mainstream media.

10

Based on electoral and audience trends, however, it would appear the American public is increasingly suspicious of this once widely accepted narrative. Able now to access alternative viewpoints via Conservative talk radio, cable news, blogs and websites, it seems media consumers are less apt to support demonstrably irresponsible and slipshod news and commentary from those claiming the mantle of legitimate journalism. Krugmans is merely one of many examples of mainstream media icons overplaying their hand, and people are catching on to the game. Mainstream media attacks on Conservative media are motivated not by a genuine concern for the integrity of the American democratic process, but by their desire to preserve a status quo that is in the process of crumbling. Clueless as to how to reverse the collapse, defenders of the status quo lash out at those bringing it about. Their defense, however, is misguided and ineffective. For forty years the New York Times and three television networks dominating the American airwaves thrived unchallenged. The resultant egocentrism blinded them to the ideological homogeneity increasingly diluting their product, the threat of emerging technologies in mass communication, and the power of alternative perspectives that resonate with the American people, even on so meager a medium as AM radio. The polarization of which so many on the Left lament is an offshoot of this phenomenon. The heightened presence of Conservative and Libertarian thought in the public forum has more and more Americans finding accord with these philosophies. Even more powerful is the extent to which people find these philosophies resonant of the principles of the American founding. The effect is certainly polarizing. Again, that so many in the mainstream media and the Left see this polarization as dangerous, hateful, even potentially murderous, is telling. It is, rather, ideological plurality restored, and that is always good for a democratic republic such as ours. Progressive media professionals would better serve that Republic, quite likely their own cause, and certainly their profession, if they would sincerely under take the soul-searching Krugman prescribes and which Alterman and Goldberg allege to undertake. Doing so might reveal to them the extent to which egocentrism has them undermining their own credibility in the eyes of an increasingly savvy public, and defaming the intelligence and character of their fellow Americans.

11

Endnotes
1

Eric Alterman and Danny Goldberg, Listen Up, Progressives: Talk Radio Matters, Center for American Progress, March 11, 2010, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/03/ta031110.html.
2

Linda Elder and Richard Paul, The Miniature Guide to the Human Mind: How it Learns, How it Mislearns (Foundation for Critical Thinking, 2004).
3

Counselling Central, Psychology Definition of the Week: Selective Perception. http://counsellingcentral.com/psychology-definition-of-the-week-selective-perception/.

3

Copyblogger Online Marketing that Works, Why Targeting Selective Perception Captures Immediate Attention. http://www.copyblogger.com/selective-perception/
4

Kevin Arceneaux, Martin Johnson, Chad Murphy, Polarized Political Communication, Oppositional Media Hostility, and Selective Exposure. (Temple University, 2011) http://astro.temple.edu/~arceneau/hostilemedia.pdf
4

Oxford Bibliographies Online, Selective Exposure. http://www.oxfordbibliographiesonline.com/view/document/obo-9780199756841/obo9780199756841-0023.xml;jsessionid=BAF43C1199306299EE0B51AE078D63F7

5

Social Judgment Theory, Assimilation and Contrast Effects http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~kk413797/SJ.htm

5

Integrated Sociopsychology, Assimilation-Contrast Effect http://www.integratedsociopsychology.net/assimilation-contrast_effect.html

6

Paul Krugman, Climate of Hate, The New York Times, 9 January 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html.

12
7

John H. Hinderaker, Paul Krugman, Buffoon, Clifton Chadwicks Blog, January 12, 2011. http://cliftonchadwick.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/12522/.
8

The Real Radio Hatemongers, (Media Research Center, 2010) http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/2010/realradiohatemongers/ExecSumm.aspx