Talk-Radio Hosts and Their Audience — Who Led Whom?

By David French

Wednesday, October 26, 2016

There’s a partly true story about the present GOP crisis that goes something like this: Conservative media — especially conservative radio and Fox News — spent years stoking and inflaming the conservative base. Hyperbolic rhetoric, holier-than-thou conservatism, and crazed conspiracy thinking created and unleashed Frankenstein’s monster. The Trump Train? They built that. As for the conservative intellectuals who allied with Fox and the radio right? Well, we helped.

But to presume that level of intellectual and political power is to misunderstand the way entertainment and politics work (and, make no mistake, public conservatism is a mix of entertainment and politics). There is a fundamental reality of the market, and I can think of no better expression of that reality than a song by the renowned economists, the O’Jay’s. You’ve got to give the people what they want:

Not only do you give the people what they want, as the O’Jays astutely note, you got to give it to them “right now.”

Here is my question – If Rush, Hannity, Levin, O’Reilly, and others were so culturally potent, why was the Trump movement sweeping the field while espousing ideas and harboring attitudes that were often radically different from the themes of literally decades of radio programs and television shows?

Indeed, to listen to most of the talk-radio world in the run-up to the election, one would think that this ideological heresy was the greatest sin of all. The “establishment’s” problem was ideological compromise. Mitt Romney’s liberal past proved he couldn’t be trusted. Ninety percent conservative wasn’t conservative enough, and while opposing Obama was vital, it had to be conservative opposition.

Or maybe not. It turns out that millions upon millions of Republicans, frankly, weren’t all that conservative. Countless hours of “true conservative” rhetoric hadn’t truly penetrated the public consciousness, and when they lashed out at the establishment, it wasn’t over ideological purity at all. Instead, after decrying Romney as a squish, radio and television hosts found themselves speaking to an audience that was falling in line behind a longtime Democrat and large-scale Clinton donor.

If Breitbart, Drudge, Hannity, Ingraham, and others were such powerful cultural leaders, why did they pivot on so many issues, and with such astonishing speed? You can search the archives for years before Trump, and you simply won’t find them clamoring for Trumpism (or Trump) as the antidote for the GOP’s electoral woes. Sure, there has always been a populist wing of the conservative movement, but until Trump, the path to modern Republican fame and fortune was through True Conservatism, not through protectionism, isolationism, and nationalism. So why did the former guardians of True Conservatism fall in line so quickly behind a know-nothing, old-school Democrat? It’s The O’Jays, baby.

To be clear, I’m not arguing that the talk-radio Right and Fox News had no influence, but I am arguing that people aren’t puppets, and the influence runs both ways. Sometimes leaders lead, and sometimes the people lead and the websites follow.

Over the last few months, I’ve been interviewed on more talk-radio shows than I can count, and almost without fail, those radio hosts who’ve been steadfastly against Trump tell me that it’s been hard. Many, for the first time in their career, find themselves in opposition to a great number of their listeners. Some worry about their careers. Others wonder why their ideas haven’t penetrated.

Unquestionably, some of the people who listened to talk radio, watched Fox, and read National Review absorbed and adopted specific conservative ideas. I meet these folks all the time. But there are also millions of people who viewed and heard the same media and have enjoyed the areas of agreement, used it to reinforce existing ideas, and basically discarded the rest. Then, in 2016 — when push came to shove — they issued their own emphatic statement: Join the revolution or die a political and commercial death.

Political attitudes are formed through a complex series of factors, and political thinkers and celebrities are but one piece of a complicated puzzle. Faith matters. Family matters. Geography matters. Life experience matters. Culture matters. And when sufficient numbers of people come together through a combination of these factors, they can exert power that dwarfs the political media.

We’re always drawn to the quick explanation and the easy fix. And while I think post-election accountability is important, not even a pundit purge will make a material difference in the culture. When one populist falls, another will rise in his place. If you wonder why, ask the O’Jays. There will always be someone out there ready, willing, and able to give the people exactly what they want. And, sadly, that won’t always be what they need.