Are you talking about my oxycodone habit?

...but in all seriousness...

I like a lot of far-right people who would normally be written off as lunatics by the left, like Barry Goldwater or William F. Buckley Jr. I respect people like them because they're honest about what they're thinking. They don't patronize me with "moderate" positions that they don't really believe in.

I don't like Rush, Hannity, Imus, O'Riely or most of the rest of the AM Radio / Fox News crowd not because they are radical, but because they are mean. I think they promote their ideas through showmanship instead of substance. Everything they say is loaded with logical fallacies. They use intimidation and ridicule to ...

Are you talking about my oxycodone habit?

...but in all seriousness...

I like a lot of far-right people who would normally be written off as lunatics by the left, like Barry Goldwater or William F. Buckley Jr. I respect people like them because they're honest about what they're thinking. They don't patronize me with "moderate" positions that they don't really believe in.

I don't like Rush, Hannity, Imus, O'Riely or most of the rest of the AM Radio / Fox News crowd not because they are radical, but because they are mean. I think they promote their ideas through showmanship instead of substance. Everything they say is loaded with logical fallacies. They use intimidation and ridicule to browbeat people who disagree with them.

With the exception of Sean Hannity, they all seem to have very poor manners. (In all fairness, Sean's mother seems to have raised him up right, even if he gets a little carried away sometimes. He's the only one of them I would consider having over for dinner. And yes, that's an open invitation, Sean!)

I don't believe we should compromise our beliefs, as some "moderates" seem to do. I think we should present what we actually believe, in a constructive way that is respectful of others. I honestly have very little respect for those who compromise their beliefs, but then won't compromise in their actions. (Congress, I'm talking to you!)

Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Imus (who is certainly not to the right side of the political spectrum) and more properly entertainers or "personalities". Their on-air personas overshadow everything more substantial. They are not thinkers or apologists as are a Buckley or a Goldwater.

Hannity I would put somewhere between. Intellectually, he is more rigorous than the previous three, but he is still a slave to the medium in many ways. It's not a perfect comparison, but think of Archbishop Fulton Sheen and Jacques Maritain. All Sheen taught was as sound as Maritain's work. Yet, Sheen's was spoken in the vernacular of the everyman, churched and unchurched alike. Maritain's required more work a...

Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Imus (who is certainly not to the right side of the political spectrum) and more properly entertainers or "personalities". Their on-air personas overshadow everything more substantial. They are not thinkers or apologists as are a Buckley or a Goldwater.

Hannity I would put somewhere between. Intellectually, he is more rigorous than the previous three, but he is still a slave to the medium in many ways. It's not a perfect comparison, but think of Archbishop Fulton Sheen and Jacques Maritain. All Sheen taught was as sound as Maritain's work. Yet, Sheen's was spoken in the vernacular of the everyman, churched and unchurched alike. Maritain's required more work and was less likely to be received by the unchurched. Hannity reaches for the masses, while Buckley directs his words more toward the choir. You can be unfamiliar with Edmund Burke or Russell Kirk and still follow Sean Hannity. The same is not always true for WFB. You need both types of men to maintain a movement.

First, point taken about Imus. He is farther right than I am on the political specturm, but it wasn't fair to imply that he is a "Conservative" in the greater philosophical sense of the world. I do, however, think that his opinions and commentary probably find more resonance with GOP voters than with the DNC, but he has no place in elevated discourse. In fact, I believe this will be the only time I ever write the names Don Imus and Edmund Burke in the same sentence, for fear that doing it again might somehow disrupt the space-time continuum.

You have some really interesting analysis of the interplay between party, ideology and media presentation, and you make a very persuasive argument that...

First, point taken about Imus. He is farther right than I am on the political specturm, but it wasn't fair to imply that he is a "Conservative" in the greater philosophical sense of the world. I do, however, think that his opinions and commentary probably find more resonance with GOP voters than with the DNC, but he has no place in elevated discourse. In fact, I believe this will be the only time I ever write the names Don Imus and Edmund Burke in the same sentence, for fear that doing it again might somehow disrupt the space-time continuum.

You have some really interesting analysis of the interplay between party, ideology and media presentation, and you make a very persuasive argument that they in fact form a triangle of co-dependence. (After all, even the media plays an important part in the life of any movment, something that the left has yet to master.)

But this also makes Hannity a much more interesting case study. Perhaps this explains why he is often much better spoken and more civil than many of his peers at FOX or on AM radio. If I were to take your interesting Sheen / Maritain analogy, and cross apply it with your cogent observation that Hannity is more of a Republican than a Conservative, perhaps we can define "party" as the populist manifestation of "ideology."

However, the interests of entrenched power inevitably also work their way into "party" and thus it takes on a life independent of "ideology." Perhaps it is this new divorce from ideology that leads parties to seek out not further intellectual confirmation, but instead support by the medium of entertainment. Once these party organs establish themselves, devoid of ideology and supported by showmanship, they naturally would identify themselves as moderates, since they no longer believe anything at their core, and have lost their intellectual roots.

I would argue that the American party system has little to do with ideology in the broad sense. Although the philosophies of individual members may tend to fall on opposite sides of the political spectrum, as you point out, the structure itself is more about partisanship and power than it is about ideology. And, that's not necessarily a bad thing, especially in regards to the American system.

The two-party system in the United States is not accidental. Although, more "tradition" in application than mandated, the founders had a two-party system in mind and tailored the formation of our government to support it. The idea is for the parties to act as a moderating force on the electorate in...

I would argue that the American party system has little to do with ideology in the broad sense. Although the philosophies of individual members may tend to fall on opposite sides of the political spectrum, as you point out, the structure itself is more about partisanship and power than it is about ideology. And, that's not necessarily a bad thing, especially in regards to the American system.

The two-party system in the United States is not accidental. Although, more "tradition" in application than mandated, the founders had a two-party system in mind and tailored the formation of our government to support it. The idea is for the parties to act as a moderating force on the electorate in times of change or upheaval. Each party, regardless of the propaganda of the other side, strives for a big tent mentality. The success of forming the biggest tent results in success in elections, which is why spoils often go to the victors as opposed to being divided proportionately. The American system is set up in this way so as to form coalitions prior to elections, not afterwards as would be the case in a parlimentary system. The electorate knows the coalition they intend to have govern before the election. The coalition is not cobbled together after an election depending on the strengths or weaknesses of 5 or 6 parties.

This is the primary reason why third parties have so little success in the US unless they can actually coopt the tent of one of the prevailing parties of the time (Whigs-Republicans). Normally by the time a third party begins to build momentum for it's ideas, one of the parties has moved it's flaps to encompass such voters, thus siphoning off the third parties base. These voters then become only a "faction" within the major party and thus their issues have to compete with the issues of the other factions. A very moderating influence. We might like to think of wide swings when government control switches parties, but the shifts are purposely small.

The big tents prevent any major changes in governance overnight. The founders wished to avoid faddishness and reactionariness. Major changes are possible, but they are meant to be deliberative. Some on the right like to speak of a creeping socialism and some on the left like to speak of a creeping facsism. Yet, neither is truly possibly in a short electoral span as has been the case in other places since our inception.

Thus, while the parties are certainly made up of ideological forces, they are competing ideological forces. Today, for example, it is conservatives, neoconservatives, paleoconservatives, libertarians, and various single issue interests (think social cons vs fiscal cons) ...

The big tents prevent any major changes in governance overnight. The founders wished to avoid faddishness and reactionariness. Major changes are possible, but they are meant to be deliberative. Some on the right like to speak of a creeping socialism and some on the left like to speak of a creeping facsism. Yet, neither is truly possibly in a short electoral span as has been the case in other places since our inception.

Thus, while the parties are certainly made up of ideological forces, they are competing ideological forces. Today, for example, it is conservatives, neoconservatives, paleoconservatives, libertarians, and various single issue interests (think social cons vs fiscal cons) compteting in the Republican party. Likewise, the Democrats are a competion of liberal, socialist, anarchist and green interests. Surely, there are myriad other interests involved, but you get the point.

Ideology of the parties is understandably a hodge podge in such a system. Gaining electoral power becomes the focus instead since without it, the various interests have no hope of competing for their philosophies. The rub is that some of these competing philosophies get mired in this electoral focus and are willing to sacrifice their beliefs in order to maintain power. Thus, one becomes a Republican first and a conservative second in the context of our discussion. And don't fool yourself, 90% of all pols are more concerned with power than they are with ideology, no matter what their political inclination. You don't spend a lifetime in government because you have a humble view of yourself and think someone else may be able to do the job as well as you. Only you can be the savior, right? Sure there are exceptions, but these are the guys who go the Washington for a couple of terms, do their darnest, and then go back home. So who gets left minding the store?

That's a very good point. I have often appreciated the fact that, while more vital than the democracy in Japan, or democracy is significantly more stable than those in countries like Italy or France, which are no stranger to the collapse of elected governments. In cases such as (less obviously) Spain and (more obviously) Italy, weak, and overtly ideological governments led to the rise of fascism. This also seems to be a significant factor in the inability of the Israeli government to focus on long term objectives.

But that gets me thinking, the political failure of the left, in Bush-era American politics, could be attributed not to the fact that they aren't moderate, but instead to the fact...

That's a very good point. I have often appreciated the fact that, while more vital than the democracy in Japan, or democracy is significantly more stable than those in countries like Italy or France, which are no stranger to the collapse of elected governments. In cases such as (less obviously) Spain and (more obviously) Italy, weak, and overtly ideological governments led to the rise of fascism. This also seems to be a significant factor in the inability of the Israeli government to focus on long term objectives.

But that gets me thinking, the political failure of the left, in Bush-era American politics, could be attributed not to the fact that they aren't moderate, but instead to the fact that they failed to keep liberals in their big tent. I have long felt that the Republican party was far more successful at bringing together a broader spectrum of voters, not only centrists, but finding a place for radicals as well. Although I may not be a big fan of the policy trends it creates, I have always felt that it created an admirable internal dialog, at least so far as could be seen among the Republicans I am personally acquainted with.

You say it best when you say it is the only party in which your voice can be heard, and the fact that they make you feel your voice is heard is a significant achievement. The Democrats have achieved the opposite: very few people feel that their voice is actually heard in the Democratic party. Many on the moderate left feel the party is too radical for them, and almost all on the radical left feel the party is too moderate. Thus the DNC has been, of late, a big empty tent. At least prior to the political crises of the last two years and the 50-state leadership of Howard Dean, which you have to admit is admirable - that he would demand the Democratic party consider voters even in "red" states.

But then again, Dean is one of those radicalizing voices of which you speak. He was clearly on the Lamont side in the move to oust Leibermann.

In many ways Dean and GW are alike. Both have made great strides in party building, but both have also sowed the ideological seeds for their parties downfall. This is in contrast to say Reagan, who was successful in shifting the philosophy of the nation but not very attentive to building the party. Thus, once his coattails were not available, party successes dropped in the 90s. Conversely, the party apparatus will be stronger following Dean and Bush after their exits, but Dean's radicalism and Bush's surrender of core values, like fiscal respons...

But then again, Dean is one of those radicalizing voices of which you speak. He was clearly on the Lamont side in the move to oust Leibermann.

In many ways Dean and GW are alike. Both have made great strides in party building, but both have also sowed the ideological seeds for their parties downfall. This is in contrast to say Reagan, who was successful in shifting the philosophy of the nation but not very attentive to building the party. Thus, once his coattails were not available, party successes dropped in the 90s. Conversely, the party apparatus will be stronger following Dean and Bush after their exits, but Dean's radicalism and Bush's surrender of core values, like fiscal responsibility, could spell doom for either party depending on how future winds shift.

One thought on stability: While it's often pointed out that the US is a young nation, most forget that the US is home of the longest continuous government on the planet today. Peoples may be older, but all other regimes have fallen and changed since 1789. A much underappreciated testament.