In wake of the Kerry-related "tasing" incident, Steve Graham ruminates about Andrew Meyers' prospects for future fame.

I took a look at this nut's website last night. On the one hand, he seems to suffer from hardcore Bush Derangement Syndrome; he has a column up which contains all the shopworn lies and cliches we're so used to. On the other, he thinks he's a comedian and an actor, and it's pretty clear he'd do almost anything to get attention. And thanks to John Kerry, The Gainesville Sun, Drudgebart.com, cable news, Youtube, and bloggers like me, he got it. This ridiculous episode put him on the map, and since he's on the left, he'll get tons of support from above and below. He now has a guaranteed income, and he'll probably be rich in five years. Look for him to start popping up on cable news panels. If he doesn't do anything really stupid, he'll have his own TV show within a year.

I'm not going to except the whole article, but it's worth a read: Steve's basic argument is that top conservatives "think there are a limited number of conservative job openings out there... every successful conservative obsesses on protecting his little rice ball", but "liberals embrace any leftist who makes it in the media."

Look at Al Sharpton, to cite the most obvious example. Blatant Jew-baiter, racist, inciter of riots...he has a radio show, and a network nearly put him in a sitcom. Reverend Al could have "Kill the Kikes" tattooed on his fat forehead, and he would still be accepted. In that world, no one will even notice that Meyer is a fraud. It won't matter.

Steve's mad about the the death of conservative media, as he sees it:

We've actually had our share of Andrew Meyers, but we've starved them to death. Remember Michaelmoorehatesamerica.com? No? I'm not surprised. Small bloggers like me linked to it, but the big dogs ignored it, and they ignored the movie the site promoted. I can't even tell you the name of the guy behind it. How about Protestwarrior.com? Smarter and more honest than Meyer, and unlike Meyer, the issues confronted were real and important, not contrived in order to get media attention. How about IMAO, Scrappleface, Iowahawk, Jeff Goldstein, Allahpundit, and Wuzzadem? Might as well not exist. In fact, Wuzzadem is gone. No one cared. None of these people got any help or attention, unless being made second banana on a video website counts. I only know one young conservative who got a real chance from the big-time media.

And of course:

I curse the day when I first broke my own rule and wrote about politics. It was counterproductive and futile, and the conservative media doesn't deserve me. It doesn't deserve any new writer.

Self-pity aside, Steve has part of a good point: what he's saying is mostly true, I think, but he doesn't seem to be able to identify the underlying cause. He seems to think the problem starts at the top, and works its way down. (Top conservative voices don't make room for new ones.) In contrast, I think the "problem" is mostly a bottom-up one.

The Audience

Conservatives and liberals -- or the raw people-stuff which might constitute our respective political movements -- are fundamentally different in their desires for political media product, and how they get involved.

Christians, for example, historically were quite disinterested in politics: they focused on their families, their businesses, their schools, their churches and potluck dinners. If you look at some of the first conservative clergy who got involved in politics -- guys like Robertson, Falwell, etc. -- you'll find quotes, before the 1970s, where they explain that politics and religion were separate spheres. Even James Dobson (the left's religious Emmanuel Goldstein* du jour) was apolitical until relatively recently.

Most Christians, devout Jews, and other would-be conservatives are like this: they try to do good things on a small scale, being salt and light in their own sphere of influence. To the extent they give money to a larger scale, it's for feeding the poor in Africa, homeless shelters, the Salvation Army (which is still apolitical) or to their churches or synagogues, which also generally use it in an apolitical fashion.**

It takes a real shock to get conservative Christians involved in politics. Because Christianity focuses on moral responsibility, holiness, and self-examination, adherents aren't quick to blame the problems they're seeing in their corner of the world on someone else -- particularly some obscure decision made in a remote bureaucracy. They're also not typically the kind of people you find out in the streets, noisily agitating for the overthrow of things: they don't typically desire political power, and are suspect of such things.

One such shock, however, was Roe v Wade which, some conservative observers argue, singlehandedly created the religious right: all those good churchgoing Catholic Democrats and others who felt that abortion was an atrocity suddenly discovered that the political rug had been yanked right out from under their feet. Millions of babies were being aborted via a radical change in policy which no electorate had approved.

This was the tide which Reagan rode to office, a groundswell which changed the Republican party from Gerald Ford's "country club" party (as it was becoming) to the conservative-values party, and also shifted the Democratic Party from the "Catholic / Southern" (Kennedy/Carter) party to the secular-liberal one.

The Products

In contrast, "progressives" often use politics as a sort of substitute religion, so there's tremendous desire for product. There's no neat document they can read, over and over, to explain what their creed is, because it changes from year to year as political needs change. Was it called "Marxism" once? Many of the same ideas are still popular today, but under a different name. Is war without UN approval, this year, a good thing (as in Kosovo) or an "illegal act" (as in Iraq)? One can't deduce such stances from mere first principles.

Surveys repeatedly show "progressives" are less likely to be involved in churches and are less likely to volunteer, so there's undoubtedly a strong need among them for some kind of communion -- and online communities are more necessary among them for filling that niche.

The product also needs to be tailored. There's no "black bible" or "Asian bible" or "union members bible" -- good religions (and sound economic principles) are generally universal in scope and application. (The New Testament, for examples, tells readers: "In Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek." Likewise, business activity benefits all regardless of color, creed, or sexual proclivity.)

But political leftism must be sold in flavors: lesbians need to hear a different narrative than the one sold to black activists, which is different still than the narrative ladled out to La Raza members, environmentalists, the American Atheists, or New Agers. So there's a much greater desire and need for customized product.

Whereas the right is frequently selling a lack of government, the left is selling the idea the government will solve your problems. You can't easily describe what kind of non-government you desire, but one can endlessly describe new programs and laws which will suit every situation. (And, even better, short-sighted laws and programs, once implemented, fail harmfully, generating the apparent need for even more intervention!)

Finally, I'd note that the left and right are selling a fundamentally different product. Writing as a conservative, if I want to get to the bottom of a story, I have to do a lot of reading and listen to both sides. This takes time. So I sometimes save time by finding people who have drawn the same conclusions I've discovered -- guys like Thomas Sowell, John Stossel, Theodore Dalrymple, or Dennis Prager -- and listen to them.

What I'm saying is that, in my experience, conservatives are consumers of trust. It takes a long time to get conservatives to trust you, and when they do, brand loyalty can stay for quite a while.

In contrast, when I wander over to Kos, I see an ever-shifting narrative (I can't even deduce consistent "progressive" principles from one day to the next) with an ever-expanding cast of players. As long as they offer the party line, as Steve says, they are accepted. And it doesn't matter if they were proven wrong on very, very major things last month, or last year: the audience doesn't care. They just want to hear someone tell them what they want to hear today. They want to feel validated in their views and circumstances.

Anyone can validate you. But it takes a long time to earn someone's trust and respect. So I think that's why you see the same old faces over and over in the conservative media. Leftist bookstores sell an endless stream of books with the same titles and themes -- Bush lied, the right is evil, etc. But conservatives tend to be loyal to people they trust, whether it's Dobson, or Prager, or Stossel, or John Lott or whoever.

Conclusion

Steve's a talented writer (pithier than I am, that's for sure). But trying to become a famous conservative is, and always has been, swimming against the tide. Recall that the first conservative pundits were called "prophets", and they had rather limited career opportunities and low approval ratings.

I don't mean that conservative shtick has to be dull: it doesn't. Coulter (when she's not sticking her foot in our mouths) has funny moments, and Steve certainly does too. But the market is limited, and most well-adjusted conservatives (but I repeat myself) have better things to do with their lives than hammer on Democrats' love for Al Sharpton -- however amusing and educational the spectacle may be.

* Emmanuel Goldstein is the enemy flashed on the TV screen for everyone to hate during the "five minute hate" sessions depicted in George Orwell's 1984.

** Unless you belonged to the Presbyterian church in the early 1970s, when tithes were being used to support Angela Davis and other communists. (My father fumed about this.) Liberal churches use tithe money for political ends far more often than their conservative counterparts.