Conservative Talk Show Hosts Make Me Nauseous

Sometimes as I am riding in my mini-van I will do something really dangerous- turn on talk radio. I say dangerous, because often times I will just become enraged at some of the absolutist, my way or the highway, everybody-else-is-stupid, everybody-who-doesn’t-agree-with-me-is-either-brain-washed-or-ignorant, politically conservative, right-wing, rhetoric that I hear. It is amazing that I continue to do this frequently, because there seems to be no actual benefit to this activity, only sheer frustration.

I say frustration, though, not because I am a liberal person (or at least in the traditionalist sense of the word). In fact, I grew up in a very conservative family, and my dad was a classic Reagan supporter who used to champion Reaganomics at family get-togethers. In fact, I remember on more than one occasion his being in the center of a crowded debate with other family members over the evils and skewed philosophies of unions. My dad grew up as the son of a farmer, and started his own business, and still is probably the hardest worker I have ever known, a classic workaholic and consummate perfectionist. I say all of this, because I have grown to see things slightly different than him, although I still have tremendous respect for him and I do understand many of his ideologies. My frustration, then, does not stem from a misunderstanding of conservative politics; it is frustration from rhetoric that seeks to defeat opponents rather than understand those with whom we disagree.

This conventional debate tactic rages in many over-the-top statements made by radio talk show hosts that resonate with other ultra-conservatives who listen, but rather polarize those who would dare to defy their logic. For example, one of the key arguments hurled forth by these media moguls are similar to the following: “Liberals love big government, and they think that government is the answer to all problems.” Is this really a true statement? I have met a lot of so-called liberals and many of them are very similar to conservatives in their belief in hard-work, their independence, and their commitment to family values. Certainly there are extremes in this realm, but for the most part, liberals are filled with moderates who value many of the same things conservatives do, but see government failing in many areas that it should be helping with, like in the area of social justice. Conservatives, on the other hand, are also filled with moderates who value many of the same things liberals do, but see government as having too much involvement in their lives. Is there really a right or wrong answer in this never-ending debate?

Certainly, there seems to be no final resolution and Republicans and Democrats will undoubtedly go on persisting in the polemics of “Big Government versus Small Government” for the rest of time. I believe there is value from both sides.

For instance, government is necessary for the basic protection of its citizens, and should certainly be involved in this through the avenues of local and state governments providing police, fire departments, hospitals, and even emergency response organizations, as well as military personnel on a national level. Government, I think, should also help provide resources and opportunities for those who are less fortunate or who are born in poverty or who are the victims of unforeseen disasters or circumstances. This should be close to the heart of all good-natured Americans who want others to have the same opportunity of having life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Government, at the same time, should never arbitrarily take away the basic constitutional rights of its citizens. This occurs all the time through Wal-Mart, or similar businesses, coercing local governments to enact Eminent Domain and cease private property in order to build their store and thereby increase that local government’s tax revenue. It should, also, not promise social security benefits to its citizens who work and then steal from its account in order to pay off a war (as it did during the Vietnam era), eventually plaguing future generations who will expect retirement benefits only to be disappointed. The government should not commit its nation to war in a casual manner, but should only do so in a state of self-defense. This contradicts, I know, the now popularly argued, preemptive, just war theory.

There is much more that could be said about these views of government, and my short estimation is massively incomplete, but I guess my larger point is that there is not much that separate us from one another, if we just stop long enough to hear one another’s vantage point, rather than arrogantly labeling someone just because they are not registered under the same political party you are. But, at the end of the day, I am thankful for those on radio talk show with whom I disagree, because they do remind me of the value of freedom, even the freedom of a difference of opinion. I may get nauseous at the absolutist arguments of a loud, overbearing personality, but that is okay, because this is America, and in America it’s okay to be different because we invented the missionary position (see Talladega Nights)!