[img]1|left|Ari Noonan||no_popup[/img]If your wife judiciously has seen fit to remind you, merely occasionally, of one of your annoying habits, and you find those nudges guiltily irritating, you may appreciate the following story.
In the late 1970s and early ‘80s, the thinker-commentator Dennis Prager and a rabbinic boyhood chum co-directed an adult Jewish learning institute in the Simi Valley. More easily upset in those days, I would become rankled when he pounded away in every lecture at the crucialness of thinking clearly — ergo communicating clearly. I was certain I was blameless in both areas. Obviously I was wrong, because it gnawed at me for years, until I made corrections.
During the almost three decades he has been on radio, Mr. Prager has been mercilessly unrelenting on stressing these self-evident points, think clearly, communicate clearly, which turned out to be his ticket to the top.
Clarity of thinking, enhanced by depth of reasoning and crystallized communication, have made Mr. Prager a national star on several, not necessarily overlapping, circuits. I regard him as a founding father of talk radio. He established the single most critical cornerstone of talk radio that has made previously unheard of concept a news fixture and a huge player in our political lives for more than 20 years.
Why the Winning Side Prevailed
Clarity in thinking and communication have made talk radio an unprecedented success. Liberals have failed as spectacularly as conservatives have triumphed because they have eschewed clear reasoning. Their lead tactic has been angry invective. They surely are as smart as conservatives, but they act like an unarmed man straying into a war zone when confronted with a conservative position to comment on.
[Witness the undisciplined hysteria, lies and the daily distortions spread daily by the Los Angeles Times, over the Arizona immigration law, chattering nonsense instead of reserved reasoning.]
The parallel rise of political conservatism and traditional religion during this 20-year era is not coincidence. Both movements owe their success to the value of clear communication, which spawned talk (read: conservative) radio. In turn, talk radio fathered two of the prominent strains in our culture, political conservatism and traditional religion. They are bound by their twin emphases on core moral values.
Although politics, especially the Presidential kind, never is without the rhythms of ebbing and flowing, it is fascinating to judge the comparative behaviors of the two liberal Democrats elected President since Rush Limbaugh birthed talk radio?
Another Winner and a Loser
Bill Clinton, raised and billed as a leftist, was predominantly a pragmatist. Adaptation was and is his mantra, the engine that drove him to the top of the mountain and kept him there. He became so deeply embedded in centrist political philosophy that on the day he was to hand the White House over to George W. Bush, they had to dig to find him. In spite of his 375 known major flaws, Mr. Clinton, then and now, could be lopsidedly elected Mayor of any community in America because could read the writing on the clubs that were whacking him on the head when he strayed too far left.
He also practiced Pragerism. Not only was he eloquent but clear, two qualities painfully missing in all of President Obama’s presentations. Even though he behaved at times like a tennis ball being crazily batted back and forth across a net, when he finished speaking, even the slowest person in the room knew exactly Mr. Clinton’s position on every subject he touched — perhaps touch is a misdirected verb.
Only spasmodically, with enormous resistance and reluctance, has President Obama adopted the foolproof Clinton how-to-succeed formula — adapt, adapt, adapt. By stubbornly clinging to widely opposed hard-left policy positions — remember the marathon healthcare debacle, climate change, Guantanamo, military tribunals, calling terrorist attacks “man-made disasters,” calling Islamic terrorists “lone wolves” who are no more related to Islam than to Christianity, his Demon Industry of the Week game — the President’s popularity has plunged.
Stubborn where Mr. Clinton was practical, a muddled thinker where Mr. Clinton was reliably clear, the dazzling eloquence of Mr. Clinton has been supplanted by the tiresome, repetitiveness of One Speech Obama, the White House version of a one-trick pony.
If he has given one impressive speech in his life, he has been chasing to reprise it ever since.
The main reason America is loudly breathing populist revolt, and the Tea Party is gaining gravitas and altitude, is because of Mr. Obama’s muleishly resistant, narrow hard-left posturing — atop his unwillingness to modify his positions.
Stubborn where Mr. Clinton usually was flexible and about 30 percent as savvy as Mr. Clinton, Mr. Obama looks like a cinch one-termer unless he essays a strong turn toward centrist politics.
