Have liberal ideologues ever had the loud voice and influence that the conservative ideologues currently have?

Conservative ideologues have the advantage in that their ideologies tend to coincide in tune with those of wealth and power.

People that are stupid, as well as wrong, know it somewhere deep inside, so they yell at the top of their lungs, thinking the noise will create an impenetrable wall that no one can see through.

Conservative ideologues have the advantage in that their ideologies coincide with those of wealth and power. It follows that there is never a shortage of money and resources involved with the dissemination of those ideologies.

Right now…..

@stanleybmanly I agree with that, but to be clear, are you saying that liberal ideologues have never had the influence that we’re currently seeing from the conservatives?

What about the labor revolt that began in the late 1800’s, and evolved into workers’ rights issues and the ascendancy of unions in the mid-twentieth century? Was that driven by liberal ideologues, or populism, or radicals? I’m not sure.

The premise of your question is completely wrong to begin with. Liberal ideology already has the main stream media in their pocket as well as most college professors. Obama raised more money than any politician ever before including his rivals. If conservatives had ever figured out how to match the liberal messaging machine, the democrats would not have gained power.

@Jaxk Even rational, reasonable Republicans (at least the ones with the guts to speak up) agree that the ideological wing of the party is wagging the dog. Liberals are still playing last century’s political game. You know: argue, debate, and yell at the opposition in order for all that hot air to make room in the middle somewhere for compromise.

Right wing ideologues live in a black and white world, For them, It’s our way. Period. Compromise is a four letter word.

We’re going to have trouble here defining liberal and conservative. I hotly dispute the conservative argument that the mainstream media is liberal. I would like to know at what point the mainstream media became liberal or has it always been such? No it isn’t the mainstream media that has become liberal, it is conservatism that has rocketed away rightward from the mainstream then labeled the media leftist. It’s a slick tactic and those who don’t bother to think it over fall prey to it. It’s like FOXNews declaring itself fair and balanced.

Then let’s forget conservative and liberal, and use the far left and far right. Regardless of where the center is on the spectrum, there’s always a far right and far left.

And I will admit that there is a decidedly liberal bias among educated people and in centers of learning. Conservatives consistently attribute such “travesties” as sinister indoctrination on the part of liberal sorcerers. Whatever the explanation, it would be fairly pointless to debate which side it is that is the great beneficiary today of widespread ignorance.

@bossob It’s the same problem. There are those here who will go to their graves convinced that both Hillary and Obama are somewhere to the left of Trotsky. By the way, the one point to Bernie Sanders if nothing else is that he will put on display to we of the 2 minute memories a genuine populist candidate from the left.

There is a corporate media (and political) bias, not a left or right. That paradigm is used to keep us divided.
“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy” (Georgetown University Professor Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, 1966.)

Hasn’t anyone seen the movie from 1976 called Network?

@stanleybmanly Agree on both points. But I fail to see the relevance of those names in response to my OP question.

Silly me. I really thought my question wouldn’t be contentious.

@SquirrelEStuff >> “There is a corporate media (and political) bias, not a left or right. That paradigm is used to keep us divided.” Agreed. We need to re-name our two parties Populist and Corporate, and then watch the politicians scurry.

The 60s were a time when popular activism was indeed a viable option in this country, and it terrified the right which was very much on the defensive. The right learned, entrenched and struck back and the left has found itself on the defensive since. Once more, to demonstrate just how far the right has managed to pull the political mainstream, consider that it was Richard Nixon who established the EPA, EXPANDED entitlement programs and sucked up to China.

@bossob

That and make it mandatory for politicians to wear patches from the companies that donate (invest) to them.

@bossob. I’m saying the right will tell you that “those names” are attached to far left individuals.

The right would never admit to that “corporate” designation

@stanleybmanly Right about Nixon, and I’ll add Ike for initiating the interstate system and warning us about the insidiousness of the military-industrial complex. For that matter, Bush wouldn’t be selected as a presidential candidate again either.

Obama may be a liberal, even a far left liberal, but he’s no ideologue.

Obama is a moderate, and actually considerably to the right of what passed for the center when Reagan was elected. The thing that is critical to understand is that the Democratic Party has been co opted, and can only be moderate by comparison to the strident politics of the right. The party faces a significant problem with Sanders who is gaining momentum and will force Clinton leftwards where she belongs.

Here’s the difference between the 60s and now. Back then Ralph Nader with grassroots support managed to embarrass both the government and major corporations. Nader had the muscle to force through laws requiring seatbelts and airbags as well as much higher safety standards for vehicles and consumer goods. The corporations panicked and the Republican Party said “give us money and we’ll look out for you”. The resulting deluge of money flabbergasted the democrats who quickly rushed in to announce “Don’t leave us out. We can be bought too” And the rest is history.

Republicans are a laughing stock right now because of how they have been painted in the media. Sensationalism brings headlines and attention which put people in the spotlight. Your average Joe, A.K.A. “me” is moderate. When the pendulum shifts it will be the left using sensationalism to stay in the spotlight. That said, I conservative but only because of a few key issues. It’s been my experience that those who live and breath a hardcore reality with real consequences lean this way. Most if not all engineers I know will self identify as conservative. Those who live in ideal worlds such as researchers, academics and educators naturally lean liberal. This is no accident, it’s a product of experience. To find that sweet spot real world mentality and ideal world mentality should work together more closely. Both viewpoints should be celebrated and not at war. The truth is we need each other

Liberals tend to be the more intelligent party. Therefore they tend to think for themselves, whereas republicans are less intelligent and depend on someone to TELL THEM what to think.

Can we get back on topic? It’s a question about U.S. political history.

^ If the mods took a leather belt to anyone who got off topic, I bet they would learn to stay on. ~~~

Then let’s forget conservative and liberal, and use the far left and far right. Regardless of where the center is on the spectrum, there’s always a far right and far left.

17 of the top 20 major media outlets have a liberal bias.

20 of the top 20 major media outlets have a corporate bias.

Then it would appear those corporations are liberal.

They really all feed from the same trough!! They are fooling all the FooLs!! It is really funny how the so-called blood – sacrificing fascist liberals and the blood – sacrificing nazi conservatives all have the same money donors, drink from the same glass, and laugh at the 99% mind-controlled low grade morons who believe their on separate sides. There are only 2 sides of the money coin!! The Jesuits and the Zionists, they fund all the wars, start all the wars, and our sons and daughters go and die for the so called due diligence of american fighting to keep us safe, while we destroy countries, and bomb them into the stone age!! WAKE-Up you’ve been duped! It is all BS and lie agenda’s to keep people fighting while they tax you more, raise the prices, steal the gold, and live like Kings and Queens. Your government – your Politicians are LIARS!!! Hello are the lights on, or are you still unaware, and uninformed. Time to wake up and smell the Tyranny children!

I’d say the FDR years were very much a loud liberal voice.

@keobooks I would agree, the FDR years were a loud liberal progressive voice. Two of the big differences between that era and now are mass media regulation and ownership. In the thirties, forties, etc., there were limits, both technological and regulatory, which limited the ability of one ideology to cram the limited print space or air time. The only way one could flood public mind would be through such printed media as leaflets, pamphlets, brochures, posters and the like. Radio and television stations were required to program a certain amount of the broadcast day as “public affairs” programming, which in many cases was news. The Fairness Doctrine was an FCC policy that would ensure that any viewpoint on a controversial topic could be countered on the same station.

Due to the increase of the number of media outlets (such as cable and teletext) the Fairness Doctrine was revoked by the FCC in 1987

The expansion of non-broadcast media (starting with cable TV and Teletext, and expanding into today’s world of digital engulfment) made it seem that there were so many more outlets available that it was no longer necessary to enforce fairness in broadcast communications media.

Also, in earlier years there were regulations on how many media outlets (TV, newspaper, radio) could be owned by one person or corporation in a given market. These regulations have also been dispensed with, allowing a consolidation of the media, the likes of which has never been seen. Clear Channel and Comcast are the poster children for this consolidation.