Social Question

jerv's avatar

Is the "Far Right" a farce, a satire, or a parody?

Asked by jerv (31032points) February 11th, 2010

Are people like Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck actually puppets of the DNC? Are their comments designed to discredit the GOP and/or Conservatives?

Or are they all merely entertainers like Stephen Colbert, not meant to be taken seriously?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

20 Answers

Dr_Dredd's avatar

I think they’re misguided souls who take themselves too seriously and believe their own press releases.

Ivy's avatar

I’m going with farce. As to whether they’re entertainers or to be taken seriously, ask yourself what they’d be doing if they weren’t getting paid to be loudmouth lard for brains.

phoebusg's avatar

Colbert makes subtle jokes often – commonly taking the other side then ridiculing it. Fun times.

I don’t really think the political directions system is of any use. Especially given people get so taken by trying to put the right label on each other – that they miss the point. Point being, solving common city/town/group issues.

JeanPaulSartre's avatar

Nope – because they actually take themselves seriously… I do not know how.

jerv's avatar

@Dracool I suppose Comedy Central would be over-saturated then….

ETpro's avatar

It seems to be an alternate universe in which all facts operate in direct reverse. If an economics principle is good for the nation, it must be spurned. If something curbs our freedom, it must be adopted as a defense of freedom. Down is up, black is white and so on. Whatever facts conflict with ideology are simply reversed so they agree. It’s an ideology-based rather than a fact-based universe.

You can understand the movement much better if you read up on the pioneering work of Dr. Robert Altemeyer. His book, The Authoritarians explains the personality traits that underlie right-wing followers and that their Authoritarian Leaders study in order to exploit the fact they are VERY easy to lead about. It’s online as a free PDF.

Snarp's avatar

I think they are all different and all have different goals and purposes. But you’ve missed another possible motivation: Shifting the Overton window.. By making the most ludicrous statements on national radio and television, and getting media coverage for it, they change the very notion of what the right is. What was once extreme becomes rather moderate compared to some of the positions of the far right talking heads.

Cruiser's avatar

I know a lot of people here will disagree but I would not lump Sarah in with Rush and Glen. Even though she is now a paid talking head, she clearly is setting herself up to run for office again and has a political agenda to pursue where Glen and Rush are simply trying to get ratings and the harder they blow the better their rating. Controversy and chaos sells and is something to be consider for it’s entertainment value and nothing more.

janbb's avatar

In as much as millions of people take them seriously, I think they’re damned scary.

Snarp's avatar

@Cruiser With a best selling book in the stores and at $100,000 per speaking engagement, I don’t think she’s going to run, I think she’s just milking it all while making lots of money without doing much actual work.

Ivy's avatar

@jerv For that to happen they’d have to be funny. That takes care of your examples: Palin, Beck and Limbaugh, unless of course to laugh at them, but even then, it’s a bitter laugh and not a laugh that struck your funny bone.

skfinkel's avatar

This is what they thought about Hitler. A joke. These people are dangerous and need to be taken seriously.

Dan_DeColumna's avatar

Does it really matter, since, thanks to the supreme court, any politician from either side can be bought? The corporations will pick who they want to see in office. Those in power will be those who give big business what it wants. Historically, that has been the Republican Party. However, tempted with virtually unlimited campaign funds, which politician wouldn’t bend over backwards regardless of party allegiance?
-Dan

jerv's avatar

@Dan_DeColumna Well, that has been going on since long before the Supreme Court made it officially acceptable, so I really don’t know how much of an effect that will really have.

Dan_DeColumna's avatar

@jerv: Bribery is as old as sin. “If you disobey God and eat the fruit, you’ll become like God yourselves” Whether or not Satan made good on that deal is irrelevant. It was trickery AND bribery. Its the fact that bribery is now protected under the First Amendment that bothers me. Sure, Microsoft could have bribed such-and-such politician with having one of their employees “buy their friend’s daughter” a brand new car, but now… pheww… Microsoft can legitimately dump, let’s say, hmmm, 50 million dollars on political ads supporting one particular candidate. How indebted is that politician to Microsoft now? Microsoft was chosen simply as an example. It opens the flood gates, so to speak. Before, companies had to be circumspect and subtle, which limited the impact they could have. Now, who knows?

-Dan

Snarp's avatar

I dare say that given the Supreme Court decision combined with the current political climate, the 2012 (if not 2010) election season will be like nothing we’ve ever seen before.

Dan_DeColumna's avatar

@Snarp: It is going to be UGLY!!! And I’m not looking forward to seeing it.

jerv's avatar

Bread and circuses!

Dan_DeColumna's avatar

@jerv: panem et circenses :-D

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther