Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Radio Talk Show Hosts

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I love to listen radio talk shows, not all but a select few. I was wondering if anyone else is a listener.

I think a few hosts demonstrate some, I repeat, some Objectivist ideas. They would in my opinion be just two: Micheal Savage and Jay Severine ( he is on an FM talk station in Boston 96.9, but it is only a matter of before he goes national).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that Larry Elder is an admirer of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman.  He is also a "small l" libertarian.

He actually calls himself a "Republitarian" to distance himself from the Libertarians a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howard Stern might have a general contempt for the government and for rules like most libertarians, but I can't imagine what he has in common with Objectivists. I agree much more with Shrugging Atlas' pick: Michael Savage. I don't listen to him regularly, but his interview with Leonard Peikoff was excellent and showed a surprising philosophical understanding (what other prominent radio host ever mentioned the word "subjectivism"?), an understanding you'll seek and never find within the ranks of libertine libertarians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to listen to whatever slighly "right wing" host was on my local station -- simply because I can mostly stand to listen to them. However, I mostly listen to NPR now. With NPR, during my half-hour commute they will usually have some topic that will make me think. I didn't find that so with any talk-radio -- with most of the latter, you soon can predict what they're going to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I am in a mood to see what my tolerance for pain is, I have a game that I like to play. It's called: "Identify the Logical Fallacy Used by the Radio Talk Show Host". Bill O'Reilly's show is what inspired me to think up this game, since I had such strong objections to what he says 4/5ths of the time.

The least painful show is the Phil Hendrie show, since he brings on 'guests' who he uses as a foil to let unsuspecting callers drive home a point relevant to a recent news topic. What he does is not so much to tell why he is right as it shows that he is right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I listen to John Batchlor on the ABC radio network. He's an outstanding journalist who's major interests are the WoT, Iraq, Israel and other interesting topics. It's all all-guest show, which means no callers - all the guests have great knowledge of their area of expertise like John Loftus (counter-terrorism work). He defines himself as a "liberal Republican", but I find I have much in common with him.

Also there is Michael Savage whom I think is the most entertaining and engaging figure on talk radio. He does share some common ground with O'ists (Peikoff interview) and is very consistant unlike other hosts. He's not simply a mouthpiece for the conservative right or for Bush and this makes him stand out IMHO.

Hannity, O'Reilly and Limbaugh are terrible hosts in my opinion. Hannity is a rubber-stamp Bushite who crawls to the lowest intellectual level to appeal to his mostly ignorant audience (judging from the callers). Limbaugh has his moments, but I can't hold interest throughout a 3 hour show.

There's also Mike and the Maddog and Steve Sommers for sports here in NY :angry:

I enjoy listening to Imus in the Morning, but there are too many damn commericals so I usually just "channel surf" between the AM news stations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that Larry Elder is an admirer of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman.  He is also a "small l" libertarian.

I didn't know him. I watch his TV show sometimes late at night after I get home from work. I did see him have a debate defending the businessman's right to hire whoever he wants and to set the terms of the employment. Remember the case where the employer didn't want any of his employees to smoke? He defended himself well against some liberal senator from Michigan.

The audience booed him though. :angry::P

I listen to Michael Savage when I can though. I won't listen to any other broadcaster. I find his outbreaks at callers hilarious! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just checked out Michael Savage on the web (because I'd forgotten why I disliked him). His theme is "our borders, our language, and our traditional culture".

It doesn't get more non-essential than that does it? Couldn't Hitler have had the same motto? If yes, and if Savage is very different, then why does he not use his essential ideas as his banner?

Can any Savage fans tell me (from his shows) how you would sum up his fundamental philosophy.

As for Stern being anti-establishment: ofcourse he is. He's pretty much anti-anything. A person doesn't get closer to personifying nihilism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can any Savage fans tell me (from his shows) how you would sum up his fundamental philosophy.

He's a self-described "Nationalist". Savage is the conservative that's "almost" there. What I mean by that is we'll give 15 mintues of great commentary about the War on Terror.. but then he'll say we need a draft in order to shape young people. His religious/faith based positions are more against the multi-culturalists than are "pro-religion". But, this "borders, language, culture" isn't Hitlereque in my opinion and I think we can relate to them too. Liberalism and nationalism are related and we need to curb the illegal immigration problem (my solution is dismantling the welfare state and increasing legal immigration); we should speak a common language despite of the calls from the racists that every language, every culture is equal; Americans share a common Nature: the Liberal (philosophically) who walks the fine line between freedom and equality, who works harder than any other in the Western world and is home to the nation that most values the mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should all speak a common language, by law?  I'd say that it's rational to speak the most common language of a country, but it shouldn't be mandatory.  If a person can be productive and live peacefully speaking Klingon, that in no way violates the rights of anyone.

But the government shouldn't accomodate foreign languages. We need a single language to write legislation in. Considering our COnstitution is English, our language should be too. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does "our language should be too" mean? Sure the government needs to establish an official language for law and such, but that doesn't mean that its citizens need to learn this language by law. And what precisely do you mean by "accommodating other languages." Based on his anti-immigration stance, I would guess that Savage's "one language only" view is really just dislike of foreign culture as such, i.e., mindlessness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...