Talk Radio’s America: How an Industry Took Over a Political Party That Took Over the United States

by Brian Rosenwald

The march to the Trump presidency began in 1988, when Rush Limbaugh went national. Brian Rosenwald charts the transformation of AM radio entertainers into political kingmakers. By giving voice to the conservative base, they reshaped the Republican Party and fostered demand for a president who sounded as combative and hyperbolic as a talk show host.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, History

350 pages, Kindle Edition

First published August 13, 2019

Reviews

[Robert Sparrenberger · Rating 5 out of 5]

The first half of the book focuses on the rise of rush Limbaugh during the early 1990’s. The second half of the book moves into mainly the Obama years and the rise of Trump. The author’s main point is that conservative radio is a huge echo chamber where hosts entertain listeners with ever increasing right wing dogma. The consequences of this is a purging of moderate Republicans from the party and has created stars of the hard right. The other point is a constant purity test for republicans to live up to with compromise being thrown out the window. Example after example is given on these points.

On a personal note, as I read this I realized recounting the last 20+ years of political warfare why I’ve moved slowly left in my views. It’s not so much that I left the Republican Party but rather the republicans left me.

[Peter Kelly · Rating 5 out of 5]

I recently finished another great book that can be added to the “How We Got Here/Why We’re Polarized” pile. I think this book makes a great companion book to Steve Kornacki’s “The Red and The Blue: The 1990s and the Birth of Political Tribalism”.

Before Facebook memes and InfoWars, Breitbart and Fox News, Talk Radio was the King of conservative media.

In “Talk Radio’s America”, Brian Rosenwald offers a well-researched and enlightening account of how conservative talk radio rose to power and led a growing segment of voters ever further to the right, demonstrably changing how our government functions, bucking traditions and ideals of bipartisanship and frankly scientific rationalization along the way.

In fairness, I do believe that all media (mainstream & otherwise) had its biases back in the late 80s and has its biases now. I do believe that there was an echo chamber created by leading journalists in newspapers and the nightly news and their coverage was slanted in some way. They are not blameless as media shifted away from covering and providing the various perspectives of a large swath of Americans throughout the country. Causes for Polarization: Exhibit A. Over time, of course these frustrated Americans were in the market for new voices to share their ideology.

However, the very real mainstream media biases became amped up and exaggerated so much by talk radio hosts over 30 years that the result is a complete delegitimization of all fact-based media that wasn’t in line with an individual’s political philosophy. It’s now all just “Fake News” to many and I don’t know how they will be convinced otherwise, despite it being in their best interests for their health and livelihood as COVID makes quite clear.

Titan hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, and more are culpable for their audience’s complete distrust of journalism. I believe they are also responsible for defeating pragmatic governance. These same held the vice that squeezed out any compromising moderate Republicans (RINOs as they call them: “Republicans In Name Only”), and amplified further right-leaning, extreme, and hyperbolic voices.

Time and again these voices on the AM dial threw the influence they had over their avid listeners onto the candidate that passed their conservative purity test, even if it cost them the seat to a Democrat. As a result, we are left with far right-leaning Republican legislators who would never make a deal with a far left-leaning Democrat legislator (and vice versa). Of course, the body politic suffers for this as legislation becomes more and more difficult to enact.

“Governance typically requires compromise and nuance, especially during divided government (which existed for twenty of twenty-eight years in the talk radio era). Deal cutting, however, is tantamount to surrender in the black and white world of talk radio. “ (Rosenwald)

Even among Republicans, talk radio and related conservative media stymied any governance because no consensus could be found between the House and Senate caucuses as republican legislators were too afraid that if they compromised, they’d be called ‘weak’ by their local hosts (with no actual skin in the game) and face a primary challenge from an even more radical partisan. 

Frankly, all of this makes sense now anyway since the Republican Party pays its bills these days on being the grievance opposition party, not the party that knows how to govern. For an example, look at Trump focusing on the civil unrest, while trying to make people forget about the COVID pandemic that we haven’t overcome. Trump is running to “Make America Great Again Again” even though it’s Donald Trump’s America right now and he’s the president “whether he knows it or not”.

Every day for the last 32 years, Americans tune in to hosts like Rush Limbaugh as he states and justifies their own thoughts out loud, while often mischaracterizing the opposing idea or policy. People think of these entertainers as journalists even though Limbaugh repeatedly amplifies conspiracy theories to this day. Just because someone says “Folks, here’s the thing” to you as you’re driving in your car and you agree with him politically, doesn’t mean he’s telling you the truth. 
One example of the Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient’s irresponsibility is when Rush said in February that the coronavirus is “the common cold, folks”. I have been told that Rush tells his listeners not to listen to the news since it’s too depressing… “just listen to Rush!”. Causes for Polarization: here’s exhibit B.

Naturally, now we have the Talk Radio President in Donald Trump. A populist brand-name individual with more of a “style” than ideology who cares more about ratings than the rule of law and who traffics conspiracy theories as long as the propagators like him (such as the those who buy into QAnon, a theory that includes such ramblings as: Hillary Clinton, George Soros, and of course, Tom Hanks {and more!} are in a satan-worshipping, cannibalistic child sex-trafficking ring that only Donald Trump can stop). Trump won’t discourage any of these conspiracy theories, but if there is news out there that he doesn’t like, he will decry it is a lie of the mainstream media, an industry that has had its credibility tarnished over the years by most of those same voices on talk radio.

Anyway, this book is a fascinating read. In addition to my lengthy thoughts, check out Rosenwald’s blurb here: http://www.brianrosenwald.com/book


[Bryan Craig · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is another book that is required reading for people to understand the talk radio landscape, thus the Republican political one. Republicans and talk hosts are dancing a tango. Historian Rosenwald goes back to Rush Limbaugh in the 1990s to Donald Trump.

Well researched and written.

[Elizabeth · Rating 4 out of 5]

Informative, thoroughly researched and comprehensive but written in a rather dry academic style. Not exactly light reading, but an interesting history.

[Erik Champenois · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Talk Radio's America" covers the rise of conservative radio from Rush Limbaugh's debut in 1988 to the 2016 election. It shows how talk radio ended up clashing with responsible political governance: whereas politicians have to compromise in order to govern, conservative talk radio, driven by the profit motive rather than the governance motive, thrived on being provocative and controversial and calling for uncompromising, purist conservatism. The resultant pressure on Republican representatives has been an increased inability of Republicans to govern, especially when there's divided government, but even to some degree when Republicans themselves hold all three branches of government.

I read this book to follow up on and expand my understanding of developments in the last few decades, after reading Nicole Hemmer's "Partisans" and Benkler's, Faris', and Robert's "Network Propaganda." I probably didn't need to read this book - as it didn't add quite as much new or, to me, interesting information after reading the other books. I've never listened to talk radio and wasn't as interested in all of the extensive details provided here. But it's a useful book nonetheless for understanding how conservative media increasingly activated voting, shaped Republican priorities, and ultimately remade the Republican Party into a more ideologically purist, less compromising party. Importantly, as Rosenwald points out, this isn't the story of the GOP creating conservative talk radio to benefit the party. That isn't what happened: instead, radio over time realized that conservative talk radio sold well, in turn informing and mobilizing voters, shaping their sentiments, and shaping the Republican Party in the process. Conservative talk radio often benefited the party as it mobilized voters especially in primary elections. But conservative talk radio also ended up clashing with the Republican Party establishment, as hosts favored more ideologically pure candidates over moderates, criticized Republicans whom they viewed as RINOs, supported favored candidates that upended establishment candidates, and ultimately made governance more difficult for Republicans.

Unfortunately, the American media landscape anno 2024 consists of an asymmetrically polarized medica ecosystem, with right wing media being significantly more insular and disconnected from the center and left, and consequently more prone to propaganda and disinformation. "Talk Radio's America" explains the origins and evolutions of this problem as well as how this led us to Donald Trump, the 2015-2016 candidate who most sounded like a conservative radio host and who was himself shaped by conservative media.

It would be interesting to see more extensive coverage of how conservative media shaped Trump over the decades, and of how Trump and conservative media ended up embracing each other in a process of mutual radicalization. After all, while Trump 2016 and 2024 had many of the same opinions and policy stances as Trump 20 years earlier, Trump's modern campaigning on a xenophobic anti-immigration platform was not present in the Trump of 20+ years ago. My guess is that conservative media's increased anti-immigration focus in the 2000s and especially the 2010s affected Trump's evolution in policy stance and rhetoric. Likewise, once Trump had been elected, he interacted significantly with conservative media, including Fox News, Breitbart, and of course on Twitter - often watching Fox News for hours a day instead of prioritizing governing. Trump's response to conservative media - both listening to and acting on conservative media hot topics - and conservative media's response to Trump - defending him as their conservative champion and either ignoring or defending his extremist rhetoric and defending his policies - resulted in a process of mutual radicalization. This radicalization surely furthered Trump's self-justification in attacking traditional media as partisan "fake news" that both did not align with conservative media in its worldview and did not defer to Trump in the way conservative media did. It also led to further political extremism among conservatives, and to the increased susceptibility of conservatives to propaganda and disinformation - which culminated with Fox News' embrace of the "big lie" of 2020 being a stolen election, eventually resulting in the unparalleled $787 million settlement between Fox and Dominion Voting Systems. Trump, who after his 2024 election has nominated multiple candidates from conservative media to serve in his upcoming second administration - and who demands almost unquestioning obedience and loyalty from his followers - will surely further polarize and extremize the American public in the years ahead.

Rosenwald's coverage also presents important lessons for Democrats attempting to win elections after Trump's 2024 win. Liberals were never able to harness talk radio in the same way conservatives were, and other than some limited success under Clinton in the 1990s, largely failed in their efforts to counter conservatives in radio. Liberals are however better able to utilize podcasts and other digital venues and should continue those efforts. More importantly, liberals should not shy away from engaging radio hosts and other conservative or conservative-leaning media personalities. While being careful and strategic is not unimportant, especially when engaging with potentially hostile hosts, it is more important to engage than to shy away from engagement. Kamala Harris' failure to go on the Joe Rogan show due to fears of a progressive backlash is instructive. Hosts are often more able to present themselves as and to speak to everyday Americans and Democratic politicians need to hone this artform and to engage with shows and platforms that reach everyday Americans, even with different political leanings. If nothing else, to at least present a better picture of themselves that may cut against the grain of what some hosts are portraying. While it is important for Democratic nominees to balance the various centrist and progressive factions within their party, it is in my opinion much more important for them to speak to the other side and to the center than it is to speak to the most progressive base which has not shown itself to be competitive enough to reach the broader national public.
---------------------
A few quotes from the last chapter of the book:
"Talk radio has been a force both for and against the ongoing American project of democratization. Talk radio invited alienated conservative Americans into the political process. Hosts encouraged political participation and interest in government, powering activism to a degree that other forms of entertainment and even broadcast news rarely did. Talk radio also increased transparency by surfacing stories that would otherwise never see the light of day, especially before the Internet took off. Talk radio provided more coverage of issues important to conservatives, stories that really were neglected by the mainstream media. That said, talk radio also damaged the functioning of government - and democracy. For as much as hosts opened up the political process for those on the right side of the spectrum, they have sought to foreclose it in other circumstances." (p. 266).

"Talk radio also has harmed democracy by corrupting journalism. Hosts conflate news and entertainment, and sacrifice factual accuracy, in an effort to inflame audiences with exaggerations and misinformation. At he same time, they have labored successfully to destroy the credibility of journalists. One consequence is that a large segment of the polity now depends on entertainers for their news. With time, hosts played to this dependence, promising exclusive scoops and reporting that listeners and viewers wouldn't find elsewhere. But, in many cases, they misled rather than informed. Talk radio also weakened journalism's contribution to democracy by creating echo chambers. The tendency only to receive information from likeminded sources plays a major role in the gridlock and polarization we now see in Washington." (p.267).

[Della Scott · Rating 5 out of 5]

This will definitely be one of my best reads of 2022.
Since I was an avid talk radio listener in the 90s and early 2000s, actually up until the Trump era, when so many sold their souls, I already knew a lot of this stuff. But he digs much deeper. For example, popular wisdom has it that the end of the Fairness Doctrine brought talk radio to its current state. That certainly played a role, but he explains how the quest to make AM radio, which was inferior for music, profitable again, really drove it. Seattle's KVI was actually the model for the whole country.
This is a good companion piece for John Boehner's memoir On the House. Boehner was one of the lawmakers who bore the brunt of the mischief wreaked by vitriolic hosts like Mark Levin.

[Leonard · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a thorough and well documented report on how talk radio changed the political face of the United States. It confirms what I and many others have known for some time, and that is the obvious lurch to the extreme conservative right by the politics of this country leaving us with a so-called "liberal" Democrat president, Obama, who is more conservative than was Nixon, a moderate Republican. And still there are tunnel visioned people out there complaining about the liberals, even though most of them are in the past.

[Mike Deaton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Everyone interested in politicians getting back to work as the founders intended, instead of constantly pandering, demonizing the other "side" and endlessly campaigning, needs to understand this book about the dumbing down of the electorate led by ratings-motivated talking heads on TV and Radio. Gives resonance to John McCain, in his final address to the Senate, "Our incapacity is their livelihood."

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating history of how talk radio and talk-radio rhetoric have made mixed government and bipartisanship impossible: by eliminating one party’s interest in actual governance. After 30+ years of talk radio, nativism and blind devotion to the imbecilic screeds of entertainers are the sole “platform” of the GOP.

[James Hammer · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazing book. I've started learning radio history after reading an article https://swinginwest.com/history/the-h... and now I am reading everything related to this topic. And this book is in my collection now. Highly recommended for those who are interested in how the radio industry works and in politics.

[Csparrenberger · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting book and in the first half of the book, a good discussion of how a.m. radio switched to talk radio to avoid extinction. There are a number of conclusions the author draws that I totally disagree with.

[Liam Cullina · Rating 3 out of 5]

Reread of a book written by one of my professors. Interesting reflection on how echo chambers (starting with talk radio) have essentially entrenched bipartisanship to the point of no return barring a massive shift to the status quo.

[Milkman3367 · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must-read for anyone interested in the causes of our government's extreme political partisanship.

[Will Y · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.25/5.0. An interesting chronicle: Talk radio’s main goal is to make money; if that means spreading a little hatred, so be it. But this book doesn’t offer anything particularly new or insightful.

[Tom Knego · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fabulous discusión and one that should concern anyone about the future of our country

[Dylan Groves · Rating 2 out of 5]

i think i like history books that weigh competing causes of an outcome rather than books that focus on one particular cause.

[Joanne · Rating 5 out of 5]

Compelling argument and fascinating study of talk radio and its role in the origins of today’s combative political climate. As they say, always follow the money. I’d argue that the internet & socIal media are as much to commend for said environment, but talk radio engineers much of this messaging for sure.

[Lara Freidenfelds · Rating 5 out of 5]

In November 2016, my Facebook feed was filled with friends’ dreaded anticipation of Thanksgiving with extended family, and particularly with that uncle: the unapologetic Trump supporter full of crude, bigoted bluster. So many white families seemed to have an uncle like this — even if in liberal families everyone had written him off as a mean, eccentric old coot — that political pundits felt the need to weigh in on dinner etiquette.

At the time, I noticed the pattern, but I assumed that the similarities among uncles were organic, coming out of similar subject positions as older white men angry to see their privilege eroding. But after reading historian Brian Rosenwald’s Talk Radio’s America: How an Industry Took Over a Political Party That Took Over the United States, I suddenly understood those obnoxious uncles, and so much more about the past few years’ politics, in a new way…

read the rest at Nursing Clio: https://nursingclio.org/2019/10/31/he...

[Bob Kuster · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mr. Rosenwald makes a pervasive case talk radio has helped destroy the Republican Party and was responsible for electing Trump. The party of Ronald Reagan no longer exists. Talk Radio's America explains why.