The balance of fervor

Matt Yglesias discusses the hack gap between liberal and conservative pundits.

Let me be clear. I'm not interested in whether Michael Moore could take Bill O'Reilly at roshambo if Bill got three free kicks, or why anyone thinks Paul Krugman is left-wing, or whose body odor has upset Anne Coulter lately. These are all fascinating questions which have been debated with great verve and scrupulous attention to detail elsewhere.

I'm talking about a hack gap that is captured by means, not outliers. On average, liberal pundits are more wiling to criticize each other and liberal candidates. For example, liberals pundits criticize Kerry all the time. They soul search in public. They discuss nuances. The paradox is that we like it that way.

So, I'd like to throw this question out for discussion: Is it liberalism or is it liberals? " Here, "it" is elliptical for "the reason why fierce liberals are rare on talk shows" Is liberal ideology more difficult to sell in the mass media? Are liberals more culturally resistant to focus-grouped talking points and party lines? Is it just a marketing issue?

Eric Alterman has argued that liberalism is intrinsically more complex than most kinds of conservatism, and therefore that liberal pundits are at a systematic disadvantage in no-holds-barred-rhetorical combat. Alterman thinks that most liberal positions are defined by a complex network of empirical and normative beliefs that aren't easily condensed into sound bites.

Imagine an Alterman style scenario in which a liberal economist debates a free-market conservative on TV. The conservative has a tactical advantage because laissez faire is such a simple and elegant idea that generates an unlimited number of intelligible arguments applicable to specific cases. The liberal's rejoinder will probably be much more involved. The liberal will have to agree that the free market is good, but explain why it is failing in this case and what ought to be done about it.

Alterman seems to think liberal ideas are at a systematic disadvantage in the contemporary media. George Lakoff argues that liberals are primarily suffering from a framing problem. He contends that if liberals put the same amount of money into PR and media relations as the Republicans, we too could turn language to our advantage and learn to spread our ideas more effectively in the current media climate.