Herk
raises some points, but I don't see what they had to do with what I wrote, really.
Who would there be if Dr. Laura wasn't there for the millions of people who tune in and appreciate her advice? Do you think you could fill the bill?
I think there's a whole history of literature dealing with ethics, morality, philosophy, religion, etc. -- and it's lamentable, truly, that we live in an age when a radio or talking heads show purports to replace all that with pez-dispensed "wisdom" that is trite, obvious, ill-informed, and sometimes even hateful.
Pointing out what I consider wrong with Dr. Laura and others of her ilk does not confer upon me the responsibility of replacing her. People who tune in and appreciate her do so, I think, because she is entertaining, not necessarily enlightening. Or maybe the facade of moral enlightenment is appealing -- cheap and easy and somehow "profound."
Far more listeners are grateful for her than the number who dislike her.
How do you know this? Even if you're right, just because a majority of people share a bad idea doesn't make the idea good.
She's popular for a reason. Many people never got the good advice they needed from their parents, their schools or their churches, even their colleges.
You can't measure the inherent worth of a thing by its popularity -- Hitler was popular with a lot of people too (not that I'm comparing Dr. Laura with Hitler, understand). Perhaps she's popular because people like to hear their homophobic bigotry publicly expressed and morally justified, or because the age of television has dumbed down the intelligence and plugged up the patience of the general population, or because we live in an age of excessive co-dependency. Weak-minded people without their own opinions like it when someone like Dr. Laura tells them what opinions to have.
I for one marvel at the good common sense she teaches that is missing so much from the lives of people I work with and communicate with in other ways throughout every week of every year.
You mean common sense like, don't neglect your children by indulging your own selfish impulses? Wow! Amazing advice! Or do you mean common sense like, if a lot of people are attracted to something, that thing must be good? Common sense is all too often an excuse to ignore the moral or logical complexity of a thing.
Occasionally I even hear something like, "Did you listen to Dr. Laura yesterday? Isn't she amazing? She makes such good sense. I don't know how she does it day-after-day." How many of us would be able to uphold a reputation like that despite all the propaganda out there from people who can't stand her guts?
What propaganda have I used? Simply put, I can't stand vapid platitudes parading as profound wisdom, and all I've done is try to explain why. But hey, if I'm wrong, all you have to do is tell me about some of the wonderful, amazing, overwhelmingly sensible advice she gives, every day. I'm game. Blow me away!
Sure, she's not perfect. Nobody is. And she's bound to give advice we might not agree with. For that reason it's easy to find fault and to tear apart what she stands for. But tearing apart is easy. When somebody comes forward with something better, I'll be all ears.
Yeah, my father used the same argument about Witnesses. "When something better comes along, I'll go for it, but for now I'm a Witness and will stay that way." It's a lousy argument, passive and irresponsible. Look, there's a whole lot out there better than the pop morality espoused by Dr. Laura. It takes time and effort to read about it, even more time and effort to absorb it and cultivate your own ethical world-view, and to possess the ability to articulate the principles upon which that world-view is founded ("common sense" is not a principle). If time and effort are resources you don't have, go ahead and indulge yourself. Enjoy Dr. Laura -- nothing wrong with that. But don't pretend it's wise, or that you're somehow morally informed on some higher level.
Dedalus