Another aspect of Breitbart's theory is that "the left does not win its
battles in debate. It doesn't have to. In the twenty-first century,
media is everything. The left wins because it controls the narrative.
The narrative is controlled by the media. The left is the media.
Narrative is everything." If you believe that, it follows that conservative victory depends on building an alternative
media, one that isn't concerned with argument so much as winning back the
narrative through some other means. (A constant feature of Breitbart is
that he tells you all about the terrible evils of something, and then
argues the only way to combat it is to build a right-wing
version of it, an approach that he never seems to recognize as
self-evidently immoral on its own terms.)
What I find strange is that lots of people on the right - almost the entire staff of National Review and all of Reason,
for example - passionately believe that engaging in reasoned argument is a crucial aspect of opposing progressivism. In other words, that reasoned debate does matter. But these
magazines are basically friendly to Breitbart, and never seem to object
when he operates as if the contrary is true. Insofar as people take his worldview seriously, it does grave damage to the right's
entire intellectual project. Isn't this mistake serious enough to
warrant direct, explicit push back, even against a supposedly valuable ideological ally? (That I am often alone in finding his influence on conservatism and libertarianism malign never ceases to amaze me.)
Given
his flawed premises, it's only natural for Breitbart to argue that the most
noteworthy and influential factor in handing the 2008 election to
Barack Obama was the support of Oprah Winfrey. Unmentioned is the
unpopularity of George W. Bush, the weak candidacy of John McCain,
public opinion turning against the Iraq War, the faltering economy - for
Breitbart, Obama won because the media wanted it that way, and they
have an apparent ability to brainwash the public. Can anyone think this a
healthy thing for marginally more people on the right to believe?
Breitbart goes on to tell the familiar story about how back in the dark
old days, before Rush Limbaugh jump-started the rise of conservative
media, there wasn't any talk radio, or Fox News, or conservative
bloggers, or any challenge at all to the "Democrat-Media Complex." In
this telling, the rise of alternative media represents "the successful,
better-late-than-never counterattack against the left's unchallenged
control of a center-right nation," a development that is the greatest hope for conservative resurgence.
It is convenient, if you're a right-wing Web publisher whose livelihood
hinges on ever bigger audiences consuming what you publish, to assert a
master-theory wherein media narrative is everything, the health of the
right-wing media complex is synonymous with the advancement of
conservatism itself, and what the conservative media counterattack needs
is "field generals, platoon leaders, and foot soldiers ready to storm
every hill on the battlefield." (Imagery fit for a commemorative gold
coin.)