The Daily Telegraph is publishing its list of the 100 most influential conservatives and 100 most influential liberals in America, compiled with the input of its DC correspondents. The Telegraph's criteria:
To qualify for the lists, people have to live and work in the United States. conservatives are people identifiably – though not always self-described – as right of centre. liberals – though the term is an unpopular one in the US, with even Hillary Clinton preferring “progressive” – are those identifiably left of centre.There are interesting choices, take a look at the top 20. I’ll pick a couple of ones further down the food chain to feature, look at who made #89 on the conservative list:Although there are many Republicans on the conservative list and many liberals on the Democratic list, not all 200 are aligned with a party. The key to inclusion was the term “influence” – which people do, and will, most affect American politics both in terms of ideas and the enactment of policy.
We have chosen political candidates, pollsters, campaign operatives, members of think tanks, journalists, bloggers, fundraisers, big-money donors and the occasional celebrity.
89. SENATOR LARRY CRAIG
Senator for Idaho
 |
He tried to make the issue go away by pleading guilty quietly. Then when the news broke he changed his mind but said he would resign from the Senate. The courts have rejected his bid to alter his plea and in another about face he is trying to cling on to his Senate seat. An unseemly ethics scandal Republicans could do without.
If you want to see a really offensive choice on the “liberal” side, look at this selection —
95. HAROLD FORD
Chairman: Democratic Leadership Council
 |
The centrist DLC is much less of a player than during the rise of the New Democrats under Bill Clinton but expect it to come much more to the fore if Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination and needs to attract moderate voters.
An able congressman, he narrowly lost a bid for a US Senate seat in Tennessee in 2006. The son of a congressman and still only 37, Ford might run against for the Senate next year. Whether he does or not, his future is bright and if Obama fails this time, Ford would be an outside bet for first black US president.I can’t wait to see your comments on the list…
27 Responses to “A view of American politics across the pond - most influential 100 conservatives and liberals”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I got to #4 on the conservative list before a typo made my head hurt.
There are many outrageous, as well as just plain silly, choices not least of which is Gropenator Ahnold as the #8 most influential liberal.
I found it interesting that General John Abizaid (ret.) was listed as liberal #58 because:
Does this imply that unless your a bat-shit crazy warmonger, you have to be a left-wing liberal despite military/regional expertise and no liberal or Democratic connections? I guess this explains Giuliani being #1 on the conservative list –after all he is running as the #1 bat-shit crazy warmonger of the current GOP presidential candidates with the pre-requisite of no military and no foreign policy experience.
It’s lucky for so many on the so-called “liberal” list that they lost no points for being gutless or corporate whores whose liberalism extends only to spouting just enough nostrums to keep the great unwashed quiescent.
I self-identify as a conservative not because of what policies I believe in, but in how I approach problems (from first principles versus Amanda’s typical bottom-up analysis).
Last week I took a quiz that would tell you who you should vote for based on your beliefs, and it said Hillary. And I just now realized that I think all of the Top 20 on the conservative side are douchebags.
I don’t know where this leaves me.
Trying to rank people using subjective criteria is a fool’s errand. When you try to do that, you wind up with idiocy like naming Schwarzenegger the #8 most influential liberal, and saying that Oprah is “very possibly the most influential woman in the world”, despite the fact that you’ve ranked two women ahead of her.
It’s nice to see that the Telegraph is still adhering to the high standards we’ve come to expect from that publication.
How far up their collective ass did they have to reach to come to the conclusion that Chuck Norris, Drew Carey, and Barbra Streisand held any political clout?
One’s first thought is that any paper deluded enough to believe that is not to be trusted or taken seriously. Then one remembers that this is the Telegraph, one of the most reliable nasty right wing mouthpieces in Britain, which brings one to one’s second thought: this whole discussion is a bloody waste of time.It makes you a Liberal, Petey. A dirty fucking liberal.
Which is fine because being a liberal isn’t so much about the process of how you get here but the fact that you’re here, in the Reality based camp, trying to do good. We liberals like different points of view, which is why you are one and not a lock-step Conservative. A conservative foot soldier would be incapable of saying they disagree with anyone in the top twenty.
which brings one to one’s second thought: this whole discussion is a bloody waste of time.
Welcome to the Internet, seeker - you’re going to hate it here.
We call it the Torygraph for a reason.
Ingraham 15th and the 3rd highest pure pundit behind Rush and Drudge? Should be around the 3rd page.
How about Lieberman making both lists?
If this list were taken a year or two later Jindal would be way higher than 61; he’ll be a favorite for the ‘12 nomination (yes, I’m confident the GOP will have to go through the process.)
It must say something when the sitting conservative president is 21 on the conservative list while the guy he replaced is number 1 on the liberal list and the guy he stole the white house from is number 2.
Also this makes the excellent case of why we progressives/liberals need to fight for progressive talk (earth bound) radio. Of the top 20 influential Conservatives, 4 spots are occupied by radio talk show hosts.
3. MATT DRUDGE
Internet journalist and talk radio host
5. RUSH LIMBAUGH
Talk radio host
15. LAURA INGRAHAM
Talk radio host
18. GLENN BECK
Talk radio host
There really can be no arguing about the effect these people have and why we need to work hard to regain our progressive talk stations http://www.nonstopradio.com
On what planet is Kos more influential than MoveOn?
Must be that planet that is made up of professional yakkers, some of which call themselves journalists and make up their minds on a daily basis sort of Hillarystyle whether to sneer at bloggers or embrace them by redefining them as their own.
Also Coulter and Thomas should be way higher than 80s…surprised to not see Cheetos Goldberg on the list.
Evan Bayh 10th?!
Colin Powell is no liberal, let alone 23rd (ahead of Johns Kerry and Edwards?!) even if he’s not your average conservative either. Jimmy Carter should be way higher than 72nd, and Ted Kennedy should be way higher than 85th.
I agree that the list is mostly bullshit - I stopped reading the bios after looking at the top 20s - but it was interesting getting a visual reminder of just how much old white men control the conservative movement. I went through and tried to count the number of women and minorities picked in each category. I got seven women and five people of color (that’s counting some people twice - I did the same for the liberals.) Seven women and five people of color… niiiice.
For contrasts’ sake, I counted seven women and four people of color in the liberal top 20. Looking at the whole top 100, it came to 19 and 17.
A non-reality based list, is my guess? I haven’t followed the links yet, but Arnold “vetoes progressive legislation” is no liberal. I don’t see why someone described as *centrist* is on either list; center would theoretically be neither conservative nor liberal– but given how far off the Overton window is, would actually be realistically described as conservative, just not Batshit Conservative.
And because true liberals are largely shut out of public discourse, the list would probably be smaller than 100. I hope they included Krugman; now that Molly Ivens is gone, he’s the main voice of sanity on op-ed pages. I’ll go look…
ace,
Colin Powell must be on the liberal list for the same reason as John Abizaid — he’s not a bat-shit crazy warmonger.
I looked at the top 20 “liberals” and realized that this list is a farce. Only 4 listings (5 people because of the MoveOn listing) are actually liberal. The rest are centrist or conservatives.
I couldn’t help but laugh when they said conservative Dixiecrats like the Clintons are “liberal.” The Telegraph is as right biased and unprofessional as any corporate publication in the US.
The claim that the DailyKos and the guy who runs it are liberal was worth a giggle or two as well. DailyKos is a place for highly partisan centrist and conservative Democrats. They are entitled to their views, but no one should have any illusions on the intent of that blog.
At least the story was worthy of a few laughs before I got bored.
Oops, I got curious and looked at 21-40 on the liberal list. Only three of them are actually liberal.
41-60: only 4 liberals
61-80: 9 liberals (an improvement)
91-100: 7 liberals
Totals: only 27 liberals listings (28 liberals)
This is a hoot!
How they came up with “who gets into what catagory”, let alone the placement, is a wonder. But then again, this is the same country that finds it amusing to count how many times a prince picks his nose, with 20 photos to boot and commentary from the tissue industry.
I’ve been trying to make sense of this. I presume that despite any epiphanies you may have had lately, you still think this makes sense, Petey?
Anyone can say they have “principles;” in fact I think just about every human being does, and acts in accordance with them. It gets ugly because principles can just as well be vicious and selfish as otherwise.
So there are a lot of hidden assumptions in this world-view of yours, Petey. Whatever “principles” you think are “first” are privileged; from your point of view, other people who disagree with your first principles are just wrong, and confused, lying, or hypocritical if they claim to have real principles.
Now I suppose it might make sense that a person who starts from “first principles” would logically be a “conservative” if there were some objective ground for those principles to have been generally recognized as correct at some time in the past, and if back in those days of yore, society were in fact generally organized around said principles which were honored with some consistency. If these conditions held, then conservatives–those who hold on to the way things have been done in the past–would be principled, whereas their rivals would presumably be a bunch of unprincipled upstarts.
So, do you seriously think that at some time in the past, people generally or at least Americans lived by the “first principles” you hold dear, and then we went astray?
Because it’s my impression that this is only true in paintings by Norman Rockwell and books by Laura Ingalls Wilder. Look at real history, and it’s pretty hard to identify any kind of Golden Age in the past, not any that didn’t involve outrageous misery for very large numbers of people and crying injustice for pretty much everyone.
You contrast your approach with how you see Amanda (and presumably others) working “bottom-up” so I suppose you’d be OK with characterizing your approach as “top-down,” right? Well, “top-down” can imply authoritarianism. Some people know the “first principles” better than others; some of them (perhaps) adhere to them more strongly and apply them more consistently; those people ought to be in charge and others should just shut up and obey. So again; you might reasonably arrive at being what is called a “conservative” in this country these days, and be comfortable in their company, because by golly that is what characterizes reactionaries–devotion to the authority of the privileged, and lots of pious rationalizations for why their running roughshod over others isn’t really a bad thing at all.
But I believe that “the way that can be named is not the Eternal Way.” No set of stated moral axioms can serve as the logical basis of a flawless, universally applicable ethics, certainly not as any kind of infallible guide to right action in this world of changes and developing subtleties. It can be a good thing to have a few moral guideposts written down and committed to memory, but a person who must always be consulting some text of rules and pettifogging over just how to apply them is not much of a moral person; better perhaps they do that than act at random or perversely, but we’d see such a person as either a novice at this humanity thing or some kind of morally disabled person. The map is not the territory, Petey. And to live in this world is not like playing a board game.
Now you might think there is something special about your map; it’s a Magic Map perhaps. But judging by your comment, that isn’t really working out for you the way you expected, is it?
If a few “first principles,” properly expounded, were sufficient for the conduct of a humane life, why exactly do we need these brains we have? And how come humanity is floundering around, if you’ve got the key to life written down on a few pages?
The notion that there is some set of commandmants indicating the true path of righteousness for everyone for all time is of course necessarily a Creationist one. From within that framework it might make sense that some archangel or visionary prophet has handed over the Law written in fire or on stone tablets.
But despite some ugly arguments, I have had the impression that lately you are making some sense a fair amount of the time, Petey, so at least you are aware that not everyone shares your premises and yet is not necessarily evil for that, and that your own premises have proven to be a bit tricky to operate under. So welcome to the reality-based community, Petey.
I just have to wonder, how could anyone living in the past generation of US politics–since the early Nixon years anyway–confuse the people who call themselves “conservatives” with principled people, at any rate as holders of any kinds of principles a person would not be ashamed to admit out loud. Greed, self-interest, divide-and-rule, to hell with tomorrow, get it now, winner take all and devil take the hindmost–these may qualify as “first principles.” Just ask Ayn Rand. But I don’t think those were the kinds of “principles” you thought you were consulting, were they?
So, do you seriously think that at some time in the past, people generally or at least Americans lived by the “first principles” you hold dear, and then we went astray?
Because it’s my impression that this is only true in paintings by Norman Rockwell and books by Laura Ingalls Wilder.
And, just to be pedantic, Laura’s writings were heavily edited by her daughter, Rose Wilder Lane, who was heavily involved with Ayn Rand and the founding of the Libertarian movement. For example, in Little Town on the Prairie, Laura works very hard to send Mary to school. Problem: the school was government funded, and Mary didn’t have to pay. Laura was working for the money to buy the supplies, not the tuition.
Which just adds to your point, Mark
Jesus, I knew Wilder was kinda loopy Midwest Republican Conservative, the kind that lived to hate FDR, but not that Randroid connection.
Wouldn’t that have been an explosive mixture, Randian atheism and Taftite smarmy Christianism?
Two rancid tastes that apparently go perfectly ill together, logic be damned.
Dear Britfriends:
Are these lists truly how USan politics looks to the Tories? e.g. does Ahnuld really seem like a *liberal*, to your Conservatives? Or is this “Your Brain on Drugs, Trans-Atlantic Edition”? Like perhaps, they were put together in a pub using some combination of a dart board and alcoholic beverages?
Well in the rest of the Western world where our political discourse hasn’t been polluted by talk radio right-wing blowhards, ‘liberal’ does not stand for ‘moderate social democrat’, it stands for ‘right-wing centrist dedicated to the free market and a reduction in the size of the state’. So that may explain why Kos and Clinton make the list as liberals even though they have nothing in common with my friends at Pandagon… Just a thought.
Even worse than the lists seemingly having very little idea about who is liberal, is that the list has approximately zero grasp on what is influential or powerful. The list mixes at random people who are powerful mostly on a procedural politics level (fund raisers, campaign managers, various fixers and bagmen, politicians with no real national or public support but who are chairs of powerful committees, etc) with currently operating politicians with elder statesmen (Bill Clinton, Albright, etc) with pundits/journos (Markos, Michael Moore, etc) with theoreticians (Krugman) with advocacy orgs (MoveOn, Medea Benjamin, etc) with behind the scenes players (staffers, policy experts) with random oddball crap (actors and celebs and George Soros and Warren Buffett). That’s not really a defensible or coherent stew.
Any 100-item list of influential liberals that doesn’t have Richard M. Daley - who controls the mayoralty of Chicago, the Cook County Democratic Party, the governorship of Illinois and the Illinois Democratic Party is just foolish. Andybody who doesn’t notice that the Burton-Brown machine controls the Californian Democratic Party just literally doesn’t know enough about American politics to be making this sort of list.
I find it entertaining that GWB isn’t even in the top 20 - when the office of President is frequently referred to as “leader of the free world.”