I agree. If a poll were taken asking Americans who most influences them or if one were able to measure the individual who has the greatest say on motion pictures that are tops at the box office, music that hits #1 most consistently, books that are at the top of the bestseller lists, personal fads, and governmental actions, that person would qualify as most influential non-government person in the US. Dobson wouldn't even register in the top 10 on such lists.

I appreciate a lot of Dobson's work, but I'd be a lot more comfortable with him if he described liberals as his ideological adversaries or foes instead of his enemies.

Of course, it depends on what kind of influence you're talking about. When it comes to issues of faith and culture, I doubt you can find a single person who is listened to and/or read by more people than Dobson is.

Well Hugh didn't confine his statement to faith and culture; it was a broad sweeping assertion. But even if you did confine it to that area, I'd argue that Billy Graham might give him a run for his money. Can Dobson sell out a football stadium? And even Oprah, with her new age spiritualism, arguably has a lot of clout regarding such things, especially culture.

I agree with Eric that it depends on what kind of influence you mean. Remember that we're on the third decade of kids since Dobson wrote his first book on parenting. Forget politics for a moment- if you just look at how many people he's indirectly affected with his child-rearing philosophies, he seems very influential to me. He's on the radio several times a day and on more stations than Dr. Laura, Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh. He has less listeners but his are more loyal- and they send him enough money to fund an operation so huge that it requires its own ZIP code. Short-term influence is one thing: long-term influence is something else.

Dr. Phil and Oprah jump from one fad to the next- Dobson stays on message. His recent threats to politicians may hurt him, however. Many pro-family Democrats have supported him and they may be alienated now.

I agree with Eric that it depends on what kind of influence you mean.

Who doesn't agree with that? But I think Hugh should specify that as well, rather than offer sweeping assertions. And while I certainly don't want to downplay Dobson's influence - he's a great guy with a large influence - he's not the most influential in America outside government. . . and I mean long-term as well.

After reading Dobson's essay on beating up his dog in a challenge for a furry toilet seat I would have to say, invoking Godwin's rule, that Hitler had (has) an awful lot of influence in Europe, also.

So, Hugh, what does that say?

I'd argue that Billy Graham might give him a run for his money. Can Dobson sell out a football stadium?

Well, again, even within the Christian community there are different kinds of influence. At the peak of his ministry (which is, regrettably though inevitably, past), Graham was certainly unmatched as an evangelist in America and around the world. But how many people look to Graham for guidance on living the Christian life from day to day, especially regarding parenting and family life? And Graham certainly has never been a "culture warrior."

But I agree with you that Hewitt's statement was too sweeping. And though we can make a case for many other individuals having even more influence than Dobson, I think in the end it's silly to pick any one individual as the most influential in America today. There's really no objective way to do it.

"I doubt you can find a single person who is listened to and/or read by more people than Dobson is."

The Pope.

True Paul, but Hewitt was talking about Americans. Anyway, I responded to Hewitt's rebuttal in the post.

I was also talking about Americans. There are ... a few more than 5 million American Catholics. In California alone.

Ah, good point.

The Pope isn't "in America," though. And I'm sure only a small fraction of American Catholics give as much attention to the Pope as Dobson's 5 million listeners give to him. Although when you include the Pope's influence through the hierarchy of the RCC, I'd agree it's bigger than Dobson's.

And just to continue being a bit contrarian, I think Dobson's listeners/readers are likely to be significantly more faithful and serious about what he says than Limbaugh's. Are there really 25 million people who listen to Rush practically every day and then try to apply what he says to their lives? Extremely doubtful.

Just to give some perspective...I've never heard of James Dobson. Thought it was just me -- not an avid listener of Christian/Conservative radio programs -- so I turned to my office mate. "Office mate, do you know who James Dobson is?" Office mate states, "No, why?"

But both he and I have watched/listened to/read Oprah, Rush, the Pope.

One thing's for sure: James Dobson is a much more influental person than people who've never heard of him realize.

How about this? Who's the most influential American psychologist? Dobson surely trumps Dr. Phil, right, even if Dr. Phil has a TV airwaves? In fact, I'd reckon that Dobson is the most influential American psychologist ever, but at the same time, I can't even name more than a few. In fact, it would be interesting to see in 100 years whose studies/writings/influence is more lasting -- that of the sex researcher Alfred Kinsley, recently immortalized in film, or Dr. Dobson? Just a thought.

I'd reckon that Dobson is the most influential American psychologist ever

Wow. There's no end to the silliness.

"I'd reckon that Dobson is the most influential American psychologist ever"

Yeah, eat it, Skinner!

"whose studies/writings/influence is more lasting -- that of the sex researcher Alfred Kinsley, recently immortalized in film, or Dr. Dobson?"

Hmmm. Yes, this shore is a tough one to answer, I reckon. 'Course, 'round here we don't cotton much to scientists.

Kinsey wasn't a psychologist; he was a zoologist. In any case, his "sex work" has been debunked for the most part.

As for the "most influential" psychologist, I would nominate Binet or Yerkes (and their contemporaries), who developed the modern theories of intelligence and its testing. These men are all dead now, but we all grew up and live within a world whose categories were formulated by them.

Does it mean anything that I'd never heard of this guy Dobson before?

(Of course, I don't think Bill Gates or Oprah are that influential either)

I sent Dobson an e-mail objecting to his use of the term "bull's-eye" for targetting Democrats for defeat. A staff member replied that this is entirely acceptable language for a Christian to use during a cultural war. It just reminds me of the "wanted for treason" ads that certain far-right groups ran against President Kennedy in Texas in the 1960's.

Wow. This thread went a lot farther than I thought I would. And adding to the silliness . . .

What sort of specific *influence* are we talking about? Socio/Political? Cultural? Religious? Yeah, they can all be the related in many ways but, if one looks at the direction our culture - especially our pop-culture, has gone in say the last 40 years, isn't it fair to say that many entertainers have (sadly) had more of an influence & impact on the last few generations than folks like Dobson? Oprah, whom I do consider an entertainer, is definitely one. But so's Madonna. Pick your poison, so to speak. It's not hard to see the indelible effect someone like Madonna has had, for good or ill (mostly ill IMO), on numerous aspects of the lives of 2 generations. Just offering a little perspective. Dobson likely won't have the long-lasting cultural impact it seems Hewitt's trying to give him credit for having; there are others who have changed our culture in more strident ways than he.

And I'm not sayin' that's a good thing.

As a somewhat irrelvant aside, I suspect if you asked, more people would know who "Dr. Dobson" is than "James Dobson".

As to the silliness, that is what happens anytime someone engages in reductionism. Unless you narrowly define your terms, a counterfactual will almost always arise. Unfortunately, the narrower you define your terms, the more likely it is that you're simply defining your X quality to fit the exact person/thing you want to highlight.

In addition to all of the above re: Dobson is the most influential

1. Millions of Parents have or are right now raising children following Dobsons Advice, and have been for over 20 years.

2. Dobsons get out the vote effort for GWB is argueably what got Bushie elected. Thousands of US churches used his video's and printed matter. In an election that was all about getting your base out, Dobson got everyone to turn out.

I have heard of him, but as far as I know, I do not know people who listen to his radio show, or who try to apply what he says to their own lives, or who take his advice on raising children. (Is his advice unusual or groundbreaking, in some way? I would think it would have to be, for him to gain any kind of following in this area.) It is possible that I have met people who do these things, but I agree with the argument that more of us would be aware of the influence of a major figure in the media whose advice is followed by so many people, if he were actually the most influential American outside of government.

Concerning those election videos, is that legal? How did the churches use them? Also, are there more churches than I think that have televisions and VCRs?

Dr. Phil and Oprah jump from one fad to the next.

So do Americans.

Is his advice unusual or groundbreaking, in some way?

It's not radically different from other counselors's advice per se. I'd say it's traditional, pragmatic, and grounded in the Christian faith.

Concerning those election videos, is that legal?

I don't know enough about them to say, but...

Also, are there more churches than I think that have televisions and VCRs?

Just about every evangelical church I've been to with a congregation of more than 100 or so has A/V capabilities at least comparable to a typical college lecture hall. Megachurches often have multiple giant video screens on which they display live video of the service.

Dobson is invisible to the MSM because: 1. he is conservative, and 2. he is Christian, and, worst of all, 3. he applies Christian principles to families and child-rearing.

Why, the guy probably supports school vouchers and other neanderthal ideas.

Everyone knows the State raises the children, that the State knows best, and that the State does not appreciate competition from people like Dr. Dobson.

Large portions of our cultural life are invisible to the MSM; they simply don't exist. If they rear their ugly head, and actually affect events or wield any practical influence, howls and the gnashing of teeth result (as occurred after our last election).

I think that James Dobson's heyday as a person of influence has long since past and it happened about the moment he became so political.

Twenty years ago, when I first became a pastor, Dobson's influence over families and parents was enormous. I would say that most of the young families in the congregation I served then knew who he was and what his ideas about parenting were.

Today, I would say that almost none of the families where I serve as pastor know of him. These are good, committed Christian people. But Dobson has rendered himself so irrelevant by playing politics within a sheltered Christian ghetto that he has shattered much of his influence.

When people's hearts and wills are transformed by Christ, the transformation of politics will follow. The trail Dr. Dobson is following is the route of Pharisaic legalism. No transformation can or will come of it. It's sad to see a man who once exercised such positive influence throw it away as Dobson has.