Although Rush Limbaugh is the conservative figure in the country today that I respect most as a leader of conservative thought, I have decided to make today "bash Limbaugh" day on this blog. The fact is that Rush says so many things every day, and has to try to make them all sound interesting, that he is bound to go off the track some of the time--even to the point of saying some actually stupid things.
Rush has gone down that road to stupidity again today--again promoting an old stupidity which I think Rush knows is stupid. He is just unable to help himself, and he thinks it makes for a more successful radio program.
What if Hohn McCain wins the Presidency? Well, Limbaugh has said--correctly--that this may well mean the death of the Republican Party/conservative movement as we know it. At times, Rush has made the obvious inference that this means that conservatives will be better off if McCain LOSES (the position of this blog). As Rush has pointed out, McCain might actually pass MORE leftish legislation, trying to be "bipartisan" and "get things done", than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama could get passed (over determined Republican opposition). That is because Republicans are not, as a general rule, going to be able to repudiate their own President (as they have not been able to repudiate President Bush on ridiculous new programs such as the Medicare Drug Benefit Program).
Yes, Limbaugh has said what I say in the above paragraph (better than I can say it). However, he also regularly says the OPPOSITE--as if he either can't stomach actually coming out against electing McCain, or thinks that his audience will not really stand for him to suggest that they should vote for a Democrat for real (not just part of "operation chaos"). This systemic inconsistency leads Rush into further, greater stupidities.
Today, Rush indicated that McCain was relying on conservatives to actively take on the Democrats, by exposing Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (Reverend Wright, snipergate, etc.), while also engaging in tactical moves such as "operation chaos." Rush even went on today to say that conservatives are "glad to do it", because we can't stand for those leftist Democrats to win.
Well, Limbaugh is wrong there. I am not "glad to do it" in the sense of helping elect McCain. It hurts me to help McCain. But I refuse to give leftists a pass on THEIR STUPDITY, and wrong headed notions, just because I would prefer Hillary Clinton to be the next President of the United Sates (for the long term good of the conservative movement). Even I can't quite stomach Obama, although I will never vote for McCain.
Rush Limbaugh's own words make it obvious that it is not clear that either conservatives or the country will be better off with McCain. So it is entirely logical to suggest that it is McCAIN who conservatives should not be able to "stand" being elected. That is what is a little funy about Rush (and he is smart enough to realize he is doing this). He can passionately say that McCain will mean the death of the Republican Party, as we know it, and still suggest that conservatives HAVE to oppose the election of Obama or Clinton--equally passionately. It got worse today.
Rush noted that, if McCain wins, "moderate" and lilberal Republicans will assert that as evidence that they don't need conservatives--don't need to pay any attention to what conservatives in the Repubican Party wants. Rush, today, then said this was WRONG. He went off on this long analysis as to how McCain could not possibly win withoug counting on conservatives to take on the Democrats in a way that McCain will not--including Rush's own "operation chaos." In fact, Rush said today that McCain is undoubtedly counting on conservatives to be the "bad cop" (my term) for McCain's "good cop".
This analysis by Rush is, of course, STUPID (however correct he may be that a McCain victory will owe a lot to conservatives like Rush himself).
Liberal and "moderate" Republicans are never going to say that they don't "need" conservatives in the Republican Party. In fact, as Limbaugh says, they COUNT on the votes/aid of conservatives. However, their argument is that the Repubican Party does not need to pay much attention to what conservatives WANT. That is because conservatives have NOWHERE ELSE TO GO (unless they want to do what Rush says is unacceptable: elect a leftist Democrat). The moderate/liberal argument is that Repubicans should run moderate CANDIDATES, and take "moderate" POSITIONS, because that is the way to WIN elections. The idea is that you will ALWAYS get the conservative vote, but that you need "centrists" to appeal to the great "modertate" majority out there.
Is the above position not validated by a McCain victory? Of coure it is. It does not matter that conservatives are necessary for McCain to win, and may even be the major moving force behind a McCain victory. That merely validates the moderate case that they can count on conservatives, while conservative candidates cannot count on "moderates".
Okay, one of Limbaugh's motivaitons here is to blow his own horn as to the perceived success of "operation chaos." Still, is it not STUPID to argue that a McCain victory does not help the "moderate" case? Of course it is. And Limbaugh says other things that make me believe he realizes this (such as the idea that you cannot beat Democrats, in the long run, by adopting a "light" version of their policies, as distinguished from convincing more people that conservative policies are right--meaning that every VICTORY by someone like McCain undercuts that idea).
HOW have "moderates" gotten in this position of what they see as potential "control" of the Repubican Party? It seems to me that they have gotten to this point by being willing to LOSE elections rather than support a conservative (evidenced more on a state and local level than the Presidential elections, as there has been no truely conservative, Republican candidate for President since Ronald Reagan).
Since a McCain victory is necessarily, despite what Rush says, a valdiation of the "moderate" view of a winning strategy, what can derail that strategy? Clearly only one thing. Conservatives have to be willing to see Repubicans LOSE. It is ONLY when "moderate" candidates LOSE that the "moderate" strategy is exposed as a failure.
Now both Rush and I would argue that the "moderate" strategy ULTIMATELY is a LOSING strategy condemning the Republican Party to permanent minority status (as was the case from FDR to Ronald Reagan). Note, however, that this means that Republicans must ultimately LOSE. So why not now? Why drag it out, and destroy the conservative movement in the process? Would it not be better to LOSE now, iwth McCain (as "moderate" Republicans have regularly decided with regard to conservative candidates), than to have a McCain victory destroy the conservative movement (and ultimately the Republican Party as we have known it). I don't say this is an easy question, but it is a decision that conservatives have to make, AT SOME POINT, or condemn themselves to little influence in the Republican Party (however much the support of conservatives may be relied up to elect "moderates").
What makes this HARD? You know the anwer to that. "Moderate"/liberal Republicans have little trouble voting for a Democrat. Their views are not much different from Democrats anyway--a matter of nuance. On the other hand, it HURTS conservatives to vote for a Democrat that they KNOW will be bad for the country.
Thus, I believe Rush Limbaugh is now fully aware of this dilemma. However, it is such a painful one that he prefers to pretty much ignore it--saying contradictory things every day to aovid facing the issue directly. Thus, you have today's "whistling through the graveyard" statements that a McCain victory will be because of conservatives--as if that were not simply a validation of the "moderate" strategy for "victory".
I will try to refrain from further Limbaugh bashing for a little while--extreme provocation excepted--as I think I have done enough for now. I felt compelled to do these last two entries because, in my opinion, these two issues represent the two most fundamental, unresolvedm, long term CONTRADICTIONS in the Limbaugh view of the world. One is the above analyzed contradiction about how much to cave in to "moderate" Republicans to avoid the "greater evil" of electing liberal Democrats. The other is a justified distrust of "corporate elites" warring with the instinct to DEFEND business (including big business) against all major criticism (especially from leftists).
Both contradictions in Limbaugh's world view arise from an instictive desire (sort of like Robert E. Lee) to attack the enemy, wherever they are. Then there is Limbaugh's instinctive grasp of what is best for his radio program, where subtle inconsistencies surely matter less than a consistent, passionate optimism.
No comments:
Post a Comment