RSS
Throwing Talk Radio Under the Bus
If one were to take the Sunday shows as any indication, there must have been a memo that went out amongst Republican Party stalwarts to do anything possible to put distance between the Party and Rush Limbaugh. And yet, when Rush showed up at the CPAC conference to make a speech, he elicited eight standing ovations and clearly energized the crowd. What is going on here?
Let us set aside for one moment the question of whether Rush espouses a doctrinally pure conservatism. I promise, for those of you who are frothing at the mouth to denounce his conservative heresies, we will talk about that at the end of this post.
At the outset, any fair minded person would have to acknowledge that the controversy with Rush was created by comments made by President Obama that the Republican Party needs to stop listening to Rush. From that moment, Republicans have scampered for cover, assuring anyone who would listen that Rush doesn’t speak for them. In the current vernacular, they are throwing Rush under the bus.
Sure, one could argue that Rush brought this upon himself by saying that he hoped President Obama would fail in his attempt at adoption of his economic (“socialist,” as Rush pronounced them) policies. If one would concede that, then one would have to concede that the Bush administration was the epitome of open-mindedness and tolerance given the fact that “comedians” like Bill Maher and Keith Olberman slandered the president’s character on a nightly basis. Does anyone remember George W. Bush or anyone in his administration warning Democrats that if they hoped to get along (read: pass any legislation) with the administration, they should denounce Maher et. al.? I don’t either. The phenomenon seems to be peculiar to the Obama administration – this penchant for attacking one’s critics in the media.
What is really puzzling is not that Obama and his minions would attack the administration’s detractors, the Left has a long history of these sorts of tactics. The real surprise is the Republicans’ willingness to follow Obama’s lead and cast off one of its most effective spokesmen. You may hate Limbaugh. But you cannot deny that he captures the attention of millions of Americans every day. In addition, on balance, I think even the most ardent detractors on the Right would acknowledge that Rush does more to promote conservative values than he does to destroy them. And they would easily acknowledge that Rush is less of a threat than Obama himself.
On this issue, that Republicans (or conservatives, if one has abandoned the party) should denounce Rush for his statement that he hopes Obama’s socialistic goals fail, I wonder what the right position is. Does Ron Paul hope that Barack Obama succeeds in pushing his Socialist agenda down Americans’ throats? Why would anyone denounce Rush for that stance? Because he has the temerity to say that he hopes a black man fails? I want to know what is at the root of this reaction. Why shouldn’t the masses support Rush on this issue? Why shouldn’t that sort of rhetoric propel butts out of auditorium seats in fits of wild applause? How can anyone defend as sane this late Republican impulse to distance oneself from such a stance? What does that say about the Republican Party that when Rush says he hopes Obama fails to turn this country into a Socialist Paradise that the Party feels compelled to denounce him?
To clean up a few other items: Did Rahm Emanual really just say that Obama is going to make the economy contract – for the good of America? At around 6:15, Rahm states:
The Republicans will have the opportunity not just to criticize, but to propose. And the question is: Will they continue the path of the seven years that got us to the point of – basically a culture of rising deficits and more and more consumer spending? This budget deficit – for this budget and economic program fundamentally changes the culture in this way – it rejects the past and says we are going to be a culture and a society that invests and saves.
Those comments appear to me to be a clear message from the Obama administration, that it is not at all concerned about growing the economy. If it were, consumer spending is one of the mainstay signs of a confident and expanding economy. Emanuel has stated that this administration is more interested in promoting saving and investment. It should probably be noted that when this administration says “investment,” it means that people should send their money to Washington and allow Washington to spend it on programs and projects which it deems worthy.
In the last week, the Dow Jones Industrials have been in a nosedive. And yet, it does not appear that the Obama administration is concerned in any way. Indeed, the nosedive is directly related to his policies. One way to look at the stock market is to see it as the “experts” opinion as to what the economy will look like in 9 months or a year. And yet, even after Obama passed his stimulus plan and witnessed a minor crash of the market in its wake, he has now proposed an unprecedented expansion in spending and sent the market once again into retreat. One can only conclude that Obama is not concerned about the market or about business, but rather is more interested in advancing his own agenda where the government assumes a larger and larger role in people’s lives. One clear example of this attitude can be seen in the fact that it appears that America will have the largest corporate tax rate on earth when all is said and done. The message is being sent: We do not want business in America. Let us all hope the Obama presidency is less than “successful.”
March 5th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
I am all faclemt. I posted a comment, noticed that my name appeared as “snickerdoodle” (a term I googled) and tried to amend the situation. I ended up deleting the comment, etc. Anyway, here it goes….
“it rejects the past and says we are going to be a culture and a society that invests and saves.”
I ask how taxing more helps people save money? I could swear that higher taxes results in less income. And how does the government spending record amounts demonstrate saving? Rahm, you are a jackass.
March 6th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Karl: “there must have been a memo that went out amongst Republican Party stalwarts to do anything possible to put distance between the Party and Rush Limbaugh.”
Of course there was. One only need look to Michael Steele’s initial comment (before his throw-away apology) for verification.
“when Rush showed up at the CPAC conference to make a speech, he elicited eight standing ovations…”
From a bunch of Rich Lowry wannabes? I’m shocked. Shocked, I say.
“[A]ny fair minded person would have to acknowledge that the controversy with Rush was created by comments made by President Obama that the Republican Party needs to stop listening to Rush.”
Don’t be silly. It started when Obama’s ill-advised picks for various posts were drubbed by Rush and others as tax cheats or what have you. What did you expect for the Obama team to do? Say, “gosh, you’re right. They’re tax cheats. I remember you guys used to, once upon a time, decry the taxes they cheated on, but we digress.”? Of course they were tax cheats. That’s immaterial to the issue you’re talking about. The dissing started with Rush and the Limbettes. It’s a tough gig, that pundit job.
“From that moment, Republicans have scampered for cover, assuring anyone who would listen that Rush doesn’t speak for them. In the current vernacular, they are throwing Rush under the bus.”
You expected anything else from the crew that brought you Rudy Giuliani, Michael Steele, Ken Mehlman, et al ad nauseum?
“The phenomenon seems to be peculiar to the Obama administration – this penchant for attacking one’s critics in the media.”
No, it began in earnest some time ago, but for kicks and giggles, remind yourself of Nixon, Clinton, and W. (Remember the job they did on Plame and her husband?) If you expect to make this point of yours stick (that vilifying your critics is unique to Obama’s team), you have a lot of slips of paper to shove down the memory hole.
“And they would easily acknowledge that Rush is less of a threat than Obama himself.”
I’ll acknowledge it.
“On this issue, that Republicans (or conservatives, if one has abandoned the party) should denounce Rush for his statement that he hopes Obama’s socialistic goals fail, I wonder what the right position is. Does Ron Paul hope that Barack Obama succeeds in pushing his Socialist agenda down Americans’ throats? Why would anyone denounce Rush for that stance?”
Who, exactly are you shifting the blame to? It wasn’t the paleo Right who started (or even much continued) the tossing of Mr. Limbaugh bus-ward. The paleo Right, and the paleo Libertarian strain among them, are the ones holding Obama’s dodges and mendacity up to light. Of course they don’t hope his socialism succeeds. It’s GOPers enabling the man by passing (even “suspending the campaign” to pass) his agenda. Even before it was “his” agenda. Because it’s their agenda, too, now. There is no substantive (only a quantitative) difference between them.
As to your last question, “What does that say about the Republican Party that when Rush says he hopes Obama fails to turn this country into a Socialist Paradise that the Party feels compelled to denounce him?” the fact is they’re engaging (and, if your post is representative) in the subterfuge Michael Steele and Co. want them to: get conservatives (real and imagined) talking about anything but the ideology of the GOP as it now stands. Particularly someone as polarizing as the supposed “voice of the movement.”
Emanuel is a tool, and of course a menace. That said, he makes one bit of sense: what’s your solution, guys? He knows the answer: their solution is his solution. They’ve already signed on. Keep giving money to Big Finance.
Since when is it conservative to call for government to “grow the economy”? If it isn’t, why are you criticizing them for not being concerned about it?
“Obama is not concerned about the market or about business, but rather is more interested in advancing his own agenda where the government assumes a larger and larger role in people’s lives. One clear example of this attitude can be seen in the fact that it appears that America will have the largest corporate tax rate on earth when all is said and done.”
Another clear example is shifting detainees from Gitmo to other bases here in the States with no change in status, the intrusion of military units into domestic law enforcement – er, public safety – roles, shifting troops from Iraq to Afghanistan (all of which the GOP also supports), etc. They’re both Big Government now. They’re both Big Money now. Etc, etc.
Where are the Fair Taxers now? I won’t belabor the point by bringing up a hundred other abandoned principles.
March 7th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Wow, V, you’ve given me a lot to chew on. I particularly love the following:
Don’t be silly. It started when Obama’s ill-advised picks for various posts were drubbed by Rush and others as tax cheats or what have you. What did you expect for the Obama team to do? Say, “gosh, you’re right. They’re tax cheats. I remember you guys used to, once upon a time, decry the taxes they cheated on, but we digress.”? Of course they were tax cheats. That’s immaterial to the issue you’re talking about. The dissing started with Rush and the Limbettes. It’s a tough gig, that pundit job.
Do you see what you’ve done here? First, you disagree with my basic premise that Obama created the controversy which caused Republicans to turn on Rush in the first place. Your premise seems to be that he had no choice but to react to Rush’s charge that his political appointments were tax cheats. That premise is faulty. Only a very insecure person feels the need to respond to every jibe, however inane. Actually, if they were reacting to anything, I think it would have been Rush’s statement that he hopes the president fails – not Tim Geithner is a tax cheat. But, this is where your rhetoric gets interesting because then you present a version of the response you imagine Obama might have offered (or which you imagine we should have expected him to offer) and conclude that of course, they’re tax cheats. “That’s immaterial to the issue you’re talking about.”
I don’t remember bringing up taxes at all. Did you just cut down your own straw man to prove that Rush started it and Obama only responded because he had no choice? And, what if that is the case? Should that mean that Republicans should disown Rush? I think you argued yourself away from point.
Then, somehow, I became the focus…
“You expected anything else from the crew that brought you Rudy Giuliani, Michael Steele, Ken Mehlman, et al ad nauseum?” No. I’m not really surprised that Republicans are spineless, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t call them on it when they are being especially stupid.
“Who, exactly are you shifting the blame to? It wasn’t the paleo Right who started (or even much continued) the tossing of Mr. Limbaugh bus-ward.”
On this, you have a point. One can only understand what I was doing here if one considers the overall dynamic which has been prevalent on this website for the past year or two. As you know, we have (or perhaps had) a handful of paleo-right commenters who have visited their opinions on us on a fairly regular basis. Notable in the attitudes expressed from that party has been a palpable disdain for any talk radio host and his opinions – especially Rush Limbaugh. You are right – the paleos have always hated Rush Limbaugh. I suppose it is because he is not sufficiently pure of ideology. My point here is that paleos (at least the ones on this website) often seem to lose sight of who the true enemy is. I am not shifting the blame to the paleos for Michael Steele’s betrayal – that would be silly. I was writing to the audience that I perceive on this website.
Here’s another little gem of yours (I love how you have twisted what I said): “Since when is it conservative to call for government to “grow the economy”?”
V, you know me. You’ve personally known me for 22 years. In your experience, do I believe that it is government’s role to grow the government? Is it perhaps possible that you have wrenched one sentence out of context – the context not only of this post, but also of everything else I have ever written – in order to score rhetorical points?
Let’s suppose for a moment that you overreacted. Can we assume that I may have been reacting to Rahm Emanuel’s suggestion that the appropriate government action is to tax and spend itself out of this depression? That the marked lack of concern for the market is not only a blind spot, but is actually telling about the priorities of this administration? Does the government not have an interest in promoting policies that promote growth of the economic market? If I were to suggest that government should adopt policies that lower the burdens on private business to pursue wealth, and that government should do so with an eye toward facilitating growth in the domestic economy, have I just said that government should grow the economy? If I have, then I am proud to stand branded as a heretic of conservatism.
March 7th, 2009 at 11:59 am
That’s a decent enough deconstruction of my remarks, as far as it goes. This site is controversialism writ large. That’s what the concept is. It’s a Donnybrook. There are supposed to be harangues and gotchas.
A few issues, though:
“Your premise seems to be that he had no choice but to react to Rush’s charge…”
Well, they’re in politics. That is what they do. My jab was actually, if you think about it for a moment, a criticism of the Obama team: they promised change and give us the same Clinton/Rove politics. The administration is almost entirely Clinton/Bush! My criticism is not directed at Limbaugh but at Obama and the GOP as they are one and the same thing. The issue you were talking about, if I could state my reception of it, is the schizophrenia among the so-called conservatives. My comments were directed at one target: the fundamental betrayal of principles and that subsequent schizophrenia. The actually conservative populous of the GOP (and there is, of course, such a base) have been slowly but surely sold a liberalism in palatable rhetoric. This should come as no surprise from me.
But to state, as you did, that 1) Obama started a chain reaction leading to 2) throwing Rush under the bus is controverted by the facts. Now. I will try to restate things with that previous paragraph of mine freshly laid out there.
It’s interesting. In a sense, Limbaugh did start “it” (with the questioning of judgment and/or competence of Cabinet picks including three tax cheats) but he did so in a way that reveals the abandonment of his earlier articulated principles of rightly ridiculing the taxes they cheated on as immoral and unjust! That was my point. Should Limbaugh be thrown under the bus for saying he hopes Obama fails? No. He should be thrown under the bus for criticizing Obama in the manner I just described. Should the GOP throw him under the bus for criticizing a half-black president? No. Should the GOP throw him under the bus for saying he hoped Obama fails? Again, no. My little diatribe was designed to point out that the broken clock accidentally got the time right, all the while thinking it was 7:15 when it was actually 5:21. How that shows I talked myself out of my point, I don’t know. I’m sure you’ll elucidate.
“Notable in the attitudes expressed from that party has been a palpable disdain for any talk radio host and his opinions – especially Rush Limbaugh. You are right – the paleos have always hated Rush Limbaugh. I suppose it is because he is not sufficiently pure of ideology. My point here is that paleos (at least the ones on this website) often seem to lose sight of who the true enemy is.”
As I just got through explaining, it is not the Old Rightists who have failed to identify the true enemy. The New Rightists have. Rampant militarism is not of the Right. The pro-illegal immigration position (and even pro-massive immigration) is not of the Right. Support of unfettered, totally laissez-faire libertarian capitalism is not of the Right, either. Cobdenism is a variant form of materialist socialism, and I know you know this. That’s what makes the next part of your critique so weird:
“You’ve personally known me for 22 years. In your experience, do I believe that it is government’s role to grow the government?”
Did you mean to say “grow the economy?” I don’t understand it as it is.
“Is it perhaps possible that you have wrenched one sentence out of context – the context not only of this post, but also of everything else I have ever written – in order to score rhetorical points?”
No, I wasn’t simply trying to score rhetorical points there. I was trying to point out that business/market is not equal to the summum bonum. The government (especially the Constitutionally severely limited Federal government) needs to get out of the way much of the time. But the way you are speaking of “the market” is similar to one of the things that also bothers me about the Paulistas.
March 7th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Er, yes, I did mean to write “grow the economy.” Oops.
Allow me to take up one or two issues with your latest.
First, you seem to believe that if one is conservative and (rightly) believes that certain forms of taxation are unjust, it is not consistent to nonetheless criticize a person for dodging that tax. Or, in Obama’s case, for ignoring the fact that his nominees have dodged those taxes.
I don’t think there is anything inconsistent in saying, Rule A is unjust and ought not to be. Nonetheless, we recognize that Rule A is the law as it stands today. Therefore, out of respect for the rule of law, people are bound to follow Rule A until such a time as that law may be changed. And those who fail to follow the law are properly vilified.
I wonder if your position is completely consistent when it comes to taxes. For instance, do you personally pay them? If you believe them morally indefensible, wouldn’t you be excused from paying them? And, further, wouldn’t paying them be inimical to your moral well-being? If you personally pay them AND hold them to be morally corrupting, is that inconsistent? Are you not engaging in the same weighing of respect for the rule of law versus unjust law that you assail the Republicans for? If you were on a jury of a man charged with evading taxes, would you nullify? Would advocate others in a similar situation to nullify?
Again, I don’t think that was the issue or the controversy which sparked the whole Rush Limbaugh back-and-forth. I think it was Rush’s statement that he was hoping for Obama’s failure. This tax dodging issue, to me, seems to be a side issue that is unrelated to the Rush Issue. I’m not really sure where you were going with it or what point of mine you were responding to since I never talked about taxes at all.
Second, I understand that Wall Street is not the sum total of the economy. The point I made, however, I think is valid. Wall Street provides a useful measure of the health of the economy. And, more important, its role is generally predictive the equity markets being a leading indicator of the economy as a whole. In that sense, the “market” (by which I mean in this case the narrow sense of ‘equities market’) is something that Obama would do well to pay some attention to. Instead of acknowledging this, he seems to be actively courting the market’s disapprobation. It appears that he is purposely making statements either himself or through his surrogates in his administration designed to make the markets decline and then following those statements with actions that have been roundly denounced by the market. Emanuel’s comments that the administration seeks an economy that is not focused on “increasing consumer spending,” but on investment and savings tends to make this view more likely than not the administration’s policy.
March 7th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
As to my position and its consistency, your syllogism doesn’t account for all the necessary premises. It fails due to lack of comprehensiveness.
I hold that almost all of the federal taxes and the uses to which those revenues are put are unjust and immoral.
The federal government has so heinously criminalized non-payment that, especially for one of my means, fighting criminal prosecution is impossible, and the potential penalties render the greater good (to wit: supporting my family) impossible as well.
Therefore, choosing the good does not mean I will the evil even though I am forced in so choosing into a default position of appearing to cooperate with it.
I’ll get to the rest later.
March 8th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Ohhh, this promises to be a good one. I am patiently waiting.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
“Again, I don’t think that was the issue or the controversy which sparked the whole Rush Limbaugh back-and-forth. I think it was Rush’s statement that he was hoping for Obama’s failure. This tax dodging issue, to me, seems to be a side issue that is unrelated to the Rush Issue.”
The criticism of Limbaugh by the administration is a reaction to all of the jibes he’s made against them. You can’t simply pin it all on the most recent comment Limbaugh made. That seems fallacious, absent a direct reference to the “I hope he fails” comment as the sole source. Obama — and GOPers at the meeting — explained that his comment was in a larger context of working to accomplish things politically. In fact, Obama said “you can’t just listen to Limbaugh and get things done,” [emphasis mine] which seems more in line with my comments. Obama said, in essence, we’ve got majorities and the White House, you guys need to play by our rules if you want me to look at your bills. For him to demand they cast off Limbaugh because Rush said he hopes Obama fails doesn’t make sense in that context: hoping Obama fails in his agenda doesn’t say anything at all about the chances for success of their agenda being looked at and/or passed.
So, I think that what I said stands: the throwing under the bus came about after Obama’s comment, but that comment came about as a result of all of Limbaugh’s criticisms. It’s as if he’d said “You guys might want to distance yourselves from constant Obama-bashing if you should, you know, want stuff. From — who’s that guy, you know, the president? Oh yeah. Me. Obama.” Et voila! Limbaugh season was open. Because the gimme-gimme-get-get GOP knows where their bread is buttered. And even before Limbaugh’s many (right or wrong) criticisms, the controversy was made possible by a GOP which stopped acting like conservatives and started acting like big government liberals a long time ago.
Now. As to the “market,” do you think Larry Summers is a vociferous opponent of economic growth? Do you suppose Summers is going to suddenly change his mind about the position he had in both the Reagan and Clinton administrations that the capital gains rate should be cut? Or that corporate taxes are inefficient and keep the economy from growing as much as it otherwise would? CNBC quotes him today spouting the usual burble about “demand” and the need for more of it.
I don’t think Emanuel was totally above-board with his recent comments, but he was, in a sense, saying something factual: there ain’t no money in consumers’ accounts to go spending, the Fed lowering rates hasn’t made the banks loose enough yet, the administration’s going to be concerned with taxation (“investment”), etc. I agree with Bill that the contradiction between savings and taxation is rather glaring here.
The question “to what is the market responding?” remains. Are they listening to Emanuel? If so, does that explain Summers’ latest (you can find it at CNBC)? Who is the economic mouthpiece for the administration? You would have to agree that it’s Summers and Geithner, not Emanuel, the chief of staff. If Wall Street were sliding in reaction to his remarks, then I don’t know why anyone should trust them as a barometer, because that’s about as smart as ignoring your primary care physician’s advice but listening to his office manager about your health problems. Now, there have been some market drops ostensibly based on some actions of Treasury and the Fed, no doubt. I concede that. But all of the administration’s actions have been designed and carried out by the same people who’ve been running the show since the 80s. There isn’t any reason to think they’ve suddenly got a new mission to generate the “disapprobation of the market.” More likely, in my semi-conspiratorially inclined viewpoint, they are purposely causing a correction (see, again, Summers’ latest remarks, especially “This notion that the economy is self-stabilising is usually right but it is wrong a few times a century. And this is one of those times”) in order to make recapitalization, etc., more palatble to investors and, in all likelihood, to profiteer.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
“And even before Limbaugh’s many (right or wrong) criticisms, the controversy was made possible by a GOP which stopped acting like conservatives and started acting like big government liberals a long time ago.”
Here, we can all agree.
March 12th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Nonetheless, we recognize that Rule A is the law as it stands today.
I would clarify that it is the state’s law you seem to be speaking of, and if the state defines morality for someone then they had better follow it. The Law was given to Moses on Sinai. And the modern state’s version (even the USA) often conflicts with it. To paraphrase Rushdooney, the law one follows reveals the god one serves.