Implosion
Regarding the Limbaugh-Steele tussle, there is not too much to say that hasn’t already been said. It is fairly disastrous for all involved when the chairman of the RNC and CPAC’s keynote speaker can create a controversy that understandably inspires multiple comparisons to re-education camps. I am guessing that Steele’s faux pas in challenging the Man with the Golden Microphone (comparisons to Blofeld are too easy and obvious) will more or less smother the chances for any reform ideas he may have had, and now that he has been denounced as little better than a RINO his tenure as chairman will continue to be rocky and not very effective. Fundraising must already be difficult because of the recession, and now it is going to get even more so.
Despite his best efforts to toe the line, and usually saying absurd things in the process, Steele is succumbing to the structural pressures that have brought the GOP and movement conservatism to their present states. Incredibly, the man who was floating the idea of withholding RNC funds from moderate Republicans who voted for the stimulus is now regarded as some sort of Obama collaborator! Meanwhile, Obama is not just having a good laugh at the expense of his imploding enemies, but he has to be feeling very pleased with himself. It seems as if all he had to do was say, “Don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh,” and in classic knee-jerk fashion activists and pols have gone running into Limbaugh’s embrace, which is probably exactly what Obama wanted them to do. Now, thanks to the bizarre Limbaugh litmus test that everyone on the right is supposed to pass, conservative blogs are agog with their newfound contempt for the RNC chairman, which helps ensure that cooperation between the national party and online activists will continue to be poor. You might call this a triple bank-shot by Obama, except that all of it is self-inflicted by the Republicans.
Great theater watching these fools play.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/washington/03prexy.html
Have any thoughts on this? Wasn’t too long ago that sabres were being rattled with regards to Russia.
Daniel, I think your dislike of Limbaugh and movement conservatism is clouding your judgment.
Steele is a standard issue moderate pragmatic Republican panderer which is one step removed from full blown RINO.
While movement conservative stalwarts like Limbaugh clearly have their problems, I don’t see how it can be that we are better off with moderates like Steele.
This has to be viewed in context. Steele got elected touting his moderate credentials and his ability to “reach out” beyond the base. There is nothing wrong with reaching out per se. In fact, it is electorally necessary. But when that language is used by people like Steele (and no SPLC monitors I don’t just mean black, I primarily mean moderate) it is code for compromise and trimming.
Steele went on a show by a liberal black comedian and essentially conceded the liberal line. How is this not a blatant pander, misstep and backstab? There is a sense in which some aspects of what Limbaugh supports are ugly. (The pro-war stuff.) But you and I can say that because our criticism is from the principled right. Ideally it would be said with much nuance so as not to be misunderstood. But when Michael Steele says it amongst the opposition, it is not principled right opposition. It is not even reformist. It is a moderate compromiser conceding a faulty premise to the liberals. And I frankly think it was outrageous.
Dear Daniel,
As entertaining as the entire Steele v. Limabugh tussle is, it is actually beneath you.
It is also beneath most people.
No, what I found most interesting recently is this article in the very-left LA Weekly:
http://www.laweekly.com/2009-02-26/news/los-angeles-on-300-000-a-year/1
Ti’s funny- one would think that given the above, Steele would be spending his time trying to build up a team in Los Angeles to try to defeat the very awful LA City Council and Mayor.
But he won’t even try. He would rather become popular on the BET.
Says it all, doesn’t it?
Insert politically incorrect briar patch reference here.
I’m no fan of Limbaugh’s antics. He’s way past his “sell by” date, and his speech at CPAC was NOT helpful. HOWEVER, Steele stepped way out of line with his swipes at Limbaugh. He sat by quietly as his own party was compared to the Nazis and he attacked the show and the audience of a figure who’s hugely popular with his own base. It really was unforced error and show how poor a pick Steele was.
Perhaps I did not make this clear, but I was not trying to defend Steele. As Rod said recently, I wish both sides in this battle could lose, but as we can see Limbaugh has already won without much effort. If I gave the impression that I was siding with Steele, it was because I regard the complete abandonment of self-criticism and the refusal to make any attempt to adapt to the present that Limbaugh represents to be far worse. Moderate party functionaries will come and go, and don’t matter very much when they don’t have an ally in the White House to push their agenda, but Limbaugh’s influence, which I think we can all agree is largely not good for any of the things that conservatives want to defend, is not only enduring but growing. Even when he is using that influence to bash a moderate, I don’t see any good coming from it, because that just confirms in the minds of most conservatives that he is their champion and guide.
The one thing I would say on Steele’s behalf is that he was doing his best to embrace the full fiscal austerity approach that the GOP in Congress was supporting, so that substantively he was entirely on board with the policy positions that Limbaugh takes. It’s worth noting that this seems to count for nothing.
“movement conservative stalwarts like Limbaugh”
Thank you, thank you and welcome to the wilderness. Stalwart conservatism:
“Family values” of serial divorce, excess, drug abuse.
Personal values of racism, misogyny, elitism.
Public values of relentless disdain and hatred for anyone he disagrees with.
Active disdain for ideas, principles, policy and compromise.
Constant preaching of hatred, violence, demonization of The Other.
Rally to that, please. Meanwhile, the adults may be able to create a sane and positive opposition party.
…Limbaugh’s influence, which I think we can all agree is largely not good for any of the things that conservatives want to defend, is not only enduring but growing.
Limbaugh’s influence only grows because ham-handed moderates like Steele insist on trying to curry favor with the media by attacking the base. Look at Steele’s cracks about the Republican faithful being stuck in 1952. Look at his passivity as a newshost compares his party to the Nazis. If you’re in the GOP base, at this point, you have to be asking, “Is this guy really on our side?”
Then he directly attacks Limbaugh and his audience. At that point, Limbaugh had no choice. He had to fight back. I can picture the party fundraisers going into full Defcon Five panic as their base starts shutting their wallets. That’s the unforced error of unforced errors.
It’s worth noting that this seems to count for nothing.
Well, yeah, personal attacks will always grab more headlines than wonkish discussions about appropriations. The leader of a political party should appreciate that.
time for an update — steele has begged forgiveness at the altar of rush since you posted this. it’s an especially pathetic apology.
hey, daniel, i know you’re busy but how about that battlestar post you promised us a few days back? haven’t watched last friday’s yet but you could address the episode before.
also, when you get around to it, i’d love to hear your opinion on obama’s “secret letter” to russia.
oops — misread the post in regards to timing. sorry about that.
@Ducinaltum-
Thanks – hadn’t heard about that one, but, sadly, it’s not surprising in the least. I agree about working at the lower levels and not conceding the urban core to single party rule, but in the particular case of Los Angeles I expect the Republicans to have a long time in the wilderness.
My perspective comes from living in the city of LA 1982-1994 – since then in the ‘burbs just across the Orange Curtain – with several friends still within the city limits.
While I can’t think of anybody I know – a mostly center left to well left bunch – who has anything particularly good to say about Villaragosa, IMHO the reality is that the Republican brand is so toxic to a wide swath of the LA electorate that any help the RNC or the party as a whole gave would almost need to be stealth.
Can you suggest examples of who you think Steele or whoever ought to be recruiting to run for council/mayor? Yeah, the 12th can probably support a somewhat conservative candidate, but that’s about it as far as I can see.
I can easily see a technocratic/managerial candidate in the Riordan/Bloomberg mold running for mayor and winning (probably mostly self-funded or funded other than through the GOP apparat), and _maybe_, though I greatly doubt it, a seamless garment of death type in the Giuliani mold, but that’s probably about as far right as any winner is going to get.
Please explain what I’m not seeing. TIA.
I’m just lovin’ it. I was worried that the GOP would (successfully) redo their 1993-4 strategy of 100% opposition. A friend said that things were different this time, and we both seem to be correct – the GOP *is* attempting a redo, *and* things are different.
With any luck, Limbaugh will be like some tired sequal (‘So-So Movie, Part Upteenth’), where it’s so bad that people are wondering why they even went to the first one.
Hilarious. The tent is being made ever-smaller; Rush is not merely one faction of conservatism, Rush is conservatism incarnate, the movement itself.
If Rush drops dead of a heart attack tomorrow, who leads this movement? Who or what else is there?
Here is part of my concern. It is a given that those of us on the paleo/alternative right have serious problems with movement conservatism on many levels. But first of all, I think criticism of the movement in general requires nuance and finesse lest good people and causes be injured by friendly fire. We don’t want to be mistaken for liberals, pragmatists and/or dogmatic libertarians. (The kind of libertarians for whom conservatism even rightly understood is part of the problem because it is “authoritarian.â€)
But probably my bigger concern is that political alignments and affiliations are not just about policy positions. They are also about temperament and disposition. What separates a moderate like Steele from a “true believer†(by modern warped standards) like Limbaugh is not just a few billion dollars in how much each wants to spend or cut taxes. It is also attitudinal. On this axis those on the paleo/alternative right are much more likely to find allies and potential converts among the true believing movement cons than we are among moderates like Steele with whom we share both policy and temperamental differences.
I have never been optimistic that there is some untapped reservoir of people who are willing to embrace paleo/alternative conservatism who are not now or have never been part of the conservative movement or at least self identify as conservatives generally with much of the baggage that comes along with the modern conception of that term. (There are exceptions of course, but broadly speaking.)
Our task then is likely to be to convert the true believing movement cons to authentic conservatism, not bypass them. I have just never heard a plausible scenario for how bypassing them would work that rings true to me.
So we don’t need to demonize movement conservatives. We need to point out where they are wrong and try to woo them to our side.
“We don’t want to be mistaken for liberals, pragmatists and/or dogmatic libertarians.”
Agreed. I haven’t much confidence that this can be avoided, but I agree that we should try not to reinforce that impression. However, if people are going to consider me a Democrat or a Libertarian, or a left-winger (I have been called all of these over the years) because I oppose certain policies or criticize the Limbaughs of the world, I’m not sure how I can avoid that. I have no interest in demonizing movement conservatives, but I do want to say where I think they have gone wrong. If we can’t say that following Limbaugh is folly for fear that we are “demonizing” his audience, and if we can’t acknowledge openly that his audience supported most of the mistakes of the last administration, I’m not sure what will be left of “our side” after we win them over to it. I don’t want to bypass these people, but they are probably never going to hear what we’re saying, much less agree with it, if they are embracing Limbaugh’s optimistic drivel and “man is born free” fantasies.
I have no use for the optimism as policy nonsense either. We should be optimistic when the situation warrants and realistic when it doesn’t. I’m not sure there is virtue in pessimism, but what is needed now is a hard cold look at reality and that at this point does not point toward optimism. Things are bad and getting worse quickly.
But the man is born free stuff is a criticism that could be leveled at almost all American conservatives. American conservative rhetoric is infected with liberal Enlightenment formulations and idiom. Just about the only exceptions to this are highly philosophically attuned paleos, maybe some illiberal nationalists and racialist, and some Reconstructionists. This would be a fair criticism of much of the rhetoric used by Ron Paul and would even apply to arch conservatives like Chuck Baldwin. This is a fair criticism, but it just has to be clear that is what you are criticizing and requires a lot of laying the groundwork. Most conservative really don’t get this at all. (When I was expending much Internet bandwidth trying to head off an Alan Keyes’ CP nomination, people who should have known better just couldn’t get my objection to Keyes’ Declarationism. This is going to require extended re-education.)
Daniel,
If I’m reading Red right, neither he or I have a problem with criticism, and you’re on holy ground going after Limbaugh’s Rousseauian lingo (though I think he was more aiming at Locke). The thing is that Steele didn’t do that, not at all. He smeared Limbaugh in terms that are just under “hater” and “racist.” Worse, again, he did this while not objecting to his own party being equated with Nazis. THIS is supposed to be the GOP’s leader? How can he promote any kind of reform or outreach if he’s needlessly denigrating the rest of the party?
Most of us have friends who’s understanding of the conservative position is based on what Rush, Hannity and other talk radio characters have to say. This isn’t their failure, it’s ours. Actual conservatives lost control of our own movement. Let’s face it, Bush and the Neo’s have so muddied the very image of what it means to be a conservative that we can only separate ourselves from these fools and knaves and start alternative institutions.
Personally I’ve had some success in reasoning with a lot of these folks by helping them to see that their motives in supporting Bush and the talking heads is perfectly understandable. Many of these folks have smelled the rat for some time. The qualities of loyalty are very important to them. They don’t want to think of themselves as fools. If you start from the position that they were good citizens responding to extraordinary circumstances and were badly led by flawed and dishonest leaders, they are more than willing to listen to what you have to say next. This line of argument has the added quality as Henry Kissinger once said, of being true.
If that doesn’t work, just download and send them Mathew Continetti’s interview with Brian Lamb on CSPAN. You won’t have to explain a thing after that.
Of course American conservatism is a branch of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism is our tradition. It’s what the country was founded on. Efforts to import a European, pessimistic style of conservatism have always had limited influence, and I expect always will. They seem to appeal mainly to adherents of non-Protestant variants of Christianity.