Superficial
I shouldn’t keep getting pulled back into the Limbaugh debate, which is becoming increasingly surreal, but some of the arguments being made in his defense are just maddening. Here’s Hanson:
When commentators bring up Limbaugh’s private life in contrast to Obama’s picture-perfect image, they only emphasize the superficial.
By commentators, Hanson means Frum, who made the unusual move for a Giuliani supporter of emphasizing the importance of the effect of a person’s private life on his public image and the image of the cause he professes to serve. Frum had the bad manners to state bluntly what everyone knows, which is that Limbaugh is hardly a paragon of restraint and self-discipline, and that he does not actually live the life of marriage and family that most conservatives think are central to any sane ethos. (To Limbaugh’s partial credit, at least he tends not to describe conservatism in moral or cultural terms, so one cannot accuse him of preaching a message he does not believe.) By comparison, as so more than a few conservatives, both sympathetic and hostile, noted during the campaign, Obama’s private life seems to be a stable one built around his marriage and children, and indeed one might say that many of the choices he made over the years were directed by a desire for stability and some measure of permanence. If we grant that symbolism, image and “branding” are what matter for most voters, which person would you want as your leading public figure?
Hanson brings up Obama’s church, which is predictable enough, but it’s an odd thing to bring up. Even on this point of comparison, Limbaugh loses by any serious conservative standard. Limbaugh made a joke during his speech the other day that God thinks He is Rush Limbaugh. Yes, it was a joke. It was also blasphemous, and just the sort of thing you might expect from a non-observant individualist. There were more than a few people on the right who held forth quite confidently about what religious beliefs Obama did and did not “really” believe, whether his conversion was sincere or politically-motivated, whether he was a Christian and if so whether he was an orthodox one. Do they think Limbaugh would stand up to similar scrutiny very well? Or would that also be superficial?
One wonders whether there were many conservatives during ’99-’00 who would have said that it was “superficial” that Bush was a reformed alcoholic, born-again Christian who had remained faithful to his wife of several decades in contrast to the President he was replacing. Maybe it was politically irrelevant, but many conservatives put a great deal of stock in the character argument as an argument for Bush (to a large extent because he had so few qualifications for the job he was seeking, as we unfortunately discovered later). In fact, during those immediate post-impeachment election years the theme of restoring integrity and dignity to the White House was an explicit campaign theme repeated time and again by supporters of then-Gov. Bush.
But why go back to 2000? Does anyone remember what happened just last year? Wasn’t it Palin’s personal biography, and specifically her family and her children, that made her the focus of such intense loyalty and support as well as criticism and hostility? Didn’t conservatives make her family life into a central argument for why she had credibility on social issues, despite her complete lack of any record on these issues when it came to policy? Didn’t conservatives primarily celebrate her because of who she was and how she lived, rather than what she had done (which necessarily wasn’t much)? However, when it comes to Limbaugh, this is suddenly a superficial way of looking at a public figure, because it does not work to the advantage of the talk show host.
But Daniel, the problem is that this is all tribalism – all of it. It doesn’t matter if Obama lives the “right kind” of family life; he is of another tribe, period, so it doesn’t matter. Ditto (ugh) with Limbaugh – he, personally, may exhibit many of the qualities that movement conservatives have loathed and attacked in the past; but because he is of the tribe – indeed, its chieftain – then it’s all right.
If we are looking for consistency we are never going to find less consistency than can be found within the movement itself.
We are on shaky ground when comparing the relative moral qualities of politicians vs entertainers. Entertainers are expected to be rather manic and can get away with more. Politicians must pretend to a sobriety and dignity that most lack in reality. But they are both performers. Personally, I prefer the honest self indulgence of entertainers, except when they pretend to the role of statesmen.
Neither of us can escape this dreary back and forth about Limbaugh. The airwaves, TV tubes and internet are infused with it. The Republicans are doing a very poor job of handling themselves in this. My suggestion to them is to have some serious congressional leaders (who are the real leaders of the GOP at this point) meet with the buffoon to set some rules of engagement. I suspect that this will not happen. Limbaugh has a huge following and he is in the preposterous position of king maker and voice of the people. The Democrats are skillful in playing him off against the GOP leadership. My prediction is that this will backfire on them however. As Obama’s policies fail in the real world, Limbaugh’s role as Tribune and rabble rouser will only grow. The next GOP candidate for President will actually require his blessing. God help us.
One other intriguing possibility exists. GOP leadership may try to torpedo Rush in some way that would discredit him fatally. This would be a delicate and clandestine operation, with much risk. But they may feel compelled to do it before the next Presidential election cycle.
“We are on shaky ground when comparing the relative moral qualities of politicians vs entertainers. Entertainers are expected to be rather manic and can get away with more. Politicians must pretend to a sobriety and dignity that most lack in reality. But they are both performers. Personally, I prefer the honest self indulgence of entertainers, except when they pretend to the role of statesmen.”
But that’s half the point. If Limbaugh is just an entertainer, any problems he has had are just the stuff of run-of-the-mill celebrity gossip. If he is supposed to be taken seriously as a spokesman and “leader of thought” as some would have it, that requires that he be judged by a more exacting standard. Maybe he shouldn’t have to measure up to what people expect from the President, but it would still have to be more than you expect from other celebrities.
Maybe it was politically irrelevant, but many conservatives put a great deal of stock in the character argument as an argument for Bush (to a large extent because he had so few qualifications for the job he was seeking, as we unfortunately discovered later).
Didn’t conservatives make [Palin's] family life into a central argument for why she had credibility on social issues, despite her complete lack of any record on these issues when it came to policy?
Good counter-examples against the ‘character argument’.
Wasn’t it Palin’s personal biography, and specifically her family and her children, that made her the focus of such intense loyalty and support as well as criticism and hostility?
I’m still puzzling over the reasons for Palin’s popularity. Of course her family life was often cited by her supporters, and I don’t doubt it contributed. But I doubt it was the most important reason, let alone the only one.
I’m flabbergasted by the second claim, which seems to privilege symmetry above reality. There was some criticism of various aspects of her family life, but that came way down the list, after competence, ideology, and record.
I included a reference to criticism of her family life in the interest of fairness, because there was some of that. I don’t think most of the criticism of her had anything to do with that, but I do think a lot of the intense identification with her was centered around her children and husband and her way of life.
I agree that character shouldn’t trump competence, but I still think it shouldn’t be irrelevant. There are also matters of character that are reflected in how people govern and whether they are willing to abuse their office, reward cronies at the public’s expense, etc. Limiting discussion of character to whether or not someone is faithful to his wife and so forth misses a lot. The point here is that I don’t know of any mainstream conservatives who argued that character and family life were irrelevant c. 2000 or last year. These are not sufficient reasons to support a candidate, but by the admission of most conservatives they do not consider them unimportant or “superficial” details.
Another point–by a certain standard, Romney could use the character argument in his favor (he has a successful marriage and many successful children, etc.), but he was undone in large part because he was perceived as a serial liar about his own record and beliefs and an opportunist who would say anything to get votes.
Great quote on how God thinks he is Rush Limbaugh…imagine the outrage were Michael Moore or Al Franken to say such a thing!
Speaking of jokes, Limbaugh is doing a tremendous job of turning the GOP into a big fat one.
The ‘God’ joke struck me as odd when I first read it. (I’ve studied the transcript but I still haven’t seen more than isolated clips of the speech itself.) On reflection I think it has to be understood in the same light as the notorious New Yorker cover. Limbaugh is saying roughly ‘Of course my fans know I’m not such a megalomaniac as to fantasize that God is jealous of me, but this is how my foolish critics portray me.’
Daniel, I of course agree. He should be held to a higher standard. He is an entertainer playing with public policy. The problem here is that he really falls between two stools. He is given all the latitude of a comic but he deals in matters of public policy. He is not just a comic but he is not a real journalist. The general public deserves a reasoned intelligent discourse. But would they respond? My guess is that right reason is not entertaining enough to survive on either talk radio or TV. We have to resign ourselves to the existence of unaccountable blow hards spouting nonsense because that is the nature of mass Democracy in the electronic age.
Limbaugh is successful because he voices a particular public mood and mirrors public proclivities. He is in short, Howard Beale, mad prophet of the airwaves. He is entertaining and doesn’t strain the intellectual capacities of his audience. His simplistic rants provide a focused, packaged narrative of the many real frustrations of working Americans. The only other person who comes close to Rush, but has a real brain, is Pat Buchanan.
As I stated elsewhere on this site, you can only try to influence Limbaugh or buy him off, or compete with him.
@Gordianus
“He is not a comic but he is not a real journalist…” That sounds like you are describing Jon Stewart. And I think the comparison does hold water. Here is why. Of the 15 millin or so who listen in to Rush each week, many of them are relying on him for their news of the world, and analysis of that news. The same goes for Stewart, yet on a smaller scale. I am not sure how many people a week tune into Stewart, but I do not think it is 15 mil. There was the Stewart takedown of Tucker Carlson a few years ago where Carlson tried to pin Stewart down as having a responsibility to be more journalistic. Stewart skewered him. I have heard several on the right and in the MSM question if it is a good thing that so many rely on a comedy show for their news. I do not know that anyone at the same level has made similar comments about Rush.
How do you hold either one of them to a ‘higher standard’? I agree that they should be held to one, but how would that be done? Anyone reading this has already shown a proclivity towards digging deeper for analysis, but what about the millions that tune in daily just to hear their views reinforced. They get to vote too…
Sorry to ramble for so long…
What about the fact that latching on to Rush, for whatever reason, is simply poisonous from the standpoint of electoral politics. They just lost an election in no small part because they attached themselves to a pretty unpopular Governor from Alaska, and now, the lesson they have seemed to learn was not to reach out to more voters, but to attach themselves surgically to a shock jock who is only slightly more popular than venereal warts with the public at large. Whatever the merits of the “ideas” and “morality” of the GOP, they still should have a goal of one day trying to regain the majority.
At this rate, I fully expect them to run Alfons D’Amato in 2012.
Whatever the merits of the “ideas†and “morality†of the GOP, they still should have a goal of one day trying to regain the majority.
I think their view is that the majority will come around to them. Once Obama fails the country will come to realize they were right all along!
gsmart:
Once Obama fails the country will come to realize they were right all along!
That’s what I expect, except I would say ‘give them another chance’.
It’s been amply demonstrated (surprise, surprise) that neither Keynesianism nor Supply Side can make the trade cycle go away. But when Supply Side failed, the Democrats didn’t have to come up with a New Idea. They just brought Keynes out of the attic. Who knows who long this can continue, in a ‘political cycle’ that mirrors the business cycle, but with a longer period.
scott_api, on March 4th, 2009 at 4:07 pm Said:
““He is not a comic but he is not a real journalist…†That sounds like you are describing Jon Stewart. And I think the comparison does hold water. Here is why. Of the 15 millin or so who listen in to Rush each week, many of them are relying on him for their news of the world, and analysis of that news. The same goes for Stewart, yet on a smaller scale. ”
I’ve not yet heard of a US Congressman or the head of the DNC appearing on TDS to apologize and grovel to Stewart. I’d also put Stewart’s record of honesty up against Rush’s any day of the week.
John Cole:
What about the fact that latching on to Rush, for whatever reason, is simply poisonous from the standpoint of electoral politics.
The GOP has been attached to Limbaugh for about two decades, in good electoral times and bad. The question is not of forming a new attachment, but dissolving the one that exists. That would be electoral suicide, because it would alienate the base. Of course you can’t win without the middle, but you can’t win without a base either.
There is no chance that Limbaugh would be repudiated entirely. What the critics of talk radio on the right are proposing is really much more modest than this. They, or rather we, are saying that it is ruinous, at least as far as electoral politics go, to elevate Limbaugh to a central and dominating position. A related point is that it would be impossible to make any headway in making corrections or adaptations on policy or regarding electoral strategy so long as Rush “We Have The Blueprint” Limbaugh is constantly telling everyone that nothing needs to change except to return to “the blueprint” and denouncing anyone who says otherwise as an Obama collaborator. Most of the other critics have made the point that Limbaugh has a role, but it cannot be the starring role. I am less concerned with the electoral politics and more interested in moving away from shallow and unimaginative thinking, so I think Limbaugh’s role was already too great, but I don’t expect many others on the right to share that view.
@BarryD-
I didn’t mean to imply it was a perfect analogy. You are correct in that Stewart does not have a fraction of the influence that Rush has.
The point I was trying to make, however poorly, was that a large segment of the population listens in to one or the other of them to get their news and analysis. If the population is looking to an entertainer and a comedian for these services, what does that say for A) the MSM, and B) us?
@Daniel
I am not sure if I should quote JFK or Russel in reply to your last:
“Too often we… enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.” – JFK
“Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth, more than ruin, more even than death. Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit.”
-Bertrand Russell
Being of the left, I am more than happy to see the right hobbled with their Rush addiction. Already the signs of overreach are there, though, and I (we) need a viable, thinking, reasoned right to offer up not only opposition, but alternative solutions.
I’m not looking for everyone to join hands and sing Kumbaya, but if they wanted to, couldn’t conservatives get behind truly stimulative spending (roads, bridges, trains – people working now) and use those ‘yes’ votes to get the more left-wing pipe-dreams removed?
Jon Stewart is a sort of Rush Limbaugh of the left but he operates as a comic so he can get away with avoiding debate. Unlike Limbaugh, he is tactically smart enough to concentrate on lampooning the right without actually championing anything. Dem’s are smart enough to never apologizes for each other, they just change the subject and or make counter charges. The left’s thinking is instrumental. They agree on the goal and everything they say or do thereafter is simply a matter of achieving the goal. That’s why intellectual debate with them is a delusion.
What I think disturbs many of us is that in the persons of the Neocon’s, or just plain GOP hacks like Carl Rove, we see people who operate in the same way but do so under our banner.