Derbyshire’s talk radio article has stirred up the hornets nest known as FreeRepublic with predictable results; including numerous accusations of “RINO” and “liberal,” along with several post suggesting that Freepers cancel their subscriptions to National Review! What was that about wrecking the Right again?
Wrecked
Posted in Uncategorized.
12 Responses to Wrecked
-
SteveM says:
There are several sub-texts here. One is the almost absolute bifurcation of Conservative thought. I.e., between the NRO/AEI Right and the TAC Right. Unfortunately, they’ve made common enemies of each other to an extent that is almost pathological.
I’ve read seen some arguments about whether the Conservative movement is dead. NRO organized a panel discussion on the topic in January. I wrote them prior and suggested someone like Andrew Bacevich be included on the panel to expand the conversational boundaries. Nope, didn’t happen. They just pretend that really thoughtful guys like Bacevich do not exist.
Until reasoned and collegial discussions start occurring between these two ostensibly allied Conservative camps, Conservatism is indeed dead. If NRO won’t invite you guys, maybe TAC should organize a related forum and invite them. (I recommend Marquis of Queensbury Rules and 8 ounce gloves.)
Where was I? Right, the subtexts.
The other subtext relates to the above. Limbaugh, Hannity, Rove, et al., may be crippled representatives of one flavor of Conservativsm. But Derbyshire is certainly as dysfunctional and unattractive a representative of whatever flavor he claims to represent.
Derbyshire lives in a Limbaugh like micro-universe of his own making from which he issues mind dumps that are little more than the besotted rants of an aging pseudo-intellectual Englishman with too much time on his hands.
Even if his message is occasionally on target, he’s a lousy messenger. Give him a few bucks for beers and send him back to his tree house to ruminate in isolation.
-
eep says:
I always wondered what was wrong with some of the people on that site. I wonder what they think caused the fall of the Republican Party?
Rush is a “Lord of the Flies.” The true believers in the political parties and their representative demagogues in the media give me a headache.
-
Thomas O. Meehan says:
I just got back from that convocation of subtle minds over at Free Republic and I must day I’ve heard more thoughtful argumentation before the Parole Board. I’m particularly struck by the reflexive description of anyone they don’t know or understand as a liberal.
But let’s be honest. These are the peasants with pitchforks. By mouthing these inanities they make Derbyshire’s argument that we need intelligent leadership and discourse to guide their enthusiasm. And please, I’m not a Straussian but some level of intelligent devision of labor within a movement is necessary. These people are for the most part good citizens trying to make sense of their times. They deserve more than Limbaugh or FOX.
-
Jack Tracey says:
Just keep referring your friends and family to campaignforliberty.com. It’s not perfect, but it’s accessible to us peasants with pitchforks.
-
Thomas Schiro says:
Mr. Derbyshire’s article inspired me to create a facebook group, “Join if you aren’t a Happy Meal Conservative.”
My ‘conservative’ friends are mad–no, infuriated is more like it, at this article. They say Rush and Hannity embody conservatism and Mr. Derbyshire is not a real conservative.
BTW, did I mention these same friends don’t know who Russell Kirk is?
-
I held out a small hope that the author would point out the one notable exception to his rule: Glenn Beck.
Beck is consistently smarter than his conservative talk-radio peers, he’s more independent of the GOP line, and he has a healthier-than-average view of the (limited) role politics ought to play in everyday life.
Is Beck doing “Books and Culture” analysis like what we see in TAC? No, he is not. Then again, we right-wing talk radio listeners are more likely than our NPR counterparts to be engaging in some type of physical labor while we listen, and that makes catching nuance more difficult. That’s okay. I stand by his ideological statements on most issues other than the war, and if he gets a little heated or eschews a scholarly approach, he makes up for it by having a solid, conservative temperament.
Beck is low-brow the way Charley Reese was. Rush, Savage, and their ilk are low-brow the way Ann Coulter is. There is a difference, and it’s important. I hate to see a real conservative, even a flawed one like Beck, get lumped in with people who are merely anti-liberal.
-
Freepers make me hopeful for the future … they’re so dumb and easily manipulated, why can’t paleos manipulate them?
-
Ken B says:
Limbaugh, et al, insist they’re all about principled conservatism. But as Derbyshire notes, you’d never know it from listening to them the last 8 years. As government grew at a record pace and Bush half-heartedly searched the Oval Office for his veto pen — just in case the (real) Democrats took back Congress — who among these carny barkers were telling us how much they wanted Bush to fail?
The cute Paul Shanklin bits on Rush’s show and Mark Levin going off on ‘Schmucky’ and ‘Milhouse’ with the inspiring Patton music in the background no doubt keep the midway bubbas and dittoheads entertained. But how is it Ronald Reagan, talk radio’s greatest hero, was able to win two terms in the White House without the help of these broadcast geniuses? How is it Sean Hannity’s incurable case of Wright/Ayres Tourette’s failed to put a principled conservative in the White House, let alone on the GOP ticket? Maybe someone on AM radio could explain these things to me. Aside from knowing that socialism, communism, and (therefore?) the Democrats are BAD, BAD, BAD, I’m obviously too thick to figure out the rest on my own.
I don’t mean to suggest that Rush and his cohort don’t perform a valuable service. I see them as being primarily engaged in a holding action against the influence of the MSM and popular culture. It’s a tough job, I’m glad somebody’s doing it, and they’re doing it well.
But after 20 years of Limbaugh and his disciples dominating talk radio, I see little evidence to suggest they’ve EXPANDED the influence of conservative thinking over the American polity.
Quite to the contrary, in fact. We’ve seen Bush41 renege on his ‘no new taxes’ pledge, squander 90% approval ratings, and promptly lose his reelection bid to the original Hopester, only to be followed by: another shameless abandonment of principle under Bush43 and the GOP congress; the loss of Congress to the (real) Democrats; the nomination of John McCain (?!?) as the standard bearer of the presumptive conservative party; and election of perhaps the most pro-government, anti-freedom, anti-capitalism statist to the White House in our nation’s history.
But here’s the uplifting irony. If a resurgence of principled conservatism is to lead America back from the precipice we now face, it’ll be sparked by the over-reaching of a proud, in-your-face, hyper-lefty who not even right-wing talk radio could adequately mock and demonize.
-
TomT says:
“…resurgence of principled conservatism …” is a bus that is not going to arrive.
Let’s build a liberal. Take a teacher, newspaper reporter, historian, or whatever. Let them report on what happened in the past. Then let them investigate or guess on how we got where we are. If they are well-meaning, then let them guess where things are going. Finally, let them begin to inject an opinion of where we ought to head, and maybe how to get there.
Now, add a finishing coat of elitism, and a touch of dishonesty. That is, they have to know better than the rest of us, and be willing to find a way to impress their “superior” upon the rest of us.
Isn’t it said that if you aren’t liberal by the time you’re 20, you have no heart? And don’t they add, that if you aren’t conservative by the time you’re 40, you have no brain?
Listen to someone talk about “low brow conservative”, and you’re looking at a liberal heart wrapped in a conservative exteior.
Much of the above conversation is built upon the NON-conservative fallacy that Limbaugh et.al. are CAUSES rather than SYMPTOMS.
How many can name the 5 branches of government?
#1 – Of the people, by the people, and for the people. But if the people lose sight of GOD, then they no longer agree that our rights come from a Supreme Being, and they lose the honesty that would help them recognize the difference between a friendly president and a sex offender.
#2 – The 4th estate, also known as the “press”. Where printed media abdicates it’s responsibility as a watchdog on the last 3 branches of government, then we begin to lose the mechanism to root out corruption.
#3 – Judiciary, descending into liberal-style social engineering, both left and right-leaning.
#4 – Congress, losing the balls to band together against the crooks in their midst.
#5 – Executive, opportunists nominated by opportunists, and paying backwards for the chance to play.
Ask why they want our college students to listen to Iran’s leader, and Venezula’s leader, and want you to stop listening to TALK RADIO. Then ask yourself why that is sounding like a good idea.
-
Next time you hear the term, “energize the base”, then slap somebody.
A liberal will walk into the room and assume that the intellectual center of gravity roughly coincides with themselves.
A “Glen Beck” who has not been blinded by years of success, will remember that an “intellectual center of gravity” is out in the center of the room, or out in the audience somewhere.
Aside from cleaning out congressional crooks, we also need to pick leaders who abhore terms like, “energize the base”. Rather than set standards and decide where to “lead us”, they see themselves as true representatives.
Limbaugh’s brush with addiction was ruining his health, and making him rude to his staff, and preventing him from staying in tune with the pulse of the country. Good to see him making a comeback.
Also, his shtick of “pretending to be ultimately pompous”, served to anger liberals, and cause media matters, et.al., to make mistakes that he could use as tomorrow’s fodder. Nice to see him making a conscious attempt to refine his methods.
Hannity spent years on TV being a “rightwing caricature”, so that the other guy could throw “leftwing non-sequitor grenades”, leaving Hannity to incite our righteous indignation.
Hannity’s flashes of brilliance, coupled with his long-running success, has begun to blind him as to where the “intellectual center of gravity” is located. Hence his dispair when his constant and forceful repetition of his litany-list failed to change the current political realities. He failed to see that he insults his audience when they have to hear the term “unrepentant” more than once a day. His next level of success will be when he remembers that, rather than “shape” our opinions, we hire him to reflect and examine our opinions, and compare them with his own.
Yet, the spoken media, augmented by TV, is the new american crackerbarrel, where we can gather to agree, “Ain’t it awful?” Only an “elitist” would venture the opinion that this will “wreck us”.
-
R Kasper says:
I read your article the other day and started to respond, and then thought better of it.
I am trying hard to understand exactly what lies beneath this division. What precisely is the value of this attack and unnecessary division? Is it the objection to Limbaugh’s claim to be the intellectual leader of the conservative movement that so offends? Is it the attention he receives or maybe the loyalty? Or the simple fact that he makes so much money?
Few can argue that he has not brought many into fold that were not here before.
I have been a conservative all my life, although I am not sure I could call myself an intellectual conservative. I am honestly not certain what that is. I have studied history and have a degree in it as well as one in economics. I have a deep reverence for our constitution and the government that it gave us. I believe God inspired our Founding Fathers and blessed the world with the promise of this nation.
When Nixon ran for office in 72, I cast my first republican vote although that certainly doesn’t make one a conservative. I just made the more conservative of the choices available to me.
Since then I have contributed money, made phone calls, written letters to editors, voted and urged others to do the same. Some times as in this last election holding my nose with both hands, in support of a doomed candidate in an ill run campaign. I suppose the principled thing to do would have been to sit out any election that does not perfectly fit my principles. I think that really worked out well for the country as a whole in 06 and appears to have been a smashing success in the election just passed.
Carnival Barkers, seems pretty harsh. Does my lifelong belief in limited government; in the promise and beauty of our constitution, make me a McDonald’s conservative?
I worked for most of my life to see a conservative majority in both houses and a conservative in the executive branch. The most recent administration was as close as we have come since I became eligible to vote, and I can scarcely contain my disappointment at how that opportunity was squandered.
The reference to Russell Kirk provided a key. I must admit that at first glance I was not familiar with the name, and did a quick search and there I found my key. While I am not familiar with Kirk I was with those who had influenced him.
Am I making too much of the following? “Not seldom has it seemed,” Kirk declared, “as if some eminent Neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States” This line of thinking is often expressed by Mr. Buchanan as well. It is the same line that has some hurling the anti-Semitism charge at him and his principled compatriots. Is it the consistent support of Israel and Jews from Limbaugh and Hannity others that causes your discomfort?
Mr. Meehan’s comments here I think best describe exactly how I have come to feel recently, as he spoke with such evident disdain of us ‘peasants with pitchforks’. I am useful on election day and my financial contributions are welcome just please don’t speak that I might spare the Lords of Enlightenment any embarrassment.
Several years ago, a former California Governor spoke about my country in a way that brought a swelling to my chest a lump in my throat and a tear to my eye. He gave by his voice hope to a nation that had been beaten down. I remember that the press and others tried daily to tear him down; to belittle his message as to simplistic, naïve. During that same time while driving down the road a voice on the radio. Unlike every other voice this voice spoke in support of the t president. I found this one voice not attacking what I had believed and held true all my life but actually supporting it. While I did not agree with everything I heard it was so unbelievably refreshing to hear any voice affirming the views I had long held.
Limbaugh gave voice to millions, he said what we believed. Your jealousy if that’s what it is or you self indulgent pomposity blind you to that simple fact. If you actually listen you will note he has on previous occasions taken to task in the GOP for their missteps.
At this dark hour in our nation’s history as the Messiah daily enacts policies that further injure our economy and erode or freedom you can sit back and tear at those you feel do not deserve your lofty perch, You can blame someone else for all of the ills of the conservative movement or the GOP and you can take great solace in your principled intellectual purity. You can’t be blamed because you have done nothing! Every time the chips have been down if things didn’t exactly suit your principles you righteously pick up you chips and go home certain in your core that you have never compromised your vaunted principles.
Limbaugh did not muddle the message those in office did, 41, 43 the senate, the philanderers, the spend thrifts in the house, and the spineless wonders who are always more interested in being accepted by the left rather than defeating them.
Love him or hate it truly matters not because he is in that game and you are not. This movement goes forward not on your intellectual purity and untarnished principles but with the votes, dollars and hard work provided by the peasants with pitch forks you vilify and revile.
Look down your nose at us; whisper and whine among yourself at how coarse are Limbaugh and his unwashed brethren if you must, but do it quietly among yourself. Understand we are in a life and death struggle for our country our very liberty is in peril and we can ill afford to waste the effort needed for in-fighting and fratricide we all have too much to lose.
It might be better for us all to join the struggle and work out later who is and is not more ideologically pure.
I’m curious about these activists on Free Republic. Why are they investing so much time in economically unproductive activity? Don’t they work? Wouldn’t it be better (according to their world view, certainly) if they spent the time they use listening to talk radio and yapping on the internet in economic production?