Conor Friedersdorf explores the bizarre taboo at National Review against criticizing Rush Limbaugh. Excerpt:
Ms. Lopez concludes by writing that "our time is better spent each doing our part rather than shooting at those who are doing theirs -- and successfully." This is a restatement of Ronald Reagan's dictum to never criticize another Republican (never mind that The Gipper didn't actually follow his own commandment). I often wonder, when this is invoked by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity fans in defense of those men, why they never object to criticism of conservatives when it is Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul or John McCain or Colin Powell or David Frum or David Brooks or Ross Douthat or David Dreier or John Boehner being criticized. There is a strange phenomenon on the right whereby it is okay for certain Republicans to be criticized for what amounts to being heretics, whereas it is verboten to criticize other conservatives, because people on the right aren't supposed to snipe at members of their own team. I'd oppose rules like that in any circumstance, but they might make internal sense were consistent characteristics used to determine ideological purity. In fact, one gets to be a conservative who must not be criticized based on some weird standard I cannot figure out, except to say that Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush are all occasionally invoked as guys beyond criticism from fellow right-wingers, so multiple divorces, the idea that the executive possesses unchecked power in wartime, torture, warrantless wiretapping, atrocious immigration proposals and wild deficit spending are apparently not disqualifying factors.I don't get it.
Conor updates his post to say that the Cloak of Protection around conservative figures is apparently related to how crazy those figures drive liberals. That's as good an explanation as any I can come up with. But boy, any movement in which radio talk show hosts are considered not only prime leaders, but beyond criticism, is not one that has much of a future. I mean, really, to criticize Rush is to show oneself a traitor to the cause? Some cause.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I am scared, in a way. I don't see Limbaugh or his followers ever really forming any sort of constructive platform that would pose a threat to the Independent/Dem majority, and I think our country (and the Dems) need a thoughtful opposition party in order to govern well, which in turn will benefit the country as a whole. (Odd, isn't it, that the notion of actually doing work that furthers the country seems so antithetical to what politics is all about lately? That the critique has become so simplistic that the two sides accuse one another of actually wanting to DESTROY the country, rather than simply of having wrongheaded ideas about how to make it better. I'm probably biased about it, but I'd ascribe that particular sea change to Limbaugh and his ilk.)
I think Limbaugh's signature accomplishment was banging the drum for the Republican Revolution in 1994, which dislodged the Dems and brought control of both houses of Congress to the GOP for the first time in 40 years.
Haven't listened much since then--but mostly because I can't stand the commercials.
Re: Powell? He's a conservative?
The Powell Doctrine in regards to when to go to war was quite conservative. It described the behavior of both the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations (and Clinton too), which were quite successful in foreign policy terms. Bush 43, who threw it overboard, is another matter.
Jon
May 15, 2009 6:34 AM
Re: Powell? He's a conservative?
The Powell Doctrine in regards to when to go to war was quite conservative. It described the behavior of both the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations (and Clinton too), which were quite successful in foreign policy terms. Bush 43, who threw it overboard, is another matter.
****
The Powell Doctrine may be conservative; The Powell Dude ain't.
Bush 43 ain't much of one either, though he's not Darth Vader to Cheney's (not) Emperor either.
The title of the post ought to be, "Subject Matter: Familiarize Yourself With It Or Look Like a Fool"
I recall that particular thread and the one thing that stands out was that the writer who thought poorly of RL admitted to not listening to him and getting his RL data from the likes of the NYT. Then, he uses an article critical of Hannity to bolster his position.
There are points on which RL can be criticized very easily, but it would require that one _actually listen to the guy's broadcast_, not just regurgitate NYT/MSM hatchet talking points.
The upshot was that the others at NRO (more or less) gently schooled him on his ignorance.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.