Rush Rules Their World
It’s pathetic to see conservative politicians repeatedly bowing and scraping and apologizing after offering criticism of the Great Leader Rush Limbaugh, but for a true measure of Rush’s influence look at what happens after Cato’s Jerry Taylor offers some criticism of Limbaugh at the Corner. All hell breaks loose. Katherine Jean-Lopez attacks Taylor. Mark Steyn rebuts that she “should have been harder on Jerry Taylor’s post.” Taylor defends himself then K-Lo fires back expressing shock that anyone would dare accuse a talk radio host of at times deploying invalid arguments* while Rich Lowry agrees that Rush is wrong about stuff but insists that he should be immune from criticism anyway. K-Lo, back for more, gushes that Rush has a large audience so everyone had better get in line.
Conor Friedersdorf has a good response on the merits, but I just find the whole thing kind of mind-boggling. Rush’s defenders understand, I hope, that painting Rush as the all-powerful lord of conservatism before whom all else must submit was, in its origins, a political strategy devised by their enemies, right? So why are they jumping so quickly to prove that the argument is dead-on?
* I, for one, will be happy to grant that invalid arguments for correct positions occur on progressive radio, on progressive TV shows, and even on progressive blogs. It’s a common feature of the universe, and especially of arguments that are also supposed to be mass entertainment.
62 Responses to “Rush Rules Their World”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 13th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
So why are they jumping so quickly to prove that the argument is dead-on?
Because the people at The Corner are basically in the same niche entertainment industry as Rush. And so like Rush, their economic interests are not aligned with the electoral interests of the Republican Party.
May 13th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
I, for one, will be happy to grant that invalid arguments for correct positions occur on progressive radio, on progressive TV shows, and even on progressive blogs.
And I, for two. But no status (talk show host, politician, POTUS or private citizen) that exempts you from criticism for presenting invalid arguments.
May 13th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Unlike The Gipper and Pup – the current batch of pseudo-Burkean slime are none too shining or bright. Rush is their heavy hitter and they’d sooner give up skittles and hoes than to diss the offal behind the curtain.
May 13th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
DTM,
exactly!
When are Republican politicians going to figure out that a talk radio host with a 19% apporval rating can have a huge audience and be the biggest talk radio host in the world, but his entire audience voting for you won’t win you a single Senate seat since they aren’t above 25% or so in any particular state.
May 13th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Couldn’t you provide quotes? I really don’t want to click on those links.
Anyway,
Rush’s defenders understand, I hope, that painting Rush as the all-powerful lord of conservatism before whom all else must submit was, in its origins, a political strategy devised by their enemies, right? So why are they jumping so quickly to prove that the argument is dead-on?
No, I think it’s clear they don’t understand this. Or rather, they do, but it’s something out of 1984 where they think it’s a Democrat trap one day and then agree with everything Rush is saying the next day. Being in an echo chamber for so long tends to diminish one’s powers of logic and self-observation.
May 13th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
When looking for explanations for why someone does something stupid, do not overlook the obvious.
May 13th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
The only way this makes sense to me is if Rush has huge behind-the-scenes influence. He is a large fundraiser, I don’t see how that can’t possibly negate the negative PR his association brings to the party.
There just has to be something we can’t appreciate from the outside of the circle.
May 13th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
K-Lo is Spanish for schedenfreude.
May 13th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
So why are they jumping so quickly to prove that the argument is dead-on?
It ain’t complicated. The people that pay their bills are also fans of Rush, and most of them like him better.
May 13th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
[...] #3: Matt Y. does exactly what we did here. His takeaway: Conor Friedersdorf has a good response on the merits, [...]
May 13th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
So, a radio talker’s big audience is proof that his ideas are absolutely above reproach under any circumstances. Yet, a certain sitting President with 7 million more votes cast for him than his opponent should never be praised, because the people who voted for him didn’t know what they were doing?
America is rapidly becoming the new South Africa.
May 13th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
It’s kind of ironic that not too long ago, the Democratic Party was considered to be weak because it didn’t act monolithicly, and now the Republican Party is falling apart because it is.
It’s also incredibly ironic that disagreement, a major feature of our government, is a liability if you’re a Republican.
Good luck to the GOP in getting back on the rails.
May 13th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
From Kathryn Jean Lopez:
Bwuh? She’s saying the Left… wants their own opponents to be effective and listened to?
May 13th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
I read a bit of it. Jerry Taylor is trying to reason with them. Rational argument is less effective than running or hiding once the tar is warm and the chickens are plucked.
May 13th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
From Kathryn Jean Lopez:
Effective like this?
If this is K-Lo’s idea of being effective, and she is representative of the current crop of Republicans, it certainly helps explain the utter failure of both the last Republican Presidency and Republican controlled Congress.
May 13th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
12. You are missing the point that in the past, the Democratic Party’s over-reliance on ideological rigidity and monolithic thinking made their party too narrow and ineffective against the GOP “big tent”. The beauty of Clinton was that he simply made the Tent bigger, and didn’t make ideological purity the main driving force behind every decision. Yet, despite the occasional discord, Clinton was able to maintain DISCIPLINE in the party, keeping everyone focused on the bigger picture. Until the Lewinsky thing, then the Democrats foolishly bought into the Right Wing outrage and proceeded to run an almost apologetic campaign in 2000, allowing Bush to snake into the WH.
The Republicans have fallen into the “purity” trap of the 1970’s era Democrats. Not enough of a big tent to bring in new voters, and an increasingly over the top mean streak that will do very little to bring in swing voters into their camp.
Christ, the GOP has been reduced to OPENLY WISHING FOR A TERRORIST ATTACK ON THE US.
May 13th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
I like their plan and I’m proud to be a part of it.
This just in here on Election Night 2012:
With the polls having closed an hour ago in the Southern Battle States, ABC is calling Alabama and Georgia for President Obama. For now, the Republican firewall; Mississippi is still too close to call.
May 13th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
I’m sorry, is K-Lo available in English? Every time my brain slides off her incomprehensible drivel, I’m reminded of this.
May 13th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
I stop reading the Corner for one week and end up missing Gopperdammerung (TM). This, by Lowry, catches my eye:
That is the sound of a center-right party swirling down the drain.
May 13th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
It may be a strategy to you, it is reality to the conservative base. As a strategy, it’s as inane as taking out negative ads saying Obama is the leader of the Democrats. Stating the obvious, doesn’t move anyone. Not understanding the realities of a situation just marks the observer as ignorant.
Aside from that people that listen to Rush on a regular basis don’t really care what you think. After all, what intellectual worth do you carry? It’s much harder to promote personal responsibility and the value of freedom, than “free stuff if you vote for us”.
May 13th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Why doesn’t anybody ever call a spade a spade with guys like Hannity and Rush? They’re both demagogues, plain and simple. Their shows are both devoid of any real substance — Rush goes on long, unfocused rants that eventually end up going from starting point A, and ending up at some typical conservative banality, usually that government always screws things up.
Any information they put out is assuredly absent context, whether it’s pro-right or anti-left. The fact that Rush has been doing his thing for so long, spawned so many imitators, and ‘recruited’ enough people to the cause that have become the backbone of modern Republicanism goes a long way in explaining the intellectual vacuum that exists in the party.
The sooner these types are labeled effectively as demagogues and then appropriately maginalized the sooner we can tackle other cancers in our political system. Plus, we might get better quality talking points from the trolls that inhabit this blog!
May 13th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Aside from that people that listen to Rush on a regular basis don’t really care what you think.
HINT: The strategy is aimed at the 80% of Americans that don’t listen to Rush or like him very much.
May 13th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Gopperdammerung
Brilliant
May 13th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
shooter says: Not understanding the realities of a situation just marks the observer as ignorant.
It’s fine when your reality isn’t shared by the vast majority of the country, unless you aspire to influence the direction of the country. Then you have a choice to make, you either reevaluate your reality or your aspiration. That’s fairly obvious, so you may want to temper your instinct to question the intelligence or worth of others for awhile.
May 13th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
it’s kind of funny to see Democrats say, “It’s a shame that Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican party” just to find such sentiments followed by comments from people like shooter that say, “You’re darn RIGHT he is! I can’t believe people would say something so obvious!”
Keep digging!
May 13th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
HINT: The strategy is aimed at the 80% of Americans that don’t listen to Rush or like him very much.
And the candidates who need some of those 80% to get elected.
May 13th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Limbaugh has become the poster child of the tail wagging the dog.
So, given the moral cowardice of congress-critters in general, and GOP pols in particular, and given the vacuity of their sophistical mouthpieces, it isn’t surprising that nobody disagrees with him. No Republican could survive a primary where he backed an opponent and no paid-lackey could keep a cushy sinecure if Limbaugh gave them the thumbs down.
May 13th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
KLS said… It’s fine when your reality isn’t shared by the vast majority of the country, unless you aspire to influence the direction of the country.
The current core of the right-wing wants to be able force their ideas down the throats of America. It doesn’t matter what people think, want, or believe. The wingnuts always know they’re right. That’s why they never take responsibility for ANYTHING, even when their policies obviously fail.
The core of the right today would actually thrive much better under a dictatorship. George, Dick, Karl et al certainly tried to give it to them.
May 13th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Rush’s defenders understand, I hope, that painting Rush as the all-powerful lord of conservatism before whom all else must submit was, in its origins, a political strategy devised by their enemies, right? So why are they jumping so quickly to prove that the argument is dead-on?
Damn, Matt, you had to go and tell them!
May 13th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
K-Lo is hilarious. Does she ever post about topics that aren’t Rush, Palin, Catholics, or dead fetuses?
Also, he doesn’t have an “approval rating,” as far as I know. All those polls are measuring “favorability.” Just a minor nit.
I love how Steyn and co. trump up Rush’s 20 million listeners as some sort of unrivaled and assuredly-sufficient bloc that can obviously form a successful and winning party come national election time. Does Steyn know how many Americans live in this country?
May 13th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, not lack of intelligence.
That said, considering the dearth of conservative political leaders, why would anyone who detests Republicans care who gets painted as the leader? What exactly was the strategy supposed to accomplish? Even the dittoheads voted for Obama.
You may not have noticed but there is no bi-partisanship in Washington, ideology is getting more polarized by the day. And in that polarization, conservatives can’t compete with promises of a perfect world. A tsunami of selfishness fueled by government largesse is just too much to overcome. Aspiring to influence the direction of the country is a waste of effort at this point. That’s the conservative’s reality.
What you folks should worry about, is the rich fodder of hypocrisy and general lunacy, that will give conservatives entertainment for the next few years. Don’t worry about us, we’ll be having a good old time as the loyal opposition.
May 13th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, not lack of intelligence. … why would anyone who detests Republicans care who gets painted as the leader? What exactly was the strategy supposed to accomplish?
I’m not sure whether you inability to figure these things out denotes a lack of knowledge or a lack of intelligence.
May 13th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
That said, considering the dearth of conservative political leaders, why would anyone who detests Republicans care who gets painted as the leader? What exactly was the strategy supposed to accomplish?
I would think it would be obvious. A lot of moderates and independents are wary about big government and huge spending. But they know they really, really don’t like Rush and what he represents. So by painting the landscape as Obama vs Rush, people who might otherwise not be on Obama’s side are because they dislike Rush more.
Even the dittoheads voted for Obama.
No, they really didn’t. I think it was 94% of Rush listeners voted for McCain. They did actually ask this in one of the exit polls. The same percent that went for Bush.
Anyway, I would hope you’d see the problem with what you’re doing. By making your party more and more dependent on agreeing with every part of your platform and ostracizing anyone who only agrees with 80% of it, you’re turning it into a very polarized, very loyal, very loud group. One that’s 20% of the country. It’s the same strategy the Club for Growth has been using to lose every election they have a candidate in: win the primary by being more conservative than the other guy, lose the general because you’re way too conservative for the overall electorate.
And Rush is leading the charge. I don’t mind telling you because you probably won’t listen and it doesn’t matter if you do: Rush and Hannity are killing your party. As in, if I had a double agent infiltrate the party 20 years ago with the goal of marginalizing it and ensuring Democratic electoral success, he would be doing exactly what Rush is doing. Ponder that for a bit before you trumpet him.
May 13th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
LFC,
You’re right of course, and they’re doomed because of it. But because I would prefer the healthy tension only two intellectually honest political parties can provide, I’d like to see the GOP start over. Don’t get me wrong, I’m enjoying the spectacle of them on holed-up and dying on their one-way street, they’ve earned it, but I don’t want it to go on forever. It’s getting close to being time for them to all hold hands while Rush distributes their kool-aide.
May 13th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Aspiring to influence the direction of the country is a waste of effort at this point. That’s the conservative’s reality.
Nah, that is just the Limbaugh-led GOP’s reality. Lots of other conservatives can and do influence the direction of the country, they just aren’t capable of doing it through the GOP right now because the GOP has decided to take itself out of the process.
Which again is fine with Rush–he makes his money from things like selling his audience to advertisers, and whether or not the GOP actually influences policy is irrelevant as long as the money keeps flowing to him personally.
May 13th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
The three million or so Americans who listen to Rush each day are the most influential Americans.
May 13th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
It really is amazing. I grew up reading National Review in the mid 1980’s, and while the magazine then articulated positions that I now (and would have then, had I more knowledge) disagree with, it contained actual arguments, some bits of high culture, and the occasional entertaining memoir or short story.
It is amazing to see, however, that a moderately critical argument of talk-radio articulated by a Cato Fellow can be met with nothing but scorn, avoidance, and repeated non-sequiturs–with the occasionally pathetic cheer-leading “shout out” to the movement offered by everybody’s favorite clown, K-Lo.
Note that not one of the respondents to Jerry’s piece even *acknowledges* the existence of Hannity’s hysterical hit-piece, “Obama and Friends”; that every one continue to spouts “ratings” when Jerry is talking about “influence”; and that they are all seemingly motivated not to offend the hosts in question.
May 13th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
wj, I also read the National Review in the 80s, and reading this exchange really brought its decline (editorial and philosophical) into sharp relief. That’s why Lowry talking about all their Limbaugh-loving interns points the way to a bleak future for the magazine.
On the other hand, they probably brought this on themselves. In the early days of the Clinton administration, National Review literally ran a cover illustration of Limbaugh with the caption “Leader of the Opposition”. Wish I could find it.
May 13th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Got a call from a Rasmussen robo-poller yesterday. One of the questions was: Who is the head of the GOP?
Michael Steele? John McCain? Sarah Palin? Rush Limbaugh? Eric Cantor?
Happy to say Limbaugh (might even be true). Be interesting to find out what the country thinks.
May 13th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Adam…
Much like the Moveon, FDL, Greenwald, wing of the left?
I understand your point, and have no problem with it. In fact, I think Republicans have to hit bottom and decide whether the evangelical types are going to keep submarining the party or not.
Until they are sequestered, the Republicans best beacon is still Limbaugh. I’d much rather have the best conservative communicators out front rather than a RINO like McCain.
May 13th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
K-Lo does come in English. Remember this?
It’s English all right – delusional English.
May 13th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
I think it’s their way of giving us more of the Senate in 2010, because in their heart they know we’re right.
May 13th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
In fact, I think Republicans have to hit bottom and decide whether the evangelical types are going to keep submarining the party or not.
It’s not the evangelical types that are submarining the party. They’re the only reason that Republicans win as many elections as they have in recent years. It’s the manifest incompetence and failed ideas that submarined your party.
May 13th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
“I’d much rather have the best conservative communicators out front rather than a RINO like McCain.”
How is pro-life, pro-gun, anti-spending, military vet McCain a RINO?
Mike
May 13th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
KLS said… But because I would prefer the healthy tension only two intellectually honest political parties can provide, I’d like to see the GOP start over. Don’t get me wrong, I’m enjoying the spectacle of them on holed-up and dying on their one-way street, they’ve earned it, but I don’t want it to go on forever. It’s getting close to being time for them to all hold hands while Rush distributes their kool-aide.
I have to agree. When I was first eligible to vote, I was actually a Reagan Republican because I didn’t think Carter was an effective President and I thought the Dem Congress of the day was incredibly corrupt. I didn’t agree with all of Reagan’s policies by any stretch, but I voted for him.
Flash ahead to the second half of the 1990’s. Gingrich’s budget battles. The Clinton impeachment over a legal BJ. Hyde’s explanation of his own infidelity in his 40’s as a “youthful indescrition”. By then, I was staunchly anti-Republican. I still don’t feel like a Democrat (but am registered as one so I can vote in the primaries), but I KNOW I’m not remotely Republican.
May 13th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
heighten the contradictions! two, three, many Rush Limbaughs!
May 13th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
we’ll be having a good old time as the loyal opposition.
Glad to hear it. Especially the “loyal” bit. You wanna let Pete Sessions know?
May 13th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Huh, so the Republicans believe in the “loyal opposition” huh? Guess they owe the Dixie Chicks a huge apology about right now.
May 13th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Re: I also read the National Review in the 80s, and reading this exchange really brought its decline (editorial and philosophical) into sharp relief.
I gave up on the print version of NR some time ago, and finally quit reading the Corner last year. There used to be some serious (even if wrong) stuff between the covers. Since Bill Buckley has passed from the scene the midgets who succeeded him wouldn’t know a serious idea is one bit them in the rear. Too, there were some unusual characters on tap: Florence King, Rod Dreher, etc. and they were free to wander off the plantation from time to time and even to dabble in heresies. Ms. King lampooned Promise Keepers far more effectively than any liberal ever did, and she later pronounced Juanita Broderick to be completely lacking in credibility. Nowadays only John Derbyshire is left of these oddballs, and I wonder how long until he too is given the gate.
May 13th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Stop projecting. The left doesn’t have a Limbaugh. The left doesn’t toss people out who disagree with the central message of the party. The left doesn’t even have a central message that they could base a purity test upon.
May 13th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Could one of the Limbaugh supporters on this thread clear something up for me? Why exactly _was_ Rush returning from a trip to the Dominican Republic, whilst on probation for Class I prescription drug violations, with (a) no wife, mistress, or girlfriend in tow (b) a suitcase full of unprescribed and illegal Viagra? What did he need all that Viagra for on a solo trip to the Dominican?
Cranky
May 13th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Yglesias,
I think you yourself noted that Republicans have more solidarity. It is a strength for them when Edwards gets thrown to the wolves, but Vitter does not.
I think Obama’s team found a brilliant way to turn a Republican strength into a weakness. It is sacrilege for conservatives to turn on their own like this, even when they are defending a hateful clown like Rush.
May 13th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
One other thought. It seems like a lot of the Corner people in this little spat are saying we “look Rush is successful, more successful than we are, he deserves our respect, even if he garnered his success by supporting our ideas with untruths.”
I think this largely speaks to the idea that modern conservatism has become an ends-based ideology. These people defending Rush at the Corner are basically saying, “one way you can be successful is by being right, but you can also be just as successful being wrong. We should respect both.”
May 13th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
He objected when a woman at one of his rallies called Obama a Muslim. No true Republican could do that.
May 14th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Much like the Moveon, FDL, Greenwald, wing of the left?
But Adam was referring to the entire GOP. So that is kinda a major admission, that the entire GOP has now become the equivalent of just the MoveOn wing of the left.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:01 am
Personally, I would love for Greenwald to be even half as influential and prominent as Limbaugh. But he isn’t. Most people other than obsessive followers of political blogs probably haven’t even heard of him.
Besides, the Limbaugh problem is not just that the GOP is identified with him, but also that Americans don’t like him or his agenda. I don’t know what Americans think of Greenwald’s agenda, but you know who I bet would know? Greenwald. It’s one of his regular features, pointing out that a politician or media figure said the American people believe or want X and then linking to poll data that shows that the American people do not, in fact, believe or want what the talking head said they believe or want.
So if there was a large popular movement in favor of unlimited executive power, government keeping secrets from and lying to the people, torture, spying on Americans, and all the other things Greenwald is against, I’m pretty sure he’d know about it and probably even talk about it. If not, feel free to dig up the evidence on your own.
May 14th, 2009 at 11:18 am
If you guys don’t like Rush, take his place. Power abhors a vacuum.
May 14th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Rush Limbaugh, along with Dick Cheney and his cronies are all criminals who should already be in jail. Limbaugh has no right to be on the ‘public airwaves’ spouting his hate and lies. Cheney has no right to be out of prison, he is a traitor and a war profiteer who has the audacity to be out claiming that torture is good and necessary. Why he is not beimg prosecuted for all of his crimes, I do not understand.
It is comical that these are all the Republican party has to offer when they do have many talented and intelligent leaders who make sense and who are truly patriotic, not idiotic and criminal.
We do not torture – Condoliar and Bush will also be at the hearings I pray.
May 14th, 2009 at 11:45 am
i really can’t believe how levelheaded, cogent, and totally non-vitriolic jerry taylor’s critique is. let’s hope that rino gets kicked out to the green party for his sacrilegious beliefs
May 14th, 2009 at 11:54 am
this is also pretty great: “I have no doubt that Rahm & friends are loving Righties trying to distance themselves from Rush & Sean.”
yea…that’s exactly what obama wants…the right wing to not be friends with rush…
May 14th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
The GOP strategy is crazy to be sure, but it is only detached from reality if you don’t buy into their basic assumptions:
1. The vast majority of Americans are basically conservative in their views of individual morality, suspicion of Big Government, and disdain for high taxes and Government Spending.
2. The public was turned off by the Republicans IN SPITE OF their conservatism rather than because of it. Bush’s big spending, the growth of Government, crony Capitalism, and Nation Building are actually examples of a Liberal/Statist approach to government, NOT a conservative one. The Republicans, in effect, lost the moderate/independent vote primarily because they acted too much like liberals, NOT because Conservatism failed.
3. The way to win back the moderate/independent voters is to get back to the principles that, unfortunately, a “Washingtonized” Republican Party discarded in order to consolidate personal political power over the last 8-12 years. This is the real reason that the Republican Party has been punished in the last two elections, NOT because Liberal Policies have suddenly become appealing to anyone but those on the “Loony Left”.
They realize that they may have to spend some time in the wilderness to pay for the profligate ways of Republican leaders over the last few years, but they are convinced that not only are they right about virtually everything, but that within a few years (maybe sooner if the Liberals over-reach) the public will come to their senses and turn to the Republican Party to liberate them from Statist Democrats once again. The timing is a little sketchy, but the ultimate victory is assured (but only if they STICK TO THEIR GUNS).
May 14th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Re: the entire GOP has now become the equivalent of just the MoveOn wing of the left.
Keep an eye on two primary races next year: Crist vs Rubio in Florida for Senate, and Hutchinson vs Perry in Texas for the governorship. If Crist and Hutchinson coast to success it’s a sign that the GOP finally gets it and will reign in the crazies in the name of electoral success. If one or the other fail, it’s a sign that there’s still a major blood feud to be fought. And if both should fail then we can expect the GOP to go the ways of the Whigs (and with the danger that the crazies may take up arms the way the anti-slavery zealots did in the 1850s when they had no major party to represent their cause).