Of Rush Limbaugh & the Conservative “Pantheon”
On election night, appearing on Pajamas TV, I said that with McCain’s loss, Rush Limbaugh had become the interim leader of the opposition. Much as I find the entertainer engaging and insightful, I did not mean for him to hold onto that mantle for very long. Given his unapologetic defense of conservative ideas, his optimism and yes, his combativeness, I thought Rush was the one to rally us in the wake of our electoral setbacks.
Roger Simon, appearing on the panel with me, disagreed, anticipating the discussion which would ensue when the White House teamed up with partisans in the MSM to smear the talk show host. He thought Rush was just too controversial and confrontational.
He was right to a point. Given his combativeness, his delight in confronting adversaries of conservatives, skills which makes him so effective as communicator in the medium of talk radio, Rush could never be anything more than a provisional leader of the right. Whereas, he excels in Reagan’s ability to communicate the ideas of conservatism to a mass audience (see e.g., his celebrated speech to CPAC), he lacks the Gipper’s ability to transcend partisan differences* when promoting conservative ideas.
That’s not to fault Rush. It’s just to distinguish him from Ronald Reagan.
Because Rush’s confrontational style does not endear him to independent voters and even some more cerebral conservatives, some on the right wish to write him out of our movement. But, when we see Rush for who he is and recognize the role he plays, we understand that he is an integral figure to our movement.
As I’ve suggested before, he, like other exponents of conservatism, albeit with different means and methods of expression, offers a unique contribution to conservatism. Just as each deity in the Greek pantheon brought a different gift to Olympus. Alone, each could not address all of humanity’s concerns, but together, they represent the qualities we all need to thrive in this world.
And that is why we should all bristle at those who wish to write Rush out. We need see him as one among many, with each bringing a particular skill, a particular gift, to our movement. Michael Barone, among his many gifts, offers a unique ability to analyze demographic details. Charles Krauthammer can analyze a leader’s character and put his policy proposals in a larger philosophical context. Victor Davis Hanson offers similar analysis, but can draw from his knowledge of history, to show where current policies could lead.
And there are others, each of whom plays a role. As I reconsider my initial comparisons, I realize they do not work as well as I wish they did. Barone, while having the gift for detail that helped define Hephaestus, also has an Apollonian gift of foresight. We see the qualities of Athena in Hanson as well as Krauthammer.
But, the broader point remains–that each conservative advocate brings something unique to the table, that none alone can succeed in getting our message across to the American people. Even we at GayPatriot have a role to play, small though it may be.
In an era where Democrats, as one of our commenters put it, “play hardball [to whom] politics is a profession — the end-all, be-all,” we need advocates who will fight back in the same terms. Rush is such a fighter. It would be nice if we only needed the more cerebral columnists, but they alone cannot get our message across in this current media culture.
Perhaps, I was wrong to see Rush as the conservative leader, even an interim one. We have yet to find the next leader of our movement; many are currently vying for the title. Whether we like it or not, Rush is not going away; he is part of our movement. And more people try to bring him down, the more powerful he will become.
To those conservatives who wish it were otherwise, let me ask you again to consider the Greek pantheon where each deity played a role. See Rush Limbaugh in the context of a larger movement, not as the Left would have you, as the movement itself.
And consider his role in the face of an intolerant left who would use whatever tactics they can, no matter how dishonest, no matter how mean-spirited, to destroy conservatives.
RELATED: Andrew Klavan’s “Take the Limbaugh Challenge: Liberals who hate Rush Limbaugh — why don’t you actually listen to his show before bashing him?”
By lifting some typically Rushian piece of outrageous hilarity completely out of context, the distortion gang knows full well it can get you to widen your eyes and open your mouth in the universal sign of Liberal Outrage. Your scrawny chest swelling with a warm sense of completely unearned righteousness, you will turn to your second spouse and say, “I’m not a liberal, I’m a moderate, and I’m tolerant of a wide range of differing views — but this goes too far!”
There is more untruthfulness in that statement than in a speech by President Obama. Even the commas are self-deceiving. You’re not a moderate or you wouldn’t be reading this newspaper. You’re not tolerant of a wide range of views; you are tolerant of a narrow spectrum of variations on your views. And, whatever you claim, you still haven’t listened to Rush Limbaugh.
*Reference to contemporary politics intended. Reagan clearly was a post-partisan president, offering a truly new kind of politics.
20 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
GPW, now they are going after Palin
Dem Strategists: Sarah Palin Is The New Rush Limbaugh
http://tinyurl.com/cggxhy
unbelievability
Comment by Pamela — March 30, 2009 @ 6:28 pm - March 30, 2009
Pamela, I just laughed when I read that. I mean, they do need an enemy to demonize, don’t they! It seems like something out of Monty Python.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — March 30, 2009 @ 6:34 pm - March 30, 2009
Rush Limbaugh – partisan – Good!
Rahm Emanuel – partisan – Bad!
Makes sense to me. (not)
Comment by Cecil — March 30, 2009 @ 7:40 pm - March 30, 2009
Um, Cecil, I’m not promoting Rush for a position of responsibility in the federal government. And am asking Rahm to forfeit his. Therein lies the distinction.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — March 30, 2009 @ 8:14 pm - March 30, 2009
#2: “Pamela, I just laughed when I read that. I mean, they do need an enemy to demonize, don’t they! It seems like something out of Monty Python.”
And like every strategy from the Demotard playbook, it’s “wafer-thin.”
Comment by Sean A — March 30, 2009 @ 10:55 pm - March 30, 2009
Related, the much-maligned Glenn Beck chews up a Democrat witch-hunter and spits out the pieces.
Comment by V the K — March 30, 2009 @ 11:08 pm - March 30, 2009
Man Oh Man!!! I watched the interview. It was the epitomy of Democrat double speak. Not pretty.
Comment by Duffy - Native Intelligence — March 31, 2009 @ 12:26 am - March 31, 2009
Many ran to defend Rush on Gretawire, numbering in the thousands. If all Obama has to offer is Marxist/socialism, many, many want him to fail.Obama is his own worst enemy right now. He can be a president or a turncoat to the country he was elected to lead. So far, turncoat seems to be his choice.
Comment by Libby — March 31, 2009 @ 3:10 am - March 31, 2009
[...] I read Pamela’s comment to my post on Rush Limbaugh & the Conservative Pantheon, I laughed a rich full-bodied laugh. [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » The Democratic Need to Demonize — March 31, 2009 @ 9:30 am - March 31, 2009
Rush is NOT a republican. He is a conservative. He is NOT partisan. He is true to conservative principles. If the Democrats flipped the way Reagan flipped, Rush would be with the Democrats.
When the Obama Politburo attacks Rush (and now Palin) they are following Alinsky’s Rule # 9 to demonize the competing ideology.
Obama is a cult leader and the Politburo fears that Rush or Palin could build a competing cult. This is not about partisanship. It is crushing the enemy in the revolution.
Comment by heliotrope — March 31, 2009 @ 10:38 am - March 31, 2009
Good point. Even at the height of the Bush administration, Limbaugh *was not* working in the White House, seating himself in the President’s war chair. Emanuel is.
Another great point. Limbaugh is one of the biggest, bitterest GOP critics out there. (A fact that has rankled a certain few of our local GOP commentors.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 31, 2009 @ 11:05 am - March 31, 2009
It seems like the same ones who want to write Rush out of the conservative movement also go around saying that conservatives and republicans have to have a big tent. What’s wrong with that picture?
Comment by eaglewingz08 — March 31, 2009 @ 1:26 pm - March 31, 2009
#12 – Right on! Hypocrisy in action.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 31, 2009 @ 3:09 pm - March 31, 2009
Why Rush is bad for the Republican party?
Exibit A: Tyrants (i.e. California) Wants to Ban Black Cars. Over the past sevreral days, I have heard this repeated over and over on conservative talk radio shows. Problem is, It’s False!
There are many reasons to despise the current government actions of both California and the national government. But the Republican brand MUST be the honest broker in this debate, a step above many of the liberal hacks. As long as the party follows the lead of Limbaugh, and he continues to lead the party on blatantly false diatribes, well, who will take you seriously.
Comment by Sonicfrog — April 1, 2009 @ 1:33 am - April 1, 2009
[...] In response to a post extolling the virtues of Rush Limbaugh over at Gay Patriot: [...]
Pingback by sonicfrog.net » Why Rush Limbaugh Is Bad For The Republican Party. — April 1, 2009 @ 1:46 am - April 1, 2009
Sonic. The correct statement is ‘mostly false’ wth a note that it was ammended on the 27th.
Hmm, recently ammended, maybe because of the public outcry?
And I’ll add that despite what they say about ‘not limiting colour choices’ by requiring a certain type of paint, (cool colours) they are talking about limiting choice.
Nice try though.
Comment by The Livewire — April 1, 2009 @ 7:30 am - April 1, 2009
But they were not going to ban black cars, period. Nor were they going to send all cars to the gallows that didn’t have the reflective paint. Any way you try to spin to Rush’s “interpretation” is a flat out false one. Note that Snopes says directly that:
OK, right off the bat, you know that California is in serious financial straits when they decide not to do something because it’s not “cost effective”. But back n point. There are many reasons to hate CARB. For instance, here in the San Joaquin Valley, in order to improve air quality, the nice people at CARB have banned burning wood in your fireplace for most of the winter. You can only use your fireplace when THEY deem it OK to do so.
But this is nothing new or surprising. Governments run by both parties do this all the time. The assertion that CARB was even thinking about banning black cars is FALSE. Changing the type of paint, yes, but banning black cars… NO.
It’s funny, when I write about the Republican party, I still instinctively want to write “we” instead of “them”. But I will not associate myself with a party that will lie just as easily as Democrats do to score political points.
Comment by sonicfrog — April 1, 2009 @ 12:10 pm - April 1, 2009
Sonicfrog, please don’t let the imperfections of our party prevent you from participating. And Rush, while he backs our party, is not representative of it. He is, as I’ve said in this post, one voice among many in the “cacophony” (wish it were more mellifluous) of voices that make up the conservative chorus.
He serves a purpose, but is not an elected official, nor would I want him to be one. Nor would he want to be one –as he has often said.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — April 1, 2009 @ 1:07 pm - April 1, 2009
But the “cacophony†pretty much seems nothing more than an echo chamber. I heard this false “Banned Black Cars” thing repeated on three different talk shows yesterday, and it is a Rush creation. Some of the myths surrounding the Terry Schaivo fiasco originated with Rush. Except for the different voice, there is little difference in the content of these shows, from Hannity, to Levin, to Glenn Beck, to Inga Barks, and on and on. You do have exceptions, such as Dennis Miller, and maybe Neil Bortz, but most follow Rush’s lead religiously.
PS. Who thought it would be a good idea to put Fred Thompson on the radio. I like the guy, but his show is about as engaging as his presidential campaign!
Comment by sonicfrog — April 1, 2009 @ 3:52 pm - April 1, 2009
[...] be as prominent as he is now when Republicans regain the White House, heck, even I called him the interim leader of the GOP in the immediate aftermath of the election. But, I don’t think Rush would mind being [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Of David Frum, Rush Limbaugh & the Republican Future — April 2, 2009 @ 8:31 pm - April 2, 2009