A Limbavian Flap

Hibernation is over and this Dino is back! Now, it is time for more exhilarating commentary.

Monsieur Remi asks if anyone still listens to Rush Limbaugh. Seems like they sure do these days.

I will admit right here and right now that I am opposed to talking any more about Rush Limbaugh. He is a distraction, and everyone has said as much. Right now children are wandering about uneducated, the world’s economy is imploding, and Americans and other humans are getting killed in various wars.  But media talking heads, politicians, and average Americans love bright shiny distractions. So in the spirit of talking about affairs that have no demonstrable importance, I will indulge in the ultimate purpose of Dino: to tell you the things that I am thinking.

Barack Obama and his political machinery have made it very clear their intentions: no one likes Rush Limbaugh, so if you equate him with the average Republican then no one will like any Republican, average or no. Rush Limbaugh, whose income is derived from the number of people that listen to him, always profits from controversy. And he has hardly failed to take advantage of Rahm Emanuel’s generous offer to make him “the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican party.” 

The advantages may be financial for Mr. Limbaugh. Or maybe he genuinely wants to be the ‘intellectual’ force of conservatism. He certainly enjoys people paying attention to him. So on one or more of these levels, Mr. Limbaugh has profited. Mr. Obama and Mr. Limbaugh are in collusion – although certainly not as amicable partners.

Amy Holmes has conveniently inverted Mr. Emanuel’s comments and the situation they have created in a way that highlights what is really going on:

Imagine, for a moment, if George Bush and his chief of staff had made coordinated and concerted attacks on Michael Moore, and suggested that the colorful left-wing fulminator — not Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid — was the “true intellectual force” behind the Democratic party. Imagine the howls of protest. And, undoubtedly, the media would have focused on the propriety of a commander-in-chief and his advisers wasting time and political breath on an entertainer. And yet we have President Obama and his hammer, Rahm Emanuel, doing just that in a time of war and economic crisis, and the story is about … Republicans!

Conservative commentator David Frum recently rebutted this Limbavian flap in a Newsweek article entitled “Why Rush is Wrong.” He argues for changes that he believes will bring the GOP back to power, and Mr. Limbaugh’s place in that equation.

Rush knows what he is doing. The worse conservatives do, the more important Rush becomes as leader of the ardent remnant. The better conservatives succeed, the more we become a broad national governing coalition, the more Rush will be sidelined.

Partly, Mr. Frum is motivated by the fact that Mr. Limbaugh and others have criticized him for his advocacy of a flexible conservatism. Mr. Limbaugh’s speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference on 28 February included commentary on such allegedly fractious elements of the GOP, in favor of an unchanging set of conservative idealogies:

Conservatism is a universal set of core principles. You don’t check principles at the door. This is a battle that we’re going to have. And there are egos involved here, too. When the situation like ours exists, there are people who want to lead it. They want to redefine it. Their egos are such that they want to be the next X, whoever it is. So there will be different factions lining up to try to define what conservatism is. And beware of those different factions who seek as part of their attempt to redefine conservativism, as making sure the liberals like us, making sure that the media likes us. They never will, as long as we remain conservatives. They can’t possibly like us; they’re our enemy. In a political arena of ideas, they’re our enemy. They think we need to be defeated.

First of all, we can notice two tendencies here. One is the overt reactionary nature of these comments (and if you read the rest of the speech you will notice a tendency to ramble off-topic, and the speaker’s need to congratulate himself on what is, at various points, his first national and international address). Second, and related, is the ultra-montane attitude that goes out of its way to be disliked by ‘the media.’ I cannot imagine that Mr. Limbaugh does not realize that he is part of the media. He is using a simple but very effective rhetorical trick: set up a straw man, then burn it down. The straw man here is the liberal media bias, about which he would be happy to tell you. But the bottom line is that he does not want to be liked by the mainstream media, because he can simultaneously cast himself as a rebel and self-righteous advocate for conservatism.

Then, Michael Steele, RNC chairman, called Mr. Limbaugh an entertainer, and his show incendiary and ugly. After lambasting Mr. Steele, Mr. Limbaugh received an apology from Mr. Steele. There are fewer more public ways to broadcast the internal chaos the GOP must be experiencing than through a radio host who has 13+ million listeners per week and is always on the lookout for more outrageous ways to attract more.

This incident is not only a lens to highlight the problems that the Right is having, but it also brings out very disturbing, yet normal, behaviors in the Left. It is precisely at the juncture of the conflict between Messrs. Steele and Limbaugh that Mr. Emanuel framed Mr. Limbaugh as the intellectual force of the Republican Party. The timing smacks of opportunism and the White House has much to gain from a Republican Party handcuffed to Rush Limbaugh.

So where is the Change that the nation voted for in November? The change in dialectic, the change in Washington politics that Mr. Obama purported to bring? The bi-partisanship – that word that we love to say but scarce know how to implement – where is it?

In the end, this issue demonstrates the nature of power and justice. Bi-partisanship is not reaching across the aisle with an open hand and a smile, and cooperatively solving problems. It is winning elections, having a sufficient majority in the Congress, holding the White House, and then telling the other side what the agenda is because the opposition does not have the practical bargaining chips to do anything else. This Limbavian flap is a realpolitik method, employed by Mr. Obama, of accomplishing ‘bi-partisan’ relations.

Executive Power: Too Much

“Bush, Out of Office, Could Oppose Inquiries”

Now, before we all get out our Bush-whacking sticks, let us make a few observations.

1. This practice was made into precedent by Harry Truman, the successor to that Democrat of Democrats Franklin D. Roosevelt. So being a Democrat does not make one an historical proponent of open and accountable government.

2. There is no constitutionality to this practice, just the inability of the Congress to assert itself.

3. Many Congressmen and Senators on both sides voted for the measures against which the majority of Americans now protest.

So why does the President take the heat? Is it because the people view him as the progenitor of all policy, domestic and foreign? Well, it takes at least two to tango in this Constitution – so why do we not also hold our legislators responsible?

An Election Note

Celebations are raging, quite literally, all over the world in the wake of the election of the new American President. Voters in the States are feeling a rushing high that they have enabled Change. Democracy, indeed, is designed to make one feel that his participation creates history.

And for all the symbolism of the 2008 election, and for all the historical import attributed to it, it might be helpful to remember: Nothing has happened yet. We have symbols, we have gestures. Will we fill them in with meaning?

The Bush Legacy

Anytime a President is about to do something you do not like, but you are not going to stop him from doing it, all you have to do is say that “history will regard him as the worst president ever.” Let us lay aside the fact that when people say this, they usually mean “public opinion” and not “history.” And by “public opinion” they mean their opinion, which is usually the only one that they care about anyway.

And we have repeated this process enough times from, say, John Adams onwards that the moniker has stuck at least once. To tell you the truth about it, I like the idea that history will take revenge on someone’s reputation after they have shed this mortal coil. But I am not naive enough to think that history always gets it right, or that it even matters who reigns supreme in the kingdom of worst presidents.

Yet, as we hurtle shakily towards the 20th of January, we may find ourselves with boiling blood and steam pumping out of our ears when we think about the past eight years of Bush administration. I need not remind you, faithful Dino-Readers, of our recent history in the Middle East, in New Orleans, in sub-prime mortgage regulation. Many of us feel secure, now, in the notion that finally the title will stick and Mr. Bush will become the worst president in all of history.

When lo and behold, rearing its ugly head into our airspace, comes this opinion piece by Prof. Stanley Fish, currently Professor of Humanities and Professor of Law at Florida International University, as well as Dean Emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Disregarding Prof. Fish’s critical lack of adherence to any logical system of thought in his postmodernist scholarship, could he be right that George W. Bush will wiggle his way into our hearts when we no longer feel obligated to hold him responsible (for the many things in which we were complicit)?

Unfortunately, I think the answer is yes. Consider it a reversal of what happened to Harry S. Truman and Winston Churchill. They, along with Franklin D. Roosevelt, are the greatest war-time politicians of the 20th century (and perhaps of all time – only being rivaled by Abraham Lincoln, at least on this side of the Atlantic). They enjoyed supreme unity amongst their fellow-citizens during the war, but once there was peace they quickly found themselves out of jobs. Come to think of it, the same thing happened to old Themistokles – he rose to prominence on his naval construction program platform, and after the navy won the Persian War he quickly fell from favor and eventually resettled in Persia itself (imagine if the old Bulldog bought a condo in Stalingrad!). They were good wartime leaders, and once their nations had used them for that, they were out the door before you could muster a “blood, sweat, and tears” speech.

Now George Bush will leave office in the wake of strong criticism during the entrenched battle that was his administration. Without any responsibility, and therefore no reason to blame him for anything, we may yet embrace him as that funny sounding Texan with the boyish swagger. Maybe Prof. Fish will be proven wrong and our disgust for Mr. Bush will remain. But the cogs of history are slow to work, slow to judge: the machinations of the courtroom of history click and whistle and belch up hot air for much time before a verdict, if ever, is handed down from the ivory tower jury.

Late Night Diatribes

Last night as I sat down to munch on a carrot (which was a ploy to keep me away from the triscuits, which didn’t end up working, I just ate both) I flipped on the TV.  I had a DVD ready to go and planned on just flipping the video switch when Letterman’s voice caught my attention.

He was tearing into McCain like I’ve never seen anyone torn into before.  Unfortunately, this minute or so blurb doesn’t relay the full rancor of Letterman’s attacks.  It was clear this was a personal issue for him.  He deeply respects John McCain and I think that he is feeling what most independent minded Americans are feeling from McCain: total betrayal through stunning incompetence.

Finding a live feed of McCain getting ready to talk to Katie Couric when he told Letterman he has to “rush back to Washington” was just dumping kerosene all over the inferno.  Dave didn’t let him off the hook all night.

Seeing as late night was on a roll, I stayed tuned in for Craig Ferguson.  I can’t wait for Conan to take Leno’s spot so I can watch Ferguson more often.  His show is completely powered by his personality, an energy source that seems inexhaustible.  Anyway, he had his own fair share of political words for he evening, venting about the bank bail out and McCain’s ridiculous campaign suspension.

Strange times.

Rehtoric or “What I Want to Hear”

It’s that time of the year again.  Candidates solidified, conventions finished, and my father and I immediately begin debating the merits of various candidates.  We have civil debates and, as much as the adage insists that politics and religion don’t belong at the dinner table, they’ve never distracted from the taste of steak and wine for us.

As a nation, though, I’m not so sure civil debates are possible.  In The Atlantic this month, James Fallows has watched all the debates of the campaigning season, a staggering 47, in an effort to see if there is any value in a candidates rhetoric vis-a-vis his or her campaign and potentially competency. The result is more telling about the current standard we the people hold our moderators and the press to than any true insight into candidates perceived abilities.  CNN and ABC have a considerable amount to be ashamed of.

I don’t quite know how to express my disgust at hand-raising yes or no questions.  What does that tell me about what a candidate thinks?  Or, more importantly from what a debate reveals, how a candidate thinks.  We are, after all, looking at someone to lead us and make decisions.  I want to know how he or she will make these decisions, not how he or she will raise a hand so that lazy journalists can opine with simpler efficiency.  I picture this leading to a culturally vapid future where our great leaders are sculpted in marble with their heroic hands thrust high in the air indicating yes, or, gasp, no.

As sensationalist as that is, the true show stopper is the complete lack of consistency or reasoning from (who else) Fox News analysts.  No one makes a better argument for the perils of free speech than this station.  The humor of the Daily Show presents hypocrisy with hilarity, but after the laughs are over, we should grumble at the sad feeling in the pit of our stomachs.

There is asbolutely no desire here to be consistent in reasoning. What saddens me is that the viewership of this station, instead of being insulted by its disregard for their intelligence, is sated by the constant stream of exactly what they want to hear.

The true loser in this affair are actual conservatives who hold to the republican party’s root values of limited government and individual self-reliance.  More and more, the voice of that party is verbal morphine.  Why look for yourself, why hear for yourself, why think for yourself, when someone can tell you what you want to hear?  Is it an exact contradiction of what you wanted to hear 3 months ago?  So what.

The sad irony behind this is that it is just this kind of easy-answer rhetoric that is the root of the problems its perpetrators are attacking.  It serves to disrupt the flow of news.  This is not reporting, because that would require thinking for oneself.  Everything broadcast here is intended as thinking for everyone else.  Independent ideas are a product of freedom, it’s probably about time people seize on that.  I can’t help but recall a campfire conversation from Easy Rider.

Billy: What the hell is wrong with freedom?  That’s what it’s all about

George: Oh, yeah, that’s right. That’s what’s it’s all about, all right. But talkin’ about it and bein’ it, that’s two different things. I mean, it’s real hard to be free when you are bought and sold in the marketplace. Of course, don’t ever tell anybody that they’re not free, ’cause then they’re gonna get real busy killin’ and maimin’ to prove to you that they are. Oh, yeah, they’re gonna talk to you, and talk to you, and talk to you about individual freedom.

Election Television

I assume that all blogs are now feverishly chronicling Michelle Obama’s visit to The View.  I might as well do the same.

(Not that I watch The View or anything, not that I have anything against it, just, you know, I’m with my grandmother, and she’s watching it, and I’m here, and Obama’s on, so I just, like, yeah, kind of saw it out of the corner of my eye or something.)

Well done, Michelle.  If the whole politics thing doesn’t work out, daytime TV will come calling.  She did an excellent job of establishing the primacy of her role as a mother more than a politician’s wife.  Not only was this a smart political move, it’s a refreshing ethical one as well.  Debates will continue to rage over parenting responsibilities but I think she hit on a good point–there just has to be a parent present, and if it’s not Barack, it will be her, if it’s not her, it will be him.  Good to know.

An interesting politico-cultural development coming out of this election is the ability to be TV savvy.  Obviously, image and television have played huge roles in politics since Kennedy-Nixon, but it seems that its influence has grown exponentially, perhaps even disproportionately, since 2000.  I think it’s fair to mark SNL’s Gore-Bush debates as the catalyst.  It was a perfect storm of sorts–the candidates invited ridiculous caricature and the country was in good spirits, ready for a laugh.  How soon the results would turn tragic…

The role of television has expanded tenfold since then.  Now there is the Daily Show to contend with, and Colbert, and basically every single show that a candidate, or his or her spouse, can be squeezed into.  Is this alarming?  Should we be concerned about this?  It probably depends on our relationships with our television.

In a sense, all of political life is an act (regardless of whether it is true-to-heart or not, acting is occurring), so we shouldn’t be surprised to find candidates on television programs where they are asked to play to their character.  Talk shows accomplish this just fine, and hell, they even invite the possibility of the serious slip-up or brilliant realization that can make or break a political career, and who would want to miss that?  As for SNL et al, I would hope candidates could joke about themselves, even if it is an act for them to tolerate it.  I would be really uncomfortable with a leader who could not even feign self-deprecation.

This wouldn’t be happening at all if it didn’t bring results.  Politicians can mail leaflets to every home in America but they will be heard and recognized by infinitely more people in a ten minute segment on Leno.  Television, for better and worse, is a vital part of our democracy because of its ability to stretch across all socio-economic divides.

Every second of a candidates life is scripted, built up by statistics, tested in audiences, and refined.  Politics has always been a show, only now, we can check our local listings to catch it.