AP – In the March 16 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, March 9): 'Enough! A Conservative's Case Against … Obama aides Rahm Emanuel and Robert Gibbs knew what they were doing when they declared Rush Limbaugh the leader of the Republican opposition. They were putting Republican politicians in a trap. Repudiating Limbaugh would mean alienating millions of conservatives and declaring Limbaugh's plainspoken conservatism - which many of those politicians share - outside the lines of the national debate. But neither could Republicans allow the insinuation that they take orders from a radio host stand. If voters got that impression, they would look weak. Worse, the polls show more people dislike Limbaugh than like him.
The Republicans escaped this trap by saying that the White House was talking about Limbaugh in order to avoid talking about Obama's failure to come up with a financial-rescue plan. But now one Limbaugh controversy has been replaced by another. Instead of squabbling with Democrats about him, Republicans are arguing with each other. The subject of the dispute: Does Limbaugh help spread conservatism among Americans - or turn them off from it? (Read "Criticizing Rush Limbaugh: Over the Line?")
Some conservatives have always winced at Limbaugh's in-your-face style. But the debate today has a special charge because, like the similar debate over Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin a few months ago, it is tied up with questions about the future of the Republican party.
In one camp are those who believe that the Republican party must modernize its message to account for changing circumstances. The columnist David Brooks has called these people the "reformers." Against them are the "traditionalists," who believe that Republicans need only recommit themselves to Ronald Reagan's agenda to succeed again. (Read "Can Michael Steele Broaden the Grand Old Party?")
The traditionalists push for upper-income tax cuts. The reformers want to cut the payroll taxes paid by the middle class. Traditionalists often deny that global warming is real. Reformers just want to make sure that our answer to it is cost-effective. The traditionalists want to hold the line on government spending. The reformers think that it's more important for Republicans to advocate market-friendly solutions to problems such as rising health-care costs and traffic congestion.
Limbaugh, needless to say, is a traditionalist, and some of the reformers have become fierce critics. The debate has gotten pretty hot over the last two weeks, with those critics going after Limbaugh's girth and his outraged fans accusing them of being closet liberals.
See the top 10 unfortunate political one-liners.
See pictures of the best Obama Inaugural merchandise.
It is not a smart battle for the reformers to fight. Most of their differences of opinion with Limbaugh do not really rise to the level of principle. (Whether global warming is happening and what risks it poses are empirical questions, not ideological ones.) Moreover, the vast majority of conservative voters agree with Limbaugh, not the reformers, on most of these questions. If Limbaugh were to disappear tomorrow - which, by the way, he is not going to do - most conservatives would still put upper-income tax cuts at the top of their agenda. It's not as though they believe what they believe because Limbaugh told them to.
It would be destructive for the traditionalists to attempt to purge the reformers, who have some good ideas. But for the reformers to attempt to purge the traditionalists, who outnumber them, is just plain batty. If the reformers succeed, it will be by persuading traditionalists such as Limbaugh, not bulldozing over them. (See the screwups of Campaign '08.)
Besides, Limbaugh plays a valuable role within conservatism. His show, like Fox News, is not as high-flown as conservative intellectual journals such as The New Criterion and First Things. But those publications have small circulations. Their influence is long-term and indirect. Conservatism needs mass media, too, to affect day-to-day politics: to jam phone lines; to pull the national conversation rightward. It needs Limbaugh and the many like-minded talkers elsewhere on the airwaves. Doubtless they could do their jobs better, as could the conservative writers who scorn them. But if Limbaugh did not exist, conservatives would have to invent him. And it would be hard to do - as liberals have found when they have tried and failed to come up with their own successful radio shows.
Talk radio is the only medium that conservatives dominate in America. Is it really shrewd for conservatives to begin their political exile by attacking the leading figure in that world? To ask is to answer.
Limbaugh and his conservative critics have more in common than they think. The political import of the last two weeks of Limbaugh-mania is this: The Republicans' decline is now entering a phase in which its members are more emotionally invested in attacking each other than in attacking Obama. As long as that holds true, the White House can safely ignore the opposition, no matter how loud it gets.
See who's who in Barack Obama's White House.
See pictures of presidential First Dogs.
View this article on Time.com
Related articles on Time.com:
No comments:
Post a Comment