Real Fascists in the Wilderness
For about a year I’ve had a running dialogue with Jonah Goldberg, author of Liberal Fascism.Goldberg is a neocon who got so tired of being called a fascist for his right wing views that he has devoted the last two years of his life to neutralizing the term so it could no longer be used against the brownshirts of Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. The new Rasmussen Poll shows that what’s left of the Republican Party is pretty much the Palinistas.
Coming off a shellacking at the polls in November, the plurality of GOP voters (43%) say their party has been too moderate over the past eight years, and 55% think it should become more like Alaska Governor Sarah Palin in the future, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
Despite Goldberg’s efforts, I still think the term fascist applies to the Limbaugh/Palin movement, and even though they are in the wilderness right now, it doesn’t mean they are not dangerous to democracy. Richard Evans’ definitive book on the rise of fascists in Germany, The Coming of the Third Reich
For all their aggressively egalitarian rhetoric, the Nazis were relatively indifferent, in the end, to the inequalities of society. What mattered to them above all else was race, culture and ideology. In the coming years, they would create a whole new set of institutions through which they would seek to remould the German Psyche and rebuild the German character. After the purges of artistic and cultural life were complete, it was time for those German writers, musicians and intellectuals who remained to lend their talents with enthusiasm to the creation of a new German culture.
For the Nazis, the main institution used to “remould” the psyche was the radio, and that is why the right will fight so hard to keep their monopoly on talk radio and oppose the Fairness Doctrine. Evans also makes it crystal clear that in the midst of the depression, attacking artists was very important for the fascist movement. For the Republicans, I can assume their cheap shots at the meager funding for the NEA and artists in general is the modern day equivalent.
I have to point out that, in 1933, the Nazis were already in power, and from the very second that they laid hold of power, it was already much too late. On the day the Enabling Act was voted, Nazi thugs with clubs leered at Reichstag members as they walked into the building, and whispered reminders of what would happen to those who voted the wrong way.
Within weeks, sometimes within hours, the Nazis shut down political parties, unions, trade organizations, youth leagues, hiking clubs, church social groups, every possible form of human interaction that didn’t involve the Nazi party. All were replaced by ersatz Nazi replacements.
It was that suffocating blanket of Nazi “culture,” combined with the threat of violence, that more than anything made it impossible for Germans to think straight. It was certain knowledge that forming even a very small group of any kind, with even the most innocent of intentions, was likely to get you a couple of weeks in jail, if not a trip of undetermined length to a concentration camp.
Incidents of violent thuggery from the right in the US have been few, scattered, and not condoned by GOP leadership, thank God.
So far. Knock on wood. And I still worry about what Blackwater is doing these days.
I have no doubt, however, that if they had the chance, the Rush Limbaugh types would shut down all media that doesn’t conform to their definition of fair and balanced.
That being said, I don’t think it’s fair to equate the GOP’s hysterical obsession with the NEA to Nazism. In fact, it occurred to me last night that maybe a savvy Rahm Emmanuel suggested throwing in some GOP-baiting items like that, so the Dems could then take them back out, say, “OK we’re compromising here,” then nail the GOP when they vote against the bill anyway.
Dan
February 2, 2009 at 10:06 am
I think it’s fair to compare the mood of the Palinistas to National Socialists of sometime long before 1933. But so far, their actions don’t measure up to that kind of craziness. It’s just talk, sloganeering, jeers at public events or crude race-baiting like “Obama” monkeys or Limbaugh’s alternative lyrics for a Peter, Paul & Mary tune. Child’s play really.
Until they start organizing para-military marches, I’d prefer to stick to describing them as garden variety right-wing populists. Confused, angry, looking for scapegoats in illogical places. But only the raw material of Fascism, not yet its mailed fist.
Seth
February 2, 2009 at 11:09 am
I seem to recall a certain “Operation Chaos” having a distinctly anti-democracy edge to it. ref: wikipedia. OC even seems to have incited mass felony activity in several states, all for the completely overt goal of interfering with the democratic process. It didn’t work, but it was a very real call to break the law, and lots of people went along with it.
farkinga
February 2, 2009 at 11:36 am
Jon,
Wouldn’t the key reason the Nazi’s used radio be that it was the only mass communication medium available at the time? The plethora of meduims available today makes a repeat of such domination virtually impossible, and I would now see talk radio as a small niche.
cheers!
Adam
February 2, 2009 at 12:15 pm
The Nazis had a newspaper (still considered a means of mass communication, I think!) called the Volkische Beobachter (Racial Observer) from the 1920’s. As the 20’s rolled into the 30’s, they controlled or influenced more papers. After 1933 of course, no paper printed anything that Hitler didn’t want printed.
I personally don’t think radio was terribly important to the Nazis before the war. Once the war started, it was an important tool, but even more important to the Nazis was that people did not listen to any foreign broadcasts.
Dan
February 2, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Jon:
Why is someone so talented and savvy so completely taken-in by the likes of Rush Limbaugh? I’m at a complete loss for your obsession with the radio talk show host. Why are the right and their surrogates worthy of any consideration at this point? They’re completely and utterly defunct.
It’s not as though there’s a dearth of material. Suggested thread topics: the “Economic Recovery Act” – Trojan horse or the right economic remedy? Tom Daschle & Tim Geithner – more of the same, or the right choices in spite of the President’s outspokenness on ethics? The Fairness Doctrine – censorship by another name or strong medicine to compel discourse to a higher level?
I respect your insights but find your obsession with Limbaugh a bit boorish.
Roman
February 2, 2009 at 12:34 pm
It may be boorish, but it may be necessary. My neighbor’s dad gets pretty much all of his information from Rush. The neighbor himself gets a good chunk and believes some of it. Another neighbor was listening to him the other day. These are ‘normal’ Americans…not neocon fascists. They listen to Rush often or occasionally, but the message seeps in and the message is hate and insanity. Until pretty much everyone just turns him off, it is important to monitor what he’s spewing because his “ideas” (and I use the term oh so loosely) are entering the minds of a lot more people than many of us want to contemplate. I wish I knew how to get people to just turn him off. I told one of my neighbors to stop listening…she said she would, but one day she’s gonna be bored and turn on talk radio for ‘entertainment’ and the message will have another in the audience…again.
Amber in Albuquerque
February 2, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Amber:
What you are describing can be said for the MSM as well. Ever venture into a substantive discussion with someone who relies on the evening news and their favorite radio station’s five-minute news vignettes for their world view?
It wasn’t so long ago when people actually believed that if Tom, Peter and Dan didn’t say it, well it just wasn’t so, and if they did, well it was the honest to goodness truth…had to be, they said it.
It’s interesting to watch how this same monolithic adoration has jumped generations. How many friends and family now hold NPR, the NYT and the New Yorker in the same esteem? How many times have you encountered someone whose position was based solely on something they heard on the Lehrer News Hour, or read on the NYT op-ed page? If Jim Lehrer said it or Maureen Dowd wrote it…well it has to be the unbiased, well balanced and fact checked truth…has to be, they said it.
I guess I’m a bit less concerned with the likes of Limbaugh. To me, the most effective way to deal with him is to change the station or hit the on/off button. IMHO, today’s vast array of media outlets mutes (no pun intended) the need for the hyper sensitivity (i.e. references to brown shirts, Nazi’s etc.) described in Jon’s thread.
Frankly, Jon’s new found obsession with Limbaugh is as tedious as, well, Limbaugh himself.
Roman
February 2, 2009 at 2:02 pm
I have on many occasions heard people assert that Rush Limbaugh is literally a genius. That he reads 10, or 100, hundred, books a day, and retains 100% of what he reads. That he is a master of economics, philosophy, science, anthropology, you name it, no matter what the subject, he has mastered it. I have known many people who believe that, and assert it energetically. Repeatedly.
I have never, not once, heard anyone say, “It must be true, Jim Lehrer said it.”
A good relief for tedium, I usually find, is to turn away from the source of tedium and find another way to pass the time.
Dan
February 2, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Roman- Rush still can make the Republican party do his bidding.
Jon Taplin
February 2, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Roman, you may choose not to believe that Rush has any significant influence in America, but that doesn’t seem to equate with reality. The guy is all too important, and what he represents is all too real.
Rick Turner
February 2, 2009 at 3:04 pm
I’m more concerned with Rush because where say Leher and Dowd (or Charlie Gibson or even Katie Couric) all seem to be educated, reasonable individuals, Rush is opinion being spouted as fact. I’m not saying the MSM presents all the facts all the time, but they also aren’t presenting pure opinion as fact. Part of the problem may be media such as slate.com (which I really like), which are a mash-up of opinion and fact and leave the reader to figure out for his/herself which is which and where to draw the lines. Too many people can’t do that and many of those also listen to Rush.
Here in Taplinland it’s easy to believe that most people are intelligent, reasonable, and reasonably well-informed. Do a quick perusal of the comments section of almost any MSM web site and you’ll see the reality. Unreasonableness, if not downright stupidity, is the norm.
As usual, Rick Turner is right.
Amber in Albuquerque
February 2, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Roman, there’s a very good analysis of why Limbaugh, Palin et al still remain dangerous in the editorial of this month’s Harpers. In it, Mark Slouka points out that there’s a huge mass of voters who were prepared to vote for McCain/Palin, and beyond them a vast mass of people who couldn’t be motivated to vote at all. Of those that voted for Obama, there’s a likelihood that many were captured more by the idea of Obama as president than through any analysis of his policies.
As Slouka puts it, the electorate is like a box of puppies, who in their greed and willingness to rush into things will follow a plastic bone off a cliff if they think there’s something in it for them. The central thesis of his argument is that the US is an anti-intellectual country, and pretty much always has been, and as a result we can not take for granted that the election of Obama marks any kind of real change in the way politics works. Says Slouka: “I’d like to believe that we’re a different people now; that we’re more educated, more skeptical, more tough-minded than we were when we gave the outgoing gang of criminals enough votes to steal the presidential election, twice, but it’s hard work; actual human beings keep getting in the way.”
I think Jon is right to be wary. The economy is going to get a lot worse before it gets better, as are Afghanistan, global trade and climate change, and there are demagogues waiting in the wings to seize whatever discontent they can find to feed upon. Today’s USA is not Weimar Germany, but that doesn’t mean fascists aren’t to be viewed with extreme caution.
Rachel
February 2, 2009 at 5:41 pm
It’s hard to define, but you know it when you see it. One take on what is fascism:
“A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.”
My government professor thought it was all about power, and looking at what the SS and the core fascists did, I would say there’s a large element of kleptocracy involved too. Those folks up in Berchtesgaden lived pretty much just as high as the “Wealthy” do in our culture.
Guys like Haw-Haw Limbaugh and Gingrich and deLay and the rest are about power and money and self-indulgence. Limbaugh may have a J. Edgar set of personal preferences to go with his love of drugs. Gingrich knows how to make the trailer trash sit up and roll over with his symbol manipulation. Get out in the boondocks and the spirits of Ruby Ridge and Tim McVeigh are still animating the Aryan-Christian cultists.
I’m just old blind Tieresias, yakking in the public square. But for what my two cents is worth (maybe more, as deflation takes hold), these are people who the gentler folks on the Left, who try to see the best in people and like to find common ground and meetings of minds and coalitions and all that, just don’t understand. For them, as you will see in Congress as the Dems and the President make nicey-nicey with the Reds, the handle on the ratchet only turns one way. Every negotiation is a zero sum for them, and they generally manage to come up the winners in any sweetness-and-light “sharing” with liberals. People on the Right (and I include dictators like nominally Commie Stalin) are much more adept at murderous violence than the gentle souls of a liberal persuasion.
So call bullshit on the demagogues, every time they poke their tongues out. Never turn your backs on them, keep in mind that they are better organized at the core, have more coherent if insane visions, and are always pushing, pushing, pushing for the ascendancy of their types. A chaotic economy breeds Brown Shirts who need someone to blame — think they have any use for Obama’s rhetoric about personal responsibility? It’s somebody else’s fault, and if we just build enough F-22s and F-37s and battle robots, we can ease our economic pain by manifesting our destiny.
“Tedious and boorish?” Any bets that the liberals in the universities and sitting around sated and bored in the cabarets and other swankeries felt the same way about anyone who raised concerns about those charming folks who were going to nationalize everything, restore the Volk’s pride, and get on with their dominations and fascination with the dark side of the occult and pedophilia and colossal thefts and murder?
Bo-o-o-ring? Boorish and tedious to be concerned?
JTMcPhee
February 2, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Vigilance is a privilege in our country. It’s to be encouraged and exercised vigorously. My comments were not meant to belittle Jon’s concerns, on the contrary, they were meant to encourage a more forthright discussion of his underlying concern.
After reading Jon’s comments (the 10th ? mention of Limbaugh since the first of the year), I was left wondering if his obsession with Limbaugh simply reflected a professional interest or was Jon carrying someone else’s water. Perhaps those advocating enactment of The Fairness Doctrine?
I may be wrong, but it seems The Fairness Doctrine is the underlying issue here, not concern for the rise of fascism. If that’s correct, let’s have a forthright discussion of what that policy would actually mean to our country. If I’m wrong, I’ll simply pass over future posts regarding Mr. Limbaugh.
Considerations related to enacting The Fairness Doctrine include; can an argument be made for advancing the greater good by silencing opposing points of view? What liberties would be sacrificed? Who would establish the standard for acceptable content and speech? What penalties would be imposed for unacceptable content and speech? Would the doctrine apply to only a specific medium such as talk-radio, or would it apply to all mediums; print, television, radio, and web based content? Would it also apply to speech (daily conversation, public meetings, political rallies etc.)?
The Fairness Doctrine is more than a political club. It’s something that will change our country forever. From my perspective, it’s better to discuss this honestly and forthrightly than to demagogue the likes of Rush Limbaugh.
Roman
February 3, 2009 at 5:12 am
For me, the Nazi analogy misses the point. Choosing the German National Socialist party as the one true model of ‘fascism’ leads us into petty details as points of comparison. (“Are the muslims to the republican conservatives what the jews were to the national socialists?”)
Far better to look at all the fascist movements in Europe in the 1930s – in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and even England – and get a general sense of what ‘fascism’ was. From this we get a series of points that fit today’s Republican conservatives pretty well:
1. Disdain for parliamentarianism as ‘mere talk.’
2. Worship for ‘men of action’ such as business leaders, generals, and the executive branch.
3. Fierce loyalty to faith above reason. This is usually in the form of religion but not always.
4. Almost blind subservience to all those in uniform – police, firefighters, the military. This accords with the worship of the men of action.
5. Hatred of communism.
6. Hatred of labor unions.
7. Adoration of ‘captains of industry’ and all big business executives.
8. Corporatism, the general notion that the Government (embodied in the great Leader, a man of action often dressed up in elaborate uniform) should partner with the big shots of industry to rule the country into prosperity and wealth.
9. A sense of being owed ‘respect’ by the international community, usually through military conquest.
10. A fear and loathing of ‘others’ both internal and external, as enemies of the Homeland/Fatherland/Motherland. These ‘others’ who are, as Sarah Palin and her followers described candidate Obama, ‘not like us,’ and are the real culprits behind our current woes, to be attacked as subhuman, not accorded human rights, killed, dispossessed, and their property or territories taken over.
Goldberg can talk all he wants about the interventionist foreign policies of Clinton, Roosevelt, and Wilson, and how they were often pursued with military means; but those are a far cry from Italy in North Africa, Germany in central Europe, and America in Iraq.
pond
February 3, 2009 at 8:14 am
Roman,
Nice pose as non-fan of Limbaugh. But the faux-Paine distress about the “Fairness Doctrine” is a reliable tell. You’re drinking Limbaugh’s kool-aid.
Seth
February 3, 2009 at 8:20 am
“Vigilance is a privilege in our country.”
It is? If it’s not a *duty*, our duty, we get what we deserve and we’ve already received a fair part of what some of us deserve, with leftovers for the next 50 years for everyone to enjoy (not). The likes of Limbaugh, those who pay his wages, and those who do his bidding, cannot be
ignored. Let him spew his hateful, nonsensical, borderline pearls of wisdom – he has the right to do so – but he, like any other noxious weed, requires constant attention and control, an abatement program, if you will, to limit and
reduce the extent of his infestation of the American mind and soul. He’s been cultivating his willing audiences with his message of fear, prejudice, and more wealth for the rich (cleverly disguised as some sort of populist responsibility) for far too long to simply ignore him at this point and, in the end, it may only be those of us who keep the light of day on the bastard that stand between his version of the NWO and the one where lower life forms have any say at all in their own destiny. While Jon’s concern with L might seem to some to be a preoccupation, I think it’s better viewed as a desire, in his own small way, to keep that light shining directly on the man because he is arguably evil, widely distributed, and demonstrably influential.
Jeffwi
February 3, 2009 at 9:56 am
Seth:
I’ve been outted, sort of…
In the interest of full disclosure, I’ve had a passion for politics and a fan of talk-radio since I was a kid (credit to my grandparents). I can still recall my favorite station’s call letters and even the name of its evening host.
I found Limbaugh in 1990. He was bombastic, overbearing, and egotistical whose shtick was, of all things, politics.
Limbaugh was a bit of phenomenon back then. For three-hours a day, five-days a week he held a national audience talking about politics. In a certain sense, he made politics hip. People began talking about politics with an interest typically reserved for sports, religion or food.
What piqued my interest was his penchant for inside baseball. No one was discussing the day-to-day political grind, not because it was some big secret, but because it was (is) so darn boring. Limbaugh figured out how to make politics entertaining and engaging.
I stopped listening to Limbaugh with any regularity some time ago. Over time, he became predictable, and when that happens, it’s just a matter of time before your customers (listeners) go somewhere else. Add to that the incredible array of information and entertainment choices available today and it’s a wonder that Limbaugh has lasted this long.
The time is ripe for someone like Alan Colmes, Jim Hightower or even Al Fraken (if his Senate bid doesn’t work out) to replace Limbaugh. The audience is already in place, they simply need to figure out how to make politics, particularly progressivism, entertaining and engaging.
My hope is that the marketplace and not legislation will dethrone Limbaugh, it would be a fitting end for the uber capitalist.
Roman
February 3, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Roman says: “The audience is already in place, they simply need to figure out how to make politics, particularly progressivism, entertaining and engaging.”
Roman, at the risk of sounding like your high school civics teacher, in these of all times we need less entertainment and a lot more thoughtful analysis. As Neil Postman said several decades ago now, we are amusing ourselves to death with the media. We need to re-engage as a society that values rational thinking over the easy choice. I believe the President said something along those lines in his inaugural speech.
As I posted earlier in relation to Mark Slouka, I think the chances of this are slim. It’s probable that most people would rather swim in sulfur than become policy wonks. Thinking is hard, and we’re used to laughing away things that require concentration. But “entertainment” is a poor substitute for analysis, and those who care about the future of society owe it to each other to treat the issues with respect and careful thought. Using “entertainment” as the basis for policy development is simply madness.
It’s time to put aside childish things, and Limbaugh etc strike me as playground bullies of the worst kind.
Rachel
February 3, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Rush is articulating his constituents’ feelings perfectly and accurately, and they are folks who are not afraid to get angry. If only there were some on the other side of the fence as good at expressing a more progressive point of view…
Like it or not, the right has gotten very good at this media stuff precisely because they don’t feel the need to “play fair” or be accurate. Lefties are too concerned with being nice…
Rick Turner
February 3, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Respond how, Rick? With more fear and loathing? The techniques of Rush and his ilk are older than Anthony’s post-assassination speech in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. Tell the crowd that the will leaves the empire to them and they’ll turn in an instant. Fear and greed work.
Then Cleopatra ups the ante.
Karma is a bitch. Some think of it as the fist creeping up from behind to wallop the head of the bad-deed-doer, but a bitch isn’t usually that simple. Karma is a hole we dig and put our feet into only to discover that it comes up to our waist and the dirt we pulled in behind us has hardened before we can pull ourselves out.
We do it by engagement. I am not concerned with being nice. I am concerned that I not take the place of my adversary in that hole. The hole Jon and those on the left are digging for themselves right now is they can become Rush by fighting Rush with the same incentives of fear and loathing. Al Franken used to be funny. Now he is one more set of nails on the chalkboard. Obama went long in the campaign about the need to be environmentally conscious and then turned the White House into a Hot House on his first day. And so it will go.
Meanwhile Hillary Clinton jibed Bill and took the office continuing to move up the ladder one rung at a time by doing what she does best: looking out for people and keeping what she values close without public recriminations or allowing others to distract her or divide her from those values.
The right just had their come uppance. The hard left are about to get into that hole. Anyone who wants to be better off in four years is working hard on the definitions of exactly what better off means.
Karma is a bitch. Don’t stand in one place for too long.
len
February 4, 2009 at 6:36 am
Criticizing Rush Limbaugh is not the same as becoming Rush Limbaugh. Any more than criticizing Sarah Palin is the same as becoming Sarah Palin, or criticizing Bill Clinton is the same as becoming Bill Clinton, or criticizing a bowl of questionable clam soup is the same as becoming said soup.
Criticizing someone’s rhetoric is not the same as resorting to “fear and loathing,” which is, by the way, a cliche that should be avoided.
And the word karma is so overused and one-word-fits-all-meanings that nobody should go anywhere near it except in a consciously-cliched way. It can be replaced in almost all cases by the sarcastic fingerpointing “Ha-Ha!” of the Simpson bully Nelson Muntz.
You said at first that Rush uses “fear and greed,” and then you said that Jon was becoming Rush, except he uses “fear and loathing.”
I’d like to know how it is that Rush inspires greed but not loathing, and Jon inspires loathing but not greed.
I’d like to know how “the right” just got their comeuppance, but “the hard left” is about to. Does that mean that the entire right got their comeuppance, but the bulk of the left will be spared the coming conflagration? Or could we perhaps put another construction on the inclusion of the modifier “hard” when describing the left?
Of all the myriad ways the left can go wrong, criticizing Rush “I hope Obama fails” Limbaugh would never have entered my head as one of them.
Dan
February 4, 2009 at 7:30 am
Some things are learned by experience, Dan. In Rush’s world, the harder you attack him, the more powerful he will become. Trip him up on errors and omissions, correct his grammar if you feel pedantic, but the harder he is attacked, the more he shines.
Conflating Palin with Rush will backfire. All you are showing is fear of someone you don’t yet understand.
As to “I hope Obama fails”, be sure to remind him that if he fails, our problems are worse then ask Rush why he hates America. Smile as you do it.
len
February 4, 2009 at 8:02 am
Rachel:
Thanks for referring me to Mark Slouka’s article. He captures our current state of disrepair quite well. Unfortunately his snapshot of ‘ignorance is bliss” fails to include a road map to enlightenment or a glimpse of the “educational system” he envisions.
With all due respect (sincerely), at the risk of sounding like your business manager, in these of all times progressives need to consider the role of entertainment in selling their brand of politics.
This fact wasn’t lost on Obama campaign. They did a brilliant job of branding and promoting their candidate. Side comment: have you noticed how many are cashing in on that brand? Does Obama get any royalties?
The evidence of their success isn’t limited to mainstreaming progressivism; they actually created a political candidate who transcended politics, as witnessed by the number of supporters who refused to recognize candidate Obama for what he was (is) – a “politician”. How many continue to bristle when Obama is referred to as a “politician”?
There is a real risk in losing much of what was won on Nov 4 if something doesn’t emerge to “keep hope alive”. While waiting for Slouka’s “educational system” to bear fruit, Limbaugh and company will keep selling their brand of politics to “our fellow citizens (that) are now as greedy and gullible as a boxful of puppies…”.
Offering an alternative vision, a vision already embraced is what’s needed. Don’t let the concept of “entertaining” cheapen the worthiness of the task. Again, candidate Obama did a masterful job of “entertaining” while “engaging”. It’s important to find someone with a similar passion and depth to “entertain, engage and educate” the puppies. Do you know if Mark Sloulka has ever done talk-radio?
Roman
February 4, 2009 at 8:25 am
I didn’t conflate Palin with Rush any more than I conflated her with Bill Clinton or a bowl of soup.
Dan
February 4, 2009 at 8:48 am
Obama is stepping up to his mistakes. That’s a big help. Meanwhile, observe Hillary. She fights hard, she remains loyal, she seldom repeats her mistakes, and she continues to climb by doing hard work. She can tease her mate, but she never abandons him. That look you see in Chelsea’s eyes when she is with her Mom is genuine love and admiration.
The public notices this.
A friend of mine who works in the Beltway says traditional DC politics are a zero-sum game. If your side is up, the other side is down and vice versa. So the game is played brutally.
That is how Rush is playing. For keeps.
But Obama promised a change and as far as a couple of weeks reveal, he is trying to make the change. That’s what I’m rooting for here. I’m not saying don’t disagree with the man. Just avoid his style. Avoid his ‘I win only if you lose’ approach.
Seriously, why does this man hate America? Or anyone? What is entertaining about that? Nada. But a rage machine is as profitable as an Indian fakir guru.
Palin is something different. She isn’t an entertainer and doesn’t claim to be. America can’t be a one party country and if leaders emerge from the Republican Party that want to be part of the change, admit that and help that. Can she be that? Well, that is the question to ask her.
len
February 4, 2009 at 10:12 am
Good heavens, Len. What makes you think Palin knows how to answer a question?
Roman, I do understand the importance of winning, and of the need to sell candidates and strategies. Right now it’s 2 years from the beginning of the next Presidential election cycle, and it’s more important to focus on what the country needs than what entertains.
In the meantime, we need to focus on making the puppies aware that Mr Limbaugh’s brand of food contains melanin. That won’t be done by entertainment, but by making him appear less and less connected to the solution.
As for Slouka, no idea of his past. I must consult the Google.
Rachel
February 4, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Rachel, it may be hard to believe, but the 2012 Presidential cycle began Nov 5, 2008. Candidates from both parties, their staffs and backers have already begun to “test the waters”. Actually for some aspirants, the “testing” is an ongoing process. When did Obama begin planning his run? I bet you’d be surprised at the answer.
Regarding Limbaugh, I maintain the best strategy to marginalize his effectiveness is to find someone to champion to the progressive platform in an accessible and entertaining format. Your emphasis on education is well taken, and although crude, the puppies will follow the most entertaining pied piper, not necessarily the piper selling the healthiest food.
“…making the puppies aware that Mr. Limbaugh’s brand of food contains melanin” through legislation or other similar devices will only serve to strengthen his hand. Better to call attention to his brand’s cancers by championing your brand’s solutions through education, engagement and entertainment.
Again, the Obama campaign did this brilliantly. What’s needed now is someone in mass media to pick up where the campaign left off.
Roman
February 5, 2009 at 5:05 am
“Good heavens, Len. What makes you think Palin knows how to answer a question?”
Because she is the Governor of Alaska and a little more respect is merited.
The worst mistake made by the left in the last election was to allow their need to deprecate and demonize any opponent to become a legitimate debating tactic. It may feel good, but if you look at where the right is today, that is the result. We are already paying a price for those tactics. It turns us into them.
Karma isn’t fist that punches you in the back of the head, Rachel. It is a hole you dig and willingly stand in then fill with dirt from your own shovel. One day you discover the dirt is hard and you are a plant.
It’s hard to say who will be the leadership of the Republican Party but it’s easy to predict they will be there. How they are trained now by their opposition will determine the limits of our progress in the next administration be it Democratic or Republican.
If you want Obama to be successful, be aware that the greatest risk to his administration at this time are the mistakes being made by his own team and supporters. So far, most are not that important because it is a new team getting its legs under it, but soon, the perception will be that they are amateurs and this is amateur hour. That will be a disaster for all of us.
Spy Vs Spy is a game without a winner.
I disagree with Roman on this point: the accepted brilliance of the Obama campaign. Beating Hillary Clinton was hard, but had gas not gone to $4 a gallon, it is possible that Obama could lose. It was George W. Bush who beat the Republican Party, not Barack Obama. America had enough and was ready to try anything. This doesn’t mean the victory isn’t merited or of value, but a little humility will go a long way to deflecting the criticism that we put amateurs into the White House.
Don’t make it easy for them.
len
February 5, 2009 at 8:35 am
Karma is kind of like butter-bean soup on a cold winter day, except you forgot to put the cumin in, and the dog knows it, and believe you me, he’s going to fart in church as a result, and you’ll be standing outside in a hole with butter-bean soup up to your ears, and then the things sprout out of your ears and grow up into the sky, so you climb your ears up there, and there’s a giant in a skirt saying, “Fee fie foe fum, we gotcher budget problems right over here, uh-huh!”
That is what I call karma.
Dan
February 5, 2009 at 8:48 am
Len:
I agree that George W. Bush is the reason Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States. His failings are well known, no need to rehash them here.
However I only regard gas at $4/gal a strong tremor. It was the timing and magnitude of the TARP tsunami that swamped McCain. Although created and pitched by Bernanke and Paulson, Bush had the final say on its timing.
In a posting here last fall, I chronicled the corollary between TARP and election polls by examining its evolution and polling data from RealClearPolitics. McCain never had a chance once TARP was dropped on the American public.
The campaign dynamic between Obama and HRC has yet to thoroughly reviewed, many unanswered questions. I credit her and the MSM for Obama’s success, but also give high marks to the candidate and his campaign.
Obama was the candidates’ candidate; his personal attributes and message meshed perfectly with the electorate. But I remain awed by the campaign’s ability to brand and market a candidate that transcended their market and all of its traditional baggage. For most supporters, Obama wasn’t, and still isn’t, a politician. It was his most important competitive advantage.
Roman
February 5, 2009 at 10:13 am
He’s a good package. We need him to be a good President. It’s a long trek to the mid-terms. The worshipful and the brand hawks selling commemorative plates can be his achilles heel. It really does take some time to get all of his better assets in place and to get control of those who helped him but who are now trying to butter their own bread while the butter is warm. I think HRC is the real winner in the sense that she gets to move up, add to her credentials, become an even stronger party power, and keep working without having to absorb the full force of the tsunami. Talk about an instinct for getting to higher ground fast; that woman has it.
The fact of the stimulus package doesn’t faze me. It’s the fact that they put no preconditions on it and then the tone-deaf greed of what came next. I’m awed by their inability to notice that the pumpkins are rising up to take Cinderella back to the fireplace.
Speaking of trying to transcend the baggage, ABC News’ Jake Tapper reports that a family of raccoons has moved onto the White House grounds. Watching him say that without turning red is a testament to professional reflexes.
Of course, the hedge fund hogs got their piece of the TARP, so the rest of the registered garbage can scavengers are holding out their paws too.
len
February 5, 2009 at 10:59 am
Humor is the most effective counter to fear-mongering. Long live Jon Stewart.
Thomas Claburn
August 19, 2009 at 2:39 pm