It occurred to me last night how overblown this whole Rush Limbaugh CPAC speech has really become. I mean, Rush Limbaugh has been an influential figure within the conservative movement for more than a decade now; he has spoken his mind and had a certain proportions of the population respond with nodding and shaking heads, respectively. And frankly, nothing has changed. The speech that Rush Limbaugh gave at CPAC was, as far as I can tell, a pretty standard issue Rush speech (no teleprompter necessary).
So how is it that by standing up in front of the attendees of CPAC and giving one of his standard speeches did Rush Limbaugh suddenly become the leader of the conservative movement? The fact of the matter is that he didn’t, but claiming that he did made for some good chatter about the Right. Rush’s ascendancy to leadership was, almost entirely, a fiction of the chattering class. And not surprisingly, those of us who want to be on top of what is going on got caught up in the story (me included).
Rush certainly never referred to himself as the leader of the conservative movement. And in fact, Limbaugh most often referred to himself as a “part” of the conservative movement, a conservative among conservatives. Granted, Limbaugh is a particularly well known conservative whose views are well listened to, but again, there’s nothing different there than there was two weeks ago.
So, in large part, I think E.D. was right not to feel compelled to comment about Rush’s speech and the frenzy it produced. Magpie-ism is one of the challenges we must learn to overcome in our practice of politics.
Meanwhile, back at CPAC someone who once was the leader of the conservative movement and may well stand in a realistic position to grab those reins again in some form took the stage: Newt Gingrich.
And frankly, those folks who are concerned about the future leadership of the conservative movement would have been much better served to have poured over Gingrich’s speech, because while his delivery might not have been as engaging as Limbaugh’s (and one has to admit that as far as red meat speeches go, Limbaugh’s was pretty bang on) the vision presented there within was everything that people have cited as lacking in Rush’s.
Now, of course, one has to understand the different natures of each speech. Rush Limbaugh’s speech, though it was the keynote address, was not really designed to outline the future path of conservative movement and/or the Republican Party. Limbaugh’s speech was designed to fire conservatives up and keep them hungry during a period where they have a lot of reasons to ask, why bother? In that regard, Limbaugh absolutely delivered and that is why he has received so much attention. But it simply isn’t the speech of a leader and shouldn’t be understood as such.
Gingrich, on the other hand, who was witty and sly at points, was the guy who delivered something much closer to the, “you may not want to hear this, but it’s what we need to think about and do” speech. There were any number of different things in Gingrich’s speech that may not have jived for me, but his vision was absolutely replete with the call to reach out and engage people in a meaningful fashion. Gingrich reached into the past and lit the Regan torch, but he also resisted the temptation to get lost in the flame and used that torch to light the way forward. Gingrich was even so bold as to suggest that conservatives needed to reach out to those fiscally conservative Democrats who might be silently squirming over the degree of spending currently under way and at the very least let them know that their private pain is shared.
There was still an undercurrent of “us vs. them” sentiment, but old habits die hard and the venue for the speech didn’t lend itself to avoiding that tendency. But all the same, Gingrich went through and outlined how conservatives need to present the alternative vision that Americans can look to in the face of liberal overreach – which you may or may not believe is currently under way. Gingrich wasn’t smug or malicious in his presentation of that vision; he was in fact sincere and earnest in a way that ought to cause more people concern. Gingrich openly acknowledged that conservatives and Republicans were fired with cause and talked about what they needed to do to win back trust and confidence. Self-reflective and critical, Gingrich managed to draw a clean line in the sand between the past eight years and attempted to describe the prodigal face of conservatism.
And most impressively in my mind, Gingrich focused in on the Achilles heal of Obama’s position in the midst of all the talks about middle class tax cuts: the classic (though by no means traditional) liberal antipathy towards the American business class. It’s easy for Obama to gear to battle with the business class right now because in the wake of economic evisceration public opinion is on his side. People are looking for someone to blame for the pain they’re feeling and the folks at the top of skyscrapers are easy targets, not in the least because they do bear a not inconsiderable degree of responsibility.
But what Gingrich seems to get that Obama may get but isn’t indicating is that like it or not, you need to work with the business class to work your way out of a depression, they are the driver that gets things going again and the remove the tunnel-vision of economic myopia from everyone’s plate. The folks that figure out how to work productively with businesses to regain economic momentum are going to be the heroes of the day and will chart the course from that point on. If Obama remains intent on making an enemy of the American business class, he may find the public resentment he is so effectively wielding boomeranging back at a dangerous velocity.
None of which is not to say that there aren’t significant discussions that need to take place about what went and is wrong with the conduct of business in (post)modern America and what kind of changes need to take place. But those discussions don’t occur behind the barrier of a bunker mentality, ask Jimmy Carter.
But, of course, most of us missed all of that because we were so caught up in the drama that is Rush Limbaugh. Perhaps that was the plan all along…
James K 
Jaybird 
Tod Kelly 
Katherine 
Will Truman 
Kyle Cupp 
Burt Likko 
spivak
{ 29 comments }
I think the reaction has been so strong as opposed to other years and other comments by Rush because the party is so leader-less right now. There is a perceived power struggle at the top that doesn’t really exist because there’s no real contendor IMO. I guess that’s why everyone’s words carry more weight than they normally would. The Left (and the Right) are all looking for a sign which indicates what direction we’re going to take. I think a lot of conservatives are scared that Rush will steer the course instead of just mobolizing the troops, meanwhile not much respect is being paid to the conservative thinkers like Douthat and the League…. ultimately we will need a true politician to rise up and run with some of these ideas.
One thing about Newt – he has the reputation of being a nasty Republican hack; and sometimes he absolutely lives up to that reputation. But he’s as politically astute as they come, and liberals have a tendency to underestimate his ability to think outside the box. In many ways, he is a nearly-ideal party leader in the sense that he does a good job of being sufficiently partisan and abrasive to have credibility amongst conservatives; this credibility allows him to make arguments and both policy and strategy proposals that would get ignored if they were made by someone who lacked the partisan credibility.
None of this is to say that I necessarily agree with the direction Gingrich wants to take the party; just that he has the ability to steer the party in a more electorally relevant direction. His one big problem (and it’s a big one!) is that he lacks the stature he once had, so I’m not sure how much influence he still has access to.
I still can’t get over the fact that his name is Newt.
Is that superficial of me or what?
It’s Newton Gingrich.
He’s a 65 years old white Southerner who last had a meaningful position in government 12 years ago when he was forced out of the Speakership by his own party. John Boehner and Lindsey Graham, perhaps the last two Republican legislators with any national recognition, were key conspirators in his ouster.
Like many “old timers”, he recommends sticking with old principles and reveling in the glory days of yore.
He refuses to deal with the reality that most Americans generally support the Democratic party’s domestic and foreign policy objectives. So he recommends standing up for so-called true conservative values rather than trying to influence policy. How will he be influential outside the dead-ender wing of the GOP?
clamflats, and yet he was slotted into a fairly major speaking position at CPAC – the national conservative conference in the US. There’s no world in which Gingrich is the face of conservatism, but movement greybeards often exert significant force from behind the scenes. Given the line by conservatives right now is that the last eight years was a wrongheaded deviation from what conservatism really is, it would seem that Gingrich re-exerting some influence isn’t quite as far fetched as it might seem on the face of it.
Mark, more to your points a bit later.
but what is newtey saying that is new or innovative. from the list i saw of his policy ideas, it’s tax cuts, more tax cuts and maybe some tax cuts. the same stuff conservatives want no matter what the context or situation. any new solutions to any of our problems….hey how about some tax cuts.
Lib’s and D’s generally want business people to do well … a few of us have 401k’s and that kind of thing. we do sort of think maybe some, you know…. regulation.. if freaking good and overdue thing.
if there is a hostility to business it is the greedy, heartless businesses that screws over people. i would guess most americans don’t like that kind of business type either.
greginak, I suppose one could ask the converse question what is Obama offering that is “new”? The idea that there is anything new under the sun on the political playng field seems unsupporte no matter what team yr batting for. And I say that as someone who was a big Obama fan (and still is a fan, to a lesser degree).
well some sort of national health care would be new.
I think the discussion was more about Rush being leader of the Party, not the “conservative movement.” Given the unpopularity of RL in the overall population it seems a no-brainer that the Democrats, cable TV, blogs would continue to harp on the divisions in the conservative movement or Republican Party. The unbelievable inarticulate comments and lying of Michael Steele also keeps the story going. The apparent cow-towing to Rush of elected Republicans in the House and Senate also provokes a lot of head scratching. But has been pointed out before, the remaining House Republicans represent the very core of conservative America, they really are in no position to call Rush on even his most inane comments. So it’s not difficult to see why the discussion continues. As a “far lefty” I am enjoying the Republican War.
I tend to agree that the battles being waged today are really a continuation of the Jefferson Hamilton, Federalist Anti-Federalist notions disputed at the founding of the nation. But as I have said here before, Hamilton won. On the whole, I’m glad of that.
Newt is interesting, I mean, at least I can listen to him as opposed to say O’Reilly or Hannity or Limbaugh. I doubt he could be called the leader of anything given his history, but he does have a certain hale fellow well met quality. I don’t see any elective office in his future.
I’m going to be impartial here and give CPAC 2009 a very generous D-.
“well some sort of national health care would be new.”
greginak, not new in the sense of what the place of government should be, the big picture.
I’ll defer to Bob’s response re: healthcare. Note also that I’m not saying Obama is bad or disparaging him, I’m just looking for an equally applied litmus test should we choose to employ them.
Bob: “I tend to agree that the battles being waged today are really a continuation of the Jefferson Hamilton, Federalist Anti-Federalist notions disputed at the founding of the nation. But as I have said here before, Hamilton won. On the whole, I’m glad of that.”
So, you’re the proponent of big gov. After eight years of a presidency that admitted no bounds, while the other two branches of the federal government were unwilling to provide meaningful checks, how exactly do you do this with a straight face? When you put all of your eggs in one basket, you’re responsible for the mess even if the one carrying the basket wasn’t your choice. If Dems are going to build a huge state, they have the responsibility for when it goes wrong or falls into the wrong hands. Bush is more the fault of this type of thinking than someone like Schwenkler or Larison.
I can say it with a straight face because it is what I believe. I constructed it as a choice between a Jeffersonian or Hamiltonian structure. Now with regard to your straw-man of placing me in some sort of position of defending the last eight years it just won’t happen. If you think I am somehow defending all government actions you are seriously unhinged. I fully recognize that government may act ethically or unethically. Bush, W Bush, unethical.
Hence, checks and balances. If you can’t make a government that is efficient and responsible, you have no business creating it. You are indeed on the hook as long as this is an acceptable outcome to you.
Do you have evidence that Hamilton opposed the Constitution, checks and balances? I do not have any problem with the C and B concept. It’s in the Constitution. I really think you are just picking a fight that I am not proposing. I’m on the hook for nothing but preferring Hamilton over Jefferson.
Division of powers is one of the main checks and balances developed in the give and take between federalists and inti-federalists. Given Hamilton wanted an American King and the type of government that results in what we’ve just seen, you’ve got him all to yourself.
Oh, I’m pretty sure there are other Hamilton fans around. But let me say again, Hamilton, strong central government, is my choice.
Your arguments, on this thread, have not been to the point I made. Political arguments on the nature government are just that, political. I’m not investing Jefferson or Hamilton with some “truth.” I have made a political choice, nothing more.
And on the “American King” point. Was that an absolute monarch or more along the British system of the time, Parliamentary restraint of the King? Maybe termed checks and balances?
there is a point in this kind of conversation where the topic (big gov vs. small gov) is so general as to become useless. most people Con’s included want some big gov. big or small just doesn’t say much unless you know what is the purpose: are there C and B, how does it work, who has power, etc….you need to know at least some specifics. national health care is a very different kind of “big gov” then warentless wiretapping, or the drug war or high military spending. each may have there own justifications and problems. the big vs small debate is more about vague posturing and grand pronouncements without actual policy knowledge. which would probably make a great radio program.
Yes, a parliamentary system can provide checks and balances. It’s not exactly Hamilton’s winning position however.
My gf is a Canadian lawyer, she gets no end of pleasure teasing me that the Canadian system, with a parliament, has actually maintained a better division of powers than the US. I chalk this up to a difference in national character, but it provides a real question why my position is necessarily correct.
“the big vs small debate is more about vague posturing and grand pronouncements without actual policy knowledge.”
For me, returning to a decentralized government, where different States start from different positions, is a source of policy knowledge. I think there is great value in the State as laboratory model, one of which is getting beyond dogmatism.
“most people Con’s included want some big gov.”
Correct, correct, correct. That is my point. Political choice. What will government look like.
As for specifics: government out of bedrooms, single payer health care, graduated income tax, all income taxed as income, no breaks on capital gains, or clipping coupons (dividends), strong FDA, strong oversight of financial institutions. Just a few of my left positions.
“…but it provides a real question why my position is necessarily correct.”
Who is arguing against C and B? Not me. And I’ll ask again, was Hamilton opposed to the theory? His “American King” does not necessarily prove that he opposed checks and balances. I honestly don’t know, I suspect he favored it but if you have some writings where he spoke against it I’ll gladly concede.
Look….the problem is that the conservative movement is at this point in time based on a deeply schizophrenic paradigm…the idea that liberty is economically good but socially bad.
A contradiction that ensures the doom of the GOP as soon as the evolutionary timer on mob rule by whitemarriedchristianists runs out.
It’s not really overblown. Lets face it. Steele is supposed to be at least the de-facto head of the party right now. I mean, it is his job to try and sell America that the GOP has a plan for the future. And that includes going on TV(much to Rushbo’s dismay). The funny thing(and what makes things so newsworthy) is the Republicans having to apologize to Rushbo, like he is the Emperor or something. Imagine how funny it would be if KO or Maddow held that kind of power. Imagine Harry Reid or Chuck Schumer having to grovel for Maddow’s forgiveness if they said anything bad about her. Add in Rushbo’s own personal problems(and the fact that all but the most diehard nutters dislike him) and it is fun watching the Republicans debase themselves like they are.
Bob, if your wondering why one would think that Hamilton’s position, (making one president for life with very little room for removal, while we have the likes of Yoo wandering about) isn’t quite supporting checks and balances, I’m at a loss.
Well, I have no idea how Hamilton and Yoo (Did he author a secret memo calling for Bush to be president for life?) are supposed to fit but I will that pass.
Since you are apparently at a loss to find documentation of the imagined Hamilton hostility to checks and balances I would like to offer a few facts.
Hamilton, Madison and Jay authored The Federalist Papers. The Papers were designed to convince people to support the adoption of the Constitution. Hamilton is responsible for most (51 of 85) of these writings. Madson is responsible for a great many of them. Jay, only five.
By the time the Papers were published the contents of the Constitution were well known, including the Separation of Powers, the heart of checks and balances. Yet Hamilton staunchly supported adoption. I think Hamilton’s support is impossible to square with your position. It’s true Hamilton had some reservations regarding the document but he was very instrumental in having New York ratify the Constitution. Bottom line Hamilton supported checks and balances.
You have a real knack for avoiding the question, don’t you? The flap over Rush at CPAC was entirely on the Right. The reason for his leadership in the RNC is entirely the work of the RNC. ANyone who disagrees is forced to apologize to him. THAT is the story. THAT makes it obvious what Rush really is. How can you be so tone deaf.
BTW: Rush has held his position for two decades, not one.
Davy: practice.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }