Mar
2
On politeness
March 2, 2009 | 7 Comments
When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted Obama to fail, the reaction on the left was predictable – as was the reaction of get-along conservatives and Republicans. From the way that “moderates” swooned over his comments you would have thought that he had asked if someone could please pass the jelly.
Such is life in the minority, where guradians of respectability strike against anything that might be deemed “intermperate.” The greatest sin a conservative can commit in this age is offending the sensibilities of a leftist or – even worse – a moderate.
You see this sort of gutlessness in the comments sections of blogs, where certain commenters “tut tut” over too much criticism, as though each slight against the Obamamessiah will only add to the years in minority purgatory.
Conservatives seem to be under the impression that if we continue to play by Marquess of Queensberry rules, then the left will simply be obliged to follow, and we can all sit around debating politics as if America was a giant stage for the latest production of Firing Lines. Well, channeling the spirit of Captain Lonestar, welcome to the real world. Democrats are not obliged to play by such niceties, and we need voices who are willing to hit back as hard if not harder. Yes, kiddies, there is a need for people like Limbaugh and even – GASP! – Ann Coulter.
We need to be tough and sensible if we are going to reclaim the majority, and we also need to offer up sensible solutions. In a sense, conservatives have to play the “good cop, bad cop” routine on a national scale. There is no sense promoting our principles sotto voce when the other side has no qualms about taking up the megaphone and shouting from the rooftops.
This is not a call for abusive rhetoric. We can be tough without resorting to infantile rhetoric. But it is naive to think that we can accomplish our mission without the likes of Limbaugh and others who are willing and able to confidently challenge the other side, using whatever means are at their disposal.
RS McCain makes much the same argument in this post. As he concludes:
To the extent that conservatives need a philosopher now, I’d say we need to be studying Sun-Tzu.
If Rod Dreher wants to join Andrew Sullivan and David Brock (yes, I said “Brock,” not “Brooks”) in the ranks of the vaunting army outside the camp, let him go over and be gone. But don’t sit pouting inside the camp, giving aid and comfort to the adversary by your demoralizing pronouncements. If that stuff is going to be tolerated among conservatives, there won’t be enough left of a constitutional republic after Nov. 3 for anyone to bother trying to “conserve” it, and no hope at all that it might be restored.
Comments
7 Comments so far
G-Veg and I have this debate frequently. He is sincere in his hope that the Zero not fail — because he sees 0′s failure as the failure of America as a whole.
I am more vindictive, and hold a grudge more readily. want to see him go down in white-hot flames. Get it over with, so that we can rebuild better and stronger than before. A slow, painful peeling back, mm at a time, is worse than just ripping the bandaid off in one fell swoop.
Being polite while the other side has slung mud and fought dirty has brought us to this pass. We need to start using the same tactics and same tools.
It is more precise to say that I don’t want our government to fail at everything… not that I don’t want the President to fail at anything.
This isn’t an all-or-nothing situation.
If President Obama wants to stake our military future on a peace-keeping effort in Iraq and a beefed-up effort in Afghanistan, I certainly want those efforts to succeed. Indeed, it would be awful if the opposition would, as the Left DID, pray for our failure and the death and destruction that follows military defeat.
Similarly, having signed the bills and allocated the monies to create a 3 trillion dollar deficit, I certainly hope that it DOES spur the economy. I wouldn’t want it to fail and, though I doubt that it will shorten the Recession and fear that it could prolong it, sincerely hope that my opposition was wrong-headed.
Make no mistake, I DO want Speaker Pelosi to fail at her attempts to silence the Right, to end effective opposition to abortion, and to extend Liberal intrusiveness at a Federal level. To the extent that President Obama shares those goals, and his recent budget rhetoric suggests that he does, I want them to fail.
Similarly, I want Senator Reid and Ralph Emmanuel’s attempts to solidify Democratic holds in 2010 and 2012, through manipulation of rules and the census, to fail. To the extent that the Administration is in the driver’s seat on these efforts, I don’t want it to succeed.
With respect, the characterization of my position was overly simplistic.
I believe that government works best to preserve our liberties when it is fractured; when the majority is subject to infighting that the minority can capitalize on. It may not be a pretty formula but the alternative is tyranny.
Glad to see folks are finally taking on Dreher-the-crunchy-handwringer. Now if only Der Tommissar would come through with that long-promised and much-anticipated skewering of Dreher.
“Democrats are not obliged to play by such niceties, and we need voices who are willing to hit back as hard if not harder.”
Quite right. After the Republicans got control of Congress in 1994, Bob Michel retired, the long term Republican minority leader in the House. In retirement he accidentally listened to Limbaugh one day and was quite distressed by Limbaugh’s take no prisoners attitude toward the Dems. Get along-go along Republicans like Michel have always been a problem with the GOP. We need more alley fighters like Rush and fewer people who want to be on the A list for Washington cocktail parties.
Although I normally don’t read Catholic and Enjoying It, I have heard that Mark Shea has been making repeated attacks against Limbaugh. Hmmm-Dreher-Shea v. Limbaugh.
Dreher’s specific criticism–that Limbaugh’s Optimism is Rousseau-ian–is correct. There is no way to defend the section of the speech in light of Catholicism, or at least a belief in Original Sin.
Which is NOT to say that Limbaugh should pull punches…
If it is licit for Conservatives to pummel GWBush (and it is,) then it is licit for Dreher to point out Limbaugh’s fallacy.
As to “failure,”
Mark Twain said it best:
“My kind of loyalty was loyalty to one’s country, not to its institutions or its officeholders.”
We all know that Limbaugh is eliding something in his statement that he ‘hopes Obama fails;’ and what he elides is the word “program,” which should be following the possessive of “Obama.” Rhetorically, that’s fine; but in close argument, it is not so fine.
We ALL hope that Obama’s program fails, because it will put the USA into global Chapter VII.
As to Obama himself, I just wish he would go away.
Limbaugh’s optimism is Rousseauian?