Old School Takedown
March 9th, 2009 at 8:58 pm by Preston Taylor HolmesGoldstein takes apart the squishy “conservatives” who, for some reason, insist on continuing to concede the framing of the political debate to the leftist media. It will take a while, but it’s worth reading the whole thing.
One answer we’re hearing from many political pragmatists and conservative realists is that those four words are what most people will hear, given that the media has seized on that formulation and built around it a narrative — at various times both implied and explicit — that Rush Limbaugh wants to see the President fail regardless of what Obama does while in office. ABC News, in fact, cut together a video in which they juxtaposed Rush uttering the words — again, removed from their context — with additional video clips that added a racial dimension to Limbaugh’s statement, a dimension since seized upon by “conservatives” like David Frum but which appear nowhere in Limbaugh’s statements.
The argument by these political realists or “pragmatists” goes something like this: people don’t bother to explore the news past soundbites and headlines, so all they are likely to take away from the media’s reporting on Limbaugh’s statement is that, as George Stephanopoulos among others have framed it, Rush “hopes the President fails,” the suggestion being that Limbaugh is hoping the country fails. And such a statement, in addition to being needlessly provocative, the realists tell us, also suffers from being less clear than it may otherwise have been.
Leaving aside for the moment the impossibly high standard that comes with demanding that a man who speaks mostly extemporaneously for fifteen hours a week need be so careful with his phrasings that they cannot be removed from their context and made to mean what they clearly weren’t intended to mean, except by great effort on the part of those whose aim it is to misrepresent intent, the subtext of such an argument is twofold: 1) by being more judicious with our words, we are providing those who are out to misrepresent us with a smaller target; and 2) that something less provocative will not alienate us with those we are hoping to win over to conservatism by appearing to them ugly or hostile — that as a strategy, being more solicitous about how we phrase things will help make conservatism more appealing, or at least, less revolting to those who remain undecided about their political allegiances.
This is why he is the master and others pretend.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:30 am
I can see both sides over the point about the use of language and knowing that your enemies are going to take what you say out of context and cast it in the most unfavorable light so you always have to be careful. How many times has it happened to us?
However, this is not that. Limbaugh is getting pilloried for a political disagreement over whether Liberalism should succeed. Not exactly a newsflash there.
Find me a Liberal who wanted to Bush to succeed.
To me the greater issue has always been the jelly-spined GOPers who want to be first in the “I condemned someone on my side’s questionable comments” contest. I hate you guys. Seriously.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:10 am
On occasions when I am having political conversation with a steadfast liberal-type I do find myself talking around land mines. It slows me down and makes me stutter. Because it’s like talking to a 13 year old who just discovered he knows how to push adults’ buttons. He’s pulls the red herring and the straw man out every chance he gets. He’s also been taught by media’s endless soundbite distortions what phrases of mine should elicit what response from him.
Or if I should quote Rush, Ann Coulter, Malkin, etc. I get some quip about “hate” or “ratings”. Our strongest voices are relegated to the irrelevant status of entertainers. That nobody should really “think” like that unless they’re trying to sell books or Zicam. Only talk radio and blogs question whether the TV media, who do all of the “thinking” for the masses, are simply empty headed, teleprompter-reading entertainers themselves.
What’s fascinating about the Rush incident is that he put that out there for the media to take out of context. He said it would happen right before he said the four words. That has always been my defense when in a “debate” with someone. “I know you will distort this, but I’ll say it anyway…” It’s child psychology. But the child knows this is true, but he has the megaphone and he’s simply going to drown out reason with it and the masses will not question him.
But I really do hope Obama fails. Any capitalist would agree. There’s absolutely nothing incendiary about the phrase. But get a critic to pick it apart and you can make it so. We just love eggheads telling us what to think about language, all for the purpose of shutting us up.
We rarely get around to a substantive and fair adult debate of ideas because it’s all about being funny or getting a jab in.
To paraphrase Alan Keyes, it’s not about being funny anymore. It’s way too serious.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:20 am
I have embraced my inner curmudgeon with the following words: So What? It solves a number of problems: One. It takes away the moral indignation of the industrial racism complex. Two, it serves as a launching pad for more colorful invective. Three….just plain catharsis….go Rush!
March 10th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Currently the Democrats are Socialist and the Republicans are Liberals, and both are political pragmatists above all else. A conservative is far to the right of both of them.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
At this point, even left-leaning libertarians are to the right of them.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Brian:
True that. I apologize for slighting the Libertarians.
If you go out and speak with the average person you’ll find that the majority of them are conservative though.
Heres my point: What we have now is a de facto ruling class that has views far afield from the majority of the people. That’s why, in order to get elected, they find out what they should say to convince the people to vote for them, no matter if it has anything to do with their version of reality or not. After being elected, they rule (rather than represent) in whatever way they want to rule, paying only lip service to the general populace by a few well-placed buzzwords in public proclamations and by naming voluminous laws that shackle personal freedoms with euphemistic titles that have nothing to do with the slavery contained within.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
“paying only lip service to the general populace by a few well-placed buzzwords in public proclamations and by naming voluminous laws that shackle personal freedoms with euphemistic titles that have nothing to do with the slavery contained within.”
Right. On.
Seems like each like-minded person I speak to about the state of the country has a different main concern about this administration and liberalism in general. Some have strong feelings about the economy, some abortion, some the Second Amendment, etc. What the “progressives” have done to warp our everyday language distresses me the most. So much of a culture is its language, a basic thing you learn in human anthropology classes. Just giving a bill or a political movement an emotive name can influence the course of a nation, and stifle debate. Even the use of “liberal” and “progressive” as labels is Orwellian in nature, because all the while they are standing in the way of freedom and progress.
March 11th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
That sounds exactly like what I’ve come to expect from the woman who voted against The Little Crippled Girl With Hard To Pronounce Diseases Act of 2009.
Child-hating diseasemonger!