Yesterday a friend sent me a self-described rant about Rush Limbaugh and the future of the Reagan coalition. Now I haven't been a regular listener of Rush's show since…hold on, let me think…1992?...so I don’t know whether his critique is accurate (unless Rush has changed in the last 15 years, though, I'd say it was close). But I think it could be applied more broadly to my own critique of conservative talk radio.
My own view is that such shows are good for shoring up the base but no longer broaden the appeal to attract people to the conservative movement. Because of this I think that talk radio is a format that will have almost no impact (unless it is detrimental) in reestablishing the Reagan coalition.
My friend feels much the same way so with his permission I've reposted the "rant" below. Rather than using his name (which some readers would certainly recognize) he asked to use the pseudonym Charles Lightoller.
Rush on the radio today demonstrated the problem of talking only to the Base.
Rush may have millions of listeners such as I am, but I am curious about how many of them are under thirty.
I am just the right age for Rush. When I have time, he is a radio habit and will go on being a radio habit. His work against stem cell research was brave and it would be great for just one day to have half his radio skills.
The problem is that he no longer reaches out beyond me. He is no longer the "cutting edge of societal evolution."
I am not going to vote for Huckabee, but his attack on Huckabee was unfair, unfunny, and utterly, boringly, predictable. / [Joe's note: Charles is a Romney supporter.]
I am not part of "drive by" media.
I agree with him on most issues, but his rhetoric could not be more base placating, but more useless in winning new voters. It seems designed to turn off the other 270 million of Americans especially new voters.
Today's shows attempt to associate all single moms with one hundred thousand wage earners or lazy people was tone deaf and useless.
He sounded like a liberal parody of himself.
My guess is that Rush knows this, but since like a comic strip artist who can keep milking his strip forever, he has no reason to rile his demographic by being willing to change . . . his destruction of any attempt to broaden Reaganism by changing tone will make money for Rush by making us feel good, but it is bad for the party long term.
¼ of this years voters don't remember a world without the Internet. It is hard for people my age, but even conservative kids I meet who like Rush feel about him as you felt about Paul Harvey.
Rush used to be a powerful educator as well as entertainer. Too often now he is an opinion reinforcer. Listening to him is too often just a habit now, like reading Peanuts in the eighties when it wasn't really funny anymore, because it was funny.
Rhetoric and humor that was cutting edge, not p.c., is now "right wing" p.c. and stale. Rush and his awesome and powerful voice on talk radio were the late eighties or early nineties version of Steve Jobs and the Ipod revolution.
He is still the best at what he does, but his rhetoric and appeal have not kept up.
Reagan, God bless him, kept the same ideas, but changed his approach and techniques . . . or at least was willing to do so.
There is a great danger that Reagan Republicans, and I am one, will simply repeat Reagan means and methods and so lose the next generation.
What say you? Does "Charles Lightoller" have a point?
Rush is like an old elephant who is still trying the same old circus routine. If Republicans want to be relevant, they need to redefine themselves and get as far away from polarizing rhetoric as possible. People are tired of demagoguery and want elected officials who have a clue what their needs and concerns are. That is the real appeal of Mike Huckabee and that is what Rush and the old guard just don't get.
I never liked Rush, so I never listened to him. When Bill Clinton was first running for office, he thought it was acceptable to point out how ugly Hillary was. He even went after Chelsea, if I remember right. He can dish out abuse, but he is extremely thin skinned and cannot take it in return, which is why you never see him on tv in any adversarial debate.
The critique by "Charles" seems fair, but I'm more interested in what you and "Charles" think needs to be done to broaden the appeal of conservatism. If it's Huckabee style pandering, or appealing to nanny-state causes like weight loss, then no thanks. If you really want to appeal to a new group, why not try seculars? Like me. Since the Reagan revolution began, you religious conservatives have done everything in your power to alienate non-religious voters. What's your plan to tap into the growing non religious demographic?
The survey also finds that the number of Americans who say they are atheist or agnostic, or choose not to identify with a religious tradition has increased modestly over the past two decades. In Pew surveys since the beginning of 2006, 12% have identified themselves as secular or unaffiliated with a religious tradition. That compares with 8% in the Pew values survey in 1987. This change appears to be generational in nature, with new cohorts coming of age with lower levels of commitment to a religious tradition. Among respondents born before the baby boom (that is, prior to 1946), only about 5% are secular or unaffiliated. But the number is more than double that (11%) among the Baby Boomers. The most secular Americans are those 30 and younger – those born after 1976 and sometimes called “Generation Y” – 19% of whom do not identify with a religious tradition.
Pew surveys taken over the past 20 years show that the size of the secular group has remained constant over time within each age cohort. In other words, the number of seculars within each generational group is about the same in 2007 as it was 10 or 20 years before. Thus it appears that people have not become less secular as they have aged. For example, 14% of members of “Generation X” (born 1965-1976) did not identify with a religious tradition in 1997, about the same as in 2007.
Rush, Coulter, and their polar opposites like Franken, Garafalo, et al, personify the lack of true discussion we have in this country about anything of importance. Both sides of any issue now are about tossing out "red meat" to the base, with no attempt to understand the other viewpoint (even if you already or eventually disagree with it).
Even when Rush was at his peak, I had more use for his first book than I did his show. In the book, beneath the trademark wisecracking, there was a small attempt to build a case for his positions. That was in 1994, I think. Fourteen years later, I don't think he's contributed anything else to further the public discussion.
Worse, the embrace of Rush and his clones by many in the active "religious right" certainly did little to honor the name of Christ.
I have been a fan of Rush and can be wildly entertaining and informative. I have been very disappointed with Rush this election cycle. My first choice is Gov. Huckabee and my second choice is Sen. McCain. Rush has been relentlessly harsh on both men, especially on Gov. Huckabee. His attacks on both men ignore their conservative records and policy proposals. Both Huckabee and McCain have better conservative records than Gov. Romney, by far. Yet, Rush calls Romney, Mayor Guiliani, and Sen. Thompson are the conservatives in the race. I find this hard to believe. Here is my question for Rush: Both Mayor Guiliani and Gov. Romney have law degrees. Yet, both men have supported restrictions on the second amendment - in some cases extreme restrictions. Both men, until very recently for Mr. Romney, have supported Roe v. Wade. Therefore, Romney and Guiliani with legal training both thought the second amendment can be severely restrained, but they believed there is a constitutional right to an abortion. I am not a lawyer, but any real conservative will recognize that Roe v. Wade is terrible constitutional law even if you are prochoice. How is that conservative? Rush is a smart guy, but I'm waiting for that one.
I wrote a rant about Limbaugh at my blog earlier this week.
He sold out conservatives in 2000 when he failed to back a legitimate conservative and began schilling for Jorge the Younger Shrub.
Rush, like the Pope, sees his job as keeping the Church of Reagan pure. Unlike the Pope, Reagan Conservatism isn't a holy revealed text. It is a political praxis meant to apply a philosophy of governance to the challenges of a particular era of human history. History changes, and conservatism must change its approach to governing or face becoming irrelevant.
By focusing so much on Reagan, Rush has lost sight of the deeper meaning of Conservatism. Reagan's approach was good for a time when nuclear cold war threatened, the economy was burdened with government intrusiveness, etc. Those are not today's challenges. Rush continues to revel in yesterday and has lost touch with today, and tomorrow.
"Rush, like the Pope, sees his job as keeping the Church of Reagan pure. Unlike the Pope, Reagan Conservatism isn't a holy revealed text. It is a political praxis meant to apply a philosophy of governance to the challenges of a particular era of human history. History changes, and conservatism must change its approach to governing or face becoming irrelevant.
By focusing so much on Reagan, Rush has lost sight of the deeper meaning of Conservatism. Reagan's approach was good for a time when nuclear cold war threatened, the economy was burdened with government intrusiveness, etc. Those are not today's challenges. Rush continues to revel in yesterday and has lost touch with today, and tomorrow."
While I haven't heard anyone disagree that the issues we face today are different than those Reagan faced, I think we can see clearly that the right needs to get back to the values Reagan espoused.
While Reagan called government the problem, and aimed to cut it back, Republicans have instead taken the reigns of government and simply tried to grow it in a direction of their choosing. And the result is the general view that the Republican party sacrificed its beliefs and corrupted itself, leading to our defeat two years ago.
The government does have a role to play, and that role is defined in the constitution. Conservatives should be trying to keep government from expanding beyond that, not just becoming a different version of that which we oppose in the left.
And that is, I believe, the big value of Rush. When lots of people on the right swooned over Perot, Rush grated on their nerves by pointing out that Perot wasn't promoting conservatism. When Bush took to expanding government, Rush called him on it. And today, when many on the right are now swooning for Huckabee and McCain, Rush is reminding people that conservatism stands for something different than what these guys are saying.
Today's shows attempt to associate all single moms with one hundred thousand wage earners or lazy people was tone deaf and useless.
This seems to be the main thing that set "Charles" off, yet there is no context. I have no idea what he is talking about. A transcript or some elaboration would be helpful - preferably a transcript setting the entire incident in context.
Rush has his flaws. His main flaw in my mind is that, while he supports the family in theory, he seems incapable of relating to one himself. He jokes about his contempt for marriage. I do think he is joking - but with a grain of truth about his real feelings. I like the show nonetheless, and filter his comments though my own ideological filter like I do everything else.
I'm with Jeff here, I have no idea what Rush said about "single moms" and "one hundred thousand wage earners" that set Charles off, and I have no idea what he found so "unfair, unfunny, and utterly, boringly, predictable" about his "attack" on Huckabee. Little help, please.
You people just don't get it do you? You can't "broaden Reaganism." It is what it is, and if you change it, it will obviously become something other than Reaganism. This is the point that Rush Limbaugh has been trying to get across for the past two weeks. Mike Huckabee has been trying to redefine what it means to be conservative. Unlike Romney, who has distanced himself from his past record, (and seems to get a pass from conservative media) Huckabee has tried to come up with lame excuses for why he had to raise taxes while he was governor. A conservative does not raise taxes in order to increase government interference in citizen's lives.
As for Rush Limbaugh not educating or appealing to younger Americans, I am proof that does not hold true. I am still in my twenties, and many of my friends listen to Rush Limbaugh or some of his other compatriots in conservative talk radio.
It is very easy to isolate what Rush says and condemn. I listen off and on most days, and have so since before Joe stopped listening. So let's be clear, he was distinctly NOT attempting "to associate all single moms" with anything. If that's what someone got out of what he was saying they simply weren't listening.
If I remember correctly, he used an example of one woman who happened to be a single mom getting in credit card debt, $40,000 I think, and then complaining how bad the economy is because she couldn't afford to pay her bills. What was his point? That single mothers are lazy? Give me a break. It was all about personal responsibility, and if you get yourself in a mess because you can't control your spending, then it isn't the responsibility of government to rescue you. I'm pretty sure this is what you are referring to, and if so, the criticism is much ado about nothing.
As for "the problem of talking only to the base," that's the challenge of all conservative media. I guess in (pick the year) 1972 you could have said the same thing about National Review. How many of the few million that listen to Bill Reilly are not part of "the base"? Hugh Hewitt? Michael Medved? Dennis Prager? And so on. All the criticism leveled at him here could have been said 15 years ago. Saying that "Fourteen years later, I don't think he's contributed anything else to further the public discussion" is an opinion that I think is fantastically wrong.
I agree he has been less than nuanced about Huckabee, but generally I agree with him.
Make love, not war!
If I remember correctly, he used an example of one woman who happened to be a single mom getting in credit card debt, $40,000 I think, and then complaining how bad the economy is because she couldn't afford to pay her bills. What was his point? That single mothers are lazy? Give me a break. It was all about personal responsibility, and if you get yourself in a mess because you can't control your spending, then it isn't the responsibility of government to rescue you. I'm pretty sure this is what you are referring to, and if so, the criticism is much ado about nothing.
Very true. For example, that single mom could have supplemented her income by buying Oxycontin pills on the black market and selling them to a celebrity drug addict. If she, say, netted $200 a week doing that she could have her debts paid off in 4-5 years.
If I remember correctly, he used an example of one woman who happened to be a single mom getting in credit card debt, $40,000 I think, and then complaining how bad the economy is because she couldn't afford to pay her bills. What was his point? That single mothers are lazy?
I can't find an transcript of the statement but the context was that Rush was criticizing the way the press reported the story, not the single mom. The way the story was reported was that the single mom just watched as her credit card bill went up and up, as if she had no role in it; she was just an innocent bystander in the process. So what Rush was criticizing was the press using a story about a woman living way beyond her means as an illustration of how the economy is bad. I guess it's possible that she ran up the $40k buying baby formula and diapers for her child because of Bush's tax cuts for the rich, but it is not likely. So Charles is taking Rush's statements out of context and using them to criticize him. Joe, does Charles by any chance work for Media Matters?
regularamerican,
There are many fine well meaning and thoughtful conservatives in America, but are you aware of some the history of the Reagan administration that is not usually highlighted such as Iran/Contra and his policy towards Central America that caused the deaths of approximately 200,000 brown people.
Did Mr. (or Ms.) Boonton make a funny? What genius! What wit! I would never think to use someone's addiction problem to make fun of them. I would suggest Boon, since there's a writers strike in Hollywood you should try your hand at writing for the Daily Show. They could always use someone like you who is so perceptive and so nuanced in their political humor. It's a shame to waste all that talent on some minor blog out in cyberspace. You can do it!
If the topic of this thread is about Rush's decline & lower importance in the Conservative movement then I don't think you can ignore his addiction. Most other addicts do not spend years telling us about 'personal responsibility' while they put other people in danger. Sorry even if you're the most devout 12-stepper there's no seperating addiction from personal responsibility.
While you can pat yourself on the back for not ever making fun of Rush, I think his addiction coupled with his criminal behavior took a lot of the wind from his sails.
And another thing, having at least two opiate addicts in my family I can tell you I'm not speaking from ignorance here. While it's perfectly fine to have sympathy for addict they cannot be written off as innocent victims of some mysterious 'illness'. Fundamentally, it is about a decision to be selfish and put one's self above everyone else. So no you can't sit there and pretend opiate addiction is just like getting some rare genetic illness or cancer. It is about one's character.
Let me guess, you're not a Rush fan. What exactly is it about his character that affects his performance on his radio show? Or his right on views of conservatism? That he's selfish? Three marriages can tell you that! I wonder if you looked at his ad rates if your contention is accurate that his addiction and his overcoming of it has taken a lot of wind out of his sails. I would wager a lot of money that I don't have that he has more listeners now and is more influential now than he has ever been.
How many talk radio hosts are pilloried or lauded on the floor of the United States Congress? Talk about sails! Your off your rocker. Rush says something and it's reported on in almost every newscast or radio show or whatever in the country and around the world! Even on The View. The guy starts discussions that reverberate throughout our elite political culture. I repeat, you are off your rocker.
Either you are willfully blind or don't pay attention. Or maybe your ideology makes you inclined to just not like Rush. That's fine. And by all means, go ahead and make fun of Rush's SUCCESSFUL battle with pain killers. I'm sure that will take even more of the wind out of his sails.
Mike,
I think you're living 5-10 years in the past. Yes Rush is still big but Joe & others are right....he has 'jumped the shark' so to speak.
Boonton,
So you say. Your assertion to my facts. Maybe you are 5 to 10 years into the Twilight Zone. Most sharks should be so influential.