Andrew Sullivan notes that Rush Limbaugh is standing with Sarah Palin even as several GOP leaders start moving the other way, but Sullivan is flabbergasted that Rush says: "I'd vote for Elmer Fudd if the Republicans nominated him, if Obama's the Democrat."
I think three responses are in order:
1. Well, of course! Sullivan forgets that Elmer Fudd is a millionaire, and owns a mansion and a yacht.
2. Rush is disingenuous; the "if Obama's the Democrat" portion of this is silly. Rush would vote Fudd against any conceivable Democrat.
3. But taking Rush at his word -- that he'd only vote Fudd because Obama is (in his view) a really awful Democrat -- Rush is, in my view, wrong. Rush Limbaugh should vote for Elmer Fudd, regardless of who the Democrats nominate. Fudd would appoint a cabinet that Rush would like. He'd have a White House staff filled with experienced Republicans, most of whom Rush would like. He would, as the GOP nominee, pledge to reverse many of Barack Obama's executive orders (including, say, on abortion) on his first day in office -- and he'd fulfill that pledge.
(OK, maybe he wouldn't get to it on Day One, what with the whole controversy over whether it was Duck Season or Wabbit Season. But Day Two, certainly).
Fudd would sign bills produced by a GOP Congress; he'd veto bills produced by a Democratic Congress. His Supreme Court appointments and lower court appointments would come with the Federalist Society stamp of approval. (And if he tried to go off on his own by appointing his personal lawyer, or perhaps this guy, then Senate Republicans would quickly shoot him down and get him back on track).
Of course, the logic holds in the other direction too; most Democrats should vote for the Democratic version of Elmer Fudd regardless of who the Republicans nominate. The point, of course, is that party is usually far more important than person when it comes to the presidency, and therefore the wise vote should vote the party, not the person. Yes, there are a handful of people out there who have strongly held but sufficiently eclectic views -- Sullivan is one of them -- who might have logical reasons to move back and forth depending on specific candidates. And sure, there's always the chance that having a bumbling incompetent in the White House would lead to all sorts of disasters (resist the urge to include blind links to Iraq and Katrina...or perhaps Iran, 1979), but that's the risk you have to take in politics. For the most part, the time to worry about that is in the nomination process -- and if you really care about politics and public affairs, that's when you should get yourself involved.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
An elected Republican is going to play to the Republican base because that is what it takes to win reelection--especially now that the Tea Partiers and other conservatives are willing to challenge an incumbent Republican who they do not think is ideologically pure. If we had a different electoral system, such as the non-partisan primary system I proposed yesterday, then our elected officials would not all automatically "play to the base", but would instead need to seek support from a wider spectrum of voters. We would then no longer oscillate from one extreme to another, wasting resources while successive Presidents and Congresses try to undo the agenda of their predecessors. Instead, we could focus on moving the country into the future and building on what we have accomplished. Might that be a better solution in this competitive and rapidly changing world?
ReplyDeleteThis is brilliant, as always.
ReplyDeleteIt's also worth pointing out that Rush Limbaugh's influence is vastly overstated, especially by Andrew Sullivan himself. In the 2008 primaries, the one GOP candidate Limbaugh hated the most was John McCain, but McCain won anyway. After that contest was decided and the Democratic choice lingered on, Limbaugh urged his listeners to create havoc by crossing over to vote for Hillary Clinton. Clinton faded away anyway. Then, of course, he came out foursquare in favor of McCain/Palin, who got trounced.
ReplyDeleteThe one area of influence I think he has is that he can bring issues to the attention of GOP officials by making a big stink about them. And goodness knows, Republicans still feel the need to kowtow to him. But I don't see any evidence that he affects elections at all.
Do you ever get the feeling that Sullivan doesn't really get US politics?
ReplyDeleteIf you had to draw up a scorecard, what did he get right?
Alan,
ReplyDeleteI think strong parties are good things, so I disagree.
Tom,
Yes and no. I think that Rush and other similar types have to walk a tightrope...if they wander too far off on their own, they have pretty much no influence, but as amplifiers of the GOP message, they do have an opportunity to pick and choose which things they amplify.
Charlie,
No, I don't agree. Certainly, Sullivan disagrees with me about partisanship as a good thing, but that's a legit disagreement, not "not getting" it.
I always thought Fudd was a Blue Dog Democrat. Yosemite Sam, now there's a Republican.
ReplyDeleteBut if the GOP failed to take that left turn at Albuquerque and ended up in ancient Rome, would Rush vote for Nero?
ReplyDeleteP.S. @Anon 12:22: cf. Foghorn Leghorn -- quintessential Southern Democrat-turned-Republican-but-ultra-partisan-either-way.
Elmer Fudd also was, or claimed to be, a 'vegetawian' who hunted 'for the sport'. (Bugs and Daffy had been trying to convince him of one another's culinary merits.)
ReplyDeleteI wasted a lot of breath in 2000 making arguments like those in this post to people of the "makes no difference" and "but Al Gore is weird" school. It struck me then as a kind of political immaturity not to understand that you're electing a whole administration and the various constituencies and movements it's responsive to, not just one guy and his particular quirks. Sullivan is extremely smart and gets an awful lot right, and I would agree that he "gets" American politics better than most Americans do -- but then, that's a pretty low bar. There are times when he seems (and even admits) to have trouble getting his head around the fact that it's not Great Britain in 1979 anymore. And the slogan "Of no party or clique" worn like a badge of honor kind of irritates me on several levels, not least the way it seems to equate parties with "cliques."
ReplyDeleteDr. Bernstein, I think you are being put off my Sullivan's english accent. It really doesn't make him smarter.
ReplyDeleteHis perennial observer status means he's never voted, never done anything in politics, and really, in his bones, doesn't get it. He is the classic independent voter who gets hysterical about a few issues.
If he was more a Washington creature, he'd realize the really fun fights are within your own party, and if he was less flamboyant he'd realize that, like most independents, he should just ignore the political news on the page and just shrug and the antics of what the kids are doing.
I did find your blog through his, so the other interesting question is why our political discourse is so, well, stupid. I always blame the professors, but that's just me.
>party is usually far more important than person when it comes to the presidency
ReplyDeleteSince we now know Hillary would probably not have pursued HCR, I'd say it has the potential to make a huge difference.
>It's also worth pointing out that Rush Limbaugh's influence is vastly overstated, especially by Andrew Sullivan himself.
Please name one Republican official who has been able to denounce Limbaugh without quickly reversing himself and groveling at Limbaugh's feet for forgiveness.
>In the 2008 primaries, the one GOP candidate Limbaugh hated the most was John McCain, but McCain won anyway.
Part of the reason McCain won was that two of his rivals, Romney and Huck, sort of canceled each other out in winner-take-all contests. Talk-radio hosts, including Rush, promoted Romney as the true conservative of the race, while attacking Huck as a fake conservative, despite the fact that evangelicals tended to see it the other way around. So Rush may have influenced the race, just not in the way he intended.
Kylopod:
ReplyDeletePlease name one Republican official who has been able to denounce Limbaugh without quickly reversing himself and groveling at Limbaugh's feet for forgiveness.
If Limbaugh's 'influence' is limited to blunting criticism of himself, that's not much influence. That supporters of the 'Rush is influential' meme keep harping on this point, is really evidence that he isn't very influential.
Kylopod:
ReplyDeleteSince we now know Hillary would probably not have pursued HCR . . .
First time I've heard this. How is it known?
It's various bits of evidence, such as this statement by Dana Milbank:
ReplyDelete"Clinton campaign advisers I spoke with say she almost certainly would have pulled the plug on comprehensive health-care reform rather than allow it to monopolize the agenda for 15 months. She would have settled for a few popular items such as children's coverage and a ban on exclusions for pre-existing conditions. That would have left millions uninsured, but it also would have left Democrats in a stronger political position and given them more strength to focus on job creation and other matters, such as immigration and energy."
Then there's the fact that Mark Penn was urging Obama to abandon the health-care bill in the wake of Scott Brown's victory.
Of course, so were key members of Obama's team. And Jonathan Alter's book The Promise seems to indicate that most of Obama's advisers were urging him not to pursue HCR in the first place. Obama chose to disregard their advice, and it's possible Hillary might also have done so. Possible, but not likely. This seems to have been a unique calculation Obama made, by someone who hadn't been involved in the health-care debacle of '93 and who felt he could make it work this time.