Wednesday, March 04, 2009

Frum vs Limbaugh

David Frum has taken some nasty shots at conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh.

See here and here.

In a nutshell, Frum sees the outspoken Limbaugh as a millstone around the Republican Party's neck because he is, according to polls, unpopular with a wide streak of the American public.

But who cares whether or not Limbaugh is popular with the masses? He isn't running for office. Limbaugh's job, which he does brilliantly, is to mobilize (and entertain) conservatives.

And like it or not, right now Limbaugh is the most prominent voice for conservatism in America. That's mainly by default.

So perhaps rather than lashing out at conservative talk show hosts, Frum and other Republicans should be figuring out how they can recapture their own base.


Anonymous said...

"In a nutshell, Frum sees the outspoken Limbaugh as a millstone around the Republican Party's neck because he is, according to polls, unpopular with a wide streak of the American public." ...and this is bad because...??

Paul M said...

It's bad because right now there is absolutely NO opposition to the scratch that...Lunatic things Obama is doing in his first 100 days.

Anonymous said...

You are right. Conservatives need to have some more loud voices speaking for their point of view. We are mostly drowned out by all the babbling liberals. We need more people like Rush and Ann Coulter to expose the downright foolishness and hypocrisy of the liberals. Most of the MSM cover up the warts of their preferred political figures, and they ridicule and sneer at conservatives. Who speaks for the right. There is not even a pretense of journalistic detachment.

Matthew said...

I've grown increasingly disappointed with David Frum lately -- he suggested earlier in the fall after the election that the GOP should disband the most successful coalition in the western world in order to chase after folks who clearly aren't conservative in any sense of the word. I'm not sure if this is sour grapes or ego, but I hope he comes around lest he become a handy talking point for liberals in the US.

AEK said...

Frum does not seem to be interested in conservatism, which in the US embraces the "unalienable Rights" to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" as stated in their Declaration of Independence.

Rather, Frum's main objective seems to be winning back power for the Republicans, even by throwing conservatism under the bus if necessary; hence his attack on Rush Limbaugh for his steadfast promotion of conservatism.

Obama's underlying philosophical objectives are state socialism, 'spreading the wealth' and censorship, not necessarily economic success.

Frum seems to think that the key to countering this does not involve promoting conservative principles and how they translate into broad policy objectives. Rather, he seems to think that knit-picking at the edges of Obama's radical plans is the road back to power for Republicans. David Frum should recall that 'liberal-lite' didn't work for 'maverick' John McCain, and it won't work in the future.

The much more important objective should be that the US returns to the basic principles and philosophies that led to its success and leadership in the world, not which set of self-serving politicians run a future nanny state.

Scott Merrithew said...

Frum has lost sight of the big picture. His intentions may be right, but he fails to realize that his favored battle tactics are not winning the war. It is myopic strategy to attract liberal voters by sacrificing conservative ideals. Real liberals will always do it better.
Conservatism is an actual thing. It is a relatively constant set of values and principles against which all socio-economic policies can be measured.
Liberalism, on the other hand, emphatically avoids being defined as any "thing", preferring to represent itself as the ever-malleable "will of the people". This noble sounding objective is actually the total lack of conviction about any position other than the polls of the day.
Of course it is argued that that is the essence of democracy, but while extolling the creed of "majority rules", realize that democracy gone wild is mob rule, and in a free vote, the majority of "NIMBYs" with self-serving motivations will always outnumber the wiser minds who try to serve the interests of the nation as a whole. But liberals just don't get it.
It reminds me of that scientist in the movie "I.Q.". He is completely flummoxed by the results of his experiment where rats are provided 2 buttons; one that produces food, and the other that produces an electrical stimulus to the pleasure center of the brain. He can't understand why they all starve themselves to death.

History is replete with examples of that sort of myopic public policy, but the regrets that follow are quickly forgotten or discounted, and so go the lessons of history. (repeat ad infinitum)