Jonah Goldberg hearts Rush Limbaugh

As a Democrat, you just have to love the influence that Rush Limbaugh has over the Republican party. An obnoxious jerk running roughshod over anyone who disagrees with him. Great for party discipline! Not so good for encouraging dissent, honest debate, and open dialogue.

Jonah Goldberg, the conservative columnist for the LA Times, defends Limbaugh in today's column. Like Rush, he wants Obama's attempts to turn this country into a "European welfare state." It's a tragic state of affairs for our loyal opposition when this kind of argument by cliche counts as an intellectually sophisticated critique. Amazingly, Goldberg understands that Limbaugh's current perch on top of the GOP is a gift to the Democrats. Sure, he's rallying the few troops left on that side of the aisle, but he's alienating independents and moderate Republicans, and it's pretty much a net positive for Dems all the way around.

Goldberg defends conservatives by reiterating that they are bound to do things a certain way by, well, tradition:

I could swear that conservatives opposing the expansion of big government is what conservatives do. It's Aesopian. The scorpion must sting the frog. The conservative must object to socialized medicine.

Except, of course, when said expansion of big government is being done by a Republican. Or does the abrogation of the separation of powers and the claim of virtually unlimited power of the executive branch not count as an expansion of government?

What is most amusing are Goldberg's attempts to somehow find a middle ground between Limbaugh and his critics on the right. Of which there actually are some! I do have to give Goldberg credit for quoting some of the few dissidents who dare to point out that Limbaugh is wreaking havoc on his own party. But then Goldberg makes a godawful pathetic attempt to propose a solution. What is it? Get ready. He wants to bring back Firing Line. He wants to reincarnate William F. Buckley.

Right, because what this country really needs is another Sunday morning talk show about politics.

And, of course, the best antidote to Rush Limbaugh, a rude, loudmouthed populist who broadcasts several hours a day, several days a week, and reaches millions, is to bring back a preppy Northeastern elitist snob. Once a week. On PBS.

Goldberg writes that bringing back Firing Line would be

the kind of entrepreneurial government innovation even right-wingers could get behind.

How ridiculous is this? Resuscitating a program that started decades ago and lasted for 33 years is, for Jonah Goldberg, "entrepreneurial." Even with his tongue in cheek this is absurd.

And here we find a fault line in the Republican party: conservatives believe in tradition, but capitalists believe in innovation. Guess which side of that divide Jonah Goldberg falls on.

I have a suggestion for Mr. Goldberg: If you want to encourage civility of discourse and honest debate of policy, you might want to start with your own column.

McCain's VP choices

In the LA Times today, Jonah Goldberg, the resident conservative columnist there, writes about McCain's choices for VP. The upshot is that he doesn't any great choices, just several almost-decent ones. My guesses for the top six:

Mitt Romney
Rob Portman
Sarah Palin
Tim Pawlenty
Carly Fiorina
John Thune

Even those six have problems. Mitt Romney came across as Mr. Flaky in the primaries, changing his position with the position of the sun. Rob Portman is strongly associated with Bush. Sarah Palin is a somewhat obscure candidate. During the campaign, I anticipate some logistical problems: won't she have to, you know, go home to Alaska to be governor every now and then? Won't that take up large chunks of time? Not a huge deal, to be sure, but it occurred to me. Tim Pawlenty sounds good, but I don't know much about him. Carly Fiorina has not held elected office, and she was fired from Hewlett Packard. In other words, there isn't any good, solid reason to choose her, apart from the fact that she's a woman. John Thune is close to the same age as Obama (47), and has similar experience: he served in the US House from 1996-2002, and has been a Senator since 2004, same as Obama. Weakens McCain's charge that Obama is inexperienced. Also, he's very conservative, and strongly associated with the Christian right, so he brings both the good and bad karma associated with believing in creationism.

I'm going to narrow my choices down to Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, and John Thune. Choosing Palin would be a bold choice, but she's younger than Obama (only 44), and her experience in office is so light it makes Obama look like an elder statesman - she was elected governor in 2006, and before that was the Mayor of the city of Wasilia, Alaska, population around 8,000. Say what you will about Obama's experience, next to being the mayor of a suburb of Anchorage, state senator in Illinois suddenly has a lot of weight. She has a lot of time to make her mark, I don't think this is her turn. But having a woman on the ticket young enough to be his daughter would only highlight McCain's age. On the other hand, her approval rating is in the 80's. Of course, the fact that she's very pretty doesn't hurt.

Pawlenty is a bit older (48), still young enough to be McCain's son, but has been governor a little longer than Palin (since 2002), and before that was a state represenative. Again, not a huge contrast with Obama. He doesn't really have any foreign policy experience, but that's not much of an issue for McCain. He's very conservative, which might help with the Republican base, but not so much with independents. Sounds like he's pretty hardcore on cutting taxes, which is not as popular as it once was. So he's attractive, but not perfect.

Thune has the problem of the other two, i.e. that he doesn't have much to compare against Obama in the realm of experience. Obama was elected to the Illinois state senate in 1996, Thune was elected to as South Dakota's sole US Representative in the same year - not a huge difference. Having another senator on the ticket would also reinforce Obama's claim to be running against Washington insiders.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that Mitt Romney may be the best of the lot. He has more experience than Obama with running things. He's older than Obama, but still younger than McCain. He's energetic. But he's also strongly associated with the kind of capitalism that has resulted in spectacular income inequality - not going to go down well with the blue collar voters.

If I were McCain, I think I would have to go with either Pawlenty or Romney.

Why we should feel sorry for politicians

Jonah Goldberg is one of my least favorite pundits. He's a columnist for the LA Times (the conservative one), and I don't just disagree with him ideologically. I find that I don't try to argue with him, because I think his writing is usually sloppy and facile.

But this is hysterical. It's an explanation of why we should feel sorry for politicians: because they have to listen to us.

"Ever have someone comment on your job who has absolutely no experience whatsoever at it? It's quite annoying. Now imagine millions of similarly unknowledgeable rubes constantly heckling you, but now they actually have a say on how you do things and could have you fired for disagreeing with them. If you can begin to fathom how unfair — downright mean — that would feel, then you'll have some understanding for the plight of the politician at the hands of voters."

Right! You know how, sometimes you hear someone express a political opinion, and it's so completely whacked that you just roll your eyes, and/or walk away? You don't even bother trying to argue with them, because you know it's a hopelessly lost cause - they know they're right and you're not going to change their mind, no matter what kind of evidence you provide. All you can do is nod and smile and think to yourself "get me the hell out of here."

You know what politicians have to do with those people? Smile, nod, and then respond intelligently. And not piss them off. Do you know how hard that is?

"not only do our laws permit laggards, professional nose-piercers and porn movie gaffers to have opinions on complex budgetary and foreign policy issues, but our Constitution also says their opinions matter! What mad man thought of this? Was his wig powdered with cocaine?"

Probably not. Somehow, for some reason, the Founding Parents had enough faith in humanity that they gave average people the power to change society. But fear not! The Democratic party is on the right track!

"Democratic politicians are leading the way by putting their fates in the hands of the only people truly qualified to make the important decisions: politicians. There's a reason they're called "super delegates," after all. "

All of you voters who think you're so smart, with your right to vote! Just you wait! The people who are invisible to you now will strike and determine your fate! From God knows what corner of this democracy they will come, and voila! a nominee will be chosen!

Ahh, elections. Such a glorious dance between order and chaos, ignorance and expertise, passion and apathy. You know, sometimes I think it's great to just sit back, reflect on the wonderful madness that is democracy, express yourself in a way that even you didn't expect, enjoy a little intellectual mini-adventure, and say to yourself, "Thank God for the First Amendment."