Rush Limbaugh wants to boycott GM

This has to be the stupidest idea Rush Limbaugh - a very stupid man - has come up with in a long time. He wants his listeners to boycott GM, because he wants Obama's policies to fail.

The mind boggles. This is capitalism in its purest form. Limbaugh only wants Obama's policies to fail because that would make him, Rush Limbaugh, look good. This argument has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of ideological purity or even any kind of vague, tenuous connection to reality. It is strictly about what is in Rush Limbaugh's best interests.

This argument isn't even about what is in his listeners' best interests. As American taxpayers, they have an interest in GM succeeding, so they can get back the money that they have invested in GM. Many of them drive GM cars, and would presumably want to have a relatively easy time say, having their cars fixed. That would be much more difficult if GM fails. There are probably a number of Rush Limbaugh listeners who work for GM, are related to someone who does, or who live in a town dominated by a GM plant.

But Rush Limbaugh does not care about any of those people. He only cares about himself. Self-interest in its rawest form.

What is truly stupid is a headline from a Website driving this: "BOYCOTT OF GM PRODUCTS UNTIL PRIVATE OWNERSHIP IS RESTORED."

Seriously? Um, guys, I don't know if you've noticed, but if you successfully boycott GM products, then it will go bankrupt, and there will not be any private ownership of GM, because there will be no GM. This sounds like the logic of that commander in Vietnam: we had to destroy the village in order to save it.

The only way to restore GM to private ownership is to make it profitable, because then the government will sell it. Because the Obama administration wants to sell its GM stock at a profit. Like the good capitalists that they are.

This may be what is driving Rush Limbaugh and his friends completely off the deep end: Obama is trying to save a major capitalist institution. And he is trying to do it through capitalist means: imposing market discipline, for one thing, and making hard but necessary choices about resource allocation, for another. So far, Obama is a better capitalist than anyone who has been chairman of GM for decades. The Obama administration is cutting dealerships and brands. That is called "making tough decisions." It's what great CEOs and other leaders are supposed to be good at. But which, alas, Rick Wagoner and his predecessors were not all that good at. People in Detroit have known for years that GM had too many brands and too many dealerships. Among other problems. But no one CEO was powerful enough to kill off the unwanted brands or dealers. It took a POTUS to do that. But he did it.

Keep it up, Rush. Keep tying yourself in knots. Keep alienating large sections of your core constituency. Refusing to admit that you're wrong has this tendency to wreak havoc on a person's ability to understand reality. And reality, Rush, is stronger than you.

Limbaugh, liberals, and the LA Times

Last week, in the Sunday LA Times, a guy named Andrew Klavan threw down a challenge to all the liberal readers of the Times: listen to Rush Limbaugh. Klavan is a conservative, and a pretty hard-core one. He explained why liberals don't listen to Rush Limbaugh in very explicit terms:

You're a lowdown, yellow-bellied, lily-livered intellectual coward. You're terrified of finding out he makes more sense than you do.

I find this very funny, largely because it's just so ridiculous. This is what conservatism has become? This guy thinks this kind of childish taunt is going to get me all riled up and offended? Is he on crack? I think it's hysterical. The good Mr. Klavan seems to think that the Op-Ed page of the LA Times is the intellectual equivalent of an elementary school playground. Am I supposed to be impressed that he can repeat cliched insults? This is the kind of nonsense that George Will outgrew at roughly the same age that he outgrew holding his mother's hand as he walked across the street.

My answer to him as to why I don't listen to The Large One is grounded in a good old capitalist value he presumably would approve of: efficiency. I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh because it's not a productive use of my time. There are lots of conservatives I read and listen to. They are, for the most part, people from whom I might actually learn something. Rush Limbaugh is not one of them. I also don't engage in somewhat more wholesome pursuits, like reading People magazine, watching Fox News, or playing online poker. I do occasionally read the Wall Street Journal (which I have been doing since I was nine, when I bought my first stock), but the editorial page is so predictable I no longer even find it amusing.

Klavan accuses the mainstream media of distorting Rush Limbaugh's message, taking his comments out of context to inflame liberal outrage. So what? Who cares? That's exactly what Rush Limbaugh wants. He wants liberals to hate him. He wants liberals to be afraid of him. That's part of his schtick. He's the master of the soundbite. He loves being quoted, in or out of context. He would be nothing without his enemies. Which is exactly why I neither hate him or am scared of him. I think he's a brilliant entertainer, and he's very good at what he does, but I also just don't really care about him. When I write about him, it's usually about his place in the political/media boxing ring. I don't pass judgment on his ideas because I could care less about his ideas. He's a convenient bogeyman for liberals. And that is exactly what he wants to be.

Rush Limbaugh is the perfect embodiment of conservative, capitalist ideology: he acts according to what is in his own best self-interest. Which doesn't necessarily coincide with the best self-interests of, say, the Republican leadership in Congress. Which is one contradiction that I find hilarious.

But what makes this debate really interesting is how the LA Times itself responded to this throwing down of the gauntlet (Klavan has written for the LA Times Op-Ed page before). They asked some very prominent LA liberals to take up the challenge and actually listen to Rush Limbaugh. Would they be up to the challenge?!?! Could they deal with the deeply meaningful and insightful challenges to their worldview?! Or would they melt in the face of Rush's great onslaught of profound truth!

Maybe not.

Here's the weird thing: the people they selected already listened to Rush Limbaugh. It's entirely possible that they found the only four liberals in LA who did so, and invited their commentary. But the four they invited are four of the most prominent liberals in LA, including Norman Lear, founder of People for the American Way, Laurie Ochoa, editor of the LA Weekly, LA's alternative newspaper, and Constance Rice, arguably the most prominent civil rights attorney in LA (and second cousin of Condi Rice). I hadn't heard of the fourth liberal, Marc Cooper, but he's an academic at USC, so he's got to be a good guy.

Ha! Be careful what you wish for, Mr. Klavan. My favorite part of the response is from Mr. Lear:

El Rushbo suffers from extreme flatulence of speech, emotion and personality. The 'hilarious' El Rushbo is simply a pompous, self-worshiping blowhard and bully. And you, sir, Mr. Klavan, are silly.

He is more than silly. He is, in this episode, a loser. Here, Mr. Klavan, use this towel to wipe that egg off your face. Maybe next time you won't flaunt your stereotypes quite so blatantly. Let's perform a cost-benefit analysis, shall we? You got a check from the LA Times, so, financially, you'll be coming out of this OK. Politically, however, I don't see how you could have come out of this any worse. You probably scored some style points with your politically sympatico comrades (Klavan also used to write for Libertas, a conservative film blog run by some friends of mine). Great - your friends still like you. But I'm not sure how many people are impressed by someone who throws out a challenge, and then sees that challenge met so decisively. And so calmly. The ball, Mr. Klavan, is, as they say, in your court. Unless have one hell of a comeback, you just lost this game of wits rather badly. May I recommend taking your opponents a little more seriously, and treating them with a little more respect?

Judging by your writing, Mr. Klavan, you are quite the tough guy. Oooohhhh! But what today's liberals writing in the LA Times proved is that they, and other liberals, like me, are a conservative tough guy's worst nightmare: we are not in the least bit afraid of you. Or Rush Limbaugh. There are many conservatives I take very seriously, first and foremost my father, and all my grandparents, when they were alive. And our mutual friends Jason Apuzzo and Govindini Murty, founders of the Liberty Film Festival (of which I have attended almost every event). For the record, Jason and Govindini are wonderful people, and always welcomed me enthusiastically to their festival.

As of now, Mr. Klavan, neither you nor Mr. Limbaugh have offered me any reason to offer the same courtesy to you. But who knows what the future holds? Some day we may meet, have a beer, and get along famously. I'll try to keep an open mind on that score. I'm good on that whole keeping-an-open-mind thing; I'm a liberal. I am glad to hear that you pay attention to liberal media. That's one hopeful sign. Listening to NPR hasn't done much for your manners, tho.

Liberals, of course, have their own stereotypes. At our worst, we liberals think of conservatives as mean, petty, small-minded idiots with little sense of decency. We think of them as bitter, angry white men who spout venom instead of engaging in a civil debate about ideas. Personally, I try not to think in terms of those stereotypes, because I know many smart, competent, compassionate Republicans. I even know some with good senses of humor.

Which means, Mr. Klavan, that these liberals have defied your stereotypes, while you have strongly reinforced ours. Thanks so much. We owe you one. Never thot I'd be so grateful to a conservative for being a narrow-minded asshole.

You have your stereotypes and the king of talk radio. But you also have the legacy of George W. Bush, which is about the most toxic asset out there.

We, on the other hand, have the presidency, the House, and the Senate. I'll take our hand over yours.

Oh, and one other thing we've got that you and Rush may notice that you don't have: the respect and affection of most of the rest of the world. That kind of thing helps when you're, you know, trying to change the world. Or save it.

Better luck next time, Mr. Klavan.

Jon Stewart: Au revoir, Mr. Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh is leaving New York City because taxes on the rich are going up. Cry me a river. Jon Stewart is not going to miss him.

You'll have to click on the link to see it (it's well worth three minutes of your time; I watched it three times) because I couldn't make the video work on this post. For some reason, one particular "embed" link kept disappearing.

This is important not just for the humor, but because, to paraphrase Clausewitz, sometimes culture is politics by other means. Obama's election was a major breakthrough in the political culture of this country, but moments like this help seal the deal. Jon Stewart is declaring victory over Rush Limbaugh, and enjoying it. I usually try to respect my political opponents. But sometimes the best kind of political activism involves a little bit of humiliation. Particularly for arrogant jerks like Limbaugh.

What's funny about this is that Jon Stewart is doing something that many moderate Republicans should be thankful for. I know some longtime Republicans who absolutely despise Rush Limbaugh, and will be thankful when he is gone. Right now, they can be thankful that Jon Stewart just took him down a notch.

Send Rush Limbaugh a message!

The Democratic Party is planning to set up a billboard in Rush Limbaugh's hometown with a message to him. Woo-hoo! Good times! They are considering a number of different messages, and are soliciting input from intelligent, enlightened people everywhere. Vote to send the Republican Party's demagogue du jour a message! I voted for the sign "Rush: Say "Yes" to America," because I believe in being positive and respectful towards your political opponents. Even idiots like Limbaugh.

I would recommend that you vote early and vote often, but you have to sign in to vote, so I think the Democrats may be trying to maintain high standards of electoral integrity on this one. Which, of course, I strongly support. So vote once and tell your friends!

Rush Limbaugh and the contradictions of conservatism

Rush Limbaugh is driving the Republican Party nuts. Ha! Of course, most Republicans who actually hold elected office won't admit it. But sober realists, of which there still are some in the GOP, must be just tearing their hair out.

What they don't realize is that Rush Limbaugh is the ultimate embodiment of conservative ideology. He is acting according to what is in his own short-term best interests. That is a basic organizing principle of capitalism and conservatism: the individual must have the maximum possible freedom to act according to their own best interests.

The problem for the GOP is that what is in Limbaugh's best interest in the short term is NOT necessarily in the best interest of the Republican Party in the long term. Limbaugh's perspective is the next few days. He wants material for his daily talk show. He could care less about what happens six months from now, a year from now, 5 years from now. He wants to make money right now. So he denounces Obama, or "feminazis," or any famous Congressional Democrat, in strong terms, because the louder and more obnoxious he is, the greater the entertainment value for his listeners.

Rush Limbaugh has absolutely no interest whatsoever in any kind of reasoned discourse about policy. That's because he has no interest whatsoever in policy. Politics is just fodder for his ranting, that's all. He doesn't care about finding the best solutions to various problems. He would actually prefer that we NOT find solutions, because he thrives on chaos and confusion. The more nervous and scared people are, the better he does. If life were perfectly calm, he would have no business.

There are many members of the traditional GOP coalition who desperately want to work with Obama. There is hardly a business in this country that doesn't have problems with healthcare costs. Many, many members of the military, and their families, desperately want the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to end quickly. Large numbers of businesses want to see increased spending on infrastructure and education, and are willing to pay higher taxes to get that.

These people are not necessarily Limbaugh's audience. He doesn't care about the reasonable, moderate Republicans, the ones who are willing to vote for Obama because he's a decent, responsible human being. All he cares about is feeding his dittoheads' addiction to anger. He's like a drug dealer who gets people addicted to a drug, and then keeps feeding it to them.

His audience's addiction to anger distorts their perspective. Anything that threatens their addiction - like, saying the chairman of the RNC challenging Rush's influence - is met with the trigger-happy reaction of people denied a fix.

Thus we have yet another example of the ironies afflicting conservatism: a man who embodies the ideals of capitalism - that individuals should be allowed the maximum possible freedom to act according to their own best interests - is wreaking havoc on the GOP precisely because what is in his best interests is contrary to the best interests of the party as a whole. Bwahahahaha!

There is, fortunately for the rest of us, a more powerful force at work in this country's politics than Rush Limbaugh, an organizing principle which encourages people to recognize that sometimes it is their best interests to understand what is in the best interests of other people. This organizing principle is called "democracy." It is vastly more powerful than Rush Limbaugh.

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.

Rush Limbaugh's favorable rating is 21%

From The Daily Beast, Tina Brown's answer to HuffPost, we discover this fascinating statistic: Rush Limbaugh is wildly unpopular with the American public. His approval rating, measured in a poll in October, 2008, 21%. 58% of Americans, on the other hand, have "cold" feelings towards him.

And yet, and yet . . . Republicans still treat him like a kingmaker. What's the solution? How do Democrats expose this buffoon for the joke that he is? Simple. Do a good job. He'll never go away. But he can be contained and ignored. Which is one reason this is a very short post.