“Leadership Is Seeing A Parade and Standing In Front Of It”
That definition of leadership was once given to me by a very savvy political leader in Indiana. It makes quite a bit of sense if one must get elected to fill a leadership position. It also seems like the very essence of the republican form of government in which our elected officials are supposed to reflect the views of the public.
But the public also needs leaders that help it actually shape its positions – form the parade, if you will, for the politicians to stand at the front. These leaders are preachers, pastors, priests, pundits, professors, and of late talk radio show hosts. It takes enormous energy to sift through all the information out there and come to a reasonable conclusion about something. People, having other things to do, like it when someone does that for them. These are positions of deep responsibility.
Unfortunately, it is not a responsibility that many take seriously anymore. Professors, protected by tenure, seem to be willing to say almost anything that will draw the additional income of honorarium, publishing and grants. Preachers, pastors and priests have been frightened out of the political opinion business by an over zealous IRS, or because they are sometimes as beholden to the their congregations as politicians are to their electorate. Pundits and radio talk show hosts need ratings and ratings mean pleasing the audience – and so we are back to standing in front of parades.
Never has this been more apparent than watching Rush Limbaugh this cycle. He has ridden, while trying to appear to “lead,” every surge that has come and gone. And he is just getting nasty as Gingrich starts to fade. (Check Intrade – Newt is losing ground like a meteor plummeting to earth.) Yesterday, when National Review editorialized pretty much “anybody but Gingrich,” Limbaugh responded with an intemperance that can be matched only by Gingrich himself:
The establishment Republicans are dumping all over Newt Gingrich all over the place. National Review posted an editorial, Mr. Buckley’s magazine, it used to be conservative, and they had an editorial last night. They didn’t really recommend anybody, they just said not Newt. No way Newt. No way Newt. (interruption) They didn’t say. They implied Romney, of course. And then they kinda ruled out Perry, doesn’t have a chance, Santorum and Bachmann, maybe get a second look. But it was just anti-Newt.
Accusing National Review of not being conservative is doing exactly what Brit Hume accused Gingrich of, “grabbing the first available weapon.” Clearly Limbaugh views his audience as the bigots and bloodlusters out there and is playing to them.
It’s sad really. As the king of conservative political talk, the man who more or less invented the medium, Rush seems to have squandered the serious political capital he once held. Last cycle he did the smart thing, this cycle he is pandering. Rush was, and still could be, positioned to provide our nation with the kind of political education it needs so that we can continue to function as a well oiled machine of democracy. He is instead apparently deciding to stand in front of the a parade that like the marching band in “Animal House” will end up at the butt end of a blind alley.
Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Doctrinal Obedience, News Media Bias, Political Strategy | 10 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
TVHall on 16 Dec 2011 at 2:07 pm #
As an ardent listener of Rush Limbaugh, and a supporter of Mitt Romney, I will agree that it has been difficult to listen to much of what he has said about Romney. However, I think it is a bit of a stretch to portray him in this manner. He has always stated that he is a Conservative first and a Republican second. His insistence that changing the party from within, rather than going the quixotic third party route, would seem to suggest that it is a close second.
He has also stated that during primaries he will always advocate for the most conservative electable candidate. Given his view that any of these candidates could defeat the current incumbent, his actions are understandable. You and I may disagree, totally or in part, with his assessment, but his efforts are not significantly out of line with those of the past.
My impression is that most of his problems with Romney stem from Mitt’s recent statement on the topic of global warming, and the fact that he has gotten the endorsement of “The Establishment” Republicans. In both cases, I would characterize his response as an over-reaction born of his own life experiences.
The first, global warming, is probably where I would align closest to Rush’s point of view. The whole notion of anthropogenic global warming is fatuous. The underlying premise doesn’t pass the laugh test. The difference is I don’t have as knee-jerk a reaction to Romney’s statement on the topic as Rush does. I’m pretty sure the clip Rush has been using on his show doesn’t include a piece at the end where Romney rejects the notion of hobbling our economy in pursuit of lowering our emissions.
As for the latter, I suspect Rush hasn’t taken into account the fact that the “Establishment” didn’t want Romney either. It wasn’t until Governor Christie’s final denial of service that they finally settled on Romney. However, here I can sympathize with Rush, to a greater extent. The harm that has been done by these types, and their inside the beltway mentality, is the reason we are at the crossroads which we now face.
When all is said and done, it is good to remember that much as I (we?) would like to think that Rush can “sink or swim” a candidate, even he would admit that his influence in that regard is not what it may seem. He is passionate about the things he advocates, and that will include the Republican nominee. In the grand scheme of things, this is but a family squabble. What’s ahead will be more on the level of thermonuclear war.
Retrocon on 16 Dec 2011 at 10:25 pm #
I, too, am a Romney supporter and long-time Rush listener. I don’t mind Rush stating his opinion on things, but what I take issue with is his UNFAIR treatment of Romney — giving false impressions.
For example, the Obama team has been playing in the Republican primaries, trying to damage Romney in the eyes of conservatives. One of their main tactics has been to try to link Romney to ObamaCare, knowing this is the major issue that is used to attack Romney’s conservative credentials. They’ve constantly tried to put forth the idea that the Massachusetts bill was a model for ObamaCare. A number of weeks ago the Obama team released to a reporter the idea that “Romney advisers” had met with Democrats in Washington to work out details of ObamaCare.
When the story was published, Rush could not wait to go on the air with it, stretching the story to say that Romney HAD SENT HIS ADVISERS to meet with Obama. Rush could not believe the other Republican candidates were not picking up on this story to bash Romney.
But as it turns out, the individuals who met in Washington WERE NOT ROMNEY’S “ADVISERS”. They were just persons who were among many who were involved in the Massachusetts process. At least two of the three (Jon Gruber and John McDonough) were hard-core liberals, certainly not part of Romney’s team. Gruber in particular has been something of a regular on MSNBC and is trying to diminish Romney’s presidential bid. In other words, these guys were not Romney’s advisers, they did not represent Romney in any way in Washington, and Romney never sent them.
Yet Rush had gleefully run with that portrayal of Romney, and would never retract it, because to do so would be to admit he had been played by the Obama team, along with an unquestioning media.
It is that unfairness which is eroding Rush’s credibility.
But beyond that, I think John is fairly spot on in his assessment of Limbaugh. Limbaugh admitted today that he thought “even Romney” had a good debate Thursday night, but that if he were to say good things about Romney his friends wouldn’t like it. In other words, he admits to not being objective when it comes to Romney. He’s out there not directing a movement anymore armed with the relentless pursuit of truth, but waving a baton in front of a group of his friends, and a segment of listeners that seem to want to bash Romney as well.
Retrocon on 16 Dec 2011 at 10:56 pm #
A couple of additional notes:
Efforts to link Romney to ObamaCare can only be effective in the Republican primary. There is no substance to this issue in the general election. Only among Republican primary voters can this tactic be used against Romney. Hence a clear indication Obama is trying to knock out Romney in the Republican primary.
This brings up another example of Limbaugh’s unfairness. He has repeatedly tried to claim that there have been attacks on all of the other Republicans but that the Democrats had never attacked Romney. This even after the DNC had launched ads in several battleground states specifically against Romney. (the Mitt vs. Mitt campaign). Rush continued to say no one was attacking Romney and claimed it shows that the Obama administration is wanting to face Romney. “Don’t even try to change my mind on this, I know I’m right”, says Rush. This is clear dereliction of analytical skill and truthfulness on the part of Rush, especially when you consider that it is ROMNEY who has fared best and most consistently against Obama in head-to-head polls. Rushes insistence that Obama secretly WANTS to face Romney (over Perry? Bachmann? Santorum?) in the face of all evidence to the contrary is another indication of his collapsed credibility.
One of the problems inhibiting Rush’s ability to be objective is his insatiable desire to always be right. After playing the Romney sound bite about global warming (which was hardly much to worry about when understood in context but touched on one of Rush’s hot button issues), Rush declared flatly that Romney’s presidential bid was now over. As such, Rush had then become invested in Romney’s defeat in order to be proven right. But Romney stayed near the top. Then, as the actual voting neared, and as Gingrich shot up in the polls, Rush came out with both barrels blazing, gleeful once again that it looked like he was right, that Romney was sunk as he had declared back in the summer. Nevermind that Gingrich had come out even more forcefully on the pro-global warming side with his “on the couch with Pelosi” ad recommending government solutions and which directed people to an Al Gore sponsored website. Once again, Rush’s credibility tanks.
Retrocon on 16 Dec 2011 at 11:33 pm #
I’d like to add another comment. John is right on with his pendulum analogy. I’d like to borrow that to explain what has happened with the conservative movement.
We remember the outrageous things Maxine Waters and others have said, aimed at the Tea Party: “The Tea Party can go straight to Hell!”, “Republicans want black people hanging from trees”. etc. Plus Obama’s divisive rhetoric. What purpose does this serve? It serves to drive conservatives to become more rabidly bombastic in their response to the Left. It drives them farther “right”, so to speak. The pendulum swings father the other way. This is what has happened over the last few years, so that now, if you’re not spewing with an angry “us vs. them” mentality, then you’re “not a fighter” for conservative causes, you’re a liberal Republican or a dull moderate, you’re not a true conservative. This, in turn leads Republican primary voters to be pushed to the more extreme candidates, or at least those willing to use more incendiary language. Rush would like nothing more than to have a lightning rod like Sarah Palin become the next president, just to stick it to the Democrats. “You don’t compromise with Democrats, you defeat them”, is Limbaugh’s motto.
Thus, even though Rush supported Romney in 2008, affirming that it was probably Romney who best brought together the “three legs of the conservative stool”, now Rush excoriates Romney as a dull moderate and a “dry ball” that is anything but conservative. Likewise, anyone who would vote for Romney is labeled a dullard. Never does Rush employ his analytical skill to perceive that it is HE and a large segment of the electorate that are allowing themselves to be pushed to the fringes.
Obama and Waters give the pendulum a push on the left, and watch the bob swing harder to the right.
K.G. on 17 Dec 2011 at 9:35 am #
Fascinating discussion here. I too am a Romney supporter who’s listened to Rush for the last 20 years. It’s becoming more and more difficult. In fact after a few minutes I’m forced to turn him off. His looking under rocks for reasons to justify his utter disdain for Rahm-neee has been a mystery; many others have noticed it too. Here’s my theory. I’ve heard that listenership is now 30% of what is was. Indeed Rush has sounded increasingly desperate. Talk shows need demons and some time ago Rush chose the “Republican Establishment” as his demon. With the advent of the Tea Party (I marched w/them on 9-12 in DC), Rush had the perfect fight: Establishment v. TP and Sarah Palin, whom he adores. Perhaps he sees her as his female alter-ego, who took hits not just from the Left but the intellectual Right and Carl Rove, who likes to win elections. The Tea Party morphed at some point into the Teavangelicals, which probably make up most of conservative talk listeners, including Fox. They have been pretty sour on Mitt too while giving ardent support to each ABR that bubbled up.
Rush is miffed that Mitt chose to run in a lane to the left of the so-called hardcore conservatives in order to lure the oh-so-hated moderates. Never mind that Mitt’s current stated policies are acceptably conservative. Combine that w/the anti-Mormon sentiment that exists in the Teavangelical group, and Rush, Levin and many local talk show hosts have their perfect demon in Mitt.
I’ve been disgusted on several levels with this cynical ploy–most of all because they while they tried to destroy Romney in the eyes of listeners, they have not been able to identify a worthy alternative. All of their ABRs have been fatally flawed, none more so than Gingrich, whose stability, character and even mental health are in question.
Now that Gingrich intimates have come forward with virulent anti-endorsements, warning, Do no nominate Newt, Rush and Hannity and others are having a cow at the “Establishment” attacks against their last ABR. Yesterday’s endorsement from Nikki Haley brought criticism upon her head from Rush. Indeed it appears anyone who supports Mitt is in danger of being on the receiving end of Rush’s contempt.
Many have opined that Rush “is losing it” and simply cannot listen to his dishonest vitriol. I am becoming one of them.
John Schroeder on 17 Dec 2011 at 10:16 am #
I would not be so quick to group Hannity with Rush. I frankly don’t listen to him enough to come up with evidence, but I know people that know him and I think he is playing a very different game.
K.G. on 17 Dec 2011 at 11:07 am #
John, you are right. I didn’t mean to lump them together. Hannity has tried to be even-handed and non-committal in his own way, speaking up to defend candidates even when the vetting process demands that we look honestly at their flaws.
He defended Cain and now Gingrich, calling for an end to criticizing the candidates. In this vain though, he also seems to be “having a cow” over the many who have come out warning us against Newt.
The goal, of course, for us voters is to look beyond talk show hosts, whose business it is to get advertisers by pandering to their particular listeners.
Doug King on 17 Dec 2011 at 9:39 pm #
A name for the parade-leading model of leadership is vox populi vox dei, meaning “the voice of the people [is] the voice of God”. However, this isn’t really leadership at all. Substitute “mob” for “people” in the definition and you readily see why. Vox populi vox dei has been used to excuse everything from the carnage of the French Revolution to the persecution of Mormons.
True leadership rises above mobs and appeals to the “better angels” in our nature. Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln were outstanding examples of this. To paraphrase James Madison: ‘if men were angels, no leaders [or government] would be necessary.’ But men are decidedly not angelic. Therefore, we need real leaders, not parade mongers.
Limbaugh and his peers are parade mongers. Mark Lilla at the New York Review of Books has an interesting article on Glenn Beck. He says, among other things:
While Lilla directs his thoughts at Beck, I think the idea of channeling emotion applies to talking heads in general. Beck may be more supple than the others, but they all have a vested interest in saying whatever audiences want to hear. Audiences find anger especially appealing, and these people are very skilled at fomenting it. Unfortunately, anger is not a strategy for creating jobs or restoring lost investments.
TVHall on 17 Dec 2011 at 9:46 pm #
All of the points of contention mentioned above are the same that of occurred to me as I have listened to Rush. I tend to chalk them up to either a difference of “point of view” or perhaps falling under the heading of the zero point whatever that Rush is wrong. No one is perfect. That’s why one should always be wary of placing others on a pedestal.
Perhaps it is my football background, but I have a different take on the rough competition. If you want to be the best, you have to beat the best. It won’t always be pleasant, and the outcome might not be to your liking. But if he can’t survive this, he shouldn’t get the job. After all, this is only the intra-squad scrimmage. The season to come will be much rougher.
I will merely leave you with this observation. I enjoy reading the comments at the sites I frequent. Most of it is chaff. But some of it is insightful and, occasionally, there are entries that are just down right hilarious. There is, however, a disturbing trend I have noticed. That is a tendancy for commentors to attribute malicious or nefarious motives to the individuals they are opining on. I suspect that is some of what Rush has succumbed to.
I suggest that we (and I do include myself in this admonition) keep this in mind as we continue in our advocacy. It won’t end the slings and arrows, but at least it won’t add to it.
I Guess We Should Not Give Them Any Ideas | Article VI Blog | John Schroeder on 28 Dec 2011 at 10:25 pm #
[...] borrowed a meme from #Occupy – accusing NR of not being “true conservatives.” We felt obliged to shoot back. In our piece we pointed out how important pundits can be in shaping the national agenda, and how [...]