In the age of the 24-hour news cycle, the unrelenting battlefield of cable news, the blogosphere, talk radio, and politics as team sport, political debates have become insanely directed by derision, fear, pride, and xenophobia. Civil debates have become passé, taken over by pervasive; moreover, cowardly, rhetorical knife fights. Such feckless and irresponsible rhetoric used to be mainly issued by loudmouthed pundits whose only interest was in ratings—for example, Rush Limbaugh. Lawmakers have always had to dabble in the in the muck-raking, and false-promises industries, but, at the end of the day—and sometimes to their detriment, most of them would eventually buckle to their consciences, thereby engaging in compromise and negotiation, and, more importantly, seek to, in theory, serve those whom they were elected to serve.
The United States has long needed campaign finance reform. What’s more, voter activism on the issue is direly needed as the Supreme Court has ruled that campaign contributions from corporations’ are a form a “free speech”. While I believe that our society in America is insanely bereft of personal responsibility, I continually observe that many of those Americans who support the conservative axiom of “personal responsibility and small government”, are supporting politicians who do not, in reality, stand for those same principles.
Both parties whore themselves out to special interests—after all, they control that corrupt cash needed to run those divisive commercials we all see on TV. Politicians will spew whatever tripe they believe will ingratiate themselves to voters or their respective party; but, ultimately, they would, traditionally, negotiate towards consensus.
This new decision by the Supreme Court has essentially allowed corporate America to fight whatever regulations they despise with potentially unlimited coffers. Business chiefs clothe themselves in the “infallibility” of free markets. But those very same special interests that are rallying against often enjoy the economics of managed capitalism; government contracts, subsidies, tax breaks, and, more ominously, bailouts financed by tax revenue. Economists, especially in America, have typically favored managed capitalism—including subsidies and bailouts—because it allows for economic stability. Regulation is necessary, just as speech is not entirely free.
Big Mouth
David Frum wrote an article that was distributed by Newsweek, amongst others, that derided the influence of cantankerous super-pundit, Rush Limbaugh. Frum’s hypothesis was that Limbaugh made his money railing, most egregiously, against Clinton; but, sadly, withered during the Bush years. Limbaugh could only remain truly relevant when there was a democrat in office.
Like most pundits, Limbaugh’s talents are that of a gifted radioman, he can obviously entertain his listeners. But Rush has relied at least as much on his qualities that cannot be considered to be talent, and, what’s more, border on the irresponsible. It requires no talent to be loud. It requires no talent to be xenophobic. It requires no talent to be intransigent. For the most part, however, the worst byproducts of Rush’s rhetoric are ignorance, polarization, and encouraging a xenophobic worldview. Rush nearly snipes at the government from the airwaves.
Sinking your own ship
In the aforementioned article, David Frum contends that such grandstanding and vitriol hampers the Republican Party by frightening independent, moderate, and, especially, young voters away from the party. “Rush Limbaugh is a seriously unpopular figure among the voters that conservatives and Republicans need to reach. Forty-one percent of independents have an unfavorable opinion of him, according to the new NEWSWEEK Poll. Limbaugh is especially off-putting to women: his audience is 72 percent male, according to Pew Research. Limbaugh himself acknowledges his unpopularity among women.” Frum continues to presciently assert that allowing, as “Rahm Emanuel on Face the Nation yesterday: ‘the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican party,’" is caustic and detrimental to a party that is trying to distance itself from the failures of the Bush administration. “In 1984 Reagan won young voters by 20 points; the elder Bush won voters under 30 again in 1988. Since that year, the Democrats have won the under-30 vote in five consecutive presidential elections. Voters who turned 20 between 2000 and 2005 are the most lopsidedly Democratic age cohort in the electorate. If they eat right, exercise and wear seat belts, they will be voting against George W. Bush well into the 2060s.”
Not only is it unfortunate that Frum’s article was not more popular with his fellow conservatives, (Frum is a staunch conservative and writes that the policies of liberalism are the policies of failure), but it is, nevertheless, lamentable that many republican politicians have bought into the politics of Rush Limbaugh lock-stock-and-barrel.
Less than a year into Obama’s presidency republican lawmakers—not just pundits—were frothing at the mouth. Many put forth that their overarching goal was to resist anything that Obama wanted to accomplish and make sure he became a one-term president. Rather than, as Frum suggests, gaining conservative momentum by showing how, possibly, liberal policies were hindering their lives—as conservatives did during the Reagan administration, the GOP was foolhardily focusing its collective rage on President Obama. It was an indicator of things to come; many GOP lawmakers were more interested in getting into a street fight with the president than engaging in the pursuit of good governance. Many GOP have chosen the politics of Rush.
Irresponsible lawmakers would rather snipe at Obama than get involved bipartisan efforts to address the important and critical issues they were elected to deal with. But they are not benignly shouting at the government from afar; they are shooting holes in the government from the inside. And, what’s worse, after they shot a hole in the boat, they hide in the weeds and blame Obama.
This is not meant to be a general critique of the Republican Party or an insult to Tea Partiers. There are plenty of competent and responsible lawmakers in the GOP ranks that have shown a willingness to negotiate and compromise. Even amongst those Tea Party republicans who refused to budge on raising the debt ceiling, there were republican who were willing to cut spending in areas most republicans—even some democrats—would never dare to touch; defense spending, oil subsidies, and others. That’s a far cry from only cutting social programs, programs that help middle and lower class families and individuals.
How to lose votes and alienate the youth
Another problem with practicing the politics of anger, fear, and xenophobia, is that the target base is limited and getting smaller. Many young conservatives and urban voters did not vote for McCain the last election. The cantankerous rhetoric of extreme social conservatism being championed by many of the loudest pundits and politicians repel those same voters, who, what’s more, are the voters that the GOP needs to appeal to.
There are a lot of young people in America who are against stifling government regulations; government spending that continues to outpace revenue, and an overactive government. But many young conservatives aren’t opposed to gay marriage, favor renewable energy, and have a worldview is more tolerant than many of the loudest members of the GOP.
Many republicans and conservatives practice the politics of compromise, intelligence, and temperance, but many of them have found themselves drowned out by the deafening blustering of party zealots.
Tim Pawlenty was on the button when he succinctly said, in response to a question as to why he wasn’t more forceful, that the loudest person in the room is simply that, the loudest person in the room. Volume doesn’t equivocate to intelligence or righteousness, instead; rather, volume can give way to fecklessness.
No comments:
Post a Comment