A Rush to Judgement

I emailed this response to a Real Clear Politics piece by Cathy Young.

"Cathy,

"I think in analyzing Rush's behavior, let's never forget that first and foremost Rush is a businessman. Would you have written this piece had Rush said, as you suggest, that he hoped "Obama succeeds in turning the economy around, but fails in foisting upon us the big-government programs he is seeking to enact." Rush, as a "highly trained" broadcast personality is well aware of the consequence of the term "fail". From a business stand point it's use has been a windfall. As is often said: He couldn't pay for this kind of advertising. This kind of rhetoric will only galvanize his base, which is foremost conservative, not necessarily Republican, and therefore likely to agree with his assessment. This also tweeks his enemies, who already look for every opportunity to justify their rabid determination to interpret every statement from Rush as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. You can bet that his listenership has gone up during this back and forth, as enemies and fans wait to hear the latest response from both sides.

"As far as the Republican Party looking as though they "are in thrall" with Rush: that is the Party's concern, not Rush's. Trust me, the Party leadership sees this whole thing in the same light as you. Why? Because they have lost their rudder. They are more concerned with image and votes than with principle. The last real leader they had, within the party, was Newt. Since then the party has acted and spoken like a toned down version of the Democrat Party. Conservatives don't want that, we want leadership. I think most conservatives are tired of the mealy-mouthed concern for bipartisanship the media has foisted upon the public. For the most part the Democrat Party, with it's willingly accomplices in much of the media, has successfully redefined bipartisanship as agreeing with Democrats on principle and merely debating differences in policy. Wrong! I want a party that boldly stands against big government on principle, regardless of political consequence. I'd rather go down in flames with my principles in tact then down in flames while appearing to have been complicit. For too long Republican party has tried to play nice and that has certainly NOT decreased the size, scope, and influence of the federal government.

"You also suggest that Rush's approach makes him "part of the problem". What problem? Incendiary rhetoric or socialist policies leaning toward historical fascism? For my part, I am not nearly as concerned with our fiscal problems as with our governance problem. No matter how bad this economic collapse ultimately is, free markets, left to themselves will, as they ALWAYS have, bring us back. The real "problem" is not Rush, but where Obama may take us. I suggest that your concern for political image in improperly defined bipartisanship is the problem. What I get from you and many in the media is a desire for a vibrant Republican party, but merely as an alternate voice on policy not principle.

"Conservatives have been concerned about our direction since Wilson, perhaps since T.R. The problem is that the very nature of institutions of all sorts is to enlarge itself and justify its existence. The institution of government is no exception. When any institution enlarges itself or increases its power or control, it rarely, if ever, decommissions itself. We've been on the precipice of full fledged Socialism for decades for this very reason. Government does not relinquish power. Reagan tried, but by then the reach was so mammoth it was too late. Too many of our institutions had become reliant on the existence of, and day to day functioning of, a massive federal government managing millions and billions (now trillions) of dollars. Too many politicians have gone out of their way to pimp the government, making her the hottest whore in the world, where every John seeks her attention. Just look at how the stimulus package played itself out. It created a line of Johns, willing to do whatever to get a piece.

"The beauty of the founders was that they recognized this potential and sought to limit the problem through the Constitution and its statement that essentially any powers not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution as being the jurisdiction of the federal government are the sole responsibility of the states. Brilliant. Unfortunately for us and the world, 230 years of too many politicians and too few statesman have brought us to this point, a point I fear that can only end in ruin, sooner or later, and ultimately require a "hard restart". I hope we can forestall this but I fear not. So yes, on principle, Rush hopes that Obama fails, as do I. People have not changed since the dawn of history, and historical precedence bears me out. Nations come and go, governments rise and fall. If Obama succeeds we all fail. If he fails, just maybe there is a chance to save this great nation. Whatever happens, heck, we had a great run."