The Disloyal Opposition: Rush is Right -- Obama Must Fail
On Inauguration Day, I wrote how some left-leaning "radicals" had been arguing that President Obama's success would only serve to prop up an inherently flawed system. I rejected this perspective as missing a chance to see Obama's election as creating space for "people power" to flourish. Later that same day, the story broke that Rush Limbaugh had come out with his now-infamous quip that "I hope Obama fails," making me wonder whether Rush was somehow in league with the radical left even as he had become the ostensible standard-bearer for the mainstream right. Methinks something is amiss in all of this.
For starters, you've got to give Rush credit: no one else could make such a successful career out of total self-marginalization and by being so out of step with the times:
"I'm happy to be the last man standing. I'm honored to be the last man standing. Yeah, I'm the true maverick.... It's what Ann Coulter was talking about, the tyranny of the majority, all these victims here, we gotta make sure the victims are finally assuaged. Well, the dirty little secret is this isn't going to assuage anybody's victim status, and the race industry isn't going to go away, and the fact that America's original sin of slavery is going to be absolved, it's not going to happen. Just isn't, folks."
Change may be blowin' in the wind around America, but for Limbaugh it's just him blowing smoke over and over again:
"I think Obama wants me to fail.... President Obama, by telling you and the elected Republicans in Washington to not listen to me because I am not how things get done in Washington, he has said that he wants me to fail."
But you know, in the end the guy just might actually be right after all....
Consider that Obama's success will likely mean a lot of things that Limbaugh disdains. If the new President brings closure to current wars and staves off economic collapse, it quite possibly will once and for all bury the neocon legacy deep in the dustbin of history. It could even spell long-term disarray, if not outright doom, for the modern Republican Party and its unique brand of lockstep asininity. Indeed, Rush has a vested interest in seeing Obama fail, and in pinning the whole thing on liberalism in general in the process:
"Look, what [Obama's] talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work.... Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it?"
Yes Rush, it was definitely those rabid liberals in the Bush Administration who moved us to the economic precipice. Certainly President Obama is a secret socialist who is clandestinely attempting to nationalize the U.S. economy and turn us into Cuba North. Those dangerous Democrats are utilizing a crisis to impose their will and create a tyrannical regime -- geez, they're almost becoming like real Republicans!
I can see why this upsets you. And I want to lend a hand to your logic. You may be correct, that the Liberal Media Elite have been complicit in covering up the truth and fostering a culture of victimization. So let me try to atone for this mess by highlighting a few important ways where you're right in noting that Obama's success will truly suck.
* The Future of Free-market Capitalism: If Obama successfully socializes the U.S. economy and it actually works, it will likely mean the end of free markets; if he fails, then free markets win out and order is restored to the world. We can't sit by and let the "invisible hand" get turned into a regulatory fist -- next thing you know, they'll get the idea that freedom itself should be regulated. Our cherished "free markets" have allowed the rich to get fantastically richer, have pushed the planet's life-carrying capacities to a critical point, have led to innumerable wars over dwindling resources, and have finally crushed workers and farmers around the world. We simply cannot give all of that up.
* The Tyranny of the Majority: Surely the Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves over this one. James Madison warned of the potential for minorities to become "insecure" when a majority becomes "united by a common interest." Thomas Jefferson likewise spoke eloquently on such matters:
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.... All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."
Better to get back to old-fashioned, common-sense, minority-rule oligarchy in such important matters that are beyond the capacity of "uninformed or ignorant people" to fully understand. Democracy, as our Founders implied, is too important to be left to "the people." All sorts of nuts invoke "democracy" for their own fascistic ends, and we ought to return to the good old days of stable systems like slavery where an enlightened minority could rule with beneficent impunity for the good of all.
* Bush Kept Us Safe, Obama Will Not: It cannot be said enough times that George Bush prevented terrorists from striking America -- after 9/11, that is. Hey, everyone is entitled to a second chance, and Bush really stepped up after that botched first opportunity. It's obvious that Obama and the Democrats are in league with the terrorists, as Rush has repeatedly noted: "Terrorists have voted Democrat." Wake up, America! With Obama at the helm we are going to be taken over by Al-Qaeda any day now. They will then proceed to wreck our economy, shred the Constitution, conduct torture in secret prisons, and impose a religious theocracy on the entire nation. We cannot let this happen.
* Those People Are Going to Get All Uppity: Perhaps the worst outcome of Obama's success would be all those pitiful peons out there getting the idea that they are equally entitled to speak up and exercise power. Rush was right in calling out the full implications of this troubling trend of so-called "multiculturalism" way back in 2005:
"What multiculturalists is, is balkanizing this country.... People are coming here from various parts of the world and they're bringing their cultures with them and the multiculturalists are saying 'your culture is better than the American culture. The American culture is discriminatory, it's racist, sexist, bigot, homophobic.'"
Everyone knows that native American culture is the best, and all those immigrants coming over here with their Puritanical notions are hell-bent on destroying all that is good and sacred on these fine shores. Next thing you know, "these people" will take over the whole place and try to impose their will with some kind of "manifest destiny" talk. Rush is right, once again: America is for us native Americans, and no one else!
Listen folks, Rush is on something -- I mean, onto something -- here. Liberal do-gooders couch their authoritarian tendencies under the mantle of "progress," "education," and "opportunity." We need a return to plain old-fashioned authoritarianism that doesn't need to cloak itself behind bogus ideals. Obama's success will only serve to bolster the Big Brother government, and I'm with Rush in opposing this. Thank you, Mr. Limbaugh, for having the courage to speak for all of us fellow radical left-wing anarchists -- like your colleague Bill O'Reilly, for instance -- everywhere. See you at the next meeting!
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
See Randall Amster's Profile
Well, Bush was mostly tragedy, so I guess if we're to live in a theater of the absurd, comedy is preferable on some level -- but hey, Obama really hasn't been in office long enough yet to be either funny or scary. Teachers, by the way (speaking as one) ought to teach HOW to think and not WHAT to think; politician and teacher are very different roles in society, so I'm not sure there's an analogy to be made there. It is interesting to think about folks who -- left or right -- set themselves up to prosper when things go bad in the world. It makes me think we need a new term for this: "vulture capitalists," or something like that! Maybe a future blog....
He is off to such a great start that I am in the middle of writing a script for a TV show about this administration. It will be a comedy.
Wow, and I thought the election was hardball. If Obama fails the country fails and the Republicans win; they will be winning a failed state.
So let me get this right. If a teacher is teaching your child something that you think is wrong, you still want this teacher to succeed?
I agree with Randall A., the Republican party does seem on the path to oblivion. The party of Lincoln has been usurped by the southern b igot. Voters at last, have finally figured this out. Powell, Rice and Steele as windowdressing will not return the Repubs to power.
Wishing the President of the U.S. to fail is wishing the country fails. Serious concerns about the patriotism of those who claim to patriotic. I think Rush should be dropped from Armed Forces Radio and start earning his salary by honest means. I suspect he is back on drugs and why should the taxpayers support his habit by allowing his show to be on Armed Forces Radio? Drop him for the good of the country.
Let him talk. Please, let him talk.
When you are out at sea, and the ship is (ponderous
"People are coming here from various parts of the world and they're bringing their cultures with them..."
Limbaugh. What kind of name is that? Let's see... the first American census was taken in 1790; how many Limbaughs were there then? Sounds Hessian to me and didn't they fight for the Crown? Limbaugh, Limbaugh, Limbaugh. Isn't that one of those immigrant sounding names???
(In all fairness to Rush, the Limbaughs (Limbachs, Limbacks) have been part of the American landscape since @ 1753, but even so, they had to take a ship to get here from Germany, bringing their culture with them.all so Rush III could bemoan multiculturalism -- Mr. Amster is right "America is for us native Americans, and no one else!")
See Randall Amster's Profile
Yes, I cannot be serious! It does seem as if the Republicans have chosen a party-survival strategy here -- what else to do but blank Obama and hope things don't improve, thus setting them up to try and sweep in 2-4 years from now as the party of change? It's not likely to work as it did in '94, coming on the heels of the Bush years as we are now, and with a savvier crew in the White House these days who are aware of the failures of the past. The Republican strategy here could turn out to be a path to oblivion, although supporting Obama could lead to the same result for them as well. Rush is bombastic but not dumb, and so the tea leaves are looking pretty clear as to the only viable strategy for the right at this point in time....
The Republican strategy wouldn't work at all, if the media weren't such a transparently servile tool of the people in power (many of whom work in lockstep with Republican political bodies). The media promotes simplistic, right-serving narratives and myths, indulges the media-friendly cartoonishness of the right-wing mouthpieces (why is Ann Coulter still *invited* on so-called 'liberal' TV shows? Because you can say ANYTHING as a right-winger and still maintain your authoritarian right-wing fan base) and provides no educational enlightenment to an ignorant electorate that desperately needs it. They provide "truthiness", as Colbert put it. The average TV viewer "knows", for example, that Al Gore claimed to invent the Internet, and doesn't know that the first Gulf War was sold to us with lies. That's a bad recipe for a democracy.
The RUSH strategy is being implemented, survival of GOP before national interest.
Obama's success means longer isolation for the GOP. In fact if he has a succesful 8 years it may be another 30 before we have a republican President. So of course they want him to fail. Its not just Rush he just had the guts to say so.
Carol
"Funny" but the direction this country is going in is NOT!
What's really sad (without getting into the political ideology) is that ANYONE would think that what President Bush has left us, are the great expectations for an American President.
It's fine if the MSM wants to have differing viewpoints, but to leave realism behind reflects on the poor decision of a media airing such delusions.
It's not surprising, but depressing that some Americans are happy with our current situation, evidenced by their total approval of President Bush's performance.
There is a flaw in your thinking here. You mention realism. My question to you is, whose realism? Yours? Mine? Big Governments and Big Business whose only function is to remain in power and usurp power from its minions? I am not happy with our current situation. Nor am I a supporter of Bush. I did in fact vote for President Obama. However, the author here is doing what many radical liberals do, and ignore history. How can anyone who knows history deny that circumstances today are frighteningly similar to the circumstances that brought Julius Caesar, Nero, Hitler, Moussouline, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, Achamdinijad, and Saddam Hussein all to power.
Liberals by definition are not radicals.
Well, lets use the American people as a whole, for our point of realism. Polls of the public (including politics from all sides) show an overwhelming dissatisfaction with the performance of the Bush administration.
There is small group that support what Bush has done, so let them explain why they approve and accept the facts that show such negative results in many areas of how we judge a successful administration.
(Unemployment #'s, the financial #'s of deficit, national debt both current and future, based on his last budget. Respect which we are held around the World. How many of his administration people are in jail, charged with a crime, under investigation, or will be under investigation, charged with a crime, or go to jail. How good, or bad legislation under his watch will be for the American people. How well he protected the Constitution and obeyed the laws of America. Are we at peace, or are we at war. Etc., etc.......
What standard would you use to judge a successful Presidency? Is that a realistic standard?
I'll stick with my belief, that people who defend President Bush's performance as good, or great are delusional, wrong, unrealistic, and must be questioned as to the competence of the addition of their views, in any serious debate. So yes, I question any MSM that would air their obviously incorrect facts and conclusions, as a serious point of view.
Is this sarcasm? because you cannot be serious.
Yes, it's sarcasm. Or in your case:
Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the
person who doesn't get it.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
