RSS Feed Menu
Tim Graham of NewsBusters has posted a reply to my review of Zev Chafets’ Limbaugh biography.
It’s pretty harsh, as you would expect.
I’ll repost it in full here:
The Washington Post knows how to thrust two middle fingers in Rush Limbaugh’s face. They decided to put a book review of the new Zev Chavets book on Limbaugh on the front page of Tuesday’s Style section, reviewed by…. David Frum, the Republican establishment’s leading Rush-hater.
This is a little like assigning a Bill Clinton book review to Jim Clyburn, so he can call him a racist again for 1,000 words. There’s more hate than light. Frum gnashes his teeth hardest late in the review, jealous that he, the wise and humble Frum, is not acknowledged by all as the country’s leading conservative intellectual.
Chafets acknowledges that Limbaugh has no conception of fairness or objectivity, that he is not an original thinker, and that he is prone to “hyperbole, sarcasm, and ridicule, none of which is meant to be taken literally.”
He’s unnerved by Limbaugh’s “Magic Negro” racial insensitivities and his indifference to real politics. ” ‘There are no books written about great moderates,’ he sometimes says. ‘Great people take stands on principle, not moderation.’ That’s not true of course — the founding fathers Limbaugh venerates compromised their way into a Constitution, and even Ronaldus Maximus [Reagan] knew when to bend. Politics is the art of compromise. But, of course, Limbaugh is not a politician or even a political strategist. He is a polemicist.”
It might seem ominous for an intellectual movement to be led by a man who does not think creatively, who does not respect the other side of the argument and who frequently says things that are not intended as truth. But neither Limbaugh nor Chafets is troubled: “Over the years, [Limbaugh] has endeavored to carry forward the banner of Ronaldus Maximus, which he always credits as ‘Reaganism.’ But as time moves on the memory of Reagan fades. It is Limbaugh’s voice conservatives now identify with. For millions, conservatism is now Limbaughism.”
That is Limbaugh’s achievement. It is Chafets’s story line. And it is American conservatism’s problem.
Frum cannot seem to distinguish between intellectual leaders and political leaders. Most people think of Ronald Reagan as a political leader, not as an intellectual leader, and the same is true of Limbaugh. Conservatives in the 1980s weren’t going to elect William F. Buckley or Irving Kristol, but that didn’t mean they weren’t intellectual leaders.
Limbaugh is a great popularizer of conservatism, a very accessible professor of “advanced conservative studies.” He mints new conservatives, and moralizes the troops, old warriors and new recrutis alike, when they get demoralized. Why can’t Frum appreciate him for what he is?
Instead, he relayed how Chafets reports without irony on Limbaugh’s ornate tastes in home decorating and mocks Rush as a faux populist.
Some replies:
1) Hate, jealousy, etc. are strong words. They are visibly not substantiated by the extract Graham quotes, most of which in turn is quoted by Chafets. My advice to Tim: stick to the facts, omit the mind-reading.
2) It is not I who “cannot seem to distinguish between intellectual leaders and political leaders.” The claim that Limbaugh has displaced Reagan is made by Limbaugh’s enthusiastic biographer, by Zev Chafets, right up there in black and white.
3) Tim Graham describes Limbaugh as a “great popularizer” and asks why I “can’t appreciate him for what he is”? The answer to that question comes from Limbaugh himself, in words quoted in my review but not in Graham’s blogpost. Limbaugh no longer sees himself as a popularizer. He sees himself – in his own words!” as the “intellectual engine” of the conservative movement. Limbaugh sees himself as the successor and replacement to William Buckley and Irving Kristol. If Graham does not agree – and he indicates that he does not – then his problem is with Limbaugh, not me.
4) Why did my review focus on Limbaugh’s ornate tastes in home decoration? For this reason: because that’s what Chafets’ book focused on! The question any reviewer would ask of a newly published biography is: what does it tell us that we did not know before? In the case of An Army of One, it is precisely these personal details that are the news, really the only news. Limbaugh liked Chafets and gave him access to his house and life. Chafets described what he saw in awe-struck detail. At the same time, Chafets captured in multiple quotations Limbaugh’s intense resentments and his avidity for social status. These are not mind-readings, like Graham’s attempt to analyze me above. They are Limbaugh’s own words. And they make for a jarring juxtaposition – and the most arresting thing in a book that otherwise repackages very familiar material.
Graham writes: “Limbaugh is a great popularizer of conservatism…”
Great polarizer seems more accurate.
The screamers won’t be remembered for much other than their shrillness.
My first impulse as a paleo-conservative is to have a laugh at the spectacle of two men who despise paleos, David Frum and Tim Graham, fight it out like a couple of stray cats meeting each other on a dark night(which indeed happened for real outside my window last night). In the end, an argument over Rush Limbaugh is a waste of time as Limbaugh’s radio program is a waste of time. As Chafets indicates, Limbaugh has no original thoughts. He distills NATIONAL REVIEW, THE WEEKLY STANDARD and THE WASHINGTON TIMES for 12-15 million half-educated conservatively-inclined listeners. He is very fluid and deft on his feet, willing to change his views for those of his listeners when necessary, not exactly the sign of a leader. When the open-borders supporting Limbaugh discerned that his listeners had massively swung to being against open-borders a few years ago, Limbaugh swung with them as surely as many officers in the Tsar’s army switched to Lenin’s Bolsheviks in 1919. Essentially, Limbaugh is a vessel of indoctrination for millions of conservatives whose views are inchoate. As a tool to recruit people to conservative ideas, Limbaugh is next to useless. Unlike Moses, he will not lead conservatives to the Promised Land.
Maybe Tim Graham should have read the book instead of just the review?
Though I don’t always think he hews closely to his goal, when in his promo Keith Olberman claims the his show is designed “not to throw off heat but to throw off light” it is almost certainly a jab at Limbaugh style polemics.
Limbaughs show is designed specifically to throw off heat with little or no light. If you listen to it (as I was forced to due to a hummer driving arch conservative at the office I worked at) there is little to no light there at all. His show consists mainly of hyperbole (liberals want to destroy America and are virtually terrorists who might as well change their names to Mohammad) and comments that have to be made to grab headlines since no rational person would actually think such things.
The southern strategy is alive and well on his show as well with “magic negro” commentary and birtherism clearly there to say “I can’t admit I’m a racist, but you know I’m with you when you think your racist thoughts”. It is just everything vile and hateful in American politics and is specifically designed, like all great polemical faiths, to discourage distention and debate.
There is a reason his listeners are labeled “ditto heads” while those who enjoy commentary from David Brooks on NPR or David Frum on the various networks are not. It is because while true conservative intellectuals encourage the asking of questions and critical thinking el Rushbo encourages the opposite. He encourages you to take him at his word and keep the faith.
“David Frum, the Republican establishment’s leading Rush-hater.”
You’re moving up in the world David, sounds much better than moderate, or RINO.
David,
I wish to thank you for your work. I know it can’t be easy to be vilified by people who used to be your colleagues. You have taken a position of courage, and with it, the high ground. Please keep up the good work.
AZ Moderate
Chris Matthews has issued an invitation to anyone who will go on his show and disagree with Rush. I am not sure if he means only politicians but you should (try to) take him up on it. Maybe get the ball rolling? Someone has to go first!
Limbaugh is no ‘leader.’ A real leader can lead all the people to something honorable, to something constructive for this nation.
Limbaugh is a cultist.
Like Palin, he has people who call in to tell him that they basically worship at his feet. It is not so much that he speaks the truth, but that he excoriates the ‘other’ so well, and his listeners love this. The one time I almost fell over laughing was the woman who called in to his show to say she was an avid ‘dittohead’ and that she was putting her 4 y/o daughter near the radio to make sure she gets his message.
Like Palin and Beck,he makes a lot of money using fear and hate to stir up the masses. History is replete with these people. And like Palin and Beck, Limbaugh would never put his money where his mouth is and run for office. The are nothing more than highly paid agitators.
People that care about this nation tune them out. They’ re useless.
Wait. What?
I can easily understand Rush’s own self-delusions, but there are conservative voices enjoying a paid platform promoting that Limbaugh is an ‘intellectual’ of Buckley caliber? I can see Will’s eyes rolling now.
Good lord. No wonder the GOP is collapsing in upon itself.
Oh wait. Newsbusters. Okay, I get it.
And you afford any legitimacy to the Newsbusters crowd, why, David? Do FF readers consider NB a source of credible opinion?
Or perhaps Vecchione and Linnane have dragged you through their single-cell muck for too long.
DFL said, “As a tool to recruit people to conservative ideas, Limbaugh is next to useless.”
I think you underestimate his influence here. Limbaugh has been a major driver of people toward the right. Lots of people stumble across him, or listen to him just because he’s fun or to see what’s he’ll say next, or to enjoy being mad at him, only to get sucked in, and eventually won over. If you put up a website seeking anecdotal evidence on that, you’d be overwhelmed. My sense however is that this is less true now than it was years ago. Anyway, it would also be interesting to see hard evidence on that.
In any event, there’s no question that he’s been much more influential and persuasive of swing voters than paleo journals and websites, with their singing the praises of Greater Serbia, their relentless animus against Israel, and their defeatism if not outright cheerleading for our enemies.
David I think you are buying into Rush’s hype. The politician Rush most despises won the GOP nomination and Rush promptly backed him. During the Clinton years he scorned nation building and then flip flopped to support it when Bush supported nation building. He is not a leader he is a cheerleader.
Rush has had enormous impact on the radio industry but I don’t see any evidence of him having impact on politics. I think David Frum by opposing the Miers nomination had more impact on conservatism then Rush. The Supreme Court is more important then a radio show and Rush lacked the guts to oppose Bush on her nomination. If other people disagree tell me where Rush had any impact on a personal or policy decision that is as important as who is on the Supreme Court.
this frum guy, the same guy who makes nice with every enemy of the GOP except islamofascists, wouldn’t get half the press he does if it weren’t FOR RUSH LIMBAUGH.
you would think he’d be thankful that just by virtue of his self-serving spitballs, of which Rush is the target, he gets some media attention. other than that, the only semi-attractive characteristic of frum to the media at large is that he is a self-labeled Republican with very liberal views… a canadian, in fact.
WillyP, as of September 11, 2007, Frum is now a naturalized US citizen.
Mercer said, “Rush has had enormous impact on the radio industry but I don’t see any evidence of him having impact on politics.”
The 1994 Republican Freshman class were so grateful to him for the political impact he had they elected him as an honorary member.
The following is a note handwritten by Ronald Reagan to Limbaugh:
“Dear Rush,
Thanks for all you’re doing to promote Republican and conservative principles. Now that I’ve retired from active politics, I don’t mind that you have become the Number One voice for conservatism in our Country.
I know the liberals call you “the most dangerous man in America,” but don’t worry about it, they used to say the same thing about me. Keep up the good work. America needs to hear the way things ought to be.”
Sincerely, Ron.”
As quoted in a National Review cover story called “Leader of the Opposition”
http://article.nationalreview.com/269545/rush-the-leader-of-the-opposition/james-bowman
I’d say that was pretty powerful evidence…
DFL said, “As a tool to recruit people to conservative ideas, Limbaugh is next to useless.”
I couldn’t agree more. In fact, he’s made conservatism sound arrogant, clueless, misogynistic, sophomoric, mean-spirited and amazingly hypocritical. He’s every toxic stereotype of what a conservative is supposed to be.
I trace my own concerns about the dumbing down of conservatism to when he burst on the scene. I’m quite certain I’m not alone.
If Rush has impact on election results explain why the GOP had landslide election victories in 72 and 84 and none since he started his radio show.
Rush is nothing but an entertainer. His sole goal in life is to garner ratings for his broadcast, thereby fattening his paycheck. (And his gut)
Glenn Beck is in the same category. What fascinates me is the GOP’s inability to simply distance themselves from this blowhard. It’s almost as if they think he actually represents a majority view. Which is not the case. I know many Republicans who consider him little more than a farce. But as Bill Maher stated, Rush does one thing very well: scare old, white people as they are getting ready for lunch.
The idea of Rush L. as the intellectual engine of the conservative movement is a frightening delusion of grandeur.
To elaborate more on Rush’s influence, in the twenty years before Rush (1968 to 1988), the Republicans won five out of six elections, three of them by more than 400 electoral votes. Since then, the Democrats have won the plurality of the popular vote four out of five times and scored above the 350 electoral vote level three times. The Republicans haven’t been above 290 electoral votes in that entire time. Most of the 1994 victory was a case of Southern conservative Democrats becoming Southern conservative Republicans. Republicans barely exist in the East and West anymore.
The problem with Rush is that he is keeping the focus on social issues that are of declining importance to younger voters. This stops the Republican Party from moving on to create a non-social issue, limited government philosophy that would resonate with young voters (who, after all, are increasing non-WASP).
His worship of the past prevents Conservativism from moving into the future.
Sorry Carney, but I don’t buy it. Reagan won 49 states in 84 and it wasn’t because of Rush. I am a Conservative Democrat who voted for Reagan but I loathe Rush, he is a degenerate drug addict, a womanizer (if not a Sen. Craig kind of guy) and a loudmouth. I hate him as much as I hate Michael Moore (who, at least to his benefit, is not a degenerate drug addict). I lived in Northern NJ in the 80′s and heard his show and thought it juvinile then. I was not drawn in, I was repulsed but I made the easy distinction between Reagan style conservatism and Limbaugh. It seems to me ludicrous to say, but the politics of the 80′s were markedly superior to the slash and burn style advocated by Limbaugh.
Twenty years ago Rush did good work, but now it is just the same predictable junior high level put downs duplicated by 2000 others, But Mr. Frum, why bother to respond to Newsbusters.com, which has less credibility than hotair.com or wnd.com?
……..that Limbaugh occupies the position of power in the Republican movement that he does tells you all you need to know about the current state of the GOP……..the guy is a quick witted grotesque who has made a fortune out of feeding the anger and prejudices of the large bloc of fairly moronic Americans…….because this group is a large part of the GOP base the leadership of the party literally cowers before him……the comments from Newsbuster are par for the course…….this is the language of the right these days……anger and fulmination……. it’s a sad state of affairs but it’s not going to change in the forseeable future