The shock waves of the great Michael Steele vs Rush Limbaugh Whose Party Is It Anyway? Smackdown have reverberated from the East Coast halls of power even unto the furthest reaches of Middle America, my own beloved adopted home state of New Mexico. Brian Colón, chairman of the New Mexico Democratic Party got with the talking points and sent an e-mail to supporters with the subject line “The Party of Rush” the other day.
Steele’s loss is Limbaugh’s and D. L. Hughley’s gain, of course, since they are entertainers for whom any attention good or bad means higher ratings, while Steele is hemorrhaging political capital after being reduced to protesting petulantly, “No, I am the de facto head of the Republican Party!” after Hughley said Rush was. As a mother, I know only too well that when you have to remind people that you’re the one in charge, you really aren’t.
Democrats Tim Kaine, Rahm Emanuel and others have naturally sought to capitalize on the fact that Steele apologized to Limbaugh for calling his show ugly and incendiary, and leftist pundits and bloggers are having a field day crowing about how a fat, drug-abusing, fat, homophobic, fat, racist — and oh, did I mention he was fat? — radio clown and his slack-jawed, homophobic, white-trash Neanderthal minions are turning the Grand Old Party into something ugly and irrelevant.
It’s not just a spat between an overweight talk show host (I did mention the vital and relevant fact that he’s fat, didn’t I?) and the man one leftist blogger calls the House Negro in Charge of the Republican Party (the blogger in question happens to be black, so he is allowed to use the word negro, whereas I, as a white woman, am only permitted to quote black people who aren’t conservatives using it, and even so it’s still probably in questionable taste). The dispute, according to Rod “Crunchy Con” Dreher is between what he calls the Conservative Intelligentsia and the Mongoloid Right:
Victor Davis Hanson begins a post on NRO thus:
All these highbrow conservative attacks on Limbaugh keep missing the point.
Boy, this is getting awfully tiresome, and I’m sorry to see someone of Prof. Hanson’s caliber descend into this kind of rhetoric. What is it supposed to mean to describe conservatives who have a beef with Limbaugh’s views or rhetoric as “highbrow”? Are the opinions illegitimate or mistaken because they supposedly come from a vantage point of cultural sophistication? Even if that were true, which I doubt, since when do conservatives look down on sophistication itself? Since Joe the Plumber became the Whittaker Chambers of the Mongoloid Right?
If you click on the link, you will not see the offending phrase in that quote, because Dreher got an avalanche of furious comments, prompting him to substitute the awkward and meaningless “Idiotarian Right” for “Mongoloid Right” in the post, with the explanation
I changed the word here, to avoid confusion from people who haven’t read “A Confederacy of Dunces” and who aren’t regulars here who know that I reference its lingo constantly. I don’t want to give unintended offense, and I apologize for having done so. See explanation in the comments.
I guess just like only black people can say “Negro,” only people with Down Syndrome can say “Mongoloid,” but since not many people with Down Syndrome write blogs, it simply isn’t said. But I digress (the baby had me up and it’s four in the morning, so what do you expect?). This post isn’t about poltically correct discourse; it’s about the ridiculous internecine warfare into which ostensibly smart conservative intellectuals and ostensibly stupid Rush fans are allowing well-meaning and disinterested parties like Rahm Emanuel, Tim Kaine, Arianna Huffington, D.H. Hughley and James Carville to push us.
Ace, as usual, cuts right to the quick, commenting:
To be honest, I’m a bit exhausted by this constant Caddyshack-esque spat between the so-called elites and the grassroots. I find the elites more annoying, but I’m also getting annoyed by the excesses of the resentments-stoking on the grassroots side where every dispute mutates into an us vs. them cultural Rangnarok….
I continue to think this is destructive. Perhaps we need some catharsis and bloodletting, but at some point we have to stop focusing on what divides the conservative movement and start focusing on dividing the liberals from the Reagan Democrats.
I suppose this is the best time for the catharsis and bloodletting. But still I grow weary of the red-on-somewhat-less-red infighting.
A more light-hearted look at the red-on-somewhat-less-red infighting (and don’t I need something light-hearted just about now) more comes from the somewhat-less-red T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII:
The sad fact of the matter, as we noted, is that one no longer finds admitted conservatives in any of America’s prestige zip codes nor the faculty redoubts of her selective academies….there remains a daunting obstacle – namely, the benighted rubes who constitute so much of our so-called “base,” and whose existence make it nigh on impossible to recruit their social betters.
He goes on to bemoan
the predations of Mr. Limbaugh and his slack jawed minions. Each day he rounds up a fresh wave of uncultured baboons to the Republican cause, like some anti-intellectual Pied Piper, making it harder and harder to reposition the party as an upscale boutique brand.
I know, I know. Another Iowahawk link? Dave Burge’s going to think I’m stalking him. But anybody who can channel Christopher Buckley like that in one breath, and then slip into the most dead-on trailer-trash persona in the next is truly a master. And don’t just read my excerpts; the part about Bobby Jindal alone is worth the click.
Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice.
The bloom is off the rose, it would seem. But — there’s always a “but,” isn’t there? — Brooks continues:
The only thing more scary than Obama’s experiment is the thought that it might fail and the political power will swing over to a Republican Party that is currently unfit to wield it.
By “unfit to wield it” I’m hoping he means “fighting amongst themselves and without a clear agenda” rather than “likely to be led by that knuckle-dragging fat bastard on the radio and that embarrassing hick broad from Alaska” but I’m afraid that’s wishful thinking.