The Right Wing vs. The Right Kind of People

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.

Speaking of Christopher Buckley, he’s been having morning after thoughts. David Brooks, too. Brooks writes:

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.

Comments 23

  1. Julia wrote:

    I’m not one of Rush’s slack-jawed minions, but I get mightily tired of hearing the liberal media rail about him.

    Posted 05 Mar 2009 at 3:01 pm
  2. Pauli wrote:

    I think they are going to rue the day they started going after Rush. It seems to betray their pomposity; they are playing to his strengths, not their own. He has 3 full hours to respond to their little anti sound bites.

    Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 5:04 am
  3. Bowden Russell wrote:

    Please note that our resident liberal, Dan, frequently injects Rush’s name into many of his posts, even if said injection is off-topic. He looks for any excuse to denigrate Rush.

    Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 5:54 am
  4. Grue in the Attic wrote:

    He has 3 full hours to respond to their little anti sound bites.
    And makes it humorous to boot.

    Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 6:36 pm
  5. Bowden Russell wrote:

    Just heard that Rush’s ratings have doubled.

    Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 9:12 pm
  6. Grue in the Attic wrote:

    Free advertising! Works every time!

    Posted 06 Mar 2009 at 10:49 pm
  7. Dan wrote:

    I love the fact that the GOP’s continued in-fighting is always the fault of those nasty liberals. Stupid liberal media and their reporting of what GOP party officials and GOP entertainers are saying about each other in the media! The fact is, Limbaugh invited this attention and the scorn of GOP politicians when he repeated stated that he hoped that the Obama administration fails, which could only lead to a depression similar in scope to the great depression. Basically, Rush is saying “hey I’m already rich, I hope everyone else suffers because I don’t want the policies of a guy I don’t agree with to succeed.” All the while, he wraps himself in the American flag and pretends to be some great patriot while worshiping his imaginary perception of Ronald Reagan like a golden calf.

    I do thank you for noticing that I pointed out that Rush was taking the reins of the GOP stagecoach back before everyone else was talking about it though Bowden.

    Posted 09 Mar 2009 at 8:05 pm
  8. Brigette Russell wrote:

    What are next week’s DNC talking points going to be, Dan? Come on, you can tell us.

    Posted 10 Mar 2009 at 1:48 am
  9. Dan wrote:

    I’ll tell you if you tell me the RNC/Limbaugh’s. :)

    Is it just going to be more chicken littling about socialism?

    Posted 10 Mar 2009 at 3:22 pm
  10. Grue in the Attic wrote:

    Ain’t “chicken littling” if it’s true, Dan.

    Posted 10 Mar 2009 at 5:30 pm
  11. Grue in the Attic wrote:

    Bleh, there was supposed to be a link in there, forgot to add it.

    Here ya go.

    Posted 10 Mar 2009 at 5:33 pm
  12. Brigette Russell wrote:

    The DNC got to the “socialism” angle in its talking points first. I’ve seen several “socialism isn’t a dirty word” etc. letters, opinion pieces, etc., lately. When they’re all saying the same thing, it isn’t a coincidence.

    Posted 10 Mar 2009 at 6:28 pm
  13. Grue in the Attic wrote:

    And while we’re tossing links around, let’s throw in this little tidbit:

    A very good article on why wanting someone to fail is a Good – and sometimes NECESSARY – thing to want.

    Enjoy.

    Posted 10 Mar 2009 at 6:37 pm
  14. Dan wrote:

    “Ain’t “chicken littling” if it’s true, Dan.”

    As long as we’re engaging in hyperbole this is clearly a reaction to the GOP’s eight year drive towards fascism!

    Posted 11 Mar 2009 at 12:43 pm
  15. Bowden Russell wrote:

    As long as we’re engaging in hyperbole this is clearly a reaction to the GOP’s eight year drive towards fascism!

    Talk about hyper-partisan. Just how was it fascist?

    Posted 11 Mar 2009 at 5:03 pm
  16. Bowden Russell wrote:

    Oh, by the way Dan, if you disagree with me you’re worse than Hitler.

    Posted 11 Mar 2009 at 5:03 pm
  17. Dan wrote:

    The DNC got to the “socialism” angle in its talking points first. I’ve seen several “socialism isn’t a dirty word” etc. letters, opinion pieces, etc., lately. When they’re all saying the same thing, it isn’t a coincidence.

    Give me a break Brigette. The GOP has been using socialism as a bogeyman for any government program they didn’t like (basically, any program that doesn’t involve our bloated, wasteful military and the use thereof) since the 1950’s. When Obama finally defeated Hillary in the Dem primaries, Hannity changed the theme of his show from the “stop Hillary Express” (what is it with Republicans and Expresses, don’t they know that an Express is a form of public transportation?) to the “stop Socialism Express”.

    Posted 11 Mar 2009 at 5:04 pm
  18. Dan wrote:

    Talk about hyper-partisan. Just how was it fascist?

    It was exactly as fascist as our current course is socialist. Congrats on missing the point.

    ps If you disagree with me you’re worse than a gay marriage consisting of Mao and Stalin.

    Posted 11 Mar 2009 at 7:33 pm
  19. Brigette Russell wrote:

    If you disagree with me you’re worse than a gay marriage consisting of Mao and Stalin.

    Why didn’t Greg Gutfeld think of that one!

    Posted 11 Mar 2009 at 7:55 pm
  20. Dan wrote:

    Why didn’t Greg Gutfeld think of that one!

    I would venture to guess that its because it isn’t about boobs. :)

    Posted 11 Mar 2009 at 10:04 pm
  21. Bowden Russell wrote:

    It was exactly as fascist as our current course is socialist. Congrats on missing the point.

    But the left admit to Obama’s socialistic leanings, Bush was no way, no where near a fascist.

    The “point” isn’t any where near where you say it is.

    Thus it isn’t funny or relevant.

    Posted 12 Mar 2009 at 1:29 am
  22. Dan wrote:

    Please cite for me where this monumental “left” you believe exists has “admitted” to Obama’s “socialistic leanings”.

    Bush promoted nationalism and intertwined government with corporations. These are the two major defining features of fascism.

    Note: I don’t believe Bush is a fascist and I don’t believe Obama is a socialist. Both major US parties are very centrist compared to any other country in the world. For example, Israel’s right wing party is much further right than the GOP, and their left wing partyis much further left.

    Posted 12 Mar 2009 at 3:32 pm
  23. Bowden Russell wrote:

    Please cite for me where this monumental “left” you believe exists has “admitted” to Obama’s “socialistic leanings”.

    Yeah, it was either Newsweek or Time which a couple of weeks ago had on their cover:

    We’re All Socialists Now

    Governments controlling the banks and auto industry essentially is socialism Dan.

    Posted 12 Mar 2009 at 11:59 pm

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *