Rush, Bush, and McCain
By
There was a fascinating profile of talk radio host Rush Limbaugh in this weekend’s New York Times magazine.
I had no idea that Limbaugh went deaf about seven years ago. Nor did I realise the extent of his wealth: a contract worth about $38 million a year and five homes in a secluded beachfront estate with a half dozen flashy cars to match.
The angle of the Times piece is Limbaugh’s political clout and his planned assault on Barack Obama this fall. But what I found most interesting were his views on American conservatism, George Bush and John McCain:
Limbaugh admires many aspects of Reaganism, but he is especially animated by his belief in American exceptionalism. “Reagan rejected the notion among liberals and conservatives alike who, for different reasons, believed America was in a permanent state of decline,†he wrote to me in an e-mail message. “He had faith in the wisdom of the American people. . . . He knew America wasn’t perfect, but he also knew it was the most perfect of nations. Reagan was an advocate of Americanism.†In response to a separate question, he wrote: “America is the solution to the world’s problems. We are not the problem.â€Â
Limbaugh said he believes that President George W. Bush is well meaning but far from the Reagan standard of excellence. “I like President Bush,†he wrote me, “but he is not a conservative. He is conservative on some things, but he has not led a movement as Reagan did every day of his career. Bush’s unpopularity is due primarily to his reluctance to publicly defend himself and his administration against attacks from the left. . . . The country has not tilted to the left in my view. What has been absent is elected conservative leadership from the White House down to the Congress.â€Â
Needless to say, Limbaugh doesn’t see John McCain as the answer to this problem, and it infuriates him when McCain claims to be a Reaganite. “McCain and Reagan do not belong in the same sentence,†he wrote.
I had a spirited discussion with friends over the weekend that (term limits aside) despite his terrible approval ratings, President Bush would probably have a better chance of beating Obama than McCain this fall.
Maybe it’s a stupid idea. But Bush is younger, more charismatic, and a real conservative. If Limbaugh’s millions of listeners think Bush has failed to live up to the conservative ideal, then what hope for McCain?
And when you take into account the fact that, at almost 72, McCain is probably not fit to drive a car let alone run the country, you have to fancy Obama’s chances. (Then again, Clinton looked like a shoo-in for the Democrats this time last year. And look what happened there.)
6 Comments
July 9th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Could we have a transcript of this “spirited discussion?”
July 9th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
You can download the podcast for $99.99 from http://pdberger.com/upyourssonnyjim.
July 10th, 2008 at 10:36 am
“(Then again, Clinton looked like a shoo-in for the Democrats this time last year. And look what happened there.)”
I’m flattered that you think I’d know what happened Paul. Don’t go into details but is it a good anecdote or does it need some work?
July 10th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Since the story lacks Eastern European cities, flash cars, casinos, panerai watches, rifles, bunny rabbits and the daughters of long distance truck drivers, I doubt it would be of much interest to you, Beau. I wouldn’t worry about it.
July 10th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Splendid, I had feared supper would be ruined what with me all preoccupied trying to fathom the depths of some convoluted political scenario.
July 13th, 2008 at 4:07 am
I think it’s a very astute observation that Bush would beat Obama, and for a very simple reason: Americans want change, but they want someone else to do it. In other words, in my experience most Americans fear real change because real change is an unknown quantity. Even if they say they want change, sacrificing an unknown quantity for a known one goes against the grain in a self-entitled society; I think it’s mostly because they are not as motivated to go out and make the change themselves or take responsibility for having made the decision, so they make no decision at all and “stay the course”. In this way, Obama would represent too radical a shift from Bush, and so I think Bush would win.
Theoretical politics aside, both Obama and McCain (though he seems to be doing his level best to have it both ways) represent some real measure of change from Bush, and therefore our country is going to have to make a change one way or the other now, though again, Ralph Nader would disagree on this point.
Can’t we all just get along?