Hope is Not a Foreign Policy » Conservatism

Book Review: “Rush Limbaugh: An Army of One” by Zev Chafets

Tom Skypek — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 14:27:42 +0000

Rush Limbaugh: An Army of One

By Zev Chafets

Sentinel. 229 pp. $25.95

The good folks at Sentinel were kind enough to send me a copy of the recently published book, Rush Limbaugh: An Army of One, by Zev Chafets. I first started listening to El Rushbo about nine years ago when I was still an undergraduate. So, as you might have guessed, I’m a big fan–a “Dittohead,” as Rush’s fans are known. I tend to agree with 99.9% of what Rush says and I find his delivery and on-air persona hilarious. This is in stark contrast to many including my wife who actually agrees with much of Rush says but finds his delivery obnoxious. I find it endearing.

After reading Chafets’s book, I find Rush an even more endearing and interesting figure. This was not an authorized biography, but the author, Chafets, had unprecedented access to Rush, his family, and others in his life (including his psychologist). Chafets certainly did his research, traveling to Limbaugh’s boyhood home of Cape Girardeau, MO and speaking with hundreds of Rush’s friends and colleagues.

Chafets paints an intimate portrait of Rush Hudson Limbaugh III, as a man whose love for radio started when he was just a child. The book proceeds in classic biographical fashion: Rush’s boyhood years in Cape Girardeau; his brief stint at Southeast Missouri State University; his time in Pittsburgh and Kansas City; his big break in Sacramento; national syndication in New York; and the present day at the Southern Command in sunny Florida.

I was familiar with Rush’s life before reading this book, but Chafets’s portrait definitely added some meat to the bones. It chronicles, in detail, Rush’s power-struggles with his father over the direction of his life (his father wanted Rush to join the family business and practice law) and Rush’s early years in the broadcast business. This book humanizes Rush in a way that his radio program does not (which, of course, is largely by design). It details his struggles with addiction, weight, marriage, and discrimination–my word, not his. (I’m not sure how else to characterize his treatment by the NFL when he made the push to buy the St. Louis Rams.) What is more, the man behind the Excellence in Broadcasting microphone is fiercely loyal and compassionate, as Chafets notes on several occasions throughout the book.

Rush obviously elicits strong opinions on both sides of aisle, but nothing bothers me more than critics who have never listened to Rush a day in their lives–not even for a minute–and then proceed to make absurd judgments. They demonize Rush because they can’t compete with the ideas he espouses. All they know about Rush is what they heard in a six-second sound bite broadcast on MSNBC or CNN (always blatantly out of context, of course). The limited government, low-tax, individual liberty principles that form the nucleus of conservatism will always triumph over the tax and spend, big government ideology of liberalism. Rush believes this to his core, and so do I. Anyone who has listened to his program or reads this book will find that this theme is at the core of Rush Limbaugh. One of these critics is Professor Todd Gitlin of the prestigious [italics for Rushian emphasis] Columbia School of Journalism who told Chafets, “Limbaugh is a liar and a demagogue, a brander of enemies, a mobilizer, and a rabble rouser.” Gitlin then proceeded to admit that he doesn’t listen to Limbaugh.

Professor Marc Cooper of the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School of Communication calls Rush’s fans “embittered and battered.” The professor goes on a ridiculous tirade which appears in the book but that I won’t repeat here, accusing Rush’s fans of being intolerant, racist, and paranoid. As author Chafets notes, “Professor Cooper didn’t cite a source for this conclusion.” These hacks are teaching the next generation of journalists to be objective? Really? The only things these two seem capable of is hurling harsh invective and making judgements about things they clearly know nothing about. I wonder: Do these guys have tenure?

While there are no earth-shattering revelations in this book for someone who’s been listening to Rush for nearly a decade, it is well-written and an overall good read–especially for Dittoheads. Fans of Rush will find that it provides an interesting glimpse into Rush’s personal life and formative years. Critics of Rush–both those on the left and right–could learn something as well. The fact remains that Rush is and will continue to be a powerhouse in the conservative movement. Those who dismiss him merely as an entertainer couldn’t be more wrong.

Chafets writes that when President Obama was asked if he would play a round of golf with Rush, the response, relayed through an intermediary, was that “Limbaugh can play with himself.” I would like to like extend an offer to Rush to play a round of golf the next time I’m in Florida. I’m sure after playing a round with El Rushbo my drive would increase by 20-30 yds and I’d take at least 10 strokes off my score.

Conservative Renaissance Man: An Interview with Charles Krauthammer

Tom Skypek — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:26:24 +0000

Charles Krauthammer is a modern-day renaissance man who has worn many hats and enjoyed tremendous success first as a psychiatrist, then journalist, international relations theorist, and now a commentator. With the passing of William F. Buckley and Samuel Huntington last year, Krauthammer is arguably the finest conservative thinker around (Newt Gingrich certainly deserves honorable mention). Cable news is filled with hollow talking heads who do little more than regurgitate liberal and conservative talking points–both sides are guilty of this. You know, they’re the ones on TV with labels like “Democratic Strategist.” Hosts, like Keith Olbermann, are the worst. So insecure is Keith Olbermann in his ability to debate that he never has guests with opposing views on his program. Krauthammer’s ability to provide valuable insights on a myriad of issues from foreign policy to health care is remarkable. Krauthammer, unlike so many of his peers, is in the business of making cogent arguments–not the business of bloviating (see Keith Olbermann).

For any society that truly values freedom and individual liberty, conservatism is the superior political and social philosophy and Krauthammer is one of the best messengers of conservatism. He is erudite and thoughtful and, at the same time, genuine and sincere. Certain individuals have attempted to dumb-down conservatism, which is unfortunate because in the market place of ideas conservatism will almost always triumph over liberalism–at least in societies that favor individual liberty over excessive government rule. If you view the U.S. Constitution simply as an outdated piece of paper (which liberals do), then you probably disagree with me and my line of thought.

Krauthammer recently gave an interview to the German paper Dier Spiegel. I recommend you read the interview in its entirety, but here are a few excerpts:

ON THE FUTURE OF AMERICAN POWER:

The liberal vision of America is that it should be less arrogant, less unilateral, more internationalist. In Obama’s view, America would subsume itself under a fuzzy internationalism in which the international community, which I think is a fiction, governs itself through the UN…

…There is a way America will decline — if we choose first to wreck our economy and then to constrain our freedom of action through subordinating ourselves to international institutions which are 90 percent worthless and 10 percent harmful.

ON AFGHANISTAN:

The strategy he’s revising is not the Bush strategy, it’s the Obama strategy. On March 27, he stood there with a background of flags, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on one side and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on the other, and said: “Today, I’m announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.” So don’t tell me this is revising eight years of Bush, he’s not. For all these weeks and months he’s been revising his own strategy, and that’s okay, you’re allowed to do that. But if you’re president and you’re commander-in-chief, and your guys are getting shot and killed in the field, and you think “maybe the strategy I myself announced with great fanfare six months ago needs to be revised,” do it in quiet. Don’t show the world that you’re utterly at sea and have no idea what to do! Your European allies already are skittish and reluctant, and wondering whether they ought to go ahead. It’s your own strategy, if it’s not working, then you revise it and fix it. You just don’t demoralize your allies.

ON AMERICAN POLITICS:

We see the usual overreading of history whenever one side loses. Look, there are cycles in American politics. US cycles are even more pronounced because we Americans have a totally entrepreneurial presidential system. We don’t have parliamentary opposition parties with a shadow prime minister and shadow cabinets. Every four years, the opposition reinvents itself. We have no idea who will be the Republican nominee in 2012. The party structures are very fluid. We have a history of political parties being thrown out of the White House after two terms — as has happened every single time with only one exception (Ronald Reagan) since World War II. The idea that one party is done in the US is silly. The Republicans got killed in 2006 and 2008, but they will be back.

There are certainly some pearls of wisdom here in this interview.

Berkowitz and Constitutional Conservatism

Tom Skypek — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:46:00 +0000

Peter Berkowitz of the Hoover Institution has an outstanding essay in the latest edition of Policy Review. This is a must-read for students of conservative thought. Berkowitz does a brilliant job of merging the core principles of conservatism with the tactical electoral realities conservatives now face. His analysis of the “social” and ”libertarian” conservative split is also interesting as is his critique of the Bush administration.

He also offers a framework for thinking about policy:

An economic program, health care and social security reform, energy policy, and protection for the environment grounded in fiscally sound, growth-oriented, market-based solutions.

A national security policy that maintains American military preeminence because it is indispensable to the defense of freedom at home and to the discharge of global responsibilities abroad, and which, in its commitment to defending the nation against the new threats of mega-terror, is as passionate about individual liberty as it is about security and is prepared, based on constitutional principles, to responsibly fashion the inevitable, painful tradeoffs.

A foreign policy that builds on the Truman Doctrine, the Reagan Doctrine, and the Bush Doctrine by recognizing America’s vital national security interest in advancing liberty and democracy abroad while realistically calibrating undertakings — military, diplomatic, and developmental — to the nation’s limited knowledge and restricted resources.

An orientation toward international relations that promotes free trade, respects international law and institutions while protecting the legitimate prerogatives of national sovereignty, and seeks alliances and opportunities to operate within multilateral frameworks but, particularly where vital national security interests are at stake, is prepared to act alone.

A focus on reducing the number of abortions and increasing the number of adoptions.

Efforts to keep the question of same-sex marriage out of the federal courts and subject to consideration by each state’s democratic process.

Measures to combat illegal immigration that are emphatically pro-border security and pro-lawful immigrant.

A case for school choice as an option that enhances individual freedom while giving low-income, inner-city parents opportunities to place their children in classrooms where they can obtain a decent education.

A demand that public universities abolish speech codes and vigorously protect liberty of thought and discussion on campus.

The appointment of judges who understand that their duty is to interpret the Constitution and not make policy, who bring to their task a presumption in favor of vindicating constitutional principles and protecting individual liberty, and who, where the Constitution is most vague, recognize the strongest obligation to defer to the results of the democratic process.

Surely, conservatives can find common ground in many of these areas. The key, as Berkowitz notes, is figuring out how to embrace moderation without falling victim to ideological excesses.

A Win for Conservatism

Reggie Gibbs — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 20:20:53 +0000

The most important thing McCain’s choice of Palin does, first and foremost, is put conservatism back in the lead as the guiding governing ideology of the Republican Party. With the selection of McCain as the nominee (and, as most of you know, he was my second choice) many were worried that conservatism was being relegated to the closet as the more moderate to liberal (i.e. Rockefeller) wing of the party was in ascendancy. If McCain had picked Ridge or Liebermann, and even in my opinion Pawlenty, I, like many others, would have been seriously concerned about the future of conservatism in this party, and hence the country. But I was willing to support this because of the horrors I believe would encompass an Obama presidency. Obama still may win, but really who can tell? But even if we lose in November, we in the conservative movement have already won.

With the selection of Palin, McCain has elevated not just one, young, charismatic conservative to prominence, but I believe a whole new generation (take Governor Jindal in Louisiana for example). And while I really hate making references to gender, the fact that she is a woman broadens the philosophy’s appeal, particularly to the youth who, throughout their college careers, are told that leftist politics are the only viable means by which to advance minority interests.

While the conventional wisdom had it that McCain was, during his Senate career, “ashamed” of conservatives and only paid lip-service to them in order to stay in office, ironically he has done for conservatism what not even reliable “conservative” leaders in Washington seemed to have had the guts to do— make conservatism prominent again for another generation. If for no other reason, then, the Senator deserves our unapologetic, and enthusiastic support.

In 2012, whether the Republicans gather to re-nominate McCain for another term, or gather to nominate a new ticket to challenge Obama, we can rest assured of one thing. And that is, conservatism will dominate and the Rockefeller Republicans will remain where they belong- on the party’s outer-edge grumbling their usual elitist utterances that could only originate in what many of them believe to be the center of the universe: Washington. Odd that it took a dynamic woman from a geographical periphery to demonstrate how mainstream conservatism is, and just how ideologically peripheral Washington remains.