Rush to War

After giving Rush's CPAC speech the once over...*sigh*

I hardly know where to begin. This man used to be my hero; I'm not ashamed to admit that. This is not the man I knew in my youth. The Rush I saw tonight and read a bit later is, frankly, a vehement and bellicose monster, spewing hate, arrogance and a no small amount of purely poisonous resentment. The message tonight was pure intransigence, embodied Reactionary rhetoric.

Let me start with something comparatively light, the basic hostility the man has towards the president;

"Barack Obama portrays America as a soup kitchen in some dark night in a corner of America that's very obscure. He's constantly telling the American people that bad times are ahead, worst times are ahead." -Limbaugh, CPAC 2009

The spirit of this statement is utterly corrupt. The president is being honest with us, realistic. Yes, there are bad times on the way; there have been bad times for better than a year now. the president has also told us that there is light at the end of the tunnel, explained what action he has taken, how that action will work and how we, the voters, can check on it.

"But while our economy may be weakened and our confidence shaken, though we are living through difficult and uncertain times, tonight I want every American to know this: We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before."

"The weight of this crisis will not determine the destiny of this nation. The answers to our problems don't lie beyond our reach. They exist in our laboratories and our universities; in our fields and our factories; in the imaginations of our entrepreneurs and the pride of the hardest-working people on Earth."
-Obama, Feb. 24, 2009

The next thing I want to point out is an example of malicious demagoguery, with no perceivable purpose beyond inventing a character flaw to then be attacked;

"How did the United States of America become the world's lone super power, the world's economic engine, the most prosperous opportunity for an advanced lifestyle that humanity has ever known? How did this happen? And why pray tell does the President of the United States want to destroy it?" -Limbaugh, CPAC 2009

How, "pray tell", does Rush reach the conclusion that the president wants to destroy America? There is no reasoning given, no logic outlined. The wording of this section first builds a sense of national pride, of empowerment, then immediately proclaims it to be under active assault by the president. In the absence of any explanation, I have to assume the motivation lies well outside the bounds of reason.

"...the Barack Obama administration is actively seeking to expand the welfare state in this country because he wants to control it."
-Limbaugh, CPAC 2009

I almost hesitate to mention this, as it seems obvious. As I've noted elsewhere however, I can't let my assumptions of what is and isn't obvious stop me from making a point clear. As the president notes below, the historical precedent flatly contradicts Rush's prophesy.

"History reminds us that at every moment of economic upheaval and transformation, this nation has responded with bold action and big ideas. In the midst of civil war, we laid railroad tracks from one coast to another that spurred commerce and industry. From the turmoil of the Industrial Revolution came a system of public high schools that prepared our citizens for a new age. In the wake of war and depression, the GI Bill sent a generation to college and created the largest middle class in history. (Applause.) And a twilight struggle for freedom led to a nation of highways, an American on the moon, and an explosion of technology that still shapes our world.
In each case, government didn't supplant private enterprise; it catalyzed private enterprise. It created the conditions for thousands of entrepreneurs and new businesses to adapt and to thrive. " -Obama, Feb. 24, 2009

The baseless accusations continue, all the worse for the inherent hypocrisy, right into the budget. Now nobody is thrilled with the current deficit mess, but it was Limbaugh's own team that created the mess that necessitated a massive spending package.

"They don't care about paying for it. All that's just words." -Limbaugh, CPAC 2009

"In this budget -- in this budget, we will end education programs that don't work and end direct payments to large agribusiness that don't need them. We'll eliminate no-bid contracts that have wasted billions in Iraq and reform our defense budget so that we're not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don't use.
We will root out the waste and fraud and abuse in our Medicare program that doesn't make our seniors any healthier. We will restore a sense of fairness and balance to our tax code by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas.
In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Now, let me be clear -- let me be absolutely clear, because I know you'll end up hearing some of the same claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: If your family earns less than $250,000 a year -- a quarter million dollars a year -- you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. " -Obama, Feb. 24, 2009

Rush likes to talk about class warfare, but its worth mentioning that the expiration of the tax-breaks the president is talking about here will only return taxes on that 2% to what they were under Clinton; a time in which the wealthy were doing pretty damned well, by all accounts. Let's also not forget that Rush himself falls into that bracket. I empathize (but not much); nobody likes to see their taxes go up.

"...bipartisanship occurs only after one other result, and that is victory. In other words, let's say as conservatives liberals demand that we be bipartisan with them in Congress. What they mean is: We check our core principles at the door, come in, let them run the show and agree with them. That's bipartisanship to them. To us, bipartisanship is them being forced to agree with us after we politically have cleaned their clocks and beaten them."
-Limbaugh, CPAC 2009

I don't even have words to describe this. Apparently, forcing your agenda is abhorrent and unprincipled if you're on the left, but absolutely justified if you're on the right. Better yet, you don't have to demonstrate any reasoned arguments or logical processes, you just have to, "politically have cleaned their clocks."

From this point things just get screwier. You want to know why these people shouldn't even try negotiating with the people they live and work along side?

"Where is the compromise between good and evil? Should Jesus have cut a different deal? Serious. From the standpoint of what we have to do, folks, this is not about taking a policy or a process that the Democrats have put forward and fighting around the edges."
-Limbaugh, CPAC 2009

What in the name of George Washington's ghost is this? I know I've covered this before but, what the hell happened to the loyal opposition? It used to be, "I'm right, your wrong and we can have a debate about that." This sort of rhetoric comes down to, "I'm right and you're evil, and that's the end of it."

I could go on. I'm not going to. It's late (early) I'm tired and you can certainly read for yourself. What I am going to say is that if I had any lingering doubts about whether or not Rush had allowed himself to become a caricature, they are now dispelled. This speech was a classic piece of in-group mass-manipulation and propagandizing. Yes I know he was preaching to the choir and yes I know neither he nor his audience will ever consider that maybe they are rather further to the right than they think; at this stage however, I don't honestly think I can stand listening to it long enough to attempt building a dialog. How could I? These people are proclaiming themselves beyond compromise, beyond the need to negotiate for a peaceful coexistence with their neighbors. "God and Right are the side of Wales", after all.

One thing Rush does get right is that there is factionalism on the right. Like a good conservative, he denounces the need for the movement to change or restructure and looks backwards to Ronnie-Raygun for his answers to new problems. "If it was good enough then..."
For the time being the war drums will pound and the political blood will flow. We can only hope that when all is finally done and said that the extremists will quiet down and cooler, moderate heads will prevail.