Several people have brought to my attention that Patterico has been working overtime to rehabilitate his earlier arguments concerning Rush Limbaugh’s provocative or “ambiguous” remarks.
Having just read his post, my immediate reactions are as follows:
The statement Patterico now quotes was offered a month after the attacks on Limbaugh began. Anybody who read my piece knows that we were dealing the original statement the media grabbed onto, and that I further argued that Rush would have time to refine his position. That he refined it toward a stronger position about hoping socialist policies fail even after they are enacted — so what? He did so in the context of responding to those original attacks, and so his new text must be viewed in that light, meaning that we must look at it as if it had a potentially different intent than the first set of remarks, an intent that was formed as a counter to how the media framed and disseminated that original utterance. Again, here are the original remarks:
I got a request here from a major American print publication. “Dear Rush: For the Obama [Immaculate] Inauguration we are asking a handful of very prominent politicians, statesmen, scholars, businessmen, commentators, and economists to write 400 words on their hope for the Obama presidency. We would love to include you. If you could send us 400 words on your hope for the Obama presidency, we need it by Monday night, that would be ideal.†Now, we’re caught in this trap again. The premise is, what is your “hope.†My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, “Well, I hope he succeeds. We’ve got to give him a chance.†Why? They didn’t give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I’m not talking about search-and-destroy, but I’ve been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don’t want them to succeed.
If I wanted Obama to succeed, I’d be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he’s talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don’t want this to work. So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.†(interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here’s the point. Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, “Oh, you can’t do that.†Why not? Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.†Somebody’s gotta say it.
There is nothing — I repeat, nothing — in those remarks that should cause conservatives any pause. Conservatism, I’d hope, would of course wish to see socialist plans fail, and Limbaugh, being a proponent of conservatism, is simply giving voice to what is a rather unremarkable conservative truism.
What amazes me is this idea that we should be forced to mouth platitudes about how we hope Obama succeeds as proof of our goodwill; because the fact is, to do so is to again enter into the left’s game of framing the narrative.
To wish for socialist plans to succeed is to wish for conservatism and classical liberalism to fail. It really is as simple as that.
To be afraid to say that you wish for the failure of socialist policies that would alter the country’s very foundational fabric is to suggest that you are somehow ashamed of the message of conservatism / classical liberalism — or, if you wish to go the more nuanced approach, it is to argue that there is a proper time and place to assert the classical liberal message, and the time and place is not on a radio show, performed by a private citizen, that is aimed at conservative audience (or at least, one wishing to understand conservatism) for fear that non-conservatives and might find such bluntness off-putting.
As others have noted — and, given that it had no effect on my argument I didn’t much touch on this previously — Rush wants to see America succeed, and America, being a free market liberal republic, cannot succeed if it becomes something else. Because at that point, what has succeeded is no longer the America the founders envisioned. Further, Limbaugh has argued that the stimulus package he wants to fail won’t create jobs — so it is a strain to attach to him a “reasonable interpretation” that he wishes to see Americans out of work and suffering in the short term just to bring conservatism back to prominence in the long term, an argument Patterico makes when he writes:
Now that we have the evidence that Rush indeed blessed the idea of wishing for Americans to be out of work in the short run to preserve capitalism and defeat socialism.
Nowhere does Limbaugh make that argument. More context from Rush’s elaborated statement:
I want this to be seen by the American people for what it is, nothing to do with getting them jobs, nothing to do with reviving the gross domestic product of this country. I want, once and for all, the American people to see full frontal nudity on what liberalism is and what a lie it is. They have been sold a bill of goods. This legislation will not accomplish anything that the people are being promised. And I want people to see it. We can’t stop it, so if the Democrats want to destroy this economy to their benefit, to create more and more poverty, to create more and more homelessness, to create more and more dependency on the federal government, let the American people see it, let the American people see what messiahs do with unchecked power.
Clearly, Limbaugh wants socialist policy (he give examples of such “plans” in his Jan 16 remarks) to fail. As, I think, do many of us.
Having said all that, from the perspective of interpretation, what we are dealing with here is an entirely DIFFERENT TEXT than the text that began this discussion. And again, in reviving this discussion, we’re forced to take this new text and freeze it — as if somehow Limbaugh’s later remarks outside of both the first text and the subsequent disingenuous framing of that text by the media and the White House.
Has Limbaugh made any further pronouncements since February? Has he refined his position even more since these newly linked remarks? Did he refine his position in February in the context of having already been attacked? — and so in the context of realizing that by adding mopre fuel to the fire he could likely bait the White House into increasing the intensity of the attacks, and so increase the relevance of the conversation over the kinds of programs Obama had planned for us?
In short, was this new iteration a planned response to the initial attacks — a kind of verbal doubling down?
These are questions Patterico doesn’t consider. For whatever reason, he seems to want to foster the idea that the left, who jumped on those INITIAL remarks, was busy seriously contemplating all the potential interpretive trajectories that they might eventually be able to tease out of such a statement, once it was elaborated upon further — a position that gives them far more credit than they deserve, and one that flies in the face of their established m.o.
The fact is, they cared not a whit about the context of Rush’s original remarks (the Bennett and Snow examples, among countless others, make this abundantly clear), and they framed the attacks around a January 16th statement that did not lend itself to the interpretation that later statements might. All of which is moot anyway: because honestly, can one wish socialism to fail as a plan and then pretend to hope it succeeds as policy? — particularly when the problem with socialist plans is that they undermine our system of government by their very enactment and insinuation into law?
Anyway, these are ancillary questions. Because when you are dealing with an intentionalist argument, you are dealing with whose intent we wish to privilege. The media clearly privileged its own intent by taking the January 16th discussion and turning it into something it wasn’t. If Rush later decided to play along to up the rhetorical ante, that’s his business — and again, he can speak for himself. One can argue the efficacy of his strategy — but then we’re back to arguing about concerns over whether or not his tone was appropriate to what he wished to accomplish.
Those Republican spokespeople who are somehow (how, exactly, I don’t know) “forced†to answer the media’s questions about what Limbaugh said are IN PRACTICAL EFFECT conceding that Limbaugh is the head of the party. And why would they lend credence to that particular manufactured and dishonest formulation on the part of the White House and the media? — who intended to take Limbaugh’s statements and turn them into something supposedly “ugly” and reflective of the movement as a whole?
Again, to do so is to fall into the trap being set by those looking to control the grounds for debate and to control meaning. And these GOP spokespeople who respond are accepting the premise — which, as I’ve been at pains to point out, is the real problem, one that requires a culture change based around the correct understanding of how language is meant to function.
****
update 2: From LMC in the comments:
I think it’s interesting that there is still an argument about whether or not Rush Limbaugh is an acceptable leader of the Republican party as it is defined by the Democrats.
His un-fitness (is that even a word?) as a leader is illustrated by an interpretation of his words offered to us by Democrats. The fact that the Democrats could interpret his words in the way they did is causing some Republicans to re-think whether or not Rush Limbaugh is acceptable as the leader of the Republican Party. You know, like the Democrats say he is.
So, the Democrats have elected the new leader of the Republican Party and told us that he’s unacceptable because of what they say he said.
When this is used as an example as to how the Democrats use language and how we, as conservatives, should react the argument is then framed as a defense of Rush Limbaugh as leader of the Republican Party.
Those fucking guys are good.
I just adore a penthouse view.
Surrender your meaning to them and you’ve lost already. How can people not get that?
The Snow and Bennett examples you used in the longer piece replicated at HA demonstrate without a doubt that the MSM is concerned with context only insofar as it hampers their ability to yank a quote from it that fits their narrative.
I’ll tell you, Jeff, I think I’m in the same boat with a lot of folks who’ve de-lurked over this conflagration; I saw the point you’ve been making for years relative to intent and meaning, but the “Rush Moment” has made it so much clearer and more vital.
Oh, and more OUTLAW!!
Because they’re stupid.
More hopey-faileyness.
I fully expect the Obama administration policies to fail.
Is that the same as hoping the Obama administration policies fail?
Jeff,
excelllent points and as always . . OUTLAW!
Saying that you hope the stimulus fails implies it has some possibility of succeeding. It doesn’t. Because it’s a lie.
“Again, that is falling into the trap being set by those looking to control the grounds for debate and to control meaning.”
Control the narrative, and control the spin. Exactly. In today’s hypermedia….that is the strategy.
I’m sure some people hoped Chavez would fail. They’re dead now, of course.
So, the 1st “stimulus” package is an abject failure, so they are thinking about doubling down and going for another “stimulus” package? Might I expect to get an extra $13 a week?
I will say, in my opinion hoping Obama fails is like hoping the sun will rise tomorrow morning, or hoping water flows downhill.
Doesn’t make Limbaugh wrong, though.
Hoping that Obama and his policies fail.. And more PIE please.
New poll out from Carville and friends -apparently EVERYBODY but conservatives hate Rush Limbaugh. He doesn’t appeal to “swing voters”. Rush sounded confused- “am I running for something ? Why do I need swing voters?”
Obama’s pie is a zero-sum pie, Todd.
It’s that Mark Zandi tool what’s been taking the lead on the whole second “stimulus” dealio. He plays the “some economists who criticized the first stimulus package as inadequate are now urging” role for the dirty socialist media.
Does a zero-sum pie mean it’s non-fattening? ‘Cuz I am only allowed low cal desserts on this damn diet.
Jeff – I don’t understand why you’re making a big deal of Patterico’s post. As you point out, Rush took several opportunities to amplify, clarify, double down, whatever, on his original remarks. If I am looking to him to add new context, post passage to his remarks, why the hell wouldn’t I look to the source of the remarks? Stay frozen, no thanks, it’s cold enough here.
CIVILITY NOW!
oh. I made sugar-free chockit pudding last night… I think it came to like 140 calories but NG is bringing Taco Bell lunch back for me so I’m not sure what I’ve achieved.
Log Cabin, you’re soaking in it now.
No, Does a zero-sum pie fattens the deficit.
AS FAR AS THE EYE CAN SEE!!!
I’m seeing this frozen statement argument as being just plain silly. When do the frozen statements defrost or become inoperable? Is it one month, three months, six months, a year, never, or when the speaker makes newer statements upon which to rely?
What’s messed up is that everyone knows that the “his detractors” in the title doesn’t mean dirty socialist Democrats or anything, cause they like Mr. Limbaugh just the way he is. He’ll be a lot useful in getting the Doctrine of Fairness back up and running in whatever form. You gotta wonder if when that happens the detractor people are gonna say well it’s his own damn fault.
#20 HA! I was wondering in the car back from the grocery if the Madge commercial was as tired as me (which is too tired) because I had this little “Socialism, you’re soaking in it” daydream of an argument going on as I downhilled it for the house.
Only the lady in her shop reflexively pulls the hand out an there’s some parts that dissolved and Madge pats the hand back in.
I’m not making a big deal of Patterico’s post. I’m using it as an occasional to discuss points of language.
Limbaugh – Read my CPAC speech
Detractor – No way, I’m frozen on your January words
I’m not feelin’ it
Something tells me James Carville doesn’t have super, duper positives and he’s more of the face of progressives with his daily White House Townhouse like conference calls.
Perfect choice of words.
Try understanding it. That’ll do you better.
“The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible.”
I would like to see this Rush to buffoonery that plays into the libs’ hands stop. But Patterico keeps it going and is wrong-headed. I would say “settle down, both of you” but I agree with Jeff G on this one.
i like to watch people chew
don’t know calorie/trans fat /hong kong phooey/numbers
i also like marlene dietrech when she says “matriculate”
“How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Rush was signaling his desire for liberty and antipathy to tyranny.”
“In one way, Winston. In another way he’s signaling his racism. In another way he’s signaling his nihilism. In another he’s signaling all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.”
What you need is an double-edged ironic analogy — a big one:
One of the few American horror movies of the last three decades or so that I think is any good at all is a straight-to-video no-budget Gaslight descendant called My Little Eye. It popped up on late-night cable recently, so I settled in. For no reason my previous viewings of it could make me understand, it was preceded by a warning that it contained RAPE. Big letters.
There’s no rape, let alone RAPE, in this movie. There’s a single sex scene that exists (at the point in the plot where it happens) primarily to be overheard by a character you’re supposed to add to your suspect list because he doesn’t enjoy overhearing it. And, hey, naked lady. Nice.
But that couldn’t be it; it’s all consensual, except for the overhearing. So I watched the whole thing with RAPE-colored glasses. And there was one moment when I thought, “Really? That? No way. There must be some awesome RAPE coming up.” There wasn’t.
Like I thought, there’s only the one penetration event. A female character is seduced by a male one. None of it is coerced. She’s enthusiastic; that’s what makes the above-mentioned misdirection of audience suspicion work.
This is where the analogy seems to turn “****SPOILER****,” but it doesn’t, but my telling you that it doesn’t is a ****SPOILER****:
However, her enthusiasm is partly misplaced. She doesn’t know that he’s seducing her as part of one of those Dangerous Liasons bets that all the big teen movies of the time were based on (which don’t merit them RAPE stamps) — and! in the course of winning his bet, he gives a hidden (from the penetrate-ee) thumbs-up to his co-conspirators.
I didn’t have a problem with Venn diagrams prior to this foo-fraw. (And I still don’t.) But it’s been pretty damn funny watching the confusion while folks learn about visualizing over-lapping linguistic boundaries. Doh. Logic. Who knew.
It’s kind of befuddling in one way, though …I mean, textual [???] criticism applied to an 8 week old speech as if it’s some kind of a synoptic problem?
So. Patterico? – What *is* the Q than?
…I mean, when even *I* understand Jeff’s point without overly laboriously muddling through ….
“…James Carville … he’s more of the face of progressives”
So progressives look like Thulsa Doom turning into the snake-god Set?
And that breach of contract on the part of the studio is what constitutes the rape, see?
Patterico, stupid or on the other side?
I really can’t tell at this point.
A little more hung up on discretion than valour, I’d say, Stephen.
Okay, since someone has to do it, I will:
If guns were OUTLAWED, only OUTLAWS would have guns!
Did I touch all the bases? Does this thread qualify for its own Downfall Parody Video yet?
“Hitler Gets Banned From Protein Wisdom….”
Carville is a mendoucheous traitor. Look at his comments about George Bush failing after 9/11.
Carville must make Mary Matalin feel awfully dirty.
Hey daleyrock…
“Try understanding it. That’ll do you better.”
Jeff – So Rush made later statements relating to his earlier statements and Patterico chooses to dissect those and I say – So What?
The fundamental intent wasn’t changed.
Were commentators grilling Republicans after the CPAC speech focused on what Rush said in January or what he said in more detail at CPAC?
Did you think Patterico’s post was about you?
I like Carville well enough. He gets paid for all of this.
If we are as close to losing our country and culture as we claim, those on our side need to support each other, regardless. Did American troops at Normandy shoot at each other over tactical disagreements? No, they stayed focused on the enemy. Jeff and Rush and others are spearheads taking difficult ground that can be exploited for a breakout. We can have a big, drunken brawl when we get to Paris. And pie.
James Carville was one of the key figures responsible for the White House attack on Rush Limbaugh. After Limbaugh said that he hoped Barack Obama “fails,†Carville was giddy with the sense of political opportunity:
“It’s great for us, great for him, great for the press,†Carville told the Politico, describing the White House and Limbaugh. “The only people he’s not good for are the actual Republicans in Congress.â€
Who’s this good for?
On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: “I certainly hope he doesn’t succeed.â€
H/T: Commentary
Looks to me like again Hot Air is going to bat for Pat’s position, giving it play while pretending there is no reasonable rebuttal.
I think it’s definitely time to operate outside these rather defeatist filters.
Carville looks and acts like he snorts battery acid for breakfast.
Jeff,
I’ve been following your blog, off and on, for a number of years. While I’ve enjoyed your writing, I have to admit that much of your arguments on intentionalism, coding, decoding, signifiers, etc., was pretty much unintelligible to me. Consider me to be just about as anti-literary as it is possible for an old hairy-eared engineer to be.
This flap about Rush’s comments has allowed me to make more sense of your arguments. Having a real life example to which you can clearly point out how your previous postings apply, and where you can show where the framing of the debate is being done, as well as how the statements are being distorted in service to that framing, and how the so-called conservative spokesmen are accepting their opponents premises, has allowed me to finally get a handle on what you are saying. Thank you, I can only wish I’d caught on sooner.
Heck, surrender your week, month, or entire political career to them and you’ve lost already. And that’s where we really are, isn’t it?
I haven’t followed this nonsense much because once Patterico went all pissy about winning for its own sake and once half the right went all weak-kneed about the laughable absurdity of friendlying up to the left’s apparent, evident, and sworn thieves and liars, following this foolishness obviously wasn’t worth the time it took.
Which leads me to ask Jeff if the other part of points of language and controlling narrative and such things is controlling what’s the language of which narrative, which is to say, wasting days and weeks discussing Limbaugh — while ignoring everything from Carville to American socialism to the religion of State — constitutes starving classical liberalism of air, which is one hell of a way to avoid so much as subject oneself to a weak defense of classical liberalism. The progressive lie circling the globe before truth has its shoes on and like that.
Why fight em, says the progressive, if you can prevent them so much as arriving on time? Remember that the left is that ilk who opines that O!bama isn’t nearly progressive enough. Huh?
That phenomenon is willful design: It’s one thing to reframe reality; it’s quite another to never have to acknowledge it’s standing at the door soaking wet and dying of pneumonia.
Probably this has been said before in these pages and pages of threads, but if not, why all the time wasted with — to what I think is Jeff’s underlying point — debating the inherently undebatable? Why stand around for weeks deciding what Limbaugh meant to dress his sandwich with when the entire place has been an inferno of leftism for months and years?
Your proof? The context had changed entirely.
No. And I don’t understand the question. If it’s not about me, am I supposed to refrain from responding with the linguistic points I believe important to discuss?
Is this about you, daleyrocks? Is this about Patterico?
So if, as a result of this, conservatives decide they’re no longer going to let the left decide the terms of debate without a fight, will that be a good thing or a bad thing for the left?
And what’s wrong — two years out from a mid-term election — with a political party being splintered?
Except that’s not what we’re debating here, Jonas. And echo chamber Republicanism is not something I’m interested in joining with.
We are playing the wrong game, and until that’s clear, all the Republican “togetherness” in the world won’t stop the slow slide toward “progressivism.” The infrastructure we’ve accepted assures us of that, so it is the infrastructure itself, and not a few street signs, that needs to be changed.
“The fundamental intent wasn’t changed.
Your proof? The context had changed entirely.”
Jeff – Am I reading correctly? Yes, the context has changed, the stimulus bill had passed, which might be a reason to look at Rush’s newer statements, which you curiously didn’t want to do. Rush’s intent though didn’t change did it? I’m not seeing where he’s now claiming he wants Obama or his policies to succeed. Are you on a secret Limbaugh email list that I’m not?
“Is this about you, daleyrocks? Is this about Patterico?”
I can’t speak for Patterico, but I’m not important enough to rate a post. I’ve seen Patterico dissect language on his blog before, primarily in the comments, and didn’t think this was an attempt to rehabilitate or perpetuate existing arguments, just an attempt to trace the history of Rush’s comments.
You and Patterico are two of my favorite bloggers and I honestly don’t feel there’s that much difference between your positions, in spite of the posturing and bullshit otherwise. Patterico’s not particularly fond of the more strident commentators on the right such as Limbaugh or Coulter and I get a kick out of them. In this kerfuffle I thought you were unfairly reframing Patterico’s position on this blog and that was all I was trying to point out. I still feel that way. That wasn’t taking sides, it was in the way the sides were being described. You acted much the same way in the “good man” kerfuffle if you recall and after have it called to your attention repeated times eventually saw the light.
You seem to be taking this overly personally when my guess is at this point now, after your initial blog post, that Patterico is not trying to score any points, but that’s between the two of you.
Jhoward, unfortunately somehow the kids were got. I saw the best minds of their generation starved of meat and fed on skittles.
The left’s tired deconstructions all lead to the same place; which is, that the target of their ire is some sort of racist/sexist/intolerant/hater, and wants to see children and poor people starving and homeless…
And, amusingly, thay always wind of with some simplistic mantra to chant in lieu of, you know, logical and reasonable arguments. Their stock-in-trade are attacks that elicit an emotional reaction from their mostly idiotic multitudes, usually Outrage!, which necessary precludes and real discussion or any possibility of real understanding…
Even with all the MSM cover provided, it never ceases to amaze me that more people haven’t grown wise to this tactic. You’re absolutely right Jeff G, when you assert that we must recover the meaning of the words that make up our language, and own the intent of the words we use, in order to ever actually have any real political discussions…
I blame much of it on the dumbing down of our schools and , for the most part, their use instead as indoctrination camps for our youth, run by leftisy teachers…
Me? I Hope Obama Fails! For the success of America…
“Comment by Jonas on 3/11 @ 2:36 pm #
All of this, of course, plays into Carville’s original strategy. An already splintered GOP debating the relative merits of Rush’s influence is precisely what he was counting on.”
But it backfires if coming out of the discussion, the party is stronger.
I can’t believe this is still going on. What Rush said is Basic Conservatism 1A. I hope this douchebag fails in EVERYTHING. I want him to be a one-term president.
Frum, Brooks and the rest of the dim-bulb moderates apparently remain clueless. Republicans win when they espouse conservative principles (Reagan, Bush II, congress in ’94). They lose when they go soft (Bush I, McCain, congress in ’06). How hard is this?
At some point, daleyrocks, I simply have to give up trying to explain things that I’ve tried over and over again to make clear. How you can say that I haven’t deal with Rush’s new statements in a post where I’ve given them a broader quoted context than the post that presumes to tie them together with earlier comments — and so earlier intentions — without considering the intervening changes in the communication dynamic, is beyond me.
I have long dealt with language on this blog. I am taking nothing personally — I am instead trying to elucidate errors as I see them that impact the way people understand how language functions.
There is no posturing or bullshit. That you can’t see the differences between our positions does not mean they are close in terms of the underlying assumptions that inform them. They aren’t. Patterico’s view of how interpretation should work is informed by reader response and formalism. I strongly disagree with the assumptions about how meaning and interpretation operate under those paradigms.
Again, I’ve tried to explain why. Perhaps if you stopped viewing this as a pissing contest on my end you’d be better prepared to consider what it is I’ actually trying to articulate and argue both for and against.
Here’s a pretty good example: of whom is this picture?
If you take a look at various comment boards on Politico and at other sites, you see the Left’s grand argumentative strategy to actually silence debate playing out: opposition to Obama’s program is UnAmerican.
It’s a rather neo-fascist argument, but there you have it. It’s rather jackbooted in all it’s glory, which is why Jeff’s understanding of intentionalism and yielding not one inch on this line is important. These people will use anything, any device, to win. Therefore, one must win on the front of language first. All else follows from that.
Jeff gets this. Patterico and others do not because they don’t get that language frames everything we do.
The Left can go from dissidence to regime propagandists in the blink of an eye, and appropriate the language of patriotism, and have no meaning behind it, simply to maintain power and emasculate opposition. What Patterico, Frum, et al, are doing, is yielding important arguments to the Left (Sullivan did this years ago, but he was never a real conservative, anyway) without admitting that they are doing so in the hopes that they will be accepted as patrons of civil discourse.
The Left isn’t interested in civil discourse. The Left is interested in absolute power.
Jeff G and Patterico are arguing from different premises. Like I said, annointing Rush our King Goof and then marginalizing opinions critical of O as contaminated, cootified
and dumb if they match that kings, makes Patterico think he should distance himself from the goof and use different wording when criticizing lest he get that goof stink on him. How’s he going to get MaryAnne with the soft middle to go out with him otherwise?
We got the government we voted for and therefore the one we deserve. There will be suffering. That’s a fact. The only thing that can save us now is rapid failure that shocks people into realizing O is exactly who he told us he was.
I think it’s interesting that there is still an argument about whether or not Rush Limbaugh is an acceptable leader of the Republican party as it is defined by the Democrats.
His un-fitness (is that even a word?) as a leader is illustrated by an interpretation of his words offered to us by Democrats. The fact that the Democrats could interpret his words in the way they did is causing some Republicans to re-think whether or not Rush Limbaugh is acceptable as the leader of the Republican Party. You know, like the Democrats say he is.
So, the Democrats have elected the new leader of the Republican Party and told us that he’s unacceptable because of what they say he said.
When this is used as an example as to how the Democrats use language and how we, as conservatives, should react the argument is then framed as a defense of Rush Limbaugh as leader of the Republican Party.
Those fucking guys are good.
I’d say Begala is the Talosian face of the Democrats
“Perhaps if you stopped viewing this as a pissing contest on my end you’d be better prepared to consider what it is I’ actually trying to articulate and argue both for and against.”
Jeff – I think it would help if you stopped writing as if it WERE a pissing contest.
That’s good work, LMC. I’m adding it to an update.
Does anybody have an extra #2 pencil.
But’s not realistic and not OUTLAW and we wouldn’t want to cede meaning, would we?
NO CIVILITY NOW!
daleyrocks —
Was it all the name calling? Or was it that I actually, you know, disagreed? How’s about this: we’ll do it your way and pretend that it’s only okay to disagree with the left.
That way, we can be just like them even as we’re criticizing them!
You know, you keep parroting words and phrases, but the irony fails when it becomes obvious you don’t really understand what it is you’re trying to dismiss.
Maybe try Cassandra’s place. These kinds of “arguments” go over well there.
What the right is doing is institutionalizing lying for political advantage within its own party. Of course its chosen party is the chief casualty of such a stand, but I no longer give two craps about them, so have at it boys.
I’ve got a question for Patterico, ace, allah, and their “cultists” (heh).
Assuming Obama really believes what he has been telling us for the past year, and he is going to try and do what he says he wants to do as president, my question is, in a sound byte society, what do you hope for Obamas presidency?
Oh, and saying you hope he does what you want him to do is not an option, you must go with the premise he is going to attempt what he has said.
I met Cassandra this morning. She’s nice. We’re friends now.
oh. Hating on Republicans is like so yesterday, Mr. Sigh person. You can’t wallow in it. Today is a new day, brother.
And no it isn’t that the folk that keep making new arguments up to stick in other people’s mouths don’t get it. They get it just fine. It’s just they feel this particular untruth is helpful to them within the Republican party. That’s all. Left, right. It’s all the same now.
Or maybe that might could be Ms. Sigh person. I think we’ll go with the feminine cause of the have at it boys thing.
Conservatism, I’d hope, would of course wish to see socialist plans fail,
Correction: Rush hoped that Obama would fail in his attempt to implement the policies.
“Look, what he’s talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don’t want this to work.”
And because he was formulating these thoughts before the inauguration, before the plans were blasting their way through congress, he hope Obama could be stopped before the plans were made law.
Rush is not saying that Obama’s policies have a chance of working but he doesn’t want them to work because Obama is not his guy and the Euro-state is not to his liking.
That the policies will fail–i.e., they will not bring us out of a recession, they will not help the country prosper, and they’ll pull us all over a very tall cliff–is a given from Rush’s point of view.
For him to wish that Obama’s policies will fail is like hoping that a rainstorm produces rain. It’s redundant and unnecessary and Rush wouldn’t make a point of it in that context.
Happyfeet,
Yeah, apparently going along to get along is a big, big, big deal in Republican circles. So big that the Republican platform and the simple decency required not to lie have to take a back seat. Who knew?
B vitamins, Ms. Sigh person. Lots and lots and see if you don’t feel way better.
it’s like how pebbles and BammBamm said… face it with a grin cause smilers never lose and frowners never win I think.
i used to hate republicans/til i cut one off in traffic
i gave him the finger/he gave me drugs
now we’re a team/we’ll cut all u fuckers off
cuz ur bad for the enviroment/scenery
Dicentra —
There is a new statement under consideration.
It’s all Alinsky rules all the time on both sides of the aisle. Of course the difference is this. Democrats only target Republicans with Alinsky talking points. Oh hell, maybe it’s not a difference. Republicans only target Republicans with Alinsky tactics as well. They like Democrats too much to do that to them.
I have to go pay $300 to have a hose on my car repaired. Life is grand.
Hurry. By the time you get back thirteen different Republican bloggers will have made up seventy-five different quotes you never uttered and insist you be kicked in the crotch by the population of Manhattan for each one of them. It’s just like Kos except all the anger, destructiveness and dishonesty is turned inward instead of outward. Lots of success in that.
If it’s not dirty socialists it’s damn hoses.
Here’s the new statement, dicentra – it’s from the first link up there…
I wonder if he’s for real looking for a house in New Zealand. It’s sort of out of the way.
New Zealand probably has tasty porridge.
$300 dollars is the new grand
never get in a lincon/washington coin fight
tuff to get in new zealand
if i was a roadie for crowded house
i’d sing about it
Tired Sigh,
It’s a phase.
The Republican Establishment has in our view yielded The Narrative to the Left, and as a consequence has been marginalized. To the extent that Republicans have an overarching ideology (which, mostly, they don’t) it is some version of “conservative”, and the Republican Establishment has been “reaching across the aisle” so often that their motto has become “just like Democrats, only cheaper.” Voters are either turned off and stay home, or decide to vote for the real thing instead of the pale imitation.
What’s happening now is a debate within the Party and its ancillaries — neither I, nor Jeff, nor most of the commenters here are staunch Republicans, and we don’t place survival of the Republican Party at the top of our priority list. That debate has to do with the ideals and, most importantly, the tactics and strategies necessary to recover from the current low point. It gets acerbic, yes, but to describe it as a “circular firing squad” is wrong. We’re trying to hash out what to do next, and there’s considerable disagreement.
It’s worth keeping in mind that the United States doesn’t do the Parliamentary system — it does two Parliamentary systems, which we call “political parties” in defiance of what that phrase means in the rest of the world. We build coalitions and alliances under the Party umbrellas, then present that to the voters, rather than voting strictly by Party and “forming a Government”. Right now the Right, in general, is in disarray, and what you are seeing is the debate within the Right as to how to get our act together. We may succeed. We may not. But the debate is necessary.
Regards,
Ric
Over on Transterrestrial Musings, Rand Simberg linked to Will Collier piece about “Dinner Party conservatives” vs. “Tea Party” conservatives.
Exceptn that I misread the first word in the title on Rand’s post.
And you know? I think the way I misread it may be more right than not.
I’m hoping that Tired Sigh would expand (greatly) on the contours of this quality of character, though not in the shape of personalities.
All of this, of course, plays into Carville’s original strategy. An already splintered GOP debating the relative merits of Rush’s influence is precisely what he was counting on.
Duud. November 2010 is still a long way off. This particular spat will be forgotten by the populace, but if we can get some thing straightened out NOW, so that the campaign can be more focused LATER, then I say we go for it. For a lot of fights, too. There’s too much inertia on the part of the beltway GOP, and they’re not going to give up their comfortable collegiality and other moronic assumptions without being smacked upside the head.
It’s just like Kos except all the anger, destructiveness and dishonesty is turned inward instead of outward. Lots of success in that.
Fighting and conflict is not necessarily bad, especially if the conflict is about ideas. Any concept of how intense it got while figuring out the Constitution? I’m glad they went hammer and tongs at each other, because it means that each idea was tested in the refiner’s fire, and only the good ones survived.
If you can’t stand the squabbles, don’t jump in. Fine with me. Some people hate conflict as a matter of natural disposition.
But then don’t complain about not having input when the result is something you don’t like.
You seem to be taking this overly personally when my guess is at this point now, after your initial blog post, that Patterico is not trying to score any points, but that’s between the two of you.
I fail to see how Jeff’s posts have even approached personal insult. You should know better, daleyrocks, having seen what an insult from Jeff doeslook like. You newbies should know that when Jeff gets his insult on, it’s whirring chopper blades, spreading gore hither and thither, the victim often not even comprehending the insult much less being able to answer it in kind.
This exchange between Jeff and Patterico has been on the level of ideas. Patterico doesn’t take it personally and neither does Jeff.
Dicentra –
There is a new statement under consideration.
Fair enough. But I still don’t agree with this: “Clearly, Limbaugh wants socialist policy (he gives examples of such ‘plans’ in his Jan 16 remarks) to fail.”
Again, the fact that they will fail is a given. Now, Limbaugh wants the failure to occur in full view of the American public so that we can accurately link cause with effect and acquire a strong distaste for all forms of statism, including the pre-Obama violations of the Tenth Amendment.
That’s different from wanting the policies to fail because he doesn’t want the Dems to create a nation that Rush doesn’t happen to like. Rush is not the inverse of Harry Reid declaring the surge a failure out of his wishful thinking. (Motto: WE CAN’T LET BUSH GET CREDIT FOR ANYTHING GOOD!)
Ric,
It’s a phase that needs to happen. It’s the Republican party I’m hammering on. Not you guys. And it’s not just in your view. They have yielded the narrative. What’s more they’re using the left’s narrative to marginalize their own, now. This is a party in deep, deep trouble….and seemingly with little intention of making itself better. Soon it will be so fouled up there will be no reason to help it.
i wish i could lie
sorry/ i wanted to complete that thought
but my pants were on fire…
true story
We may succeed. We may not. But the debate is necessary.
Part of what comes out of that debate must be an understanding of how the twisting of meaning is being used against us, and how to develop an effective, moral, countermeasure to it.
The other critical thing that needs to be figured out is how to stop being merely reactionary to the moves made by the left. They choose the field and we continue to play on it. I think Sun Tzu would scold us for that one.
’tis not the music i miss…
more like/ the firewrks
Great White
Makewi, we can start, for example, by making Sy Hersh spill all he knows about Cheney’s assassination squads.
Jeff, you can argue ’til the cows come home, but you aren’t going to convince a prosecutor such as Patterico of anything once he has made up his mind about guilt. Prosecutors see in black and white and in this case Patterico sees Limbaugh as the guy in the black hat. Guilty on all counts. It isn’t about the truth or justice of the matter, it is all about winning.
Sdferr,
When I talk about the Daily Kos I’m not talking about what is coming from this site, believe me. Look, everyone, everyone admits ( in some self aggrandizing Republican’s cases grudgingly) that Limbaugh’s remarks have been twisted into falsehoods by various White House spin doctors. But repeatedly the Republican cognoscenti uses these lies to attack Limbaugh. And still, even three days later they search for ways to bolster these lies ( finding news statements they can twist) to continue their attack on Limbaugh. They acknowledge the basis of the attacks are completely and utterly false, but insist that the attacks must be made any way because they claim Limbaugh invited the attacks by phrasing the truth inartfully. This is an argument so corrupt, so bereft of ethical or moral content that I can’t for the life of me imagine why any one would want to go near the party again. But because the other party is just as bad we are faced with trying to figure a way to fix this one. But considering the performance of its internet thinkers it does not appear to be a party that can be fixed.
91 – Ric. Thanks, that was just outstanding.
Happyfeet, if I had the money, I’d consider moving to New Zealand, too.
I guess the point I’m making is that the Republican party is misusing the language the exact same way the left has been misusing it. Except they are attacking one of their own and the twenty million voters who listen to his show. ( I’m not one of those people by the way). If it were a strategy designed to actually benefit the Republican party in anyway I could at least admire its ruthlessness. As it is I can only conclude the whole Goddamned party has gone insane. Or in the alternative has become so hideously self referential that it is no longer a national party. Either way I think we aren’t long from the point where we have to let it collapse. Of course Bill Quick figured all this out a good two years back. But I’m slow to learn, I guess.
Tired Sigh, if you think I thought you were talking about what’s (by and large) coming from this site, you mistook me. Further, if you think my request was snark or jest, you mistake me once again. I was being serious. I am far more naive than you would guess, I’ll bet.
Sdferr,
No problem. And I didn’t believe your request was snark at all. Comments 102 and 105 lay out what I suspect is happening in this case as best I can. I’m not sure what else I can say.
That’s a great article what John linked…
This man is more honest about our own economy than our dipshit president or Timmy, that’s for sure.
Ah, if only I could type, spell, and use the comma correctly.
Odd as it may seem, I was offering an escape to another topic of conversation, namely, what does an honest man look like, what runs his inner motor, why does he do what he does while behaving honestly, will he ever get anywhere in the world of politics (or will he always be a chump, an easily steamrolled putz), do we desire honesty in our politicians, should we, etc? But no matter.
Sdferr,
So long as we allow others to make up meanings that are 100 percent opposed to what we have in fact said then thrust them into a our mouths no honest person will ever have a chance one in politics. What’s more no politician will ever be able to tell us what he means or what he will do. We will be covered up in Obamas forever, from both sides of the aisle.
A bit late to this thread, and short on time, so apologies if this has already been said.
Patterico really needs to give this a rest. It does not matter how hard you try or how long you try, you just cannot polish that turd of an argument.
Sara, I disagree.
The way I see it, the left has done the linguistic equivalent of sticking their finger in their coat pocket and pretending that they have a gun for about the last thirty years. What Jeff is doing is saying, “That’s just his finger. Get him.” Eventually Patterico will come around, and my guess is that he’ll be one of the first to start stomping the language thugs into the dust.
I give up.
You did fine, Mr. Cookies. It was a very depressing comment I thought though cause of it was true.
Sdferr,
Sorry.
Dan Collins at #5..
Thanks for the link, btw.
Thanks for the illustration, Dave.
Thanks, happyfeet, my head is now bigger than a bobble-head. I’m glad you liked that link. Too bad Phoenician, a Kiwi commenter on CSPT pushes for hard-line leftist mumbo-jumbo. Of course, he never commented on the link I dropped twice or the name I dropped another time.
PIATOR is an old “favorite” around here, long since booted.
They just recently got rid of a really nasty socialist woman over in NZ, no? brb.
oh. The same month we turned dirty socialist is when they got back to good government over there.
[…] you bumptious conservative rubes: I think it’s interesting that there is still an argument about whether or not Rush Limbaugh is […]
president hoover we luv you
The current Republican kerfuffle looks a lot like what the Democrats looked like just a few years ago. I hope the Republicans manage to get their shit and their principles together before they get back in power instead of just exploiting an opportunity and some shiny dude.
Whither Carthage!
Is this about you, daleyrocks? Is this about Patterico?
Sweet hatchet bouquets of peace that they keep sending us, of course it is.
This post feels sad all the way down here on the page.
That’s cause the good guys are losing. In those 80s movies this is when the two guys… usually like a younger guy and then a more mentory guy… they’d meet not at a gym but at a health club and while they were playing a curiously short game of racquetball they would figure out a Plan. But it wouldn’t be at all gay.
I just saw this and need to go to bed, so I haven’t seen all the comments. But I want to quickly respond to this:
I don’t think it’s a strain. His argument, summarized, is this: the stimulus won’t create jobs/improve the economy. No stimulus ever has. But if this stimulus does the unprecedented and the unthinkable, and does indeed create jobs/improve the economy, then we’re really screwed — because we’ll be headed irretrievably down the socialist path.
Here’s the wording:
What does “what it as never done before” mean? I submit it means “help the economy.”
You see that part? It won’t help the economy — but if this thing does what it has never done before, and helps the economy, we’re in even worse trouble.
Right now I’m not arguing whether that’s right or wrong — I’m just saying that’s his argument.
You can’t just cite the part about how stimulus packages never create jobs. You have to include the part where he says in essence: but even if this one does somehow create jobs, which has never happened before, we’re screwed.
I.e.: Rush indeed blessed the idea of wishing for Americans to be out of work in the short run to preserve capitalism and defeat socialism. Because if the package works (something that has never happened before) and Americans are not out of work, then we’re in even worse trouble.
Which is an argument that appeals to a lot of conservatives. I’m not arguing the rightness or wrongness here, but it’s certainly a reasonable interpretation of his words.
And I think it informs the “I hope he fails” language later used in the CPAC speech. Jeff tends not to refer to that later iteration of the “I hope he fails” rhetoric, but I think he should, since 1) that was the iteration that got the most attention; 2) the stimulus was already passed at that point; and 3) he had already said he wanted the stimulus to fail if passed by that point.
The main reason I posted what I did was this; lots of conservatives in comments here and there were angrily telling me it was crazy even to suggest that Rush meant he wanted the stimulus to fail once it was passed. Rush would NEVER make such an argument! they claimed.
But he later did. So I guess it was a plausible interpretation after all.
This to some extent describes me:
I had little patience for many of those posts myself, I think because I found the terminology complicated. I still unfortunately haven’t given Jeff’s Hot Air post the reading it deserves because I’ve had terrible demands on my time at work, but I gave it a quick read and found I was starting to truly understand the concepts for the first time. What’s more, while I instinctively have a different from what I understand Jeff’s to be, I am open to being persuaded. So I am excited to discuss this further in the future.
It will probably be easier once we move on to a different example that isn’t already weighed down with different and particularized meanings for everyone involved, including the onlookers.
“Jeff, you can argue ’til the cows come home, but you aren’t going to convince a prosecutor such as Patterico of anything once he has made up his mind about guilt. Prosecutors see in black and white and in this case Patterico sees Limbaugh as the guy in the black hat. Guilty on all counts. It isn’t about the truth or justice of the matter, it is all about winning.”
This couldn’t be more wrong. Prosecutors don’t see in black and white; we deal with gray areas every single day. And I never said I see Limbaugh as the guy in the black hat. For you to say that suggests to me that you haven’t tried very hard to understand my position.
I’ll ask the same thing I asked in comments at my blog:
When he says “Cause if this thing for the first time ever does what it never has done before” — what is that? What is this thing that it would be doing for the first time that it has never done before?
Night!
bobby orr
If, and only if, these stimulus pkgs would create a job for me to inspect every golf course one hole at a time, for, say, $249K per year, then I would not want it to fail.
That’s the type of job that usually needs to be ‘created’ out of whole cloth. Like “Drug Czar” or “Performance Czar” or “Treasury Secretary”. You know, getting paid so that someone can claim that they created a job.
Just give me the money and pay me for being me.
I want to be Rock and Roll Czar, or maybe Sex Czar.
Or they could save my job, as a mooching, partying teenager, living off the folks – which I lost when I finished college and moved on with my life. Can that job be saved?
*If, and only if, these stimulus pkgs would create a job for me to inspect every golf course one hole at a time, for, say, $249K per year, then I would not want it to fail.*
President of the Golf Courses of America (POGCA)? Could I be your Secretary of the 19th Hole ? I ‘ll pour the beer and bring the pie.
What indeed? It has often seemed to me that the moment someone we care to understand commits himself to a paradoxical stance is the moment we should be paying the closest attention to. Red flags run up the pole on their own accord. Claxons sound, red-lights flash, something is screwy here, they’re all saying and our brain begins trying to sort through the fog of illogic (or not, some folks react by turning away as though any attempt to gain clarity must be presumed wasted before it has even begun.) If we care enough, if the speaker has something to say, a point to make with his paradox, we’ll work it out before long. Neither condition is a given.
“What is this thing that it would be doing for the first time that it has never done before?”
This was not a rhetorical question.
Do you mean that you weren’t asking it rhetorically Pat? Or that Limbaugh wasn’t posing it rhetorically?
al – I already have that job ;-) Purgatory awaits.
You can’t detach the “thing” from the idea that “it’s never worked before” the way it has been peddled throughout history. The rhetorical formulation requires that you have to reconnect it in your mind to the ramifications of its having been tried, and the history of the suffering that goes along with it.
Beyond that — and as I wrote — this formulation is a later formulation (yes?), one that gets uttered in a new context, the one in which Limbaugh has already been accused of wanting to see happen the very thing you are suggesting he wants to see happen here. That he takes the bait and says yes, if something that CAN’T WORK AND HAS NEVER WORKED — and here’s the key, LIMBAUGH DOESN’T ACCEPT THE PREMISE THAT IT CAN — suddenly works, we’re in trouble, and he hopes that it fails.
So in the sense that an impossibility suceeds, he hopes it fails.
Too, in what way can it be said to succeed — this is important. From the context, Limbaugh seems to think that any “successes” would be superficial and would camouflage how those so-called successes are actually eroding the fabric of the country. For instance, if this program were to create jobs that were all public sector government jobs, growing the size of government and creating a patronage state, that could be peddled as a success but would in fact, by Limbaugh’s lights, be a failure. Can we hope that such a “success” “fails”? As conservatives, it seems to me we must.
All of which is far more complicated than you’re are making it out to be, and is part of a rhetorical maneuver that cannot simply be separated from its larger intratextual context or from what we know about the premises Limbaugh is willing to accept. Nor can it been removed from its larger intertextual context, one brought about by an extended dynamic between the series of statements and the way they’ve been promulgated.
Tangential, but I think relevant —
It seems to me that much of the discussion revolves around the meta-issue of civility. Conservatives typically place a high value on civility, on “keeping one’s cool” in the midst of a contentious discussion. Letting tempers flare, allowing personal insults and loaded words into the intercourse, tends to obscure the point and lead to unproductive exchanges.
Our opponents don’t feel that way, in large part because they are trying to avoid productive exchanges — what they want is to be left in possession of the field, and the tactics to be used to gain that end boil down to “whatever works”.
We don’t need to discard civility. We don’t need to deny that (at least some of) our opponents have good intentions and can therefore be considered “good people” at least by their own lights, and we don’t need to descend to brutality, insult, and/or profanity to get our point across.
But we do need to realize that incivility is a tool like any other, and we shouldn’t shrink from it when it’s appropriate. Sometimes the tack-hammer simply won’t do the job, and it’s time to dig out the four-pound single-jack.
It seems to me that a large part of what Patterico is on about is a desire to keep it civil. From many conservatives’ point of view this is a plus, but it ain’t working, guys. Sometimes you just need a bigger hammer.
Regards,
Ric
One thing that gets my goat about this is the extent that conservatives/classical liberals/republicans will go to in order to distance themselves from Limbaugh. The idea, I assume is to make sure that the reader is assuaged that the writer is not, in any circumstances, a Limbaugh sycophant. This is done in my view in order for the writer to give reason why the writer should be allowed to speak. That somehow the writers implications that “I don’t always agree with Rush Limbaugh†are a way of saying that “It is okay to listen to what I say because I am not loaded down with the stigma that my enemies are trying to load onto meâ€. Tired sigh sayingâ€(and I am not one of them)†is a perfect example. As I write, I am tempted to do it myself. Instead, I will let the reader determine my intent on this. And if the reader decides that I am a Limbaugh sycophant then I can live with that. The narrative of Limbaugh has been: Fat, rich, drug dependant, right wing blowhard. That is not a description created by us. It is a description that was created to marginalize him. I think that once again we are succumbing to the narrative.
Limbaugh is, by time served and audience rating one of the more pivotal leaders of the republican party whether we want him or not. He stands up for us against the bullies on the ideological playground. I think eschewing him for someone as yet unnamed that can be more things to more conservatives is a fool’s errand. He may not perfectly espouse everything that each on of us believes, but I think that he is an ally for every one of us. I think that as one defines their opinion on any issue their research is not completed until they have heard what Limbaugh thinks about the issue.
We are on the same side here. Get his back, Limbaugh as outlaw!
Matt M,
You’re right.
Pete Wehner charges Obama**:
Jeff at 146:
“You canÂ’t detach the “thing” from the idea that “itÂ’s never worked before” the way it has been peddled throughout history.”
I stipulate — and always have — that Rush believes that.
“Limbaugh seems to think that any “successes” would be superficial . . .”
I stipulate that too. They would also be fleeting. This is why his argument is not “ugly.” These are points I’ve already agreed to.
“Beyond that — and as I wrote — this formulation is a later formulation (yes?)”
Later and earlier. This formulation predates his saying “I hope he fails” at CPAC. I made that point before. I don’t think you’ve really grappled with that yet.
I’d still like an answer to a non-rhetorical question that I asked before and have not received a direct answer to:
When Rush says socialist policies like Obama’s never worked before and won’t work now, he means those policies will not [fill in the blank]?
Pat, while on the whole I’d prefer you continue your discussion with Jeff and I certainly won’t offer to speak for him, I did pose a reading of your take and RL’s position of my own in your post which may go to a few of these questions. So far as I can tell, you haven’t commented on it. That may be perfectly proper if it doesn’t advance the issue or clarify anything, I don’t know. On the other hand, it occurs to me that maybe you simply haven’t seen it.
A follow-up of sorts.
And, to answer what I think you believe to be a rather loaded question, “When Rush says socialist policies like Obama’s never worked before and won’t work now, he means those policies will not [ever work in a way that is consonant with what America’s system of government is intended to allow for, and in fact can only have one outcome: undermine individual liberty and the idea that people control the government, not the other way round].
Beyond that, I think your commenters have made some good points on this question, and I think Sdferr, among others, note that we are dealing with a new context and new dynamic in the second iteration, which is a new text entirely, and must be dealt with as such, and not simply a restating of what he said on January 16th. As Sdferr notes, there are ample indications that Rush intends this to go further, and he gives specific rhetorical cues to make sure that we take it that way.
Work = “ever work in a way that is consonant with what America’s system of government is intended to allow for” (together with the clarification that socialism never works, etc.”
So if Obama’s policies ever work in a way that is consonant with what America’s system of government is intended to allow for . . . would that be a good thing or a bad thing?
Also: if I say “x will never happen, and even if it somehow did (which it won’t) we’d be screwed” . . . can someone fairly say “Patterico doesn’t think x will happen but he thinks we’ll be screwed if it were to happen”?
Or is the ONLY fair statement: “Patterico thinks x could never happen. So don’t even try to talk about whether he thinks we’re screwed if x happens, because didn’t you hear him? He says x will never happen?”
If the latter, what meaning do you assign to the portion of my statement: “and even if it somehow did (which it won’t) we’d be screwed”?
Anyone?
So if Obama’s policies ever work in a way that is consonant with what America’s system of government is intended to allow for . . . would that be a good thing or a bad thing?
If all plague bacilli suddenly mutate and start turning out delicious candy, would that be a good thing or a bad thing?
That’s not a very good hypothetical, counselor.
That would be a good thing. But of course, it’s an impossibility, because the plans themselves are already incompatable with what the American system of government is intended to allow for.
Which is why I think you’re going a long way to find a controversial meaning where there really isn’t one. Limbaugh believes the kinds of plans Obama wants is not consonant with our system of government.
Should they prove “successful,” the next step in Limbaugh’s argument would naturally be to define what “success” is, and I’m sure the “successes” of such a system would be couched as failures.
So it’s a trick question.
This post is off the front page, so people aren’t checking the comments regularly. You can bring this up in the comments to today’s OUTLAW post if you want and let people know I told you to bump the discussion up to a more active thread.
“That would be a good thing.”
Then why does Limbaugh say it would be a bad thing?
Let’s recap. I asked: “When Rush says socialist policies like Obama’s never worked before and won’t work now, he means those policies will not [fill in the blank]?”
My answer: “improve the economy.”
If we use “improve the economy” to fill in the blank — if Obama’s policies improve the economy, something that such policies have never done before — then we’re in even worse trouble, under Rush’s view. Because we’re headed for socialism.
This is consistent with Rush’s words:
Jeff’s answer: “ever work in a way that is consonant with what America’s system of government is intended to allow for, and in fact can only have one outcome: undermine individual liberty and the idea that people control the government, not the other way round.”
I asked Jeff, if Obama’s policies do work in this way — something that has never happened before — would that be a good thing or a bad thing? Jeff said a good thing.
But that doesn’t fit Rush’s opinion:
My way of filling in the blank is consistent with what Rush said, and Jeff’s is not.
Now, to that argument, Jeff would respond as he already has: that I’m not taking account of Rush’s belief that such a thing is impossible: “But of course, it’s an impossibility, because the plans themselves are already incompatable with what the American system of government is intended to allow for.”
To which I will repeat my comment 156, which has not been answered:
I look forward to the answer.
‘Cause if this thing for the first time ever does what it never has done before, we’re in even worse trouble.
Situation: You have a bad cold.
Treatment 1: Bed rest, chicken soup. You get better.
Treatment 2: Your penis is amputated. You get better.
Even if you could prove that in the second case the penis amputation did, in fact, cause the cold to get better, you would rather have treatment 1, would you not? You’d hope that if you had two doctors arguing for the courses of treatment that the doctor advocating for treatment 2 failed, would you not?
As Mr. Limbaugh said, even if it solved the problem, you’d be in even worse trouble.
I’m not sure where you’re going with this. It smells of desperation to me. That sort of complex question fallacy might work on twelve people too dumb to get out of jury duty, but it’s unlikely to succeed in this venue.
“As Mr. Limbaugh said, even if it solved the problem, you’d be in even worse trouble.”
I get it. Did you not realize I get it? Then go back and read what I’ve said before until you understand that I get it.
“I’m not sure where you’re going with this.”
I’m getting that sense.
“I havenÂ’t followed this nonsense much because once Patterico went all pissy about winning for its own sake . . .”
I think I read somewhere that if someone distorts your meaning (as you just did to me) you’re supposed to get in their face (as I’m about to do with you).
You obviously either haven’t read what I’ve said, haven’t understood it, or are deliberately lying about what I said and meant.
Where did I say something that justifies that interpretation?
Answer: nowhere.
I want to win too, champ.
Explained in the next few sentences following the one you quoted:
“Explained in the next few sentences following the one you quoted:”
I already addressed this argument in 162.
I think that the “fill in the blank” illuminates Rush’s meaning.
The way I fill in the blank, it makes sense for Rush for say we’d all be in worse if it worked — which it won’t.
The way Jeff fills in the blank, it doesn’t. As even Jeff concedes. Because he says we’d be in BETTER shape if it worked — which it won’t.
You can’t reconcile Jeff’s interpretation with the quoted language.
Pablo suggested I post this again:
Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:
Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:
Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:
Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:
Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:
Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:
From: Jeff Goldstein: Arguing “On Point” — With Threats of Violence.
Thanks to Pablo for the suggestion. It’s a good one. Sorta makes it clear who wrote this post.
Reply to Patterico re: “violence” charges here.
[…] because he or she happens to be a white conservative like, say, Bill Bennett or Tony Snow or Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham, et […]