us politics
4 Mar 2009
America's New Traitors
When Rush Limbaugh tells America that he wants Obama to fail, he provides the President with the enemy the Democrats need, writes Aron Paul
Remember the Dixie Chicks? The liberal blogosphere does. When the country girl band from Texas said they were ashamed of President George W Bush, right-wing talkshow host Rush Limbaugh was among the patriots accusing them of disloyalty — while gleefully tarring all Bush's domestic opponents with the same brush.Now that Limbaugh has publicly declared he wants to see President Obama fail, the liberal movement has found its moment for revenge. Democrats now own the presidency, and by extension the nation. Now it is Limbaugh and the Republicans who are disloyal and unpatriotic. Limbaugh the controversialist is (of course) happy to be a martyr to his cause. The White House feigns disappointment, with Obama characterising Limbaugh's 80-minute outburst last week at the Conservative Political Action Conference as just more jockeying for position.
Setting up Limbaugh as "the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party" however, as Rahm Emanuel did on CBS, is convenient for both Obama and for Limbaugh. It sets Limbaugh up as a straw man, and bayonets the Republican Party along with him.
For Obama it is smart wedge politics, fanning the flames of an internal war between hard-line and moderate conservatives in the Republican Party. Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee was humiliated by having to apologise to Limbaugh for criticising him on CNN, when he sought to marginalise Limbaugh by calling him "an entertainer", and not "the de-facto leader of the Republican Party".
For Limbaugh it means high ratings and more importance than an average radio talkshow host could hope for, as it will naturally reinforce his appearance as the champion of American conservatism.
Not so long ago the Obama election campaign had a lot to say about "raising the tone" of politics. Obama promised a new era of "bipartisanship" and "unity". This appealed to Independent voters and those who don't think too hard about how democracy actually works. The vision of "one nation" united behind one leader and going forward together in one direction is not democracy, it is fascism — and is itself the ultimate expression of anti-party politics. Democracy as we know it is in essence the contest between sets of competing elites for the people's vote on election day.
Ironically, what people want from their representatives is often not more debate or more rigorous contests, but leadership, unity and action. This is one explanation for the discrepancy between the high approval ratings of the President and the low approval ratings of the Congress. Both are Democratic, but it is Obama who is the symbol of leadership while the Congress squabbles and prevaricates.
Republican opposition in Congress to Obama's economic stimulus plan was the inevitable "game over" for bipartisanship. Republicans faced the same dilemma that was faced by the conservative parties in Australia. Bipartisanship in a democracy actually means surrender, and for an opposition it means irrelevance, unless it is to be part of a national government. The latter of course, would mean the end of the competitive democracy we know.
As Obama's supporters will discover (and as Obama no doubt already knows) "changing the tone" and "bipartisanship" are often the opposite of winning and getting things done. Only a mediocre president content with achieving little can be truly bipartisan. Obama has claimed that he "didn't come here to do the same thing we've been doing or to take small steps forward". The realisation is rapidly building that bipartisanship and progress may be mutually incompatible.
Hardcore Republicans will not accept Obama's promise of "change" or of a unified nation on his terms where such terms include anything mildly approaching a "universal" health care system or "nationalisation" of banks — and Obama supporters will be left with little alternative but to go back on the attack.
Going back on the attack however is precisely what the Obama machine is designed to do. The jockeying for position over Limbaugh needs to be seen within the context of Obama's "permanent campaign" machine, particularly his 15-million-strong online supporter base.
In a lecture this week at Melbourne Univeristy, Obama's internet campaign director Joe Trippi pointed out that Obama's ability to mobilise and empower unprecedented numbers of citizens around his leadership made him potentially the most powerful president in history — not just against the Republicans, but against an obfuscating Congress.
With this in mind, the Limbaugh straw man could also provide a salutary lesson for some Democrats who may be preparing to differ with Obama on policy. Obama is already fighting the next election, and that requires an opposition against which to mobilise the people.
The Republicans will be the new enemies of the state and the nation, and the Obamaniacs the new patriots. This was, after all, the other vision in The Audacity of Hope that gets less attention: Obama's goal in it was the building of a progressive movement that will turn the table on the Republicans by casting itself as the common sense, populist and patriotic — and even religious — guardian of the nation.
For the sake of appearances and the Independent vote, however, some pretense at bipartisanship was necessary. Obama cannot afford to be the one to break the dream of "one nation". For this, Limbaugh is the ideal figure. Limbaugh articulates the old and reactionary vision of the conservative Republican Party. More pointedly he does not play lip service to bipartisanship or play Obama's games when he "reaches across the aisle". Other Republicans have cautiously accepted the hand, even if they have their fingers crossed behind their backs. Republican politicians stand to lose if they are cast as the agents of division and disloyalty.
Division and partisan controversy by contrast are what provide Limbaugh with his business as a talkshow host. Obama is looking for an excuse to unleash the new patriots, and Limbaugh's de facto leadership of the Republicans would provide just that.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Thanks for enlightening me..So it is really Obama’s fault that Limbaugh is a reactionary moron who has a high profile.And better yet, Obama’s expressed desire for politicians to cease to be self serving and actually serve the country (citizens)is the slippery slope to fscism!
Guess you can twist anything to fit a preconceived viewpoint.No doubt Aron Paul would think that Christ’s "give to the poor" exhortation was the precursor to Marxist Communism. Aron, you must be right..what this world needs is less agreement and more discord..after all disharmony is working so well in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Keep up the good work.
P.S.I know you will welcome my comments as you expressly desire and value disagreement!
You’ve mentioned Obama’s religious movement before. My understanding of his theme in The Audacity of Hope (disclaimer: I haven’t read it) is that he hopes to co-opt the religious movement and the progressive movement into a new coalition.
Is this a bad thing? As I progressive I am equal parts excited by the idea of evangelical Christians coming over to the real "love thy neighbour" side of politics, but at the same time worried any resulting movement will take on the the "one eyed zeal" I can already see in some of Obama’s stuff.
Maybe like all good liberals I am afraid of success when I should be eager for it.
Hmmm! Not sure this is not all ‘hope’! Do you really think that Obama’s mob can think that far ahead, are so Machiavellian as to be able to manoeuvre Limbaugh and the other Red-Neck Shock Jocks into working for the Democrats? Not sure that this presages good for the world, or possible bad.
I would have thought that Limbaugh was only doing what 30 plus years of indoctrination into the ethos of neo-liberalism, ultra Free market Capitalism, ‘let ‘er Rip’ Capitalism led him to do, with great gusto.
Certainly, one would have though that this would have sounded like the worst kind of snake oil at this time to most Americans, total and utter garbage of an unwell mind, what with the GEC and the total collapse of his ‘Economic Religion’ around his ears, but I will just have to wait and see, I guess. Dazza.
coconaut you should read Obama’s books (if you can make it through the appalling cliche ridden guff, I was paid to read it and it was still hard going)
you’d be hard pressed to find anything progressive about his love for Reagan and his distaste for public welfare programs - he refers to the kind of national health programs that we take for granted as "socialised" medicine.
The Obama as great progressive hope is one of the best con jobs of recent political history
It annoys me that people vote someone in, then they do the opposite. It’s like voters can’t win.
You are forgetting other forms of democracy apart from our adversarial form, aren’t you? Personally I feel sick when our Opposition or the Republicans in the U.S. deliberately hold up long-discussed legislation, which the voter majority supports, purely for electoral reasons or for fear of being considered dispensable. In Germany, the two largest parties are in coalition, yet constructive criticism of the government is still possible. If democracy is government ‘for the people’, it is not government for the minority, particularly not in difficult times.
Indeed, in Australia, I get totally ‘frazzled off’ when I see and hear and read of the Opposition doing what they think is their job, opposing everything that the Government says or does. At a time like this, when our very existence is threatened, listening to them destroying public confidence in the actions of the Government on a daily basis is horrfying. Look, Turnbull, the people of Australia voted OUT the people who actually built the system that has collapsed in total disarray, or if not actually, certainly their shared ‘religion’ was the motive force. These people bleating now strikes me as utterly futile, and of no benefit to anyone. So maybe the Government is on the wrong track? Maybe not? We will find out, one way or another. But we do know that the opposition was on the wrong track all the time leading up to the GEC, so what the Hell can they offer by bleating the same old nonsense.
They share the same tag as the Republican party in the USA, and seem to be reading from the same song book. One that most sensible people should have given up listening to long ago. They have shown that they WERE AND ARE WRONG! For Hell’s sake, Turnbull and mob, shut up, and only open your mouths when you have something intelligent to offer. Dazza.
Rush Limbaugh represents a very powerful public voice for a large group of Americans. I can understand that he makes a very "appropriate" target for the Democrats. Ours, America’s and the UK’s two party system does not seem to allow for consensus in times of crisis unlike Sweden, who when it faced financial meltdown ,formed a unity government to solve the problem. Our partisan politics leads Turnbull to say that Rudd is playing down the fiscal crisis and Helen Coonan saying that Swan is being too positive. In other words knock everything , even if worthy, to score political points. If there is not better way of doing things then such conflicted politics may destroy us all.
Interestingly, in Australia the partisan divide is stronger than in most other democracies, especially in ‘times of crisis’. For example, Australia never formed ‘national governments’ even when invasion appeared imminent in WW2.
It seems the US could very well follow.
I am horrified by the idea of unity governments. Each member of parliament has a duty to read through legislation, suggest improvements and then vote yes or no depending on whether they think it is a good idea. If that means legislation sinks then so be it!
A unity government would mean less scrutiny at a time when more scrutiny is needed.
coconaut, An opposition can bring intelligent and well thought out opposing ideas to their job of ‘opposing’ without being totally stupid about it, and just opposing everything for the sake of it, often with total balderdash. The Federal opposition here, and the Republican opposition in America, are simply standing up in front and saying, "Nothing that you do can work, because we do not agree with your economic theories, so let the country collapse (we want it to, to prove our point), then we, the ‘wunderkinds who know everything’, will come in and fix it."
To me, that appears to be arrant nonsense, and bloody dangerous to our collective economic and ecological survival.
I have never been a fan of our ‘democracy’. And certainly never one of the so-called American democracy, which is nothing of the sort. Maybe these systems worked a few hundred years ago, in ‘slow’ times, but now, they all appear to be in a state of constant and imminent collapse. Dazza.