Demagogues And Wonks
Posted on March 5th, 2009
by Daniel Larison |
|
The retort that Frum was unsuccessfully trying to make is that demagoguery, which is what Rush Limbaugh, Levin, and their ilk regularly engage in, is a sorry substitute for leadership. And, while that may very well be true, wonkery is an even more sorry substitute for leadership. The people don’t want nuance, substance, or even good ideas. They want something they can easily understand in sound-byte form, something that resonates with their simple, innate notions of justice, something they can repeat around the water cooler and feel good about. That’s something that writerly, intellectual types all too frequently miss. And, I hasten to add, it’s exactly what Barack Obama has been able to provide for the Democrats. ~Damir Marusic
I think Damir gets things precisely wrong here. How many times since Obama’s address to Congress have you seen a progressive expressing his satisfaction that the President was speaking to his audience as adults, speaking in full, complex sentences and not insulting their intelligence? I submit that this is not just the conceit of writerly, intellectual progressives, but also reflects something real in Obama’s oratory and hits upon something important about what the public wants from politicians. Obama’s speeches since August have been notable for how forgettable they have been, but this has not been to his disadvantage. It is difficult to think of a line from his convention speech, his Inaugural or the address to Congress that anyone would repeat at a water cooler the following day, but all three of these were reasonably substantive speeches as these things go and all three were fairly well-received. Style, presentation and image may be what matter most for most voters, but incorporating substantive policy in speeches is part of the presentation and improves a politician’s public image, if only because media reports provide favorable coverage (or do not deride the effort as ridiculous) to speakers who put on a display of a certain sort of calm and seriousness.
Most of the voting public may not be deeply engaged in issues qua issues and are not interested very much in the details, but that just confirms that style, presentation and image matter that much more, which makes the demagoguery of radio hosts that much more of a liability for a party and movement deep in the doldrums. Pure wonkery won’t get you very far, but effective orators who can lace their speeches with meaningful references to policy matters outclass their competition. Talented politicians who can combine the two, as Clinton did and Obama does, are formidable opponents, and to compete with them you need something better than a demagogue.
Almost as if he wanted to test the proposition, Jindal gave a response speech that was more or less universally regarded as terrible not simply in its delivery but also in its repetition of boilerplate and its use of more memorable but effectively meaningless phrases (”the American people can do anything!”). Naturally, radio demagogues liked what they heard, because it was the sort of speech they would have given. I would add that the McCain/Palin campaign strategy was an enormous bet that “the people don’t want nuance, substance, or even good ideas,” and they did their best to eliminate all of these things from their campaign. They lost that bet.
Wonks and pundits cannot fill the leadership vacuum that the demagogues are effectively occupying, but demagoguery isn’t going to be able to do anything except rally the rank and file. There is a place for this sort of rallying, and it is unrealistic to expect entertainment created for mass consumption is ever going to provide the sort of complex and qualified arguments that will satisfy wonks, but it cannot become the main form of conservative argument. For one thing, so much of it is not argument, but instead is frequently a series of assertions that make sense only to those who are already in agreement.
Indeed, it is because electoral politics turns not primarily on policy substance, but instead has so much to do with identity and the kind of people with whom voters want to identify that appearances and image matter so much. The argument being made by certain wonks and pundits that the demagogues’ newfound preeminence is bad for the GOP and conservatism is on the whole quite valid. That does not mean that the wonks and pundits can fill the gap, but that they are right that it is crucial–if one wants to build a serious opposition to this administration–that the demagogues not be permitted to take up a central, starring role.
Filed under: politics
Marusic writes:
The people don’t want nuance, substance, or even good ideas. They want something they can easily understand in sound-byte form, something that resonates with their simple, innate notions of justice, something they can repeat around the water cooler and feel good about.
This may or may not be true. If it is true it implies that conservatives and Republicans should do their best to marginalize Limbaugh, and should under no circumstances allow him to become the leader of or the spokesman for conservatism or the Republican Party.
If we’re throwing nuance, substance and ideas out the window, and dealing only in sound-bytes that appeal to people’s “simple” notions, then Limbaugh is easily caricatured as a hypocritical self-promoter, unable or unwilling to control his own appetites, who nevertheless spoon-feeds pablum about “values” and “ideas” to a credulous audience.
Does it resonate with anyone’s innate notion of justice when such a man bullies and berates other members of his own party, extracting from them groveling apologies and reveling in their toadyism? Is his prominence within the GOP and within conservatism easy for a Republican to explain to a Democrat in a two-minute chat at the water cooler?
Along the same lines, if the people don’t care about nuance, substance or good ideas how does Limbaugh’s “I want Obama to fail” line do anything but sink Republicans? The GOP is banking its future on the idea that the public not only cares about substance and good ideas, but that the public also thinks that GOP proposals–about which they are supposed to be informed somehow–are good ideas and the majority’s proposals are not. If that isn’t true, Limbaugh’s criticism of the merits of the stimulus will not aid the GOP one bit, but will probably work to their detriment.
If 60+% have a favorable view of the President, and some radio host says he wants the President to fail, wouldn’t the people, uninterested in nuance and substance as they are, react very negatively to the radio host and his allies? The only way to defend Limbaugh here is to insist that substance and ideas matter and then make the more implausible claim that Limbaugh is seriously interested in these things. If substance and nuance are irrelevant, Limbaugh seems to lose on all fronts.
I suppose the obvious counter-argument is the old stand-by that the other side’s views and current popularity are irrelevant, because “real” conservatism will win out once it is explained effectively and advocated with sufficient zeal. Just because this idea has been repeatedly discredited for at least a decade and a half doesn’t mean people can’t keep saying it.
But even if it were true it’s not relevant here. Rush Limbaugh couldn’t even talk his preferred candidate past a third-place showing in the GOP primaries, which is about all you need to know about his ability to rally an electorally-relevant number of people to the cause of Limbaugh-style “conservatism.” And Limbaugh, in his capacity as arbiter of conservative values and voice of the GOP base, thought that the party’s best hope was… Mitt Romney. Truly, in Limbaugh we have a rare combination of rock-solid conservative principles and keen political judgment.
For all Limbaugh’s flaws, I think that he will eventually come out ahead. Obama really doesn’t seem to know what he’s doing. So it’s almost a safe bet that a year from now the same people who have faith in Obama, will despise him. Even a President who knew what he was doing would have a hard time achieving real results in one election cycle. Limbaugh is no genius, but you don’t need to be one to understand electoral politics.
Does it resonate with anyone’s innate notion of justice when such a man bullies and berates other members of his own party, extracting from them groveling apologies and reveling in their toadyism?
Well, Steele had it coming in that case. Otherwise, Charlie, you make good points about Limbaugh’s effectiveness. The only response is that in long-term it’ll pay off, which Gordianus has pointed out. He may be right on that. Limbaugh’s salad days were when he was in the opposition in the 90s. Whether Obama will provide the same target-rich environment as the Clintons did is another question.
If 60+% have a favorable view of the President, and some radio host says he wants the President to fail, wouldn’t the people, uninterested in nuance and substance as they are, react very negatively to the radio host and his allies?
Well, it’s even more than that, I think. The meta-narrative here is that the nation’s economy is in the sh*tter, Obama is trying to “do something” – and Limbaugh wants him to fail.
It’s Limbaugh and his allies which now need nuance on their side – no no, Rush is not saying he wants the country to fail, just Obama’s policies, because he thinks those policies are socialist, etc. Yeah. You’ve already lost the bulk of the country long before we get to the end of the “nuanced” explaination.
As noted in a previous thread, the Rushian “strategy” here, if it can be called that, is to wait/hope for Obama to fail, then say – see, we were right all along! And surely then, the American public will realize it was wrong to reject the movement/party, will beg for forgiveness, will implore those now in the wilderness to please come save the nation.
One more time: Whatever else might be true of Keynesianism or Supply Side – I think both are snake oil – it is abundantly, empirically clear that neither can make the trade cycle go away. So, I’m not impressed with all this ‘Woe to the Republicans, they’re discredited forever, there’s been a recession on their watch!’ If the Democrats stay in power there will be a recession on their watch before long.
Meanwhile, Obama is planning to spend about 27% of the national income in 2009. It seems this figure has been confirmed by anonymous ’senior members of the administration’. They claim it will go down to 22% in the out years, but I have my doubts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/opinion/06brooks.html?_r=1
Combine the next recession with a crushing load of taxes and debt, and the backlash against the Democrats could be ferocious.
“Obama really doesn’t seem to know what he’s doing.”
You may be right, but so far, everyone who has held that view has been proved wrong. At this point, I’ll take Obama and give the points.
Gordianus– you seem to be living in la-la land.
Wishing something doesn’t make it true.
Steven Donegal & lebecka, Limbaugh doesn’t need to be a genius to benefit from Obama’s mistakes. So far Obama hasn’t done a thing that will result in a stronger economy. Do you really think that borrowing and spending will fix the banks? Do you think taxing oil exploration, ignoring atomic power and babbling endlessly about windmills will make us less dependent on foreign oil? How bright was insulting the Prime Minister of Great Britain this week?
No, I think Rush will be able to say I told you so in the not too distant future. I know I will.
Limbaugh won’t be able to tell me “I told you so” no matter what happens to the economy, because my problem with Limbaugh has nothing to do with economics or the economic policies of the Obama administration. The implication that anyone who doesn’t like Rush Limbaugh is automatically a liberal, a Democrat, a fan of Barack Obama, etc., is part of the problem here.
I have no doubt that Limbaugh will come out ahead in the long term, just as he’s been coming out ahead lately. That’s because, for him, “coming out ahead” is measured in listeners and ad revenue, and he is an extraordinarily talented broadcaster, businessman and self-promoter. It doesn’t even matter if he’s right about Obama’s economic policies–he maintained his popularity throughout the Clinton era despite the relatively healthy economy.
His ability to maintain his popularity regardless of conditions in the country and the world, and regardless of whether he knows what he’s talking about, is certainly a mark in his favor when we consider Rush Limbaugh the product, but not when we consider Rush Limbaugh, guiding light of the GOP. If Obama struggles, and moderates and liberals become inclined to doubt his judgment and his ideas, one surefire way to alienate them from conservatism and the Republican Party will be to tell them, “Ha, ha, ha, Rush Limbaugh’s saying ‘I told you so!’”
Gordianus:
Obama really doesn’t seem to know what he’s doing. So it’s almost a safe bet that a year from now the same people who have faith in Obama, will despise him.
Well, that’s possible, but as pointed out already, most folks who’ve bet that way for the last couple of years have lost their bets.
What everyone ought to pay attention to is the fact that Team Obama plays chess, not poker. They appear to be aiming their efforts several steps in advance. One way in which this plays out is the 24-hour news cycle. During the campaign and so far during the Presidency, Team Obama seemed to be constantly behind the chatterfests on TV. Team McCain exploited this, and Limbaugh is doing the same. TeeVee news is happy to oblige. But in the end, Obama was elected — not McCain. Obama’s stimulus package passed, largely the way he wanted it to. And now Limbaugh has been wrapped around the GOP’s neck, while the nominal elected party leaders look like fools or cowards.
So I would advise everyone to ignore the 24-hour cable news and step back a bit. Obama’s tactics will become a lot clearer.
Stickler, we may be talking past each other to some degree. Many good points have been made here. My only point really, is that while Obama has a very impressive record of prevailing over his adversaries in elections, he has entered a completely different arena. The man has zero executive management experience. He will not be judged by how well he outmaneuvered his adversaries but how well he performed in what John Le Carre’ called “The Theater of the Real.” He will either produce positive results or he will not. In two years, either troops will be returned from Iraq or not. In two years the economy will be substantially better or not. In two years people will have more in their pockets or not.
In two years, if the answers to the above are in the negative Limbaugh, for all his fatuity, will Limbaugh will be saying I told you so. And people will agree with him.
Q: What’s the difference between Obama and Jesus?
A: Jesus knew how to make a cabinet.
I heard that one on TV last night. I think it’s pretty good.