This has been the week of Rush Limbaugh. The radio talk show host has been a brave defender of the Republican Party’s ideas for many, many moons – and at times, he has been the torch bearer of their policies. However, his ideas resonate only with the base of the Republican Party, isolating himself and his followers from any real political debate. Despite his vitriolic partisan ideology, Limbaugh touts 13.5 million regular listeners.
Limbaugh has recently attracted much media attention (and publicity) for saying “I would be honored if the drive-by media headlined me all day long: ‘Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.’ Somebody’s gotta say it.” He made the statement on his radio show in January the week before Barack Obama was inaugurated, and he has been defending it ever since.
On Saturday, Limbaugh spoke at an important conservative convention. He echoed his controversial statement, saying, “What is so strange about being honest and saying, ‘I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation?’ Why would I want that to succeed?”
Everyone from pundits to the White House has commented on Limbaugh’s statements. Last Sunday on “Face the Nation,” Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said, “(Limbaugh) is the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party. He has been up front about what he views and hasn’t stepped back from that, which is he hopes for failure.”
Many pundits have used Emanuel’s statements to insinuate that there is a Democratic strategy behind identifying Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican Party. While playing successful politics involves brilliant strategies, I think Emanuel was simply being truthful.
The Republican Party has experienced a leadership vacuum since the losses they suffered in the election, and the only people left on the sinking ship of their political party are those in the base. The moderate thinkers in the Republican Party have seen the frivolity and ridiculousness of their rhetoric and have decided to give Barack Obama a chance.
Thus, the political arena is left with those Republican voices that label any idea that doesn’t look like their own as “socialist” or “communist” and hope that Obama fails simply for ideological purposes – essentially, Limbaugh’s followers.
I would normally not be so quick to associate a Republican who disapproves of President Obama’s ideas with Limbaugh, except for the fact that whenever a Republican deigns to touch Limbaugh with criticism, they immediately recant and apologize. Even GOP Chairman Michael Steele was burdened with remorse over criticizing him last weekend.
According to the Associated Press, “Two days after calling Rush Limbaugh a mere ‘entertainer’ with an ‘incendiary’ talk show, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele apologized and acknowledged the radio commentator as a ‘national conservative leader.'” Since Steele apologized, no Republican has broken rank and criticized Limbaugh.
As I watch the media discuss Limbaugh’s pessimistic obstructionism, I can’t help but wonder why it’s such a big deal. Limbaugh has said worse things before, especially on the subject of race.
I’ve come to this conclusion: It wouldn’t be a big deal if Republicans were not carrying out the idea behind Limbaugh’s statement. If Republicans wanted the president to succeed, they would discuss his economic policies intelligently, and they would be open to new ideas about fixing this broken economy.
I’m not sure what’s worse: being the voice of obstructionism or the hands that carry out its wishes.
Stephanie England is an English junior and a Mustang Daily political columnist.