Posted on 12/16/2011 9:21:15 AM PST by SeekAndFind
CNS News catches Rush Limbaugh in a reflective mood yesterday after National Review’s anyone-but-Newt-or-Perry editorial earlier this week. Instead of railing about the attack on two of the Republican candidates in the field, Rush muses on how little influence NR has these days, and how it’s much more the voice of Beltway Republicanism than actual conservatism these days, and questioned whether it has any real impact at all anymore:
“National Review used to, indisputably, it was the voice of conservatism. There was no question. Now, it’s not so much that, as it is the voice of Republicanism, which could also be said to be the inside the beltway or Washington-New York conservatism.” …
CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR VIDEO
Limbaugh began the segment by debating whether or not he should be discussing the op-ed because of his uncertainty as to the influence of National Review in today’s media:
“So I wasn’t going to really talk about it (the Op-Ed) because I’m not convinced that it (National Review) has that much impact. … They’ve got great people there; there’s some nice people. But it’s changed a bit from what it was.”
Actually, I think it was more the voice of conservative fusion than the voice of conservatism. Buckley’s brilliance didn’t just manifest itself in a certain brand of conservatism, but uniting all of the brands into one movement, and putting NR at the front of that movement. The movement and the instruments for communicating it have changed in the decades that have gone by since Buckley’s fusion, and Limbaugh himself is one of the best assets to arise from the evolution of both. However, I think NR still has a leadership position in that fusion, and it still has a great deal of impact among conservatives of many stripes — even when the editors get something wrong, as I also think they did in that editorial.
Jonah Goldberg addresses the anger among conservatives in a piece at The Corner today:
I recognize that feelings are running hot about NR’s editorial. I have no desire to lend support to some of the overheated charges being hurled at NR — including from some of our longtime friends. So I will simply say that I don’t see perfectly eye-to-eye with it myself. But that’s often the case with NR editorials. Indeed, it’s the nature of editorials. Perhaps because I know and respect my colleagues, I see no need to attack their motives nor would it occur to me to question their commitment to conservative principles. Did we get this one wrong? It’s perfectly reasonable for some to think so. It’s certainly happened before. Indeed some of the criticisms strike me as entirely fair — why not just endorse Romney if it’s a two man race? Why even consider Huntsman? etc — and there are fair rebuttals to them as well. I will let the editorial speak for itself in that regard.
Now on to some of the unfair, hyperbolic and just plain weird charges.
First of all, what is with this complaint that we are trying to “dictate” who people vote for? I don’t get it. We are, as always, an opinion magazine sharing our opinion. It is not binding.
More substantially, the notion that NR isn’t a conservative magazine anymore (a charge our friend Rush Limbaugh seems to be flirting with these days) or that William F. Buckley would be “appalled” (in Brent Bozell’s words) is just so much nonsense. Under William F. Buckley National Review made many questionable endorsements — a point he would happily concede. NR endorsed no one in 1960 — neither Nixon nor Goldwater. There were heated arguments on every side of that decision. In 1968 the magazine endorsed a much more liberal Nixon (to the considerable dismay of Bill Rusher). In 1971, National Review “suspended support for Richard Nixon.” In 1972 we endorsed the great John Ashbrook for president. In 1973 we essentially endorsed Spiro Agnew for president, even as George Will was savaging him in the same magazine, indeed, the same issue (largely prompting Stan Evans to quit the magazine, I believe). In 1980, WFB kept the magazine from endorsing Reagan (Bill loved the Gipper but had grave concerns about his age). We endorsed Mitt Romney in 2008, for many of the same reasons some of our biggest detractors today did — to stop John McCain.
The Corner has actually had a robust debate over the editorial all week, which lends some support that NR still represents a focal point for conservative dialogue. If they’ve gotten a few things wrong over the years (and I’d count this editorial among those), it still has a great record of getting things right — and providing a platform for the great, sweeping, and diverse community of conservatives. There is a lot of value in that still, even if it may be hard to discern at times during presidential primaries.
“Much better than anything else in government that I’ve seen.”
High praise, which couldn’t possibly be tainted by your faith in the its relative legitimacy. Seriously though, better than everything else in government isn’t saying much. If I said Stalin wasn’t as bad as the Dark Lord himself, it might be true, but what would we learn from it?
“Those of us who had to recommend approval or disapproval were very well aware that our friends would be using that equipment in combat, and living or dying from the results.”
I take that as given, but it still doesn’t provide for the sort of “competition” that would exempt it from the ills of Big Government. It’s still a political system with political goals, even if one of those goals is to save lives.
And also, for the record I’ll repeat that my objection to defense spending as yet another Big Government program is not merely that it does the job it’s assigned inefficiently. It is that it is assigned the jobs it is. A lot less lives and money alike would be saved were we to abandon Wilsonianism and nation building and going to war as any but the last resort.
Is the DoD free of waste? Nope.
Is it better than any other branch of government I’ve seen? Yep.
Your comment was “Let’s face it, the armed forces are yet another Big Government program, and isn’t immune from the very same defects of ss, medicare, etc.”
No, it is not yet another big government program.
1 - It is constitutional, and it is impossible for us to have freedom without it. That, by itself, is a fundamental difference.
2 - Because those in the military live & die by the results of combat effectiveness, the military is much more efficient than other government agencies, and many businesses. If the EPA screws up, no one in the EPA loses anything. If I screwed up in operational test, my friends could die. Big difference.
“Much like public school administrators and teachers take education very, very seriously, and have no clue how they stack up against the achievments of private institutions.”
Any private institution wanting to take on the US military is welcome to try. Lots of Muslims have tried the free enterprise system against the military, and their corpses are all over Iraq and Afghanistan.
You see, once again, no teacher dies if they don’t teach well. Military officers do die if we don’t run our organization well. Our mistakes cost us our lives.
I went to enough funerals of my fellow fliers to know the cost of making a mistake.
You don’t know enough about the military to comment without proving your ignorance and stupidity.
“my objection to defense spending as yet another Big Government program is not merely that it does the job it’s assigned inefficiently. It is that it is assigned the jobs it is”
To elaborate we’re all familiar with the natural tendency of government programs to grow beyond the bounds of their original tendency. This is one of the chief conservative objections to the Welfare State, for instance. It’s bad enough that the federal government is going to turn paternalistic, do we have to bankrupt ourselves doing it? You know the story. One subsidy leads to another, and before you know it not onlyare you providing for the elderly, indigent, and disabled, but for people perfectly capable of supporting themselves to get free healthcare their whole lives.
Do we really think nothing similar happens with defense? That using the military to spread westward, fighting the injins and Mexicans, had nothing to do with the Civil War? That being the policing South America and fighting Spain had nothing to do with policing Europe and fighting Germany? That policing Asia had nothing to do with fighting Japan, which had nothing to do with Germany again? Which had nothing to do with the Cold War, and that and the previous European war in turn nothing to do with the current War on Terror? These things have their own momentum.
The more we spend on defense, the more we feel we need to spend. The more we use it, the more blowback we cause, and the more we need to use it. Sounds like the Welfare State to me.
“A lot less lives and money alike would be saved were we to abandon Wilsonianism and nation building and going to war as any but the last resort.”
I prefer the USMC fighting terrorists in Iraq to cops fighting them on our school grounds...
“That using the military to spread westward, fighting the injins and Mexicans, had nothing to do with the Civil War? That being the policing South America and fighting Spain had nothing to do with policing Europe and fighting Germany? That policing Asia had nothing to do with fighting Japan, which had nothing to do with Germany again? Which had nothing to do with the Cold War, and that and the previous European war in turn nothing to do with the current War on Terror? These things have their own momentum.”
Paulbot nutjob.
No, the Indian Wars were not the outcome of the Civil War. And WW2 and the Cold War did not cause the attack on 9/11.
“Because those in the military live & die by the results of combat effectiveness, the military is much more efficient than other government agencies, and many businesses”
You place a lot more faith in death discpline than it deserves. Just because you want people not to die does not mean you know how. The reason economic calculation is possible in private business is because of price structure, which is a lot more stringent and accurate than battlefield figures, especially considering such things as “acceptable losses” and the persistent indefinability of success. If they weren’t, the “whiz kids” would have done a lot better.
Again, you continue to ignore money spent on men and things never to reach the field, which I might assume comprises the majority of historical defense spending. Even if you produce battleready soldiers and gear, if they don’t go to battle, what bang do we get for our buck? What economic calculus is there for idle military goods? There’s deterrence, as I said, but how do you
“You don’t know enough about the military to comment without proving your ignorance and stupidity.”
What can I say about the knowledge and intelligence of someone who thinks only of the dubious relative efficiency of death avoidance, while completely ignoring what we spend on stuff that never will have anything to do with saving lives and wars that need not be fought just because national defense happens to appear in the Constitution.
I fully disagree. The left is run today by 60's and 70's radicals who found a their way into power. They grew up on drugs and see no problem with it. You don't have to look any further than where "medical" pot is pushed. It sure isn't the Red states.
Well, since you've explained that it's your vocation to determine the level of the cutting edge nature and the usefulness of Rush, I can see I'm in over my head, way past my level of Peter's principle of value, and so I concede your points, Master Obi-wan Kenobi.
You don’t know jack shit about anything in the military. And if you think profit is a greater motivator than continued living, you are TRULY & very DEEPLY stupid!
Why don’t you ask RonPaul to take you as a running mate, so we can have matching idiots running?
I don't have to. This isn't a court of law. That piece you cite isn't the one I remember reading. It didn't go in depth on his sisters battle with cancer like the one I read 15 years ago.
As for your point on Prohibition, I said nothing about how it came about. I was discussing who wanted it gone. It was not a strictly Conservative tenant. All Americans wanted it gone. Why else would it have been repealed so fast? Because the voting public wanted more of it?
“No, the Indian Wars were not the outcome of the Civil War.”
Learn to read. I said westward expansion was a cause of the Civil War. If that’s a nutjob position, pretty much all history books are written by Paulbots, including ones written before Paul existed.
“And WW2 and the Cold War did not cause the attack on 9/11.”
I actually meant to say previous European Wars, plural, which would take us back to Britain’s fumlbing of the post-Ottoman era and the mess that the Middle East became. WW2 definitely contributed to it, what with the creation of Isreal. Also with leading to the Cold War.
If you’re unaware of the competition between the USSR and the US in the Middle East, including and especially the Soviet Afghan war, I have much explaining to do. You cannot be unaware that the era of terror comes with the Cold War era, and that the US’s role as global military power had something to do, even then, with terrorists targeting us. I doubt Hezbollah would’ve bombed Marine barracks in Kentucky, for instance, rather than Beirut.
Now, I’m not arguing causation here. I’m just saying this and that made what happened more likely. This line of argument as well has nothing to do with the righteousness of the individual conflicts. Just that one leads into another. I trust at least you see how WWI led to WWII, the “stab in the back” of the Versaille Treaty and the depression following occupation of the Rhineland clearing the way for Hitler, Hitler being able to rebuild his army due to the homeland being left untouched by Versaille and help from the Russians, who themselves went over to socialist totalitarianism because of the war. And that WW2 in turn led to the Cold War, as Russia’s expansionism first with then against Germany was unacceptable to Western Europe and the US. It’s obvious enough, I think.
Wrong as usual. Red states Alaska and Montana have medical marijuana.
“Well, since you’ve explained that it’s your vocation to determine the level of the cutting edge nature and the usefulness of Rush...”
Oh, please. As if it has to be relevant to anyone’s vocation for them to comment on an internet message board. I might as well expect it be your job to determine what and in what manner I can post about, if you’re going to do so. Only then you’d write me off with a scoff, if that, and see this whole stupid argument (the one between me and you, not mine about Rush) for the ridiculousness that it is.
“I said westward expansion was a cause of the Civil War.”
Nope. Slavery was. EVERYONE wanted westward expansion.
““And WW2 and the Cold War did not cause the attack on 9/11.” / I actually meant to say previous European Wars, plural, which would take us back to Britain’s fumlbing of the post-Ottoman era and the mess that the Middle East became. WW2 definitely contributed to it, what with the creation of Isreal. Also with leading to the Cold War.”
Nope. 911 wasn’t caused by Israel, or Britain in WW1. It was caused by Muslim extremists who hate non-Muslims. You might as well blame 911 on Jesus Christ.
“And that WW2 in turn led to the Cold War, as Russia’s expansionism first with then against Germany was unacceptable to Western Europe and the US.”
Nope. WW2 didn’t force Russia to want to expand. Russia wanted to expand to increase Russia’s power at the expense of the freedom of everyone else.
Paulbot nutjob!
“You don’t know jack shit about anything in the military”
Do you really think that, or is this the self-interested delusion speaking? Anyone who doesn’t know there is waste and corruption in national defense, in the same manner as other areas of Big Government, probably doesn’t know jack shit about anything, obvious as it is.
So you say, while presenting no evidence. No "touchy feely blather" here: http://old.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html.
I don't have to. This isn't a court of law.
I have evidence about the conservatism of Buckley's pro-legalization stand, while you have 15-year-old memories. If you want to leave it at that, fine by me.
That piece you cite isn't the one I remember reading.
I never said it was.
It didn't go in depth on his sisters battle with cancer like the one I read 15 years ago.
I've provided evidence (not just memories) that Buckley had sound conservative arguments for legalizing marijuana.
As for your point on Prohibition, I said nothing about how it came about. I was discussing who wanted it gone. It was not a strictly Conservative tenant. All Americans wanted it gone.
Including conservatives - who presumably had conservative reasons. Do you think they were mistaken?
Since when did MT become a Red State? Isn’t there a D Gov running the place? Don’t they have 2 Rat Senators up there too? Some bastion of Conservative values.
“if you think profit is a greater motivator than continued living, you are TRULY & very DEEPLY stupid!”
Keep name calling and writing in caps, it doesn’t make your point any stronger. Yes, profit and loss is a better motivator than preventing death. Just look at all the people, politicians, bureaucrats, etc., who have kept their jobs amidst death. The biggest gaping hole in your problem with your premise is that whereas a business goes bankrupt if it loses enough money, politicians and arms manufacturers keep on humming despite wars going badly.
Is it really possible you don’t know how naive you sound? Military people care about saving lives, at least up to acceptable risk, like enviros care about microscopic insects endagered by the oil industry and social workers care about “food insecurity.” Doesn’t mean they’re good at spending government money, especially since the money keeps coming even if they suck at spending it.
“Anyone who doesn’t know there is waste and corruption in national defense, in the same manner as other areas of Big Government...”
There is waste and corruption in EVERYTHING, including business. But the waste and fraud in military procurement largely lies in Congress directing spending not desired by the military - which happens often.
But there is far less waste and corruption in the military than in, say, the EPA. And I’ve explained why.
And yes, the military exists under the Constitution, yes, it has a valuable role, and yes, that makes it different from most of the rest of the US government.
But you feel free to listen to your Star Trek Alien Great Leader...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.