The Limbaugh-ification of American Discourse

As political pundits go, the Wall Street Journal's Daniel Henninger is a serious, sober intellectual. Though a dyed-in-the-wool Reaganite, Henninger is most certainly not the hyperventilating, hatemongering, inferiority-exploiting sort that has dominated the extreme right for decades and, increasingly, defines the Republican mainstream. 

Yet even as he thoughtfully jabs the Rush Right in his column today, Henninger falls victim to a milder form of its toddler-like tactics — which, by the way, are exposed for all their childish ineffectiveness by Timothy Egan today in a brilliant New York Times op-ed. Both are worth a read.

Henninger's piece argues that Republicans must appeal to voters by ditching their calls to prayer that Obama will fail and instead reclaiming Ronald Reagan's confident, pro-private-sector rhetoric. To draw a contrast between his prescription and the vision for the nation being put forth by Democrats, Henninger quotes Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich and longtime Democratic strategist Bob Shrum, both suggesting that Obama is in the process of unwinding the 1980s Reagan Revolution. 

Henninger is right to criticize these statements. Reich and Shrum should acknowledge that the Reagan Revolution shouldn't be completely undone — that some portion of what Reagan and his disciples did for the country was both positive and essential. It was good for the country that Reagan called out the government for being too bloated and inefficient, and for often preventing private enterprise from achieving its full potential to foster economic growth. And it was equally important to do something about that by reducing taxes, rethinking our approach to regulation and trimming the size of government. 

I, of course, believe that Reagan's movement ultimately went too far, contributing to much of what ails us today. But you can read my posts on such topics as bank bailouts, the gutting of food safety regulations and how smart regulation keeps capitalism from eating itself for more on all that. 

Back to Henninger and Rush. Unfortunately, in putting forth the idea that Republicans should reclaim the Reagan pro-growth mantle, Henninger relies on some Limbaugh-esque fakery. He suggests, for example, that appealing to voters with this argument should be easy, because Democrats have become nothing less than capitalism-hating socialists:

Arguably at no time in their lives have more Americans been this sharply focused on the economy. They think and talk about nothing else. The Republicans have been handed on a tarnished silver platter the chance to offer the American people an alternative vision of how their economy works -- and grows.

They should take political ownership of the 75% of the U.S. economy that the Democrats have abandoned -- the private economy.

Over the past four decades and the decline of private-sector industrial unions, professional Democrats -- politicians, intellectuals like Robert & Robert, campaign professionals, unions and satellite groups -- have severed their emotional and intellectual connection with private production.

Today, frontline Democrats see the private sector as doing two things: It produces tax revenue for $3.9 trillion federal budgets, and it shafts workers. The private sector in the Democratic worldview is necessary but nasty. Their leadership gives the impression of not having the simplest understanding of how an employer's life unfolds day to day.

Not exactly. Henninger conveniently forgets for a moment that we are in the midst of the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression. Of course those who are charged with getting us out of this mess are using government as their primary tool. For more than a year, the private sector has proven itself incapable of accomplishing that goal. So government must step in and make what in normal times would be unthinkable incursions into private affairs. 

Henninger, tellingly, also fails to point out the inherent inaccuracy of what Reich and Shrum said about Obama rolling back Reagan's policies (or at least what their out-of-context quotes suggest they believe). Obama is definitely not restoring what existed before 1980. For example, he does not propose anything remotely like reinstating income tax rates to the pre-Reagan 60-70% range for the nation's top earners.

Here, the esteemed columnist is exposed as under the influence, likely despite all his best highbrow intentions, of the talk-radio bully. He has set up a straw man to be knocked down because doing so renders an otherwise iffy argument much easier to "prove."

Egan's tour-de-force undressing of Limbaugh today points out that Rush is really little more than a classic demagogue, so bereft of real ideas that he must constantly construct straw men to tear down. (He also does a fine job of exposing Rush's trouble with black people and women - it really is a fantastic read). Henninger is no demagogue, but the Rush-ification of our national political debate can be seen in even his resorting to this tactic.  

I spend considerable time discussing all of this because it is yet another example of how our discourse about public affairs has degraded into little more than infantile name-calling wedged between an endless stream of celebrity gossip and reality TV. As you know, that makes me sad. And it hurts our country. Please do your part to recognize and stop it. 

One way to do that, of course, is to create some real discourse of our own. What do you think? Please post your comments. 

Thanks.