What critics of the giant conservative event missed.
What is it about hard-won success that inspires petty souls to carping criticism and hostility? Ann Coulter is the author of seven best-selling books. Rush Limbaugh is the most successful radio broadcaster of the modern era. And yet to hear some Republicans tell it, Coulter and Limbaugh are an unmitigated liability to the GOP and the conservative cause.
Since the conclusion of last month’s Conservative Political Action Conference — where both Coulter and Limbaugh spoke to cheering crowds — these two prominent personalities have been singled out for attacks by some Republicans.
Scarcely had the applause ended for Limbaugh’s hour-plus speech Feb. 28 in the Regency Ballroom of Washington’s Omni Shoreham Hotel than Rod Dreher of the Dallas Morning News pronounced the radio talk king as having promulgated “false conservatism” that was not founded on “bedrock truths of philosophical conservatism.”
Apparently concerned that he might be eclipsed in Rush-bashing, David Frum took to the pages of Newsweek to pronounce Limbaugh “a walking stereotype of self-indulgence,” who “cannot be allowed to be the public face of the [Republican] enterprise.”
Coulter’s speech this year produced none of those “she said what?” moments that had marked her 2006 and 2007 CPAC speeches, causing conference organizers to exclude her from their 2008 schedule. Yet an improvement in Coulter’s decorum did nothing to spare her from disparagement by Sen. John McCain’s daughter. At Tina Brown’s site, the Daily Beast, Meghan McCain called Coulter “offensive, radical, insulting, and confusing…the poster woman for the most extreme side of the Republican Party.”
Why would people identifying themselves as Republicans savage these two popular conservative celebrities in such terms? Various explanations have been offered, none fully satisfactory. Still harder to fathom were those who disparaged CPAC itself as symptomatic of conservative failure.
In a column at Pajamas Media — whose online video adjunct PJTV sponsored “Conservatism 2.0” events during CPAC — blogger Rick Moran wrote, “Conservatism has become loud, obnoxious, closed-minded, and puerile,” characterized by “a vicious parochialism that eschews debate.”
Moran’s denunciation was too much for fellow blogger Jimmie Bise, Jr., who responded with a post titled, “A Tale of Two CPACs,” saying: “The conservatism I saw at CPAC was not measurably different than it was when William F. Buckley planted his feet athwart history and shouted ‘stop.’”
Bise had a point. The overwhelming majority of those who attended CPAC — and with more than 8,000 on hand, it was easily the largest in the 35-year history of the conference — seemed abundantly pleased. “Energized” was a word often heard from attendees, and the massive television coverage for Limbaugh’s speech that concluded the conference (carried live by Fox News, CNN and C-SPAN) was a tremendous publicity coup.
What separated the pleasant experience of the majority, who applauded Coulter and Limbaugh and enjoyed the conference, and the dissatisfied misery of the critics?
Partly, it was ideological. Meghan McCain declared herself a “progressive Republican” — whatever that means in 2009 — while Dreher became famous for his 2006 book, Crunchy Cons, which denounced “Western economics” as motivated chiefly by “greed and envy.”
Envy? One could hardly blame authors like Dreher and Frum (who has written six books) for envying the best-selling success of Coulter. Yet for all her success and fame, Coulter’s income is probably only a fraction of that earned by Limbaugh, who last year signed an eight-year contract for a reported $400 million.
It is possible to detect a common refrain that the conservatism the critics didn’t like is “angry” or “loud,” that CPAC was promulgating an “orthodoxy” (Dreher) or “ideological purity” (Moran), or that “Limbaugh demands absolute deference” (Frum).
The critics, we might generalize, want a more amorphous conservative that speaks in mild, measured tones. Older readers will be forgiven if such criticisms sound familiar, resembling the Eisenhower-era “modern Republicanism” — a go-along, get along stance rejected by conservative insurgents in the 1960s, who demanded “a choice, not an echo,” in Phyllis Schlafly’s famous phrase.
Daunted by Democratic victories in 2006 and ‘08, and by President Obama’s personal popularity, many of the critics doubt that the basic conservative message can produce GOP victories in 2010 or ‘12.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?