My
post labeled “Operation Chaos” objectionable, not Rush Limbaugh
himself, though I find the
defense offered on his behalf problematic:
What is Rush Limbaugh? Is he a partisan political operative? Does
he collect his paycheck from the Republican National Committee? Or
is he, alternatively, an idealistic philosopher in an ivory tower,
pondering obscure questions of the greater good?
No, Rush is a professional broadcaster whose livelihood is
dependent on attracting listeners and advertisers to his
show.
Other entertainers intent on attracting an audience include Keith
Olbermann, Al Franken and Michael Moore. Is it verbotten to declare
anything that they do “objectionable” because they’re simply
pursuing their livelihood? I should hope not.
This is a better defense:
Rush believes that what is bad for the Democratic Party is good for
America. (If you want to argue that point, take it up with
Rush.)
I think I
just
did. The counterargument offered is as follows:
My problem with your “risk-averse approach,” Conor,
is your apparent belief that there would be any meaningful policy
difference between an Obama administration and a Clinton
administration. I see no basis for such a belief. Any consideration
of electing the better of the two Democrats is a non-starter, if
both are equally bad — or if each is at least so bad that there’s
no point trying to calculate which is worse.
I strenuously disagree that there wouldn’t be any meaningful policy
differences between the two Democrats. The fact that one supported
the war in Iraq and the other opposed it suggests that they do
differ on large, consequential questions. One example, off the top
of my head, that is certain to come up in the future: Senator Obama
is likely to conduct one-on-one talks with objectionable foreign
leaders, whereas Senator Clinton is more reluctant to do so,
believing that such talks lend abhorrent regimes legitimacy.
Another is the difference between health care with mandates and
without — I’m against either plan, but I’d certainly prefer the
latter, as should any principled backer of small government.
Nor do I think that policy differences are the only portents of
how their presidencies might play out. These are people of
different generations whose life experiences, advisors, temperments
and supporters are all quite different.
Just as I don’t think it is obvious which is most electable, I
don’t think it’s certain which candidate would perform better, or
please conservatives more, if elected. Forced to state a preference
based on one metric or the other, however, a risk-averse,
tempermentally conservative voter ought to choose the latter.
