I listened to the Rush speech at CPAC. You can here, but it is mostly a waste of time.
It was a bad speech, as a speech, and it made an argument that in our present societal context sounds like a spirited defense of the White Star Line on April 16, 1912.
Let’s examine the basic problems:
1. It appealed to Rush’s base, but I fail to see how it went beyond that base. There was no attempt to reason with a broader audience using language that they could understand or would find appealing.
He failed to paint why conservatives want what they want in clear and compelling language and then tie it to his policy ideas. He just assumed “we get it.” Many people don’t. Rush ends up sounding as if “freedom” equals tax cuts, but fails to tell us why this fact (which is not self-evident) is true.
2. It was a bad speech as a speech. It was rambling, full of “insider lingo,” (drive by media) and far too long. Style wise it was “hot” which is great for an auditorium, but bad for the cool medium of television.
Rush spoke mostly to the people in the hall and not to the (much) larger television audience. At speech making Obama versus Rush is like Rush versus Colmes in radio.
3. Philosophically it relied on the dubious notion (to conservatives) that “the people” are good . . . as opposed to the “checks and balances view” of people and government that trusted neither people or the state with total power.
What happened to fear of “mob rule” on the right?
4. It did not take into account our present situation. Did 2008/2009 happen for Rush? Surely, some business out there deserves condemnation for looting and pillaging the economy? Does Rush get the change that is occurring at all?
Reagan would adjust his anecdotes to frightening times, but Rush acts as if the return of prosperity is right around the corner. In tough times, he came across as a plutocrat when plutocrats are busy pillaging the national treasury. Any conservative should have been able to lambaste the present Washington-Wall Street axis, but Rush missed this easy connection to a broader audience.
Let’s be blunt: Democrats wish Rush to be the face of the Republican Party, because he is not good at television or public orations. After all, Rush tried television and failed.
Republicans lost young adults this election. Rush is not the right guy to get them back.
Three reasons (in no particular order):
Like it or not, people in this demographic are sensitive about issues of race. Rush comes across as a boor on the topic. His racism section in the speech is embarrassing.
Second, Rush is bad at “uplift” in his speeches. He sounds angry when he means to be positive. That is bad in the college age demographic.
Third, Rush has too little sense of irony. His bluster may be ironic, but a good many people miss the joke. See Shatner, William for someone who knows how to do it better . . . but even then who wouldn’t be delighted on the right if Bill Shatner, entertainer, become the image of the Democratic Party?
Rush is a great, great entertainer. He is the best at a certain kind of talk radio ever, but he is a shallow thinker who often fails to practice what he preaches.
As such he is a bad public face for the conservative movement.
Does anyone remember the visuals of Tip O’Neil behind Reagan? Rush is our visual Tip O’Neil.
*Editors Note: Hear John Mark Reynolds discuss this post further on Middlebrow, a podcast of the Scriptorium Daily.
