This is a handy illustration of movement conservatism’s problem. Its leading intellectuals frequently say, in effect, that their political opponents are taking on unsophisticated straw man arguments, the sort of thing that vanishingly few people on the right actually believe. They’re right that President Obama rarely takes on the strongest conservative arguments against his policies. But the straw man critique is undermined by the fact that guys like Levin write for a niche audience of wonks, while Limbaugh, America’s most popular conservative pundit, regularly advances arguments that would be egregious, laughable straw men if guys like him didn’t actually make them. Publications like National Review nevertheless treat Limbaugh as an ally who is praised in the magazine’s pages far more often than he is criticized. It is untenable to maintain that relationship and to complain when Obama attributes Limbaugh-style idiocy to conservatives. The right would do well to “throw him under the bus” like Rev. Wright and Sister Souljah.That’s what political movements do to liabilities, and what intellectual movements do to anti-intellectuals. Conor Friedersdorf ☀
Wednesday 18 July 2012
15 notes
-
anotherword likes this
-
silas216 reblogged this from azspot
-
silas216 likes this
-
timeandmotion-inspiration likes this
-
gnostix1 likes this
-
newsandtrade likes this
-
thefollowshipofthering likes this
-
lord-kitschener likes this
-
jolly-dolly reblogged this from azspot
-
raptoravatar likes this
-
azspot posted this
A GNT creation ©2007–2013

