Monday, March 9, 2009

Why Frum Is Wrong and Rush is Right

David Frum's Newsweek article, "Why Rush is Wrong", instead serves to highlight why Rush is right. The Republican Party and the conservative movement is not in a state of flux or transition, it is defunct. Frum states that there ought to be debate, discussion, and a transformation of the Party so that it can do what it has always done: respond to the problems of the times. Frum neglects to admit that the crisis developed under conservative watch; he neglects to look back at what went wrong and instead simply looks forward in very sweeping and ambiguous terms, nodding to environmental concerns and civil rights, but with no specificity.

By ignoring its recent past, he goes on to invoke the same faux-ideology that they have been eroniously applying to their existence all these years, namely they are the party of fiscal conservatism.



Yes, it takes cartoonist Steve Greenberg to highlight the sheer hypocrisy of that label – and the inverse "tax-and-spend liberal" – to see why Rush is right and that their only hope to recover from such self-deceptive self-perception is to cling to the realities of their party that are not self-deceptive and are truly what they believe.

The reason why no one is stepping up to the conservative plate and leading the Republican Party is because they have nowhere to go. Frum says that they ought to be debating Obama's policies and that the stimulus plan passed without said debate. Again, he neglects that the debate already occurred: it was Obama vs. McCain and the American people were the deciders as to who won that debate, as evinced by the trouncing in November. That is why the only hope in the end is obstruction and sabotage, because deep-down, conservatives know that their ideology has objectively failed and their only hope back is by forcing liberalism/centrism to fail as well. This is a point, yet again, Rush understands and Frum does not.

As odd as it may sound, Frum represents deception and Rush represents honesty, as reprehensible as that may be.

No comments: