Zev Chafets reads minds

An alert reader spots some mind-reading in a LA Times op-ed by Zev Chafets on criticism of John McCain by Rush Limbaugh. Chafets claims (without evidence) that "Limbaugh never had any intention of breaking with his party":

If John McCain is elected president, he will have a lot of people to thank. Improbably, first on the list will be the man who didn't want him in the White House, Rush Limbaugh.

Limbaugh vociferously campaigned against McCain throughout the primary season. He accused the Arizona senator of being a closet liberal and a collaborator with Democratic enemies such as Sens. Russ Feingold and Teddy Kennedy. This caused a lot of glee in Democratic circles. Some optimists even predicted a devastating split in the GOP.

This was a false hope. Limbaugh never had any intention of breaking with his party. When he saw that he couldn't stop McCain, he swallowed hard and began trying to push McCain to the right. Limbaugh made it clear that he wanted a vice presidential candidate from the Republican wing of the Republican Party.

It's of course true that Limbaugh has generally followed the Republican party line over the years. But we have no way of knowing what his intentions were in any particular instance. Why does everyone seem so reluctant to admit this? No one expects you to be omniscient!

Comments

[Howard Craft]

That sentence is poorly written. It implies that Rush had told Zev Chafets that his allegiance to his conservative issues would supersede his dissatisfaction with any particular Republican candidate (or specifically with McCain).

We also don't know just what Zev Chafets means when he talks of Rush potentially "breaking with the Republican party".

Would that mean actually opposing McCain or would it mean pretty much "sitting out the election" - withholding support ?

Zev fails (in the short space of the editorial) to discuss the approach that Rush takes with respect to how he promotes his partisan positions. Rush vigorously advocates against an opponent. He is a "negative ad" almost all the time. That's largely what makes him engaging and energizing.

That is his show - being critical, establishing negative associations, projecting biases onto others, attacking others' motives, belittling people's character, and creating divisiveness.

Add some humor and a small bit of actual policy discussion (but very little - it weakens the message of a negative ad to be fact-based or substantive).

Rush can still be critical of McCain now, especially if or when McCain moves away from any key political agenda positions that Rush favors. Rush can also fault McCain for failing to be opportunistic (which usually means feeding divisiveness - Rush favors increasing divisiveness).

But it is really inconceivable that Rush would find McCain a better target to attack than those who are "liberals" or "progressives".

It also wouldn't work for Rush to be opposed to everyone. That would weaken the dynamics of the show. Rush can paint himself as trying to "save" the Party, but in the meanwhile it's key for him to hold back what he would characterize not as a "greater evil" but as "evil itself".

[David]

I suspect Howard Craft is not a regular listener of Rush Limbaugh. I often listen if I'm driving when he's on.

Limbaugh is generally positive and cheerful. He can be very funny. He includes substantial amounts of policy discussions, which I find shallow and obviously one-sided, but generally accurate. He praises individuals and groups that he admires. Although he does sometimes belittle people's motives, he's generally more interested in their actions. E.g., he opposes the current bailout because he thinks it's bad policy, not because of anyone's motives.

[Howard Craft]

I agree, he is jovial. He is, at heart, an optimist. He is a booster of America and those things that represent the positives of America.

He is big on freedom, choice, opportunity, entrepreneurship, inclusiveness, family and strong moral values. He is for empowerment and equal treatment for all.

But he is no rosy idealist. He must let people know that "progressives" oppose these values and want to to diminish them though their policies and legislation.

Opposing others is how Rush promotes the things he favors. It is inherently negative. The focus of his commentary is negative.

"Liberals are bad"
"Liberals lie"
"Liberals just want power"
"Liberals want to hold America back"
"Liberals want to take away choices"

Broad simple statements of that type are the basis (the foundation) of the bulk of all his commentary.

Rush has moved farther away from being fact based. Facts can be verified and the conclusions one draws from facts can be challenged based on a broader analysis. If you take a fact out of context someone can put it back into context and show flaws in the argument the facts are being used to justify.

Rush is light on facts and heavy on motives and values. If you sell a case against someone based on motives and values it can't be refuted because it's an opinion. That is, you can't "fact check" an opinion.

Plus, if successful, you have created divisiveness. Mistrust. A disinclination toward dialogue. Across the board dismissal. Emotional resentment. These enhance a rigid party affiliation - or at least a rigid opposition.

What Rush does is simple and effective. He is good at it too. It is leavened with a bit of broad humor (mostly caustic, but funny). That's what makes him entertaining.

But he is not on the air to be entertaining.

[Angryhippopotamus]

Just to note in the New York Times Magazine interview that Chafets did with Rush in July Rush said of McCain,

“I’ve never even met the man, never spoken to him,” Limbaugh said. “I’m sure there are things about him I’d like if we meet. This isn’t personal.” He then delivered a litany of the presumptive nominee’s personal failings — too old, too intense, too opportunistic, too liberal. But, he assured me, he would be with McCain in the fall. “It’s like the Super Bowl,” he told me. “If your team isn’t in it, you root for the team you hate less. That’s McCain.”

It sounds like he's not reading minds so much as extrapolating from what Rush had previously told him.

[Jinchi]

It sounds like he's not reading minds so much as extrapolating from what Rush had previously told him.

Exactly. In fact, I'd go further and say that, while its often unfair to ascribe specific beliefs to other people, there's nothing wrong with stating the obvious when it's backed up by years of evidence. "Rush Limbaugh never had any intention of breaking with his party" is a pretty uncontroversial claim and I doubt most people would argue with it.

In fact, I'll go a step farther and predict that Rush will revert to castigating McCain ruthlessly if Obama wins the presidency. And we'll hear plenty of tirades about how McCain deliberately betrayed the Republican party.

[BG]

At least Zev Chafets makes a pretty good name for a psychic.