Notes From D.R. | Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene

Bruce Bartlett on why he, as a conservative, is at war with the GOP. (A must-read!)

UPDATE: Thomas J. Marier responds.

Ross Douthat on Ted Kennedy and abortion politics.

The Final Destination tops the charts.

George Will on California politics.

Jeff Jacoby on the legacy of John Kennedy.

Jennifer Rubin on the controversy over CIA interrogations.

Jeff Jacoby, David Frum, Peggy Noonan, George Will, Cal Thomas and David Brooks on Sen. Edward Kennedy’s legacy.

The country sends its condolences to the Kennedy family, as the last of the three prominent Kennedy lions passes from the American political scene….At times such as these, it matters little that many of us disagreed with much of [Kennedy’s] vision…He had an incredible near-half-century run in the Senate, suffered terribly from the loss of his three brothers, and was a powerful and deeply sincere advocate for liberal causes respected by his peers of both parties. Requiescat in pacem.

–Victor Davis Hanson, National Review Online, August 26, 2009

Like most non-Democrats in Massachusetts, I hated Senator Edward Kennedy with a burning passion.

Everything about the late statesman provoked my rage: his knee-jerk promotion of all things left-wing, his enthusiastic backing of federal judges who were not exactly advocates of judicial restraint, his involvement in the 1969 death of Mary Jo Kopechne, his 1987 demonization of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, his boisterous, larger-than-life public image.

I loved reading Don Feder and Jeff Jacoby take Kennedy to task in the op-ed pages of the Boston Herald and Boston Globe, respectively. I enjoyed listening to Boston talk-radio star Howie Carr mock the man as a “Fat Boy” and a “Wizard of Uhs,” and cheered Paul Shanklin’s parody of the senator’s infamous “Osama Obama” remark.

Ted Kennedy was the man conservatives in the Bay State and elsewhere loved to loathe. The right saw him as the quintessential self-righteous, I’m-better-than-you liberal. For many conservatives, the hatred did not dissipate upon his passing; the contempt that so many people on the right hold for Kennedy does not have a known expiration date.

Yet it should. If it was pathetic for people on the left to continue to hold a grudge against Richard Nixon years after his death, then it will be equally pathetic if people on the right curse Kennedy’s name long after his passing. Kennedy’s not around to answer his critics now. If those critics keep on yelling at his corpse, they’ll be acting stupidly.

I can’t deny it: one reason why Kennedy was so hated by conservatives is that he was so damn successful in frustrating the right’s political goals. Kennedy helped to move the country’s political template from center-right to center-left; his efforts had the effect of making more and more Americans comfortable with the notion of having the federal government play a crucial role in their daily lives. I hated Kennedy in part because I regarded him as a man who sought to discredit the very concept of self-reliance. This was an ideological hatred; I’d like to think that it never became personal in my case, but for so many of my fellow conservatives, it clearly did.

This is why some folks are now taking perverse delight in Kennedy’s demise. The same things being said about Obama today in conservative circles—that he’s anti-American, that he seeks to destroy the Constitution, that he couldn’t care less about unborn children—were said about Kennedy on a near-daily basis over the past forty-seven years. These were remarks borne of frustration and fury; underneath such hostile words was a desperation, a desperation caused by the reality that Kennedy knew how to remake America in his own lefty image, and that conservatives didn’t know how to stop him.

I can’t hate Kennedy anymore. What good is it to hate him if he can no longer hear my hostility? Even if I chose to spit on his grave, it wouldn’t change the minds of those who thought he was brave.

I can’t continue my contempt for Kennedy not only because it’s fundamentally pointless, but because this scornful sentiment is not fair to those he legitimately helped in Massachusetts and those on both sides of the political aisle who became his friends and partners in Washington.

Do I respect Kennedy? Yes, the way one who studies war strategy respects a gifted general. Kennedy was a warrior for progressive principles; only Newt Gingrich, Ronald Reagan and Jesse Helms were as successful in advancing conservatism as Kennedy was in advancing progressivism. Kennedy was a passionate fighter, a tough political adversary, and a titanic figure in modern American politics. Kennedy was to the Democratic Party what Reagan was to the GOP: the recognized symbol of excellence.

“To the American Left, he was their lion,” William Bennett said in grace-filled remarks at the beginning of his August 26 “Morning in America” radio program. “To the American conservative movement, he was our bane. But today, we put the politics aside and wish him and his family God’s peace.”

Earlier, I referred to Kennedy as a statesman. He deserves that description, my issues with him notwithstanding. As much as I loathed the man’s blue-state beliefs, I cannot deny that he got things done—which is more than one can say for most of the folks who have occupied the Senate and House in recent decades.

I never shared Kennedy’s political vision—but he was, beyond all doubt, a visionary.

Please join me tonight for the debut episode of The Notes on Blog Talk Radio. Boston talk-radio star Kevin Whalen will be my guest. We’ll discuss an upcoming fundraiser for the SFC Jared C. Monti Scholarship Fund, as well as the passing of Senator Edward Kennedy.

The New York Times on Senator Edward Kennedy’s passing.

UPDATE: More from Duane Patterson.

Conor Friedersdorf on the moronic attempt by some on the right to label National Review editor Rich Lowry a RINO. As one person notes in the comment section, Lowry “manages consistently to articulate a consensus conservatism in a calm tone. This is a rare talent; in fact, I don’t know anyone else who possesses it…He is worthy of respect.”

Fred Barnes hails the GOP’s anti-Obama strategy. He makes several strong points, but there’s one caveat: Considering the cultural and demographic changes in this country, the party must figure out some way to attract “…all those voting blocs that were drifting away from the GOP—Hispanics, young people, gays, urbanites, blacks, voters in Northeastern states and independents” without compromising the party’s principles.

UPDATE: More from Ross Douthat and Michael Steele.

(The following commentary was heard on Blogtalkradio.com this afternoon.)

(Intro)

Is it possible to like and dislike Rush Limbaugh at the same time? More in a moment.

(Break)

There was a minor controversy in the blogosphere this week over remarks made by talk-radio superstar Rush Limbaugh on August 19. During the broadcast, Limbaugh discussed an August 18 town hall meeting on health care reform held by veteran Bay State congressman Barney Frank, who was horrified when a woman accused Frank of supporting what she regarded as a fascist health care policy. Frank asked the woman, quote, “On what planet do you spend most of your time?’’ In response, Limbaugh stated, quote, “…Here’s Barney Frank saying, ‘What planet do you live on?’ to this woman. Isn’t it an established fact that Barney Frank himself spends of his time living around Uranus?”

Depending on your perspective, Limbaugh’s joke was either hurtful or hilarious. Granted, it’s not a joke I would have made. But the reaction to the joke reminds us of Limbaugh’s power to influence political discourse—and what that power means for the American conservative movement.

Does Limbaugh still help the American right, or is he now more of a liability than an asset? There’s been some debate about this in conservative circles over the past two years or so. Limbaugh supporters such as Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review magazine insist that the CEO of the EIB Network is as vital as ever to conservatism, and that without his efforts over the past two decades, the American right would be up the creek without the proverbial paddle. However, Limbaugh critics such as Conor Friedersdorf of TheAmericanScene.com argue that Limbaugh’s image has become too divisive, his rhetoric too stale, his ideology too rigid—and that he can no longer expand his influence, and that of conservatism itself, beyond his core listening base.

I’m torn between both visions. On the one hand, one must acknowledge the reality that Limbaugh paved the way for an entire generation of conservative media figures, just as William F. Buckley and Robert Novak paved the way for Limbaugh himself. Were it not for Limbaugh’s resurrection of the dying AM radio format in the late 1980s, Sean Hannity would still be painting houses, Michael Savage would still be writing herbal-remedy books read by about fifteen people, and Laura Ingraham would still be the lone conservative on MSNBC. It’s impossible to overstate just how influential Limbaugh was in terms of bringing center-right views to the American mainstream.

On the other hand, one cannot ignore Limbaugh’s obvious flaws. He always seemed to scorn libertarian-minded Republicans; I remember a broadcast in 2000 in which Limbaugh chortled as a caller falsely declared that libertarian members of the party were only interested in smoking pot. His ability to predict election results is notoriously awful; for example, weeks prior to the 2000 Presidential election, he declared that George W. Bush would defeat Al Gore as decisively as Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter two decades earlier—despite the fact that no poll in the country suggested such a blowout. And his 2008 effort to re-classify conservative pundits William Kristol and Ross Douthat as disloyal moderates, merely because they disagreed with him on one or two points of policy, was borderline shameful.

Limbaugh is an imperfect icon. While I share the frustration that some on the right have with Limbaugh, I cannot dismiss his considerable contributions to conservatism. Conservatives should not gloss over the unsavory aspects of Limbaugh’s legacy—but they cannot remove from the record his role in the rise of the right.

(Be sure to join me this Wednesday night at 8:00pm for the debut episode of the Notes; our guest will be Boston talk-radio star Kevin Whalen.)

Inglourious Basterds tops the charts.

Jeff Jacoby calls on Ted Kennedy to resign from the Senate.