Among the Conservative writers that I occasionally like (and even sometimes agree with) is a gent named David Frum. It's kind of fascinating to me to watch as, lately, he's being fileted and attacked for advocating some viewpoints which…well, I won't presume they're dead-on accurate but if I were a Republican seeking to rebuild my party's strength, I'd sure afford them the dignity of serious consideration. Instead, they're being treated like blasphemy that must be shouted down at all cost.
A little less than a year ago, I attended a symposium where the panel included Frum and also right-wing radio talker Hugh Hewitt. Mr. Hewitt went on and on about how the Democrats would be committing political suicide to nominate Barack Obama; how there was no chance of him being elected president and it would be like Thelma and Louise driving off the cliff. That was a specific metaphor he invoked…and he made a lot of other predictions which have proven to be about as wrong as wrong can be.
I gather Hewitt does this often — predict exactly what does not then happen — and it impairs his stature as a pundit not one bit. Pundits, left and right, are almost never faulted for their bad predictions, no matter how confident or emphatic they were about them. If a doctor was 50% wrong, you'd never go near him except perhaps to sue for malpractice…but people return again and again to a pundit who tells them what they want to hear, even when it's wrong nine times out of ten. That day at the panel, I didn't (of course) know how incorrect Hewitt would prove to be about Obama but I did get the following sense — that Hewitt was just interested in putting on the show that right-wingers enjoyed, whereas Frum was interested in actually winning elections. Which is not to say everything Mr. Frum said that day was accurate…though he could have predicted Alan Keyes would win thanks to a massive write-in vote by Venusians and he'd have been no less off than Hugh Hewitt. At least though, Frum was trying to be realistic.
Lately, he's been fragged for suggesting that Rush Limbaugh might not be the ideal leader for the G.O.P. if it expects to win back power. Not that I have the best interests of Republicans at heart but I can't help but think so, too — and for the same reason that Hugh Hewitt wouldn't be a good de facto voice for the party. He's more interested in his own glory than in the party's, and his glory may even be greater when the party doesn't win.
Here's David Frum writing about his recent battles with Conservative radio host Mark Levin. There's a link in there to a conversation they had on Levin's show and it demonstrates exactly why I don't like most talk radio these days, and also why you usually can't win any debate with a host who has home court advantage. Levin keeps interrupting, so terrified is he of letting Frum finish a sentence and complete a point…and this isn't even Levin arguing with someone who wants to turn America into something he would find loathesome. This is Levin arguing with a guy who just has a different idea of how to achieve most of the same goals.
I don't know how long Barack Obama has to deliver some tangible improvement in our country before his approval ratings will drop towards any danger level. But it may have a lot to do with how long guys like Levin and Frum are mud-wrestling over Rush.