Limbaugh and Steele: Friendly Pugilism

I dug Tony Campbell’s analysis of the Limbaugh-Steele show down below.

At the same time, I can’t see it as but a good thing when different heads in that hydra start challenging one another. There has been far too much yes-sir-ism in the Republican party over the past eight years and there tends to be too much of it in politics in general. Just as I cheered when House Democrats took Obama on about his stimulus package, so too do I take to be a bit good thing that some lines are being drawn in the sand on the right. As Campbell notes, Limbaugh fired back to Steele with a host of helpful and insightful zingers.

I just wish that Steele hadn’t backed off. Not because I revel in watching conservative figures “fracturing” their movement, but because our politics is at its best when it is a big, messy, but respectful debate. That goes generally and within particular ideologies/movements.

I don’t think that some of Limbaugh’s commentary is helpful in terms of growing a movement and I don’t happen to think that Limbaugh should be seen as the leader of the conservative movement (and I doubt Rush really sees himself that way either). But a Rush Limbaugh is good for keeping your movement honest precisely by being loud, abrasive, and opinionated.

One fails in that exercise bu assuming the character of a shrinking violet as soon as Rush “ruffles his papers”, only adding to the misperception that Limbaugh is the movement’s leader.