# The Flaw in Rush's Logic in Wanting Obama to Fail **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 2, 2009, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaw-in-rushs-logic-in-wanting-obama-to-fail/488052 "2009-03-02T20:16:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaw-in-rushs-logic-in-wanting-obama-to-fail/488052/41 "2009-03-03T13:51:02Z")
Seems to me Limbaugh’s logic is fine, since his goal is not to analyze economics but to entertain an audience. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaw-in-rushs-logic-in-wanting-obama-to-fail/488052/42 "2009-03-03T14:07:17Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Here’s the logical flaw as I see it: > > Rush (and co) believe that Obama’s plans are bad. > “Bad” means, I assume, “bad consequences” > But if Obama’s plans succeed, then they must not actually BE “bad”, resulting in bad consequences. > > Simple enough, but of course it isn’t actually. The question becomes: define the bad consequences, and define success and failure. > > Obama would simplistically define “success” as the economy growing, lots of jobs, good pay, credit available, business thriving. > > How does Rush define Obama succeeding? From the quote, he doesn’t seem to be describing what Obama wants or is trying to do, he’s making something up and bashing it. He’s defining failure as Obama’s success. > > So it seems to me that what Rush is really saying is that he doesn’t want Obama to succeed in turing our economy around because he doesn’t like the way Obama will accomplish it. So Rush would rather have everyone suffer? > > I confess that when I begin to really drill down it starts to give me a headache. > > Anyone want to weigh in? It’s really very simple: The unstated assumption is that saving the American economy the Democrats’ way is a Devil’s bargain – that some prices are too high to pay even for prosperity, and any erosion of “freedom” as conservatives define it is such a price. This is by no means a new idea. For the first half and more of the 20th Century the right’s great fear WRT socialism was not that it would fail but that it would succeed, on its own stated terms, in providing general prosperity, but at too high a social and moral and spiritual cost. When William Buckley wrote that a conservative’s duty was “to stand athwart history and shout ‘Stop!’”, he was assuming that history really **was** on the side of the left – but asserting that that did not in and of itself settle the argument. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaw-in-rushs-logic-in-wanting-obama-to-fail/488052/43 "2009-03-03T16:15:46Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Would someone get the cite and word for word verbatim quote? [Here:](http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html) > [@](#): > > RUSH: I got a request here from a major American print publication. “Dear Rush: For the Obama [Immaculate] Inauguration we are asking a handful of very prominent politicians, statesmen, scholars, businessmen, commentators, and economists to write 400 words on their hope for the Obama presidency. We would love to include you. If you could send us 400 words on your hope for the Obama presidency, we need it by Monday night, that would be ideal.” Now, we’re caught in this trap again. The premise is, what is your “hope.” My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, “Well, I hope he succeeds. We’ve got to give him a chance.” Why? They didn’t give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I’m not talking about search-and-destroy, but I’ve been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don’t want them to succeed. > > If I wanted Obama to succeed, I’d be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he’s talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don’t want this to work. So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.” (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here’s the point. Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, “Oh, you can’t do that.” Why not? Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.” Somebody’s gotta say it. Which seems to support my characterization in the above post. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaw-in-rushs-logic-in-wanting-obama-to-fail/488052/44 "2009-03-03T17:03:00Z")
> [@](#): > > If the essential principle of small government/low tax/limited service conservatism is that government intervention is harmful, then aren’t conservatives contradicting themselves when they say they “hope” Obama’s policies will fail? They should assert that they absolutely will fail in the end, because their core beliefs allow no other outcome. That’s the conservative view. They “know” government intervention would fail and hurt the country so they hope that Obama fails in his attempt to enact government intervention. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaw-in-rushs-logic-in-wanting-obama-to-fail/488052/45 "2009-03-03T17:22:53Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > That’s the conservative view. They “know” government intervention would fail and hurt the country so they hope that Obama fails in his attempt to enact government intervention. In the alternative, they “know” government intervention is **immoral** even if it **works.** ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaw-in-rushs-logic-in-wanting-obama-to-fail/488052/46 "2009-03-03T19:35:56Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > For that matter, shouldn’t they hold their tongues and let the plan be implemented? That way, when it does fail, it will be clearly a Democratic failure and not due to Republican obstruction and interference. Only if they care nothing about the country and are more interested in proving the Democrats to be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaw-in-rushs-logic-in-wanting-obama-to-fail/488052/47 "2009-03-03T20:03:34Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Seems to me Limbaugh’s logic is fine, since his goal is not to analyze economics but to entertain an audience. Which makes him suitable for his role as de-facto leader of the Republican party and the conservative movement, since a few laughs are all they’re good for anymore. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaw-in-rushs-logic-in-wanting-obama-to-fail/488052/48 "2009-03-03T20:06:28Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Only if they care nothing about the country and are more interested in proving the Democrats to be wrong. Conservatives are defending their current message as “this stimulus may make us feel better for a while, but the deficit spending and creeping socialism will harm us in the long term. Better to take our medicine now, and muddle through the current downturn.” Why doesn’t that apply in other areas? If the Democratic approach is so obviously flawed, let it be seen now and quickly discredited. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaw-in-rushs-logic-in-wanting-obama-to-fail/488052/49 "2009-03-04T00:49:52Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > Conservatives are defending their current message as “this stimulus may make us feel better for a while, but the deficit spending and creeping socialism will harm us in the long term. Better to take our medicine now, and muddle through the current downturn.” Why doesn’t that apply in other areas? If the Democratic approach is so obviously flawed, let it be seen now and quickly discredited. When you’re sick, there are times when immediate treatment is required. There are also times when it’s best to wait the illness out. Now, you might disagree with that particular approach in this circumstance, but the point remains… While conservatives believe that Obama’s plan is seriously flawed, it does not logically follow that they should bite their tongues so that they can delight in his ultimate embarassment. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaw-in-rushs-logic-in-wanting-obama-to-fail/488052/50 "2009-03-04T01:05:47Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > While conservatives believe that Obama’s plan is seriously flawed, it does not logically follow that they should bite their tongues so that they can delight in his ultimate embarassment. It also does not logically follow that this is the begining of a plan for the government to own everything and run everybody’s lives, and yet that seems to be the common rallying cry put forward by conservatives at the moment. I am perfectly willing to accept that many conservatives have legitimate concerns about the stimulus, and that while I may disagree with them, their actions are a good faith effort to enact policy in the best interests of the nation as a whole. Now, how many of their prominent spokesmen are willing to say the same about liberals? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaw-in-rushs-logic-in-wanting-obama-to-fail/488052/51 "2009-03-04T03:38:22Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > It also does not logically follow that this is the begining of a plan for the government to own everything and run everybody’s lives… And if I had been attempting to defend such a claim, your remark would be relevant to this discussion. As you know full well though, I did not. Rather, I was addressing your specific claim that conservatives should logically choose to let the country sink into disaster. Your latest retort does nothing to defend that claim. > [@](#): > > …and yet that seems to be the common rallying cry put forward by conservatives at the moment. Cite, please? Can you please cite even a single prominent conservative leader who says that the government plans to “own everything and run everybody’s lives”? Your remark is gross hyperbole, and I think you know it. Many conservatives feel that the Obama adminstration’s plan is misguided and objectionable. This does NOT mean that they believe that the government wants to seize all their possessions. If you think otherwise, then please provide a credible citation. “But I was exaggerating for effect!” one might object. If so, then stop it. We all know that such wild exaggerations are good for fostering ignorance rather than combatting it. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaw-in-rushs-logic-in-wanting-obama-to-fail/488052/52 "2009-03-04T05:23:55Z")
> [@Glenn Beck](#): > > But when the government has its dirty little fingers on vital elements of our economy, it has its hands around the throat of capitalism itself…and it’s squeezing hard. > … > Yup, we’re on The Road to Socialism, and while we may have not yet reached our final destination, we’re well on our way. > **[Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Video](https://www.foxnews.com/)** > > Breaking News, Latest News and Current News from FOXNews.com. Breaking news and video. Latest Current News: U.S., World, Entertainment, Health, Business, Technology, Politics, Sports. > [@Rush Limbaugh](#): > > RUSH: Here’s John in Dallas. Nice to have you on the EIB Network, sir. Hello. > > CALLER: Hi, Rush, what an honor to talk to you, sir. > > RUSH: Thank you very much. > > CALLER: I’ll make my point real quick. One of the things that I think people are just so uncomfortable with the way you’re communicating – which I completely agree with you – is that during the past election, these guys propped them up, calling them “honorable men” and talking about how great they were and how good a friends they are. Then they turned around and called them liars. Now, what is it? Are they honorable or are they liars? And you’re just coming straight out, and you’re telling the truth. You’re calling it like it is. You know, Obama is a socialist. We want him to fail because of his policies. It has nothing to do with him or his family life or whatever. He’s just a socialist. That’s calling it like it is. > > RUSH: Speaking of… You know, this is a (ahem) another good point. We throw the word “socialist” around and we assume that people know what it means. Would you…? There’s no right or wrong answer. Would you tell me what you think socialism is? > > CALLER: Socialism is the government’s going to take care of everything. That’s it in a nutshell to me. > > RUSH: Well, yeah. That’s true. But to some people, we have to admit that sounds pretty good right now, 'cause they think the private sector has failed them. That’s what Obama is trying to impress upon us. There are three primary definitions of socialism. It is “a political theory advocating state ownership of industry,” and we see it’s starting to happen with the banks and automobile companies. It is “an economic system based on state ownership of capital,” meaning money. The state owns the money. Now, no money is theirs. They don’t have a dime until they either print it or confiscate it from the people that produce it. But they’re now operating under the procedure that all money is theirs and you’re only going to end up with whatever they decide is “enough” for you. > > Now, here are some variations on the definition of socialism. “Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.” Meaning the government in charge of all food, the government in charge of banks, the government in charge of energy… [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site\_030209/content/01125112.guest.html](http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030209/content/01125112.guest.html) ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaw-in-rushs-logic-in-wanting-obama-to-fail/488052/53 "2009-03-04T05:35:03Z")
> [@](#): > > It is “an economic system based on state ownership of capital,” meaning money. The state owns the money. Now, no money is theirs. They don’t have a dime until they either print it or confiscate it from the people that produce it. But they’re now operating under the procedure that all money is theirs and you’re only going to end up with whatever they decide is “enough” for you. Limbaugh’s other two definitions of socialism that he claims applies to the Obama administration are pretty loose and obviously biased. But I don’t see this one as even being in the ball park. I can’t think of anything remotely connected with the Obama administration that can possibly be twisted around enough to justify this claim. Can anyone explain where Limbaugh is going here? ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaw-in-rushs-logic-in-wanting-obama-to-fail/488052/54 "2009-03-04T17:50:15Z")
Speaking from the Right… IS there a problem with Limbaugh (or any other conservative) saying he hopes Obama’s economic plan fails? Yes, but… the problem is NOT one that’s been expressed yet in this thread. Rather, it’s the problem Republicans had in the Thirties. Did Republicans want FDR’s New Deal to succeed? No… but what they didn’t understand was, IF the New Deal had failed, America wasn’t going to turn to Alf Landon as their new savior! Memories of Herbert Hoover were just too fresh, and it was bound to take time before the Republicans could mount a credible challenge to the Democrats again. If the New Deal had failed, the alternatie might have been communism, fascism, Huey Long-style populism… any of which would have been worse, from a Republican standpoint, than the New Deal. I think the GOP faces the same problem now. Rightly or wroingly, most Americans blame Bush and the Republicans for the current economic crisis, and are HOPING Obama can lead us out of it. If Obama succeeds, the Democrats will be in the driver’s seat for years to come. But if he fails miserably, and the economy continues sliding… then what? Are the American people going to turn to Mitt Romney?? No! They may turn far left or far right, but they’re not going to turn back to a mainstream conservative Republican any time soon. For that reason, we on the Right may HAVE to hope Obama succeeds, because the alternative won’t be pretty. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2009, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaw-in-rushs-logic-in-wanting-obama-to-fail/488052/55 "2009-03-05T02:12:59Z")
The point you make, **astorian** , is a critical one. Even if one accepts the argument that FDR’s policies did not in fact lift the country out of the Depression (and I don’t want to sidetrack into that one), Roosevelt held the country together, calmed enough of the people’s fears and fury to stave off revolution, and I believe saved the United States from the dreadful alternatives you outline. It seems to me that we are sliding down into another such crisis time, when, if the center cannot hold, things will indeed fall apart in terrible ways. There is no magical specialness about this country that wards it against implosions like what happened in post-WWI Germany and Russia. If things get bad enough, and if the people lose all confidence in their government, we will be in shit far too deep for the mainstream of either right or left to hold them back from eruption. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaw-in-rushs-logic-in-wanting-obama-to-fail/488052.md?page=2)