In researching a topic, I inadvertently came across a recent criticism of me by Rush Limbaugh that I think is worth responding to.
Maybe the place to begin is to point out that I met Rush in the early 1990s, while working for William Bennett, and while we don’t see each other often, we’ve maintained a friendship over the years. We’re both conservative and so we agree often, though not always. Nor does Rush believe personal relationships should prevent political disagreements from being aired publicly, which is an entirely defensible position. And he knows that goes both ways.
With that said, let me set the stage for what triggered Rush’s comments. I had written a piece in COMMENTARY saying that (a) I found many of President Obama’s gun proposals unobjectionable and (b) those who insist that it qualifies as an attack on the Second Amendment need to keep in mind that the right to bear arms is not an unlimited one.
This led to Rush arguing that many conservatives can’t stand the heat that comes with opposing President Obama daily. His argument goes something like this: It’s true that commentators like me will criticize the president, sometimes sharply. But we’ll then find ground to praise Mr. Obama “so as to maintain some credibility.” My views are tailored in a way to “look reasonable” to the Inside-the-Beltway world in which I live. In explaining my position on guns, Rush didn’t say he and I have an interesting and honest difference of opinion. He said, “I guarantee you it’s wrapped up in not wanting to be seen as opposing Obama just for the sake of it.”
This sort of critique is fairly typical in American politics. There must be some base, ulterior motive to explain differences in opinion. In this case, my views on gun restrictions–precisely where to draw a line we all acknowledge must be drawn–aren’t made in good faith. They’re animated by a desire to be seen as “reasonable” among The Liberal Establishment.
As you might imagine, this criticism strikes me as wide of the mark. I’m a commentator on daily, unfolding events, dealing with literally hundreds of them over the course of a single year. The vast majority of my critiques of the president are critical, since he and I hold very different political philosophies. (I took a leave of absence from my job to work to defeat him.) But on those rare occasions when I agree with Mr. Obama, I have no qualms saying so and explaining why I do. Common ground is not always cursed ground.
I do think that as a general matter it’s best to stay away from trying to divine the motives of others. For example, critics of Rush might say he’s a relentless critic of the president because he’s playing to his radio audience, fearing that if he ever expressed solidarity with the president his audience might tune him out. Now I don’t think that criticism would be fair, since I believe Rush’s criticisms are sincere. We’d probably all do better to live by the (paraphrased) words of the philosopher Sidney Hook, who said that before impugning an opponent’s motives, answer his arguments.
As for Rush’s broader point, I’m reminded of a wonderful 1965 essay the historian Gertrude Himmelfarb wrote on the British businessman, essayist, and journalist Walter Bagehot. As Himmelfarb put it:
The current intellectual fashions put a premium on simplicity and activism. The subtleties, complications, and ambiguities that until recently have been the mark of serious thought are now taken to signify a failure of nerve, a compromise with evil, an evasion of judgment and “commitment.”
Bagehot possessed what Himmelfarb called a “compelling vision that inevitably brought with it a complexity, subtlety, and depth that he found lacking in much of the discourse of the time.”
In those relatively rare moments of self-reflection, I’d say my mistakes arise more often from failing the Bagehot standard than the Limbaugh one. By that I mean succumbing to the temptation to ascribe all virtue and intellectual merit to one’s own side while denying it to the other—as if on every issue all the arguments line up on one side and none on the other, freeing us of the need to carefully weigh competing goods.
That of course doesn’t mean that all views and policies are equally meritorious or that one cannot take a principled stand or that one cannot be highly critical (or highly supportive) of an American president. It merely means most of us need to avoid the Manichean Temptation more often than we do. That applies to me. And I imagine it applies to others as well.
While Mr. Wehner is certainly a welcomed and thoughtful contributor to this blog, and his opinions are both interesting and enlightening. Still, there is something unseemly about this post of such a personal nature. n nRush Limbaugh can say what he wants, that's what he does. But for Mr. Wehner to find a need for a publicly personal response, well, that seems odd. It would be more appropriate for Mr. Wehner to send Mr. Limbaugh a letter, or email, expressing his feelings and the two of them can discuss their views in private. Is there any point to making the discussion public? To what end does that serve? n nOne of the issues with blogs is that people can resort to personal attacks. It's as if what someone writes is meant as a personal attack and therefore a personal response is required. (Thankfully, Contentions has its share of that, but it's greatly diminished from what other blogs seem to have.) n nOftentimes the best response is public silence. Mr. Wehner, please leave Mr. Limbaugh to his rants and please keep your thoughtful, non-personal, comments here, where they are appreciated.
I am a big, big fan of Rush Limbaugh, agreeing with 99% of what he has to say. With that as preamble I want to heartily agree with you about the seemliness of this blog post. Mr. Limbaugh's mention of Mr. Wehner's weakness on the right to bear arms portion of our liberties was made to illustrate a larger point about nonsustained criticism of Obama in general by the opinion makers among us. He was speaking to his audience. I would venture to guess a miniscule number of readers of the Commentary post's have any interest at all in what Rush Limbaugh has to say about anything much less about Mr. Wehner's reaction to a perceived slight. n nMr. Wehner next time send Mr. Limbaugh an email with your reaction and ask him to please read it on the air. Or better yet ask him to paraphrase the gist of it on the air since he eschews reading anything verbatim on the air.
He addressed it here, because Rush struck the nerve of truth. Otherwise, we would never have seen this post.
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand. The only "reaonsable" restrictions on firearms is that criminals, illegal aliens and crazy people should not have them. Everything else is an infringement on the rights of Englishmen as our Founders put it. I can possess any firearm I desire and can pay for or manufacture. I can possess any accessory to a firearm, such as a bayonet, I want. I can buy or sell to or from any person other than a felon, illegal alien, or crazy person. n nAnd before you cry hypocrite, our Founders considered the issue of criminals and crazy people and thought they should not possess firearms. I add illegals because aliens are not Americans.
"What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand." n nWhat part of "well regulated militia" do you not understand?
Hilel, nI've seen you post this several times. Do you know exactly to what the framers were referring when they used the term "well regulated militia"? They could have meant force size or preparedness or any number of things, but I surmise you've put as much thought into this as those who think "promote the general welfare" means we need massive welfare programs. Like most Leftists you seem to need only a scrap of evidence to justify some kind of emotional/ideological viewpoint.
What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" do you not understand? It's the right of the people, not the militia, to keep and bear arms. No one reads "people" in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th amendments (nor its singular form "person" in the 5th), to mean only members of the militia. "People" in the 2nd means the exact same thing as in the other amendments, no more and no less. Moreover, none of the elements of the Bill of Rights constrain or circumscribe individual rights; they only constrain and circumscribe the power of the government relative to the people and the states.
There really isn't much to not understand. At the time the liberty of the colonists was at risk of being threaten abruptly by ships over the horizon from England. Now of course those liberties are threatened by the rot withing our body politic; cult of personality and all. The well regulated part refers to raising a fighting force abruptly to repeal the threat. The citizens, not the government, are empowered to keep and bear arms so they can form a well regulated militia. The militia is not necessarily regulated by the government. In our day and time most certainly not by the government. It is regulated by consent of those determined to maintain their liberty. In our day the Tea Party leadership would be a natural to form a well regulated militia to defend our Constitution from the likes of you. n nIf you don't like the Second Amendment there is a political process detailed in the Constitution to amend or abolish it. Until you do, forget about the "well regulated militia" argument to over rule "shall not be infringed."
The real issue then is why you suddenly support the clearly unconstitutional policies of the President. The decisions in Heller and McDonald clearly make keeping and bearing firearms a Constitutional right. Note that Barak Hussein Obama opposed both Heller and McDonald. Obama openly supported Washington, DC's ban on handguns and severe restrictions on rifles and shotguns. n nThe question that Rush proposed should be addressed directly. Why this sudden support for the policies of Obama? They clearly have no basis in any Constitutional arguement as Obama supported not only WDC's ban on handguns, but also Chicago's ban. So why do you support a ban on ownership of firearms? n nThe next question is why you think a ban on certain standard capacity magazines and certain firearms with "barrel shrouds" can be prohibited but those with handguards not? Can you rationally explain the Constitutional basis for treating a barrel shroud differently from a handguard? Why is a firearm with a bayonet lug subject to infringement and one without not? Why is a pistol grip on an AR-15 constitutionally suspect, but the pistol grip on a Ruger Mini-14 not?
Your inability to give a coherent constitutional arguement of bayonet lugs, barrel shrouds, handguards and pistol grips is telling. Telling because there is no functional difference between the guns banned by Dianne Feinstein and those graciously allowed to the American people by our betters. n nDo you think that someone shot with a Ruger Mini-14 will somehow be better off than someone shot by a AR-15 or AK-47 clone? The only rational explanation for your opposition to gun ownership, or at least some guns you appear to find scarey, is that you have some other reason for your position than public policy or the Constitution. n nThe 1994 Assault Weapons ban had no impact on crime and crime has been declining since the AWB expired. The number of persons killed with all rifles in the United States is lower than the number of persons killed with knives or fists.
So, just what is your supposed rational public policy arguement? It is not based on facts, not based on a Constitutional arguement. It must be based on something else, something that Rush speculates on. And he is probably correct. It is the difference between city mouse and country mouse. n nOK, we get it. You don't like or are afraid of guns. Especially those guns that look particulary scarely like the AR-15 and AK-47 type guns. But you aren't afraid of the Mini-14. That is not particularly rational or attributable to rational public policy debate or disagreement. Your opposition is clearly irrational and Rush is correct to call you out on it as the only explanation is that you want to maintain your viability in the Beltway, other than you are just afraid of scarey things like AR-15s and AK-47s.