Where are our clowns?

Ta-Nehisi Coates has some interesting reflections on why he's not a Republican.

The point is that you have to be able to distinguish your deeply held beliefs, from the electorates. I think much of the GOP's trouble stems from the inability to discern the difference. That whole "Real America," "Real Virginia," small-town snobbery bit, isn't an act--they actually believe it. I've never understood the whole "Center-right country" meme, because it's ultimately self-serving--and then self-defeating. It blinds you to the hard work of arguing, cajoling and fighting with the electorate, until they see your point. It's interesting that so many of their most dominant voices of the GOP (Steele, Gingrich, Limbaugh) have either never won an election, or haven't won one in a decade.

I keep thinking about the big things that have always kept me from being a conservative--the knee-jerk worship of a past that branded me half a man, the elevation of the loud imbeciles who think science teachers should be using the Bible, the toleration and baiting of bigots who cloaked themselves in the garb of "States Rights," and now run under the garb of "protecting marriage." The common denominator here is an unreflective veneration of what was, a belief that tradition, no matter how backwards, can heal all. Thus it's only right, that Steele, Gingrich and Limbaugh make up the leadership.

It's not that I think liberals are without flaw, but to argue that our most strident members should be our public face, would seem silly. As Ross intimates, if most liberals thought it was good idea for Howard Zinn Randall Robinson, or Noam Chomsky to be a spokesperson for the Democratic Party, I'd think we'd all gone insane. If Democratic politicians were scared to disagree with Keith Olberman or Michael Moore, I'd be a man without a home.

Initially, I found myself nodding with him, but then I was struck, as were many of the post's comments, that that isn't a relevant comparison. Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky certainly wouldn't consider themselves Democrats, and probably not even "liberals." Michael Moore is a provocateur and Keith Olberman was created as a foil to Bill O'Falafel, but they don't have the megaphones that Limbaugh, or pretty much anyone on Rightwing talk radio has. No liberal commentator has his or her own version of "dittoheads." We all saw what happened to AirAmerica and we all looked away, shaking our heads.

And that is a good thing. Because the charge that Limbaugh led in the 90s has made him a very rich man in the 00s, but it didn't do much for the Republican party. And now that gloating, bloated face is the face of Republicans right along with oily McConnell and "Ohio Tropic" Boehner. Think of it, Limbaugh's outrage over the Clintons in the 90s is what propelled him to fame and was in large measure what helped delude House Republicans to start that necktie party that would ultimately be their undoing. And now, with a Democrat back in the White House, Limbaugh's outrage over...whatever...is propelling Republicans to take sides once again.