Daily Archives: 06/18/2010

The Lastest from Limbaugh on the Spill

Rush is all over the Gulf spill. I was initially unimpressed with his condemnation of the $20 billion for spill damage, and I still am. He makes a reasonable point on the suspending the Jones act to facilitate spill relief.

On the money, he is confusing and inchoherent. On one hand he says that liability should be limited to $75,000,000

Twenty billion dollars when the maximum allowed by law is $75 million, but Obama brings ’em in, who knows what happened in that meeting, it went on much longer than expected, it was said that he was darting in and darting out, he wasn’t there for the whole thing.

But then states:

I’m not defending BP. I’m standing for the rule of law. We have a legal system to ensure that corporations are held accountable. We have free market aspects that ensure that in civil and criminal matters. We have a legal system to deal with it.

Apparently he’s for the rule of law when it is stacked in favor of big commerce with liability caps and the like.

I’ve never found Rush and his brand of conservatism very coherent.

A coherent conservatism or any political philosophy should strive to have a set of basic principles that strive for the greater good I think.
Conservatism it seems to me strives against make utopia a goal. Instead it believes change should be gradual and recognizes that good intention may nonetheless result in bad outcomes. A basis for this is that those in charge of the state are not perfectly wise or rational beings. You can’t give the state limitless power to do good when the actors in government are petty, vain, selfish, not always trustworthy.

Conservatism recognizes that people are fallen in my view. That said, those in business can be no better than those in government. Big business and the big state need to check each other.

Securing funds from BP for paying for the damage from spill recognizes that BP managment will engage in every approach to limit or eliminate their responsibility for the spill, including bankruptcy that will deprive the spill victims of compensation. In other words, I think Obama has behaved in way recognizing the management of BP are not working for the public, to check them.

Limbaugh who on one hand is some distrustful of government motives, seem perfectly comfortable with little or no intrusions on the freedom of action of capitalism. I don’t think he has the same healthy skepticism of the motive of business that he does of those in government, and want no check on business.

This seems inconsistent or incoherent in the extreme in my mind.

Many of the today’s so called conservatives seem to me like they are basically focused on protecting a victimized class. It’s just not the class that I think most would rationally focus.

Their concerns are those at the top who are victimized. Business is shook down for money to remedy its environmental impacts. White men have their traditional top of the pyramid class threatened. And so on…

Generally Rush and his ilk are sneeringly contemptuous of victim classes, not noticing that they have put themselves into just such a class. Is it ironic?