"It is a pity that we know so much about Christ, and yet enjoy Him so little."

- Charles Spurgeon
The Anchoress on "Operation Chaos"

The Anchoress, cogent as always, nails it:

This 2008 election - and much of our electoral process - is already a two-ring circus; Rush is simply adding a third ring, and he’s perhaps also demonstrating how absurdly dishonest and vapid has it all become - the endless campaigning, maneuvering, manipulating and lying. And like a good capitalist he is turning a profit on the thing, besides. (If the “Operation Chaos” tee shirts, hats, etc are meant to support a charity, please let me know.)

So, I don’t think Limbaugh should “be stopped.” But I also don’t know that people should be giggling and guffawing over “Operation Chaos” without considering that — if the “operation” is rooted in a spirit of spiteful payback — it is bound to reap negative fruit. Moreover, I am old-fashioned enough to think of our vote is “a sacred trust” even if that is unsophisticated of me, even if others think vote manipulation is timely sport.

I keep thinking about the Russian Immigrant who looked forward to his first chance to vote in America, and told Gerard Vanderleun, “I will vote always for best, always” and about the people in Iraq who braved so much to hold their purple fingers in the air…and about the Iraqi and American dead who fought to give them that right.

And in thinking about them, I’m a bit ashamed of our three-ring circus and the casual menace which we are bringing to our own sacred process. They all deserve better than we’re giving them, right now.
[Emphasis mine].

I don't think adding a third ring (great metaphor, that) of absurdity to our current political circus is funny, cute, moral, or, on a purely pragmatic level, ultimately effective.

Plus, many of us in the conservative camp are also purportedly committed Christians. So why are we playing the role of the insurgent in the Democratic primaries? The answer "Well, they do it to us!" doesn't cut it for me, at least when said by someone who claims Jesus as Lord. It would make us pretty mad if the Democrats were mucking up Republican primaries, especially on this scale.

Sowing to this wind has a chance of reaping a whirlwind of bitterness, hatred and revenge in our political system for years ahead. Think about it: if the plan "works" and McCain wins, the next election is going to be even nastier, since we've, by our actions, disavowed any rules of fair play. It could also colossally backfire, and Hillary could win. And there's only one good thing about that: all Limbaugh's chuckling acolytes might gain a new, more sober perspective on how stupid Limbaugh's plan was the whole time, and perhaps next time fewer of them would be willing to play along.

“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus

Trackbacks:

Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/4520.

Comments on "The Anchoress on "Operation Chaos"":
1. jen - 04/03/2008 8:35 am CDT

I agree. This whole election cycle has really gotten ridiculous. While I'm normally a political junkie, this go-round I'm barely listening to the chattering masses. It's sad.

2. Raindream - 04/03/2008 8:38 am CDT

On a purely pragmatic level, I believe this plan has been ultimately effective--no joke. The plan was to keep Mrs. Clinton in the primaries so she would beat up Obama more than she had at the point of beginning the plan. She has stayed in and she has roughed up Obama more. Mr. Wright helped too.

Mrs. Clinton cannot win the nomination without breaking her own party, which should be good for us. Talk about a stolen election.

Yes, the plan may help McCain to win. That's the final purpose. Limbaugh announced his plan because the McCain campaign said they wouldn't fight Obama, that they'd use kid-gloves. If Obama would be allowed to give nice speeches with few details, he have a better chance of winning in the general election. If his wife says she hasn't been proud of America for years and no one cares to argue the point, he will look far better to voters who don't pay much attention. But now Obama doesn't look nearly as good as he did, and Limbaugh believes McCain has a great chance of winning.

3. Bill - 04/03/2008 8:44 am CDT

Maybe Limbaugh's a genius, then.

I still don't believe this is right.

4. Quaid - 04/03/2008 8:47 am CDT

Part of me enjoys the whole thing from a political point of view. I remember when Huckabee won the WV primary (held as a state convention), many Romney supporters went nuts because McCain and Paul's delegates dropped their support of their respective candidates and voted for Mike, giving him the edge he needed over Mitt.

That scenario is quite similar to the one we have today and it was, in no way, wrong. That has been part of our political process since its inception. The idea being that if you know your man won't win, then back the guy who is closest to achieving the end your man aims to achieve. In the case of WV, McCain's supporters knew a Romney defeat (at the hands of anyone) was good for McCain. I believe that Paul supporters recognized some of Mike's stances, such as abolition of the IRS, as their own and supported him for that reason. (I don't recall Paul ever going after Romney, specifically.)

The difference between the WV convention and Operation Chaos (which I had not heard of until this post) is that Limbaugh supporters have no ideological similarities between themselves and Hillary's candidacy. They are not supporting her for any reason other than to massively irritate the Democrats. And, yes, if the tables were turned, I think we'd see a bunch of whiny babies.

Democrats are not evil people. Rush Limbaugh is not God, an Operation Chaos voter is not Gideon and the Democrats are not the Midianites. Democrats, as horrible as some of their political stances are, are citizens of the United States who, for the most part, genuinely want to see change occur and should be given the chance to have their voice heard, unmarred by those who invent ways of doing evil.

While the political part of me is somewhat fascinated by this, the American Citizen in me is sad to see the process being manipulated as it has been. It shouldn't surprise us. While this may sound cynical, manipulation of the process to achieve selfish ends goes on daily in Washington DC. Still, that doesn't mean it's right. And to see something wrong done on such a large scale may make this election a political Jonestown for Republicans.

5. Bill - 04/03/2008 8:47 am CDT

"the McCain campaign said they wouldn't fight Obama, that they'd use kid-gloves."

They said they wouldn't fight? As in they wouldn't try to win? I don't believe that for a second. I'm also doubtful that they used the term "kid-gloves".

Did they say they wouldn't resort to the politics of slander and personal destruction? I'm all for that.

I won't vote for him, but maybe an Obama win would be great for our country, if only to change the tone.

My point in all this: We're Christians. Shouldn't we be different? How come "winning" excuses everything? Since when did you need to leave your morals at the voting booth? Why do so many Christians follow Limbaugh like he's Moses or something? When did winning a stupid election become more important than doing what's right?



6. Bill - 04/03/2008 8:50 am CDT

Quaid - well said!

7. Quaid - 04/03/2008 9:00 am CDT

By the way, I won't believe that Hillary's lost until she drops out of the race or I see the votes cast. Her political ties keep her very much in this race as long as she desires to be there.

If, through some devious manner or via divine intervention, wins the nomination, Republicans better watch the heck out. She has a very strong chance of winning. Her political acumen far outweighs that of McCain.

It's said that if she wins, she'll disillusion voters (just like McCain's win disillusioned the Romney voters, right?). It's said that if she wins, she'll have no money to fight, having spent it all on BO (and McCain's raking it in, right?). It's said that too many people dislike her (which is how she's still in the race with nearly the most likeable guy to enter the national scene - outside of Huckabee, of course - in the last ten years, right?).

Don't underestimate the power of the Clintons. If she wins, watch out.

8. Raindream - 04/03/2008 9:14 am CDT

But my comment doesn't address your point, and I'm with you on it. Why can't we be mature about all of this? Why can't we look at five candidates for The White House and cast our vote for the one we like best? All honest support. No games.

Do you really think the normal election process works this way?

We talk frequently about how to vote--pragmatic voting, ideological voting, single-issue voting. We talk about the influence of political ads or debates. There are October surprises, leading questions, slip ups, and out-right lies in the normal election process. There are candidates who say the right things but seem untrustworthy and others who simply look bad on camera, especially next their opponents. Add to that, media spin and bias. That's all normal, isn't it.

How is it vile to attempt to reveal the weaknesses of a candidate we agree would be a terrible leader for our countrymen? Especially when the candidate who is supposed to be doing that says he wants to play softball?

9. Raindream - 04/03/2008 9:59 am CDT

No, they didn't say kid gloves, and I wish I could quote what they said, but the effect was that Obama had weaknesses they would not address in the campaign. You've seen it before. One guys says he wants to talk issues, no negatives, and then won't call his opponent on lies or personal attacks. That guy usually loses somehow.

And I forgot to mention: "It would make us pretty mad if the Democrats were mucking up Republican primaries." Yes, it has already. As I understand it, Democrats have voted for GOP candidates whom they believe are the biggest losers for many elections. New Hampshire does it.

10. Bill - 04/03/2008 11:09 am CDT

"How is it vile to attempt to reveal the weaknesses of a candidate we agree would be a terrible leader for our countrymen? Especially when the candidate who is supposed to be doing that says he wants to play softball?"

I think that when you vote, you should vote for who you want to win, or - if the person you want is no longer available - the next best option (per the example Quaid gave about Huck, Romney, McCain).

I'm not against revealing the truth about Hillary, Obama, or McCain (and I'll bet McCain isn't against revealing the truth about his opponents). I'm against deliberately trying to sabotage the Democratic primary process by voting for a candidate you would never vote for if the vote "counted".

I think it's wrong. It's akin to lying.

And, as you've pointed out, Democrats have done the same to Republicans (although I'm not sure if it's been on this scale). But just because they've done it to us doesn't make it right. All's fair, evidently, in love, war, and politics . . . but I'm not there.

As Quaid pointed out, we'd be complete whiny babies, in high-dudgeon and completely indignant about Democratic "dirty tricks" if the shoe were on the other foot and Daily Kos or someone had been able to mount their own Operation Chaos at the scale Limbaugh has achieved. We'd think it was wrong. At least I'm guessing most Republicans would. We might even think it was immoral, were it happening to us.

Finally - the General Election hasn't even started yet. How do you know how McCain is going to fight? I think that the idea that they are going to go soft, not say anything negative about Obama, etc, is just scare-tactics by right-wing radio (I'd be very surprised if anyone in the McCain campaign has used the term "softball").

If they do go "soft", it will be the first election in forever where the Republican and Democrat weren't at each other hammer and tongs. I don't see it happening.

I have this naive fantasy about having an election that is respectful, civil, and where the issues are discussed and debated. Where the real differences (and, regardless of what McCain-haters will tell you, they are vast) between McCain and Hillary/Obama are examined, and their philosophies of governance, character, decision making, experience, record, etc. are weighed and contrasted. I'd like to see an election where who looks better on TV, who wears boxers or briefs, or who gets smeared with irrelevant and hysterical charges plays a minimal role.

Because I'm tired of it.

11. Bill - 04/03/2008 11:28 am CDT

[Bill, who really thinks Raindream is a cool, admirable, capital fellow but who, for reasons he can't comprehend, has been a real jerk to RD in this comments thread cowers in the corner]

[Raindream, Rambo'd up and loaded for mammoth, strides up and prepares to uncork a can of whoop-behonkus on Bill.

In three . . .

two . . . ]

12. Raindream - 04/03/2008 12:19 pm CDT

grrr . . mmmrah! Can't . . . uncork . . . can . . . arrrrr!

13. Bill - 04/03/2008 12:57 pm CDT

Drink some green gatorade! Will put hair on your chest.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go kill a lion with my bare hands.

:gwah:

14. The Ancient Mariner - 04/03/2008 5:07 pm CDT

Just a couple thoughts:

1) What scale, exactly, has Limbaugh achieved? Do we really know anything beyond a few dozen giggling callers?

2) I for one would far, far rather see a(nother) Clinton presidency than an Obama presidency; I think he's considerably more liberal, considerably less pragmatic (he talks "uniter," but he doesn't vote that way), and considerably more problematic in his understanding of foreign policy. I'll grant you that Sen. Clinton's "experience" is mostly phantom, but there is this one benefit even to her real foreign experience: she has actually seen much of the world. I think that matters.

3) Whoever comes out of the Democratic primaries, I'll be pulling hard for Sen. McCain in November. (Barring the wildly unforeseen, anyway.)

15. Norma - 04/03/2008 6:29 pm CDT

I don't like his campaign at all--especially his taking credit for the chaos they've created quite on their own.

16. Quaid - 04/03/2008 9:46 pm CDT

"How is it vile to attempt to reveal the weaknesses of a candidate we agree would be a terrible leader for our countrymen?"

Maybe someone can explain how voting for Hillary in a primary "reveals the weakness" of Barack Obama. If Rush Limbaugh is revealing the weaknesses of Barack Obama through pointing out inconsistencies or mentioning past stances, that's one thing - and I'm fine with that. I'm okay with talk radio being more candid and harsh than a candidate (it's kind of why people tune in).

I don't understand how perpetuating Hillary's candidacy reveals BO's weaknesses.

17. Joseph D. Walch - 04/04/2008 9:24 am CDT

I don't think Rush Limbaugh's actions are any more immoral or socially destructive than a football team doing a fake punt in the super bowl. It's all part of the 'game.' If he were an elected official, that would be different, but he's a private citizen.

You konw, these politicians and their pundits certainly play dirty, but in private they are really all part of a 'brotherhood' or 'sisterhood' of politics. The higher the seniority a person attains in politics, the more they come to respect and socialize with their opponents (e.g. Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy or the washington power couple Mary Matlin and James Carvill).

18. Philip - 04/04/2008 10:25 am CDT

Has anyone here ever seen "Amazing Grace" the movie? Do you all remember the part where Wilberforce plots with fellow abolitionists to slip a seemingly boring trade regulation in, when most of the other house of commons reps were gone?

It was a scheme. And they plotted. And they snuck one under the radar. It was a very political move. They accomplished their goals by using the "rules" to their own advantage. Was it the right thing to do?

One could argue whether this "operation:chaos" thing is on the same moral level, but this whole discussion reminds me of that part.

Has anyone seen it?

Is it ever OK to violate the spirit of a law, and stay within the letter of it, for a greater good?

I'm not trying to be argumentitive, with this one. Just trying to frame the debate, because how you answer that question, I think, is at the heart of the discussion.

19. The Ancient Mariner - 04/04/2008 11:08 am CDT

Corollary: if you say "yes" to that question in principle, how certain do you have to be of the greater good to say "yes" in practice?

20. Bill - 04/04/2008 11:25 am CDT

"I don't think Rush Limbaugh's actions are any more immoral or socially destructive than a football team doing a fake punt in the super bowl. It's all part of the 'game.'"

Well, except for the fact that the NFL is truly a game, and the election of a President is not.

I'm not trying to be a moral drudge here. I understand that there are political strategies, etc, always. I understand that politicians lie to get elected, make up false things about each other, etc.

To me, though, messing around with another party's primary crosses the line.

And - even if that argument doesn't sway you, keep in mind that what goes around comes around. Things are just going to get worse come next election.

21. Bill - 04/04/2008 11:27 am CDT

"One could argue whether this "operation:chaos" thing is on the same moral level"

Well, one could argue whether Rush Limbaugh's scheme is on the same moral level as abolitionists following proper procedure and banking on the other side not fully reading the bill they were voting on, if one wanted to.

But I'll save everyone the time.

It's not.

:gsmile:

22. Raindream - 04/04/2008 5:52 pm CDT

Philip, yes, I've seen the movie and it's a cool scene. A key different here is that no laws have been broken, no matter what whining you can hear from Ohio. People can vote however they want for whatever reason, and their are states with open primaries. Those states don't care what party you're in; they let you vote as you like it. I think my state is that way. At least, I just ask for a Republican ballot without any request for affiliation ID.

Quaid, Obama has been roughed up more b/c he has had to debate Mrs. Clinton, had to counter some of her statements, and had to deal with Mr. Wright. Maybe the last one didn't have anything to do with the Clinton campaign, but the others did. gotta go

Leave a Comment:
Name:
URL: (optional)
Email: (optional - will not be published)
Comment: