Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Rich Lowry :: Townhall.com Columnist
The apocalyptic centrism of Lou Dobbs
by Rich Lowry
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Listening to Lou Dobbs -- the CNN business anchor who has built his show around a straight-talking populism -- there is inevitably a moment when you nod your head and think, "Yeah, right on."

The other day when he was speaking at a luncheon event in Manhattan, my nodding moment came when he complained that the Iraq War has been going poorly, yet "not a single general has been fired for his failure." That seemed bracing common sense, but with Dobbs, the longer you listen, the more self-discrediting he becomes.

His trick is to spout cliches drawn from the right and the left -- any one of which has a 50/50 chance that the average person will agree with it -- and give them a patina of freshness by wrapping them in angry and dire rhetoric. That rhetoric is their essential glue, making Dobbs the country's foremost practitioner of apocalyptic centrism.

There are various ways to tap into public disgust with partisan politics as usual. One is with a tonal centrism. That is what is offered by Barack Obama, a liberal who presents himself with a tone of sweet reason. Then there is a technocratic centrism: the bland, policy-oriented politics of the sort former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner would have offered Democrats had he run for president. Finally, there's an apocalyptic centrism, spiced up with paranoia and economic ignorance, and warning of the end of America as we know it. Think Ross Perot.

Dobbs is in the Perot tradition. He has taken Dennis Kucinich, Pat Buchanan and a dash of John Bolton, thrown them into a blender and come up with a worldview that is nationalist and populist, while giving both of those things a bad name.

Dobbs once made a living at CNN hosting a show that flacked for corporate America. After leaving to try to cash in on the dot-com bubble just as it burst, he has returned to make a living at CNN hosting a show that trashes corporate America. (Full disclosure: I am a commentator for the rival Fox News Channel.)

Dobbs is no ordinary corporate basher, since he also rails against political correctness, illegal immigration, "Communist China" and radical jihadists. His economic populism is always sold in terms of the middle class and the national interest. Unless we address the foreign economic threat, he warns, "this century will be named for another nation." Indeed, he says, "we're facing a real crisis that will materialize in a couple of years, and we'd better hope that it takes that long."

Evidence of this imminent crisis is thin. Dobbs basically has to ignore the record stock market, an unemployment rate of 4.5 percent and the 20 years of growth since the early 1980s, interrupted by only two brief recessions. Dobbs is worried because the U.S. imports more than it exports and China sends a lot of its capital here, making us "a debtor nation." But his alarmist case really relies on the tired stupidities of old-fashioned protectionism.

At the luncheon, he thundered: "Ninety-six percent of our clothing is imported. This nation cannot even clothe itself." But if we literally couldn't clothe ourselves, we'd be naked. Dobbs' line is like saying we can't feed ourselves because we buy groceries from supermarkets. Textiles inherently are not an advanced, high-paid industry, and it is no wonder that an economic superpower doesn't do a lot of textile production. Would Dobbs prefer that more of us were hunched over sewing machines rather than employed in industries like software development, financial services, law, accounting, biotech and pharmaceuticals?

But never mind. Dobbs demands action now! We need to "do far more, and do it with a vengeance." For him, what other way is there to do something except vengefully? Someone in the 2008 primary sweepstakes from one of the parties will probably embrace some of the Dobbs shtick. Meanwhile, he pledges "to continue to raise a lot of hell" -- naturally enough, since anger and outrage are mostly what apocalyptic centrism is about.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Rich Lowry is author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years .
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Rich Lowry's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
re: Slabo
Again, strawmen and distortion. Where have I argued for monopoly? Typically, monopolies result due to government forces that favor one business over another (typically due to corruption or cronyism) rather than market forces, which tend to promote competition.

My favorite quote from Barry Goldwater:
"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution ... or have failed their purpose ... or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should be attacked for neglecting my constituents' 'interests,' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty, and in that cause I am doing the very best I can."


re: Slabo
quote: "bring up president of Ayn Rand and Rand herself because obviously you admire her work since your call sign is one her FICTIONAL characters ---JOHN GALT !!"

Yes, I obviously got that you were trying to muddle the issue by arguing against the writings of the person that produced a character that I use as a screen name on here, my point was that you're arguing against the strawman of Ayn Rand (or something that someone who heads an institute named for her supposedly said) rather than debating the points that I am making. If my screen name were, say, "James Bond", would you start pulling out statements from the head of the Ian Fleming Institute and trying to tie me to those statements instead of debating my points on their actual merits? Would you assume that I can't be a nonsmoker because Bond smoked Lucky Strikes? How about stop changing the subject and debate the actual points *I* make and not worry about my screen name.

quote: "My bottom line:
My whole point is that you keep defining the word "capitalism" as if that means "individual rights and "self-determination"

It doesn't!


Democracy provides these liberties, NOT an economic system that is to be subordinate to democracy.

See Phillips above. Or T. Paine, T. Jefferson"


My whole point is that I am for individual liberty in every area of life, INCLUDING but NOT LIMITED TO economic choice and self determination. I believe that the best system is one where individual choose their leaders, choose how to live their lives, choose how to spend their money, and so on with the least amount of intrusion from someone else.

Government doesn't "provide[] these liberties" -- government is created to PROTECT those liberties. And yes, I believe that by definition the government that best protects those liberties is one in which we choose our own leaders -- a democratic republic. Every power given to the government beyond protecting our liberties means limiting our own liberties however; every choice the government makes for me is one fewer choice I make for myself.

You keep mentioning labor versus capital. I'm not sure why you keep trying to make this point; labor is comprised of individuals. A free market system provides more choices for individuals, thus providing more opportunities to prosper. I challenge you to point out one instance where I've advocated any policy that would hinder the opportunities of individuals in the labor market.

You print a quote from Barry Goldwater, one of my heroes. I have argued in no way against anything he says in that quote; in fact, he was a strident advocate of individual liberty and free market economics -- of individual choice. You're either not reading my points, inadvertently assigning to me opinions that aren't mine, assuming that because I believe one thing I must believe another, or else you're arguing dishonestly on purpose.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.