Pitts’s main point is that Rush’s publicity stunt ought not be ignored because of what it says about Rush and anyone who defends him. What it says, according to Pitts, is that hoping the President fails is hoping the country fails and is therefore disloyal to the country.
I disagree with Pitts. Disloyalty to the country is hoping the Constitution fails. Could a German hope for Hitler’s failure and a bright future for Germany at the same time? To be clear, I’m comparing no one to Hitler, I offer that as an extreme, but plausible, example where a citizen could hope for a failure of a leader without hoping for the failure of the country.
The unfortunate outcome of Rush’s remarks is captured in Pitts’s commentary: hurt feelings and reflexive attempts to defend. Tragically, the dialogue rarely goes past that.
The more interesting question to me is buried in Rush’s transcript,
…what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it?
I wonder what Pitts thinks of this?