Crunchy Cons vs. Limbaugh Conservatism

I have often discussed both the fact that the anti-intellectual, know-nothing philosophy of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Sarah Palin has become the dominant position in the conservative movement. I have also made a point of noting exceptions. While some partisan Democrats might relish the thought that this is their major opposition, I would prefer to have a two party system in which both parties offer ideas worthy of consideration to solve our problems. Rod Dreher has offered further criticism from the right of Rush Limbaugh’s influence over the Republican Party. As is often the case when I quote conservatives who criticize more extremist aspects of conservatism, I might not agree with Dreher on everything, but he does make several excellent points.

Dreher criticized conservatives who blame the media for their lack of electoral success and chastises them for believing that, “The unpopularity of Republican policies has nothing to do with it.” This lack of understanding of their problems also explains “why nobody inside that bubble could grasp what a flop Bobby Jindal’s reheated Republican mush of a speech was going to be ahead of time.”

The essence of Limbaugh’s worldview is hatred of anyone who thinks differently. Dreher sums up Limbaugh’s view:  “Any attempt to grapple in a public way with the sins and failings of America, the errors that got us into this ditch, is to be seen as unpatriotic.”

The Limbaugh conservatives have no understanding of why they lost and resort to blaming the media or claiming that the problem is that they were not conservative enough. Limbaugh rejects any thought of changing their failed policies arguing,  “Conservativism is what it is and it is forever.” Dreher mocks this by showing how a similar argument from the left would have been accepted:

Because, what, it was handed down from Sinai? One hardly knows what to say to this. Do they really believe politics is dogmatic religion? They must. And if so, they’re hopeless. Can you imagine going to such a liberal gathering in 1985, after Fritz Mondale had his head handed to him by Ronald Reagan, and listening to the de facto leader of US liberalism talking this way, saying that, “Liberalism is what it is and it is forever. It’s not something you can bend and shape and flake and form”? If you were a conservative, you would have chortled and taken comfort in the evidence that the opposition was going to be spending a lot more time in the woods before the light of reality dawned upon their furrowed faces…

Anybody who challenges Limbavian orthodoxy is, ipso facto, the Enemy. If you suggest reform, even from the Right, you are a useful idiot for the Media, which are the Enemy, and can never be anything but the Enemy. Limbaughism sounds a lot like Leninism.

Be Sociable, Share!

5 Comments

  1. 1
    John Lofton, Recovering Republican says:

    Forget, please, “conservatism.”  It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson’s Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:
    “[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth.”
    Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).
    And Limbaugh never made a bigger ass of himself than when he cracked that blasphemous “joke” about himself and God…
    John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
    Recovering Republican
    JLof@aol.com
     

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    The problem with conservatism is not that it is secular but that it fails to respect the ideas of secular government promoted by the founding fathers. Matters of religion must be kept separate from matters of public policy, allowing all to worship (or not worship) as they choose.

  3. 3
    nomoreGOP says:

    This lack of understanding of their problems also explains ”why nobody inside that bubble could grasp what a flop Bobby Jindal’s reheated Republican mush of a speech was going to be ahead of time why nobody inside that bubble could grasp what a flop Bobby Jindal’s reheated Republican mush of a speech was going to be ahead of time.”

    im usually stoned.. but that double sentence really threw me off.. lol

  4. 4
    Ron Chusid says:

    Either I hit “control V” an extra time or you are really stoned and imagining things.

  5. 5
    nomoreGOP says:

    Haha! Well, I will say I was hoping I was imagining things when I watched that GOP rebuttle…. kinda scary that my 4 year old cousin understood everything Bobby was talking about.. I think he missed his calling as a kindergarten teacher…

    I think its time for a new party to step up.. Anyone down to help me start the T.I.S. Party (truth in science) with me? Is anyone else as sick as I am over religion playing ANY role in government or policy making?

Leave a comment