Rush Limbaugh Says Conservatism Isn’t Electable And That Democrats Should Just Do What They Want

Posted by J. Alexander Mitchell on 05.06.2009

It was a slow news day, so I decided to read some Rush Limbaugh. That's always dangerous...

May 6th began as what a political blogger would refer to as a "slow news day". The biggest story that morning was about reconstructive surgery for a woman that was shot in the face with a shotgun (Disclaimer: I found some of the pictures somewhat disturbing). Of course, halfway through writing this, Maine became the fifth state to allow gay marriage. If I had not already gone down the line of what I think about gay marriage, I would have led with that. However, in looking for interesting political news to read, I decided to hit up Rush Limbaugh's website, and found this awesome gem: Rush states that conservatism isn't electable. A bit later, he says that the party in power should basically simply do what they want to. I immediately scanned the shot for signs of a parasite, or perhaps the remains of the alien symbiote from Spiderman 3… but apparently these were his words.

Now THERE'S a story.


Here is the direct quote from his website. I will include a couple of sentences on both sides of the quote to help establish some context.

"And when you end up pandering, it's what I told 'em last night, when you end up pandering and you give people what they want, what if what they want is wrong, what if what they want is bad for themselves? It's not that voters are like children, but at some point those who understand what we're talking about, the principles of conservatism and so forth, and how to make this country the best for the most, which has been demonstrated that it happens, you just need to go out and tell people this. You know, I went through the story, people say, "Rush, why don't you run for office?" And I say I can't take the pay cut."
I picked up two things from this part: (1) The fact that he says he'd never run for office due to not wanting to take a pay cut means that he is far too honest to be an elected official, and (2) his sentences are way, WAY too long. Really, Rush… my last sentence, which was a compound statement, was 49 words, and he STILL beat that. I stand both fearful and impressed.

Here is the continuation of the quote, with a couple of sentences on the other side for context.

"What would you say anyway?" I would say something that I wouldn't last one day as a political candidate. Getting an audience is different than getting votes. I'd stand up and I'd say, "I'm the antithesis of President Obama. Don't look to me to solve your problems. Look to you to solve your problems. I'm going to get myself and this government outta your way. You are what makes the country work. I'm not. I'm just here to ride steward on the Constitution and make sure that this government does not get in your way and punish your achievement. But it's up to you, folks, you're far better than you know you can be.

But Obama is doing just the opposite. Every day Obama goes out and he presents a crisis and a problem and himself as the solution. "Don't worry, I've got it under control, I can handle it," making people waifs, wards of the state, if you will. "

What fascinated me about that quote was that his theoretical "hands off" approach to government appears to be Conservatism 101. Why would the current icon of conservative philosophy preface his theories by stating that "he wouldn't last one day in office"? Isn't that what he is asking the Sarah Palins of the world to do? How about "Getting an audience is different from getting votes"? Why are politicians supposed to espouse his philosophies when he explicitly states that they are not going to get votes? How is he planning on having the rest of the country jump on board with the philosophy; is he going to wave his hand at them and say "Those are not the fiscal policies you are looking for…"? If that is the plan, does that make him Qui-Gonn, Obi-Wan, Darth Maul, or Anakin?

I also saw Rush's response to the NCNA listening tour. Here is an excerpt, with a few sentences on each side for context:

"It was born of a philosophical belief that an oppressive, large government will choke off individual economic freedom, growth, and liberty. So we didn't have to build a big tent.

Now, to pass it, to pass these Reagan tax cuts with a Democrat-dominated House and a Democrat-dominated Senate, what did we have to do? We didn't sell Tip O'Neill on these tax cuts; we didn't sell the Democrats on the philosophy and the policy of the tax cuts. If we had, they won't be promising to raise everybody's taxes every time they open their mouth. What happened was we beat their butts, in the eyes of the American people. Ronald Reagan was able to explain this to people and Jack Kemp and the whole army was able to explain this to people. The Democrats had no choice but than to vote for it because the American public had elected Reagan in a landslide on substantive issues, he had a mandate, and that was part of the mandate, cutting taxes. But don't think they ever came to believe it. They are afraid of tax cuts, they are afraid of the principle of burgeoning economic freedom and liberty because the more of that you get the less need there is for liberals. So they were never persuaded, they were beaten, they were defeated. And this didn't come about by reaching out. It didn't come about by building a big tent. It didn't come about with a listening tour. It came about because of a devotion to a principle that gave birth to a policy.

Now, look, anybody is free to be a Republican. Anybody is free to run for office. But like anything else, there are winners and there are losers. We support the people we agree with. We oppose those we don't agree with. That's the nature of politics and elections. "

Rush is not the first person I have heard to embrace the theory that the fact that you have been elected means that you can do what you want to do.Personally, my favorite version of this thought is "I have political capital…" (insert cocky laugh here)"… and now I'm gonna spend it!". As an aside - to my Bush loving readers, please note that this quote is listed out of love. I'm a wrestling fan, and nothing is cooler to me than a cocky heel.

What is different about Rush's usage is that this philosophy is being quoted from someone on the minority side. Did the Democrats not, in 2008, have a set of elections that were won "in a landslide on substantive issues"? I believe that the current Senate and House majorities, as well as the party of the current President, would suggest this. So why would the icon of conservatism basically say that those in power should use it, given the fact that doing so would lead to the most un-conservative governmental actions one can think of?

The reason why I question all of this is not because I place considerable value in the viewpoint of Rush Limbaugh. I read Rush Limbaugh for two reasons: (1) to get a better idea of what people that do NOT think as I do believe, and (2) for entertainment. However, I do recognize that a large number of people – specifically Republicans – do place considerable value in what he has to say… and what he has had to say lately has been in direct contrast with what a number of Republican leaders have to say. Admittedly, these leaders (such as Jeb Bush, Eric Cantor, and Mitt Romney) did not have to build a career as an entertainer (and yes, Rush Limbaugh is a professional entertainer, not unlike Oprah Winfrey or John Stewart) to get into their positions of political leadership. No… all these guys did was win elections.

Like it or not, there is a growing schism within the Republican party. There was a picture on FoxNews of some Republicans protesting the NCNA tour, holding a sign that says "Immigration is the Real Problem". Admittedly, I only take so much stock in pictures I find on FoxNews; just today I was hit with pictures of a 21-week old fetus coming out of a woman's stomach like a facehugger from Alien and the above-mentioned facial reconstruction shots on the front page. Clearly, their webmasters are not focusing what I think is appropriate for the front page of a news website.

However, the point is that the picture shows the nature of the schism – there are the Rush Limbaugh types that appear to be repeating the same old talking points, whether or not they even make sense (the former Rush quote) or seem actively detrimental to their cause (the latter), and there are the reformers, that seem to want to listen to their constituencies to see what direction the party should go in.

So the question to the Republican readers: just like Marvel Comics asked in 2006... What Side Are You On?

I know my answer (which I will publicly say I'm stealing from hip-hop artist The Rapture) - I'm on the side with Wolverine.

05/07/09 Edit: Oh, and Rush also thinks Colin Powell is a liberal and should jump to the Democratic party... oh, and he says again Powell only supported Obama to help a brutha out. If I ever decide to do a weekly column, I'm going to have to have a section JUST for Rush. He is indeed an entertainer's entertainer.