AMERICAblog: A conservative's take on Rush Limbaugh
lucky hussein
· 8 months ago
"us" vs "them". divide and conquer. the oldest trick to grab and maintain power since civilization began and before. encourage people to believe they're seperate from each other, and/or the world at large.
ScarySteve
· 8 months ago
I remember being taught by a very conservative history teacher in high school. (Class of 1966) His take on Rhodesian independence was that the culture for democracy did not yet exist there and independence might be dangerous. He didn't guarantee it. He just mentioned it.
So Left I'm Right
· 8 months ago
I'm not sure of your point. A conservative 1960s high school history teacher? How could one suspect such a viewpoint? What do you suppose he thought of apartheid?
Steve_in_CNJ
· 8 months ago
"But the Limbavian ideologues ... see human nature as essentially perfect, except for the corrupting hand of government."
if you take "human nature" to mean wall street, this could have been directed at george will and "willian" orthodoxy. the people who need to read this are the non-limbavian conservatives who say the republicans "blew it", instead of admitting that they were wildly successful.
naschkatzehussein
· 8 months ago
I see that you're struck by the word "Limbavian" too. I wonder if it will be one of the new words to make it into Wikipedia this year.
Marcell
· 8 months ago
How DARE he question Fearless Leader?
Lucky for Rod, he's a free man unlike Steele.
Joneses
· 8 months ago
How long will it take for him to say I'm sorry also.
Ronny
· 8 months ago
Why would anybody lesson to Rush L. He's a entertainer and a drug addick. He says things so to atract people to lesson and watch. So thus he can atract ade people.
Ronny
So Left I'm Right
· 8 months ago
I actually went and read his whole article. Rather interesting. One is so used to the seething punditry on TV and the Freeper nutjobs that it's easy to forget there are certain people who label themselves "conservative" who have actual principles. I don't tend to agree with very much of what they have to say, and the world view simply doesn't make much sense to me, but at least they are capable of reasoning and attempting an actual debate, rather than yelling platitudes at the top of their lungs and requiring Stalin-like subservience from their sheep. It's just too bad there are so few of them, particularly in actual political office, instead of the typical God-squad Republicans remaining in Congress and the vile public face of "conservatives" represented by the Limbloviator, Billo the-Clown, etc.
Older_Wiser
· 8 months ago
Why was this article on Belief Net? Dreher obviously speaks not only from a "conservative", but a religious, viewpoint, which feeds his conservatism. Religion, to me, is very much like politics. It's in a constant state of flux and informs many people in their views on politics, and vice versa. Remember, we just had 8 years of a president who claimed to have been "born again", infusing both his politics and religion into American life which produced a disaster for the US, both domestically and in foreign policy.
The evangelical movement itself didn't just spring from people's search for religion--it formed because the "stodgy" mainstream religions didn't inform their politics enough, and they sought to change cultural institutions they didn't agree with, i.e., the elevation of women's role in society (including abortion), homosexuality, the progress of minorities, etc. They attacked every progressive idea with the goal of destroying them, and eventually, many mainstream churches joined their effort.
Dreher's analysis may seem important but in the end, it IS conservatism, just "gentler and kinder" with that veneer of religious "thoughtfulness", but with the same goals, as the rantings of Limbaugh.
carolone
· 8 months ago
Have you ever seen the covers of the little magazine Limbaugh sends out to the faithful (who subscribe)? They generally feature him in a 'heroic' pose. There have been a few that actually mimic the art work of the posters of Stalin. Talk about creepy.
Older_Wiser
· 8 months ago
How very different from his image in the 70s when he was "Jeff Christie" and looked like a porn star, albeit with a peace symbol on his jacket in the publicity photo.
Milli
· 8 months ago
Tomorrow he'll retract?
Bethie
· 8 months ago
When you make a pact with the devil eventually he wants your soul. And Rush has taken the soul of the Republican party. I didn't hear much complaining by the right when these policies were being put into place. And it's not just Rush. NYT magazine had an article on the architect of the entire movement, Newt. He was scolding his party for eating the fruit of his labors. When Frankenstein built his monster he was just as surprised as the Republican's are when he ended up losing control of his too. And trust me, Rush is not the only one learning to enrich himself through their fear. They are already talking about removing Steele from his position. And the star of the GOP, Jindel, is proactively grabbing his ankles. That certainly will show Rush who is boss.
All Comments
if you take "human nature" to mean wall street, this could have been directed at george will and "willian" orthodoxy. the people who need to read this are the non-limbavian conservatives who say the republicans "blew it", instead of admitting that they were wildly successful.
Lucky for Rod, he's a free man unlike Steele.
Ronny
The evangelical movement itself didn't just spring from people's search for religion--it formed because the "stodgy" mainstream religions didn't inform their politics enough, and they sought to change cultural institutions they didn't agree with, i.e., the elevation of women's role in society (including abortion), homosexuality, the progress of minorities, etc. They attacked every progressive idea with the goal of destroying them, and eventually, many mainstream churches joined their effort.
Dreher's analysis may seem important but in the end, it IS conservatism, just "gentler and kinder" with that veneer of religious "thoughtfulness", but with the same goals, as the rantings of Limbaugh.
I didn't hear much complaining by the right when these policies were being put into place.
And it's not just Rush. NYT magazine had an article on the architect of the entire movement, Newt. He was scolding his party for eating the fruit of his labors.
When Frankenstein built his monster he was just as surprised as the Republican's are when he ended up losing control of his too. And trust me, Rush is not the only one learning to enrich himself through their fear.
They are already talking about removing Steele from his position. And the star of the GOP, Jindel, is proactively grabbing his ankles. That certainly will show Rush who is boss.