Drinking the Rush Limbaugh Kool-Aid

Limbaugh is playing to his base. He has no vested interest in a Republican victory - his schtick works better when the Democrats are in power.

Well, I guess I'm a Kool-Aid drinker.

Rush is a conservative. His "lunacy" quoted was ordered toward conservatism, NOT the GOP. Now of course the rub is that the GOP is the only home for conservatism now.

He's about promoting conservatism. If that means (and it does) getting the liberals out of the GOP, so be it.

Quite aside from the question of whether or not conservatism is a good thing, as an electoral strategy it works ever time it's tried.

As usual, this is another example of hearing or reading what others say of Rush bearing little if any resemblence to what I hear Rush actually say and advocate.

Rod, how is it that Rush advocating conservatism in the GOP lunacy, but you're refusing to vote AGAINST Obama because McCain for not being Cruncy-Con enough is not?

"Didn't that "strategy" end up giving the Republicans a flush-with-cash-and-supporters candidate named Barack Obama..."

No, you're thinking of the fund raising violations of the O-Bortionotrons.

Hmmm. So Rush (whom I haven't listened to in over a decade) comes out for a conservative Republican Party?

Guess I'll have to re-think my disdain for him.

Well then, I suppose that I'm with Rush. (Again.) The GOP wins when it runs for conservatism, limited government and socially conservative policies. When it stands for principle. It loses when it tries to be all things to all people. It loses when it tries to out-liberal the Democrats.

I'm not voting GOP because they nominated a pseudo-conservative party hack for president.

God bless Rush. I hope he stays true to his word.

Sounds like he's calling for his party to return to conservatism rather than changing with the times. If that means his party becomes irrelevant, then it will be irrelevant for having some conservative principles. Maybe Rod would prefer it conservative principles were abandoned altogether for the sake of politcal relevancy?

Max writes: "Now of course the rub is that the GOP is the only home for conservatism now."

OMFG, this seemed like so gobsmackingly blatant a stolen base that after finishing choking on my oatmeal I had to post to say, "Huh?"

What supporting evidence would you put forward for this wild assertion?

Thanks!
Doug

The common belief that the Republicans need to reside in the center of the political spectrum in order to win is not supported by the facts. Here is how the presidential elections went as far back as I was paying attention. I will say in advance that my description of these candidates as conservative and liberal refers to how they were generally perceived at the time.

1968 - Nixon, conservative, defeated Humphrey.
1972 - Nixon, much more conservative than McGovern, wins in a landslide.
1976 - Ford, squishy middle-of-the-road candidate, loses to Carter, also MOTR.
1980 - Reagan, very conservative, defeats liberal Carter in a landslide.
1984 - ditto. Reagan, very conservative, in a landslide win over liberal Mondale.
1988 - Bush ran as a conservative and defeated the very liberal Dukakis.
1992 - America realized that Bush was no conservative and went with MOTR Clinton.
1996 - Bob Dole, the ultimate MOTR Republican, loses to the liberal Clinton.
2000 - W plays conservative and defeats the very liberal Gore.
2004 - W continued to play conservative, and narrowly defeated the liberal Kerry.

Whenever the Republicans have run strong conservative campaigns, they have won. Moving to the center has never worked. Why should it? It just turns into "Democrat lite", and voters figure they might as well go with the real thing.

I guess I'm more on the Rush side of things. I'd rather fight for my conservative principles and lose rather than sell out for the sake of political power for a certain party.

Alex Massie says that Republicans won in 1994 by appealing to independents and moderates...which they did by being conservative and putting for sound conservative ideas (Contract With America etc...), something the party hasn't really done in a decade or so.

I compare it (granted somewhat imperfectly) to religion. The Catholic or Orthodox churches could greatly expand our appeal to "moderates" and "independents" by altering our views on various issues (abortion, ordination of women, views on sexuality, etc...) and indeed, the churches are often encouraged to do so. They certainly could, but is it worth abandoning principles you believe to be true? I would argue no.

And sure, McCain hasn't run a great campaign, but I would contemplate that it is impossible for a moderate, especially a moderate Republican, to run an exciting campaign by their very nature. I'm not sure what people expected, really. This is the same John McCain that has always been there. This is the man that the "pseduo-intellectuals" suggested was the Republican party's only hope to beat Hilary or Obama. Well, we've got him and we see what we get. Many of those same people rushing to support Obama.

You guys make no sense at all. Douthat especially.

His basic assumption is that the conservative base is scaring off the "real" voters, and he wants us to shut up, let the triangulators play image games to get elected, and then for us conservatives to quietly go away, be silent, and not embarrass them. But definitely come back and vote for the "centrists" every election.

That lunacy is gauranteed failure.

I can't say what Limbaugh thinks should be, but until or unless the GOP is taken back from the cowards and starts being active leaders for conservative ideas and ideals, it will be nothing but a minority.

It needs bold people, with bold vision, and rock solid principles to lead it somewhere, and THE PEOPLE WILL FOLLOW. They are literally screaming to be lead somewhere, and Douthats scared witless of having principles on display... The essence of leadership.

For that matter, what about 1960 (conservative Nixon losing) or 1952/1956 (Eisenhower, the real ultimate MOTR'er winning)?

As the cross-examiner says, you stopped the quote just were it gets interesting.

Tom G -

1968 - Nixon was a conservative by 1968 standards. Today he'd be like Powell. He advocated speaking with our enemies (China, anyone?_
1972 - See above.
1976 - Ford lost because he pardoned Nixon. End of story.
1980 - Reagan was a Fiscal conservative. Let's not gloss over the fact that he was for gay rights, signed Amenesty legislation, and raised taxes substantially in 1985. Additionally, he signed a pro-abortion law as Governor of California in 1967.
1984 - See 1980.
1988 - Bush ran for Reagan's 3rd Term, and won based on that metric. He, again, was a social moderate, even changing his abortion position in 1980 to become VP. To call Bush a conservative is an insult to actual conservatives.
1992 - Clinton was/is a liberal. The fact that he triangulated as a polictial strategy doesn't change that.
1996 - Bob Dole was/is more conservative, based on his record, than either Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush II. You're choosing definitions to suit your theory.
2000 - W plays conservative and plays conservatives for suckers.
2004 - W continued to play conservative, and suckers conservatives again.
2008 - McCain, a moderate his entire career, plays conservative and conservatives line up to support him - yet again played for suckers.

While I don't buy the 'materialism-uber-alles' portion of Rush's line (and neither does he--witness his extravagant gifts to his favorite charity...)

...frankly, we've had enough of the Intellectualoids and their half-baked inanities.

One is either pro-life or not. One is either a defender of individual rights to life, liberty (properly understood) and property, or one is not.

One either believes in the right to self-defense, or one does not.

One either DOES or DOES NOT believe that the United States is a sovereign nation unto itself.

Any damn fool can pick out statements from Gov. Palin and say "nyah, nyah, your articulation of the nuance is missing."

But only a Greater Damn Fool can find a Marxist top-of-the-ticket to be a better alternative.

On this one, Rush is right and The Hive is wrong---Harvard degrees and all.

With the economy in flames, The Republicans would have been crushed this year regardless of whom they ran. FWIW, I think if they had nominated the kind of conservative agreeable to His Adiposity, we'd be looking at a 20-point loss instead of the likely tenner.

Nightstalker
October 27, 2008 2:34 PM
It needs bold people, with bold vision, and rock solid principles to lead it somewhere, and THE PEOPLE WILL FOLLOW. They are literally screaming to be lead somewhere, and Douthats scared witless of having principles on display... The essence of leadership.

Sheesh, again with the "leader" fetish!

Why do you crave a leader so badly? Are you that eager to be a follower?

I say "A pox on all would - be leaders!" All I want is to be left in peace to enjoy my life.

Leaders? Pshaw!! Those who would be my leader do not have my best interest at heart - they would use me to advance their own agendas.

I'll have none of that...

Franklin Evans (2:55 PM) is correct. There is no ideological consistency within the GOP. It all comes down to branding and marketing. If push comes to shove, do you trust Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, or Arlen Specter to uphold conservative values? In the face of an impending liberal super-majority, a plausible scenario might see the GOP splintering into several factions that form coalitions on specific issues and oppose each other on other issues.

Zaccheus, my late mother years ago got tired of her adult children's bickering, and made us take an oath: we can fight as much as we think we must at family gatherings, but only if we can be nice to each other the rest of the year. It worked out rather well, but as always YMMV.

Catholic ttC, your very plausible scenario has a potential benefit: that factions of Democrats will form for cross-aisle agreement on some issues. Nothing is ever guaranteed, but it is a pleasant prospect to think about.

Just a second for Scott in PA. I'm also in PA, some maybe there's something in the water. Or the World Series...

Rush's point, when distilled from his characteristic and entertaining rhetorical flourishes, is exactly right: John McCain was the Republican candidate best suited to appeal to middle of the road Republicans. Not conservatives. Now those same Republicans are abandoning him anyway. Rush merely, to me, appears to be asking the following:

1) If I consider myself a conservative, are these people really my allies?
2) If I identify as a conservative why should I acquiesce to a candidate they favor if they are likely to abandon me anyway in the face of merely standard resistance?

Now, Limbaugh and I don't agree all the time. I'm a bit of a crunchy con, and he's not. He's way too enamored of the consumption culture for my taste. But he doesn't give a fig about the GOP, and neither do I. And I'm a GOP committeeman! [in an attempt to make the GOP better] But I think he would be a more likely ally in a new conservative movement than Colin Powell. And, certainly, than Obama.

To lose sight of this would be to jettison the "con" for an unmodified "crunchy".

"OMFG"?

"Is that like "WTFWJD"?"

Yup. Gotta remember that one.

"1) If I consider myself a conservative, are these people really my allies?
2) If I identify as a conservative why should I acquiesce to a candidate they favor if they are likely to abandon me anyway in the face of merely standard resistance?"

The #1 and #2 reasons that moderates and independents (politicians, pundits and voters) give for abandoning John McCain this election are...

A. Picking Palin as VP (which conservatives loved).

B. His negative attacks on Obama (which conservatives love).

Throw in the connection to George W. Bush (who conservatives continued to love long after everyone else gave up on the man), add the fact that McCain's major economic message this campaign has been either Tax cuts (which conservatives love) or controlling government spending (which conservatives used to love) and it's hard to make an argument that being too moderate is what's hurting McCain with ANYONE in this race.

Mike

I am confused... where was Rush when Bush was re-writing conservative principles? Oh yeah, he was cheering him on! On top of that, when people pointed out just how un-conservative Bush was, he was accusing the critics of not being REAL conservatives. It wasn't until the big losses of 2006 that Rush finally ADMITTED he had been carrying Bush's water. What does it even mean to be a conservative anymore? Certainly not the following...

Limited government and respect for the constitution: Bush said he was for it, but yet you have the patriot act, expansion of the powers of the executive branch, domestic spying, the biggest expansion in government since the Johnson years (between Medicare-part D, no child left behind, and department of homeland security), rolling back habeas corpos, an unnecessary war

Fiscal responsibility: Bush said he was all for it, yet he gave us tax cuts during two wars, leading the the national debt almost doubling.

Strong military: Bush said he was all about that, and yet, multiple generals have stated that Bush has nearly broken the military, with its multiple deployments, severe recruiting problem, and exodus of talent.

Family\religious values: Bush has made a lot of promises, but other than supreme court justices, he hasn't delivered on any.

Wouldn't it be great if Rush actually stuck up for conservative values, you know... the sanctity of marraige, refraining from drug abuse, calling politicians on it when they say one thing and do something else entirely?

So wait, tax cuts for the middle class was a Carter era idea? Asking teacher unions to accept merit pay? Examining the efficiency and effectiveness of government programs, and cutting them if they don't make the grade... also Carter? Deficit reduction?

By the way, the windfall profits tax on oil... that was McCain.

Let the Democrats have complete control, and let them be unopposed to implement their leftist statism; that seems to be where the electorate want to take the country. When that program fails miserably, as it inevitably will, the US will need a clear ideological alternative: a GOP that is pro-life, anti-statist, hawkish on defense (minus neocon excesses). Expect an unhinged MSM to oppose conservatives like Jindal; but, in the long--possibly very long--run, even the MSM will not be able to stop conservatism.

Skeptics are invited to compare European health statistics (you pick your own number, infant mortality, longevity, whatever) to ours.

And, again as the Tories discovered, once the brand has been contaminated the base is no longer enough to win. When the electorate moves, political parties that are truly interested in winning move too.

I'm not a Dittohead, but this comment of Alex Massie's simply isn't true. The UK Tory experience is far from the most plausible analog to U.S. Republicans. Among other factors, the Tories are heavily burdened by Britain's class consciousness, which is much deeper there than in the U.S. Nor can the Tories count on anything like the pro-gun, pro-life, religious, pro-military base that the GOP can rely on in the U.S. Even in their Thatcher heyday, the Tories were only a minority party, winning 4 successive elections thanks in large part to the unbridgeable Liberal vs. Labour split. So the Tory road back to power isn't the same as the Republican road.

Moreover, we've seen over and over in America that what matters in elections are candidates and external circumstances, not tacking toward the center on policy issues. We are about to elect a Democratic President who isn't one centimeter closer to the Center than George McGovern. But he's a better candidate and he's running in an more favorable environment.

John E:

Like it or not, the human condition is, that a few lead, the rest tend to follow.

So, you think you're a leader, because you don't follow? Or, because you don't want a "leader"?

Frankly, you have no idea what leadership is, which is why you're all in a-twitter. The reason people need leadership ,is the same reason collectivism doesn't work. Without any leadership, everyone is a mass of self-generated agendas, which is not inherently evil on its own, but after a certain amount of time, eventually someone becomes the "pop star" and influences others... negatively. Soon everyone becomes self-centered with no regard for anyone else.

No matter what the organization or group, leaderlessness eventually results in complete decay. This is a truth beyond criticism - it is true of everything from families to nations to businesses to schools to clubs to politics. Not since Reagan has anyone attempted to "lead" this nation. Bush 1 was a blue blood "don't rock the boat" type. Clinton polled his way through the shifting winds and waves of public opinion to try to be at least even or appear ahead of shifting pop culture. Bush 2 has done his job the way he thinks it should have been done, and played leader to the government. But not to people.

McCain promises to be his own man and not let others make his decisions. But leaves us all wondering what those decisions might be on most topics.

Obama tells us even less, but vaguely promises paradise.

All this malarkey since Reagan has resulted in mass pandering for votes... Everyone promising something in return for votes. Which, again, is the essense of NON LEADERSHIP. In this light, Obama's set himself as "the solution to everything" while saying nothing.

It only sells because nobody else is pitching ANYTHING.

Leadership works, because true leadership is conviction, wisdom, and communication put in practice.

The problem with the modern "conservative movement" is with its target audience.

Americans have, for all practical purposes, do not support a limited government. They support the quintessential socialist program---Social Security---to the point where a sitting president takes a political shellacking simply by mentioning "reforming" it. In addition, they reward those politicians supporting socialist programs (SocSec, Medicare, Medicaid) in the most direct way---by returning them to office.

Americans support fiscal responsibility ? Don't make me laugh. The massive hyper-leveraging of the American consumer and the American central government borders on the proverbial.

Americans support family values ? Again, an absurdity on its face. The cohabitation rate is at historic highs. Divorce is so commonplace that not even the Roman Catholic Church publicly criticizes it overmuch. (While His Holiness may criticize it, one very seldom hears such criticism from the average parish priest or bishop.) In the black portion of the population, 70-80 percent of the children are illegitimate---and this state of affairs is endorsed by the commoner element of the said population. "Popular" culture not only celebrates sexual promiscuity, it virtually denies that the normal two-parent married family exists at all. Fatherhood, in the sense of father as authority figure, is an utterly foreign notion in the eyes of said culture. And this sort of thing is not only accepted by the average American (through viewing such programming), but endorsed (by patronizing those companies advertising on said programs).

America, in the final analysis, is a fundamentally anti-traditional, leftist and socialist country. Conservatives and traditionalists, in order to survive, will do well to recognize that fact. We are a Remnant (at best), and our best option for survival is to withdraw from the dominant culture as best we can and wait for its oncoming and inevitable collapse.

Hang in there, my fellow Traditionalists. The American AmNatSoc Empire will, in fact, fall. And many of us will live to see it.
Speed that day.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

There is more wisdom in the brutal realism of Lord Karth than in the warmed-over Fuehrerprizip presented by Nighstalker. The American people do not want and would not accept a leader; we prefer an enabler, such as the sainted Reagan, or the priapic Clinton. We will continue to vote for the impossible (voodoo economics, anyone?) and we will continue to be dismayed when the grim possible happens instead, and it will always be somebody else's fault when TSHTF. Time to think about how to actually implement various versions of the Benedict Option. The Kulturkampf is over, has been for years, and we Traditionalists have lost. How could it be otherwise? A life lived subject to limits on consumption, as a member of a larger community and embracing humility as the primary virtue cannot possibly compete with the Classical Liberal fantasy of Newer! Brighter! Bigger! Better! Ever-Expanding GDP! Freedom! One really cannot serve both God and Mammon, although the attempt will continue to be made.

"His Adiposity"...that is fabulous. Thank you Hunk.

As I read it, at least a third of commentators on this thread approve of Limbaugh's depiction of American conservatism.

This Kool-Aid includes cheerleading the war in Iraq, specifically for its oil reserves, mocking complaints of torture at Abu Ghraib, denying the reality of global warming, and encouraging an enrich the rich tax policy.

"This cannot stand," as one famous Republican put it.

In this case that's true quite literally: Limbaugh's ideas do not stand the test of time.

It's ironic, because Limbaugh describes himself as a conservative -- that is, someone deeply rooted in the past, in tradition, in what lasts.

Politically speaking, it couldn't be less true. Limbaugh is a man of the moment. A lot of what he says sounds knowing and smart that particular moment, but sounds stupid a week later, and stays stupid.

Like his co-conspirator Karl Rove, Limbaugh is an effective partisan in the short-term, but his working method -- misleading -- leads to disaster in the long-term.

Rove encouraged the Bush White House to go to war overseas for the sake of domestic political advantage -- playing games with lives for the sake of getting elected.

Limbaugh on the air loves to mock and to sneer, to feel superior, to not care -- and that's what's been getting him in trouble in reality.

He lost his TV show. Failed in his attempt to become a sports commentator. And his attempts to sway voters are falling flat, as someone above (Frog Leg?) said.

One example is the sneering at Michael J. Fox in the last election, which probably helped get Claire McKaskill elected.

At these moments, Limbaugh's instinctive move to trash others turns not just destructive, but self-destructive.

For instance, here's Limbaugh on the day the market began to melt down:

"There goes the Dow, down 603.49 since the thing has failed. This is a monumental day. There is so much to learn in what happened here today... This tells me that the Democrats easily holding the House and Senate is not a slam dunk. This tells me that a lot of Democrats in the House really fear not being reelected, and you see how those Democrats voted. So, folks, once again, the lesson is ignore the conventional wisdom...I shouldn't say this, but I'm going to say it anyway. Screw the market!"

http://www.achangeinthewind.com/2008/09/the-gop-goes-fo.html

Max Schadenfreude:

Do you ever have any independent thoughts?

Anything that's not either a Limbaugh or Catholic talking point?

"Limbaugh on the air loves to mock and to sneer, to feel superior, to not care -- and that's what's been getting him in trouble in reality."

Although I'm no great fan of Limbaugh's, I think that many liberals (such as this poster) misread him. A big part of his schtick is hyperbole and overstatement -- as he describes it, pointing out the ridiculous by being ridiculous, or something like that. It takes a few weeks or even months of listening to get to the point where a listener is able to discern when he's serious about something and when he's hyperbolizing. But regular listeners do eventually get it.

I listen to him only rarely, but I generally find him quite entertaining, even when I disagree with him (which is often).

America, in the final analysis, is a fundamentally anti-traditional, leftist and socialist country.

America was settled by Protestants fleeing traditionalist Europe, the American Revolution and Constitution enshrined the ideas of the Enlightenment which rejected traditional views of governance. From the very start America was fundamentally anti-traditional.

This has proven to be our strength, because rather than fall into the traditional (and hackneyed) debate between fascists and communist, the vast majority of Americans are in fact practicalists. We want government that works, not too little, not too much. We want systems that work well enough, not gold-plated and not falling apart. We find ideology tiresome, as both the ideologies of the left and the right have been proven to screw up the country.

Americans can't be bothered with the intellectual rigor it takes to be "leftist and socialist" any more than they can be bothered with the intellectual rigor it takes to be members of "the conservative movement." Most Americans are far too busy living their lives to be bothered with ideological purity, which is why kicking all but the ideologically pure out of the Republican Party is the way to permanent minority status, thus following the paths created of real lefties, Eugene Debs and Gus Hall.

Mr. Limbaugh, the Iraq war booster, and ultra-patriot, served his country with honorable military service, right?

Right?

I think it's time for a Christian Democrat party in America. Country Club republicanism has taken it on the chin.

Someone--I forget who--said years ago of the comedian Groucho Marx, "The trouble with Groucho is, he thinks he's Groucho." Somewhere in the recesses of Groucho's mind some wires had evidently crossed--he had come to fancy himself to be the endlessly funny creature he played onscreen, a wit, a bon vivant, a "character".

He wasn't. He was a not terribly bright, not terribly funny, not terribly nice old man, coasting pathetically on a dying reputation. He damaged his own brand horribly in his declining years.

Well, then there's Rush--the trouble with whom is, indeed, that he thinks he's Rush. At some point in the last decade, he forgot he was a sometimes-funny, sometimes-outrageous radio entertainer with a penchant for right-wing politics, and began to fancy himself a Great Man, a Movement Leader, a Father of Conservatism. Since then he's devolved, becoming pretty much insufferable--narcissistic, impervious to reason, less and less relevant, certainly less and less entertaining (as his shrinking audience numbers attest).

It's sad, because back when he was delighted just to be a great big jolly right-wing comedian with the immense good fortune to be making a lot of money doing what he loved to do, he was often fun, and sometimes even a little bit insightful.

Palling around with terrorists

Seriously, you don't actually believe that stuff, do you? Tell me you're just kidding around for effect, right? I mean, particularly when you're supporting a political party that advocates the use of torture and has convicted felons like G. Gordon Liddy as radio spokesmen that you can claim someone else is "palling around with terrorists" based on a tenuous kevin-bacon like connection doesn't really put you on solid moral ground, here when trying to attack someone who, unlike many members of the current Republican party, seems to have had a rather honorable track record and a record of honorable public service that no one seemed to have a problem with until recently.

But if saying things like that makes you feel like you're part of the kool-kids club, go to it. The rest of the world thinks you sound foolish.

and being a socialist is, indeed, a shorthand description of Sen. Obama's associations and thought.

I suggest that it is not a good idea to try to make the election a referendum on socialism. Because when Obama wins, what will you say, and how will you argue that Obama's center-left agenda is somehow out-of-bounds? Most measures of public sentiment, including, but not limited to, Obama's nationwide support, indicates that his rather cautious, standard-fare Democratic party agenda is rather popular amongst the public. Trying to demonize is as "socialism" and then watching as that agenda actually wins, only makes you look foolish in the end, unless you're hoping that we somehow forget about your apocalyptic ravings about the danger of an Obama presidency 4-8 years from now.

It's more in your interest to claim that McCain would simply offer more steady leadership. If you make the election a referendum about liberalism, then the entire post-election narrative becomes about America supporting a wide-ranging liberal agenda and that opposition to it ensured utter defeat to all the Republicans who attacked the American people for their desired agenda.

Tyro:

I don't care about the GOP, so I'm not sure why you presume I am carrying water for John McCain or his party as currently constituted.

If you deny Obama was familiar with Bill Ayers' background and found it relatively unobjectionable, I am not the one drinking kool-aid. I'm not, here, claiming it *matters*. It just is.

And I happen to think Obama's brand of socialism is a bad idea, and I don't much see the point in accepting it fait accompli as a tactic to win elections in the future. That's what a game-fixing plutocrat or deadweight rent-seeker would do. And yes, I am suggesting that Rush may be right in implying certain GOP thought-leaders are probably one of those things if they are abandoning the candidate best-suited to appeal to them.

I aspire to be neither. I'd rather be a part of a movement sincerely interested in a fiscally responsible government delivering essential services to the governed, successfully not intruding on them overmuch while protecting liberty for all, favoring none.

Perhaps I have started the *real* post-partisan conversation prematurely...

And I happen to think Obama's brand of socialism is a bad idea,

Screaming "socialism" about what amounts to a mainstream American set of policy prescriptions that just happens to be advocated by a Democrat doesn't do anything for your credibility. It makes you seem like a bit of a nutter. Seriously, listen to yourself. You're claiming that a set of policies which are supported by most of America (regardless of the actually outcome of the election) is some kind of "socialist" enterprise. In fact it's a relatively mainstream liberal set of policy prescriptions, which Americans are naturally gravitating to given the resounding failure of the conservative economic agenda.

In 8 years, you'll be saying, "Oh, yeah. Obama, he was a moderate." It's only because you've been whipped up into a demagogic furor that you've suddenly decided that the election of a Democrat is heralding the threat of "socialism." Listen to how crazy you sound, and come down to earth, and maybe you'll be capable of rational discussion. Until then, you're simply screaming stuff out of fear of having to face certain defeat. Perhaps at some point you should be able to deal with the fact that candidates who have policies you don't personally agree with win. It's not heralding a communist revolution. It's merely repudiating the utter failure of a right-wing agenda towards a more mainstream liberal economic policies that are overdue.

I am happy to note you register no disagreement on what a conservative movement should look like, though, and look forward to your assistance in the future. It'll be a big tent!

It's probably best for the Republicans to actively attempt to keep the right-wing extremists disillusioned or quiet, in the same way they dealt with the John Birchers and others.

Evangelicals did not really start voting in large numbers until the 1970s with Billy Graham's support for Nixon and Jimmy Carter's ability to campaign to evangelicals as "one of you." From a strategic point of view, in terms of preventing Republicans from flying off the rails, it's probably best to re-alienate evangelicals from the political process, start attracting more conservative Catholics as the leaders of the party (Bobby Jindal will help a lot here), and try to get more support from the suburbanites who've been gravitating towards the Democratic party. Meanwhile, keep the neoconservatives at arm's length, and make a deal with the big-money conservatives to accept some financial regulation and universal health coverage in exchange for steady defense of the financial sector and promises of low taxation. To run an entire political party movement on the basis of anti-intellectualism, resentment, hatred of hippies, and the promise of Wall Street deregulation seems like a bad formula. People want good jobs and prosperous, stable lives. Basing your entire argument on the fantasy claim that the other guy is a scary socialist terrorist-lover isn't going to fly. All it results in is having people start to disbelieve everything you say, and then decide, "Well, they say all this stuff about the guy, but all that other stuff over the past 8 years hasn't worked, and those other guys screaming about socialism sound completely nuts." In the absence of a Cold War, in which the spectre of Communism represented a physical threat to believers, it makes you look like a nutter when you start screaming about the socialist threats of Clinton-era upper-level tax brackets.