CPAC: White kids on dope

Rod, I hope you've girded your loins and nailed the shutters down - by daring to argue for a conservative movement based on principles rather than 'us against them' populism, you have just joined, well never mind the list, there is basically nobody left capable of reflection in the republican oriented, 'conservative' world of American politics.

I often like to compare the mess the republicans are in right now (and let's face it, that is the only political party open to conservatives) to two other political groups. The SPD in Germany during that country's Kohl era and the Tory party in the UK after mad Maggie and the little grey mouse...

The SPD in Germany refused to learn anything from their mistakes, it wasn't until Schroeder, a man to the right of RR on most things, that they finally regained power.

The Tory party fumbled around for a bit, but eventually threw the gay bashing, women hating, class-warfare-against-the-poor types and anti-Europe factions overboard.

Today, a gay man or a poor working mother need not fear that by voting conservative in the UK, they will be voting to have their marriage dissolved or their child's only milk taken away.

Right now, in the US, the republicans who, it must be said again, are the only means to power for conservatives, are so far to the wing-nut right and so blind that they actually are threatening the Maine senators with punishment...

Welcome to the dark side, Rod. As the NY-Times so elegantly put it, where do we send the sandals, Volvo and white wine coolers? I understand the incense in your local Orthodox church has been exchanged for carbon-neutral and the chants will now be accompanied by retired Catholic guitarists from the 1970's...

Republicans fell very much into Obama's trap. He was the one who began to elevate Limbaugh and equate the surviving Republicans with him. He knew this would happen. They swallowed the poison with a grin, and think THEY won. Obama is like the Matrix Architect, accurately predicting his opponents' reactions because they've already forgotten he defeated them before.

You know, Rod, one of the things that strikes me about Limbaugh's type of conservatism is that it has adopted the rejection of the Westernized notion of sin and guilt.

An oversimplification is this: Western sin is about me, Eastern sin is about God. In the west sins are classed based on how egregious my action was, and if I didn't know and couldn't fairly be held accountable it's just not sin. But in the east sins aren't classed at all, there's just sin "of word and of deed, of knowledge and of ignorance" because all sin turns us from our focus on God, even the sin we didn't intent, even the sin over which we have no control, and it all needs to be repented from.

How you wind up with Rousseau's nose in the conservative tent is you rid the world of sin, thus embracing the Original Big Lie.

Interesting list, Panthera. I'd like to nominate H. Asquith's Liberal Party to the list as a near-cousin , in terms of trade and economic outlook, at least- and probably in terms of ultimate fate, as well.

I can think of the perfect candidate. Unfortunately Jean Paul Marat is otherwise occupied these days.

Panthera, thanks. Being the son of non-English-thinkers, I have a good idea of your difficulty. ;-)

The larger problem with current "conservatism" isn't Limbaugh. The larger problem is that too many "conservatives" actually pay attention to what the man says. There are too many "conservatives" who don't help the current conservative cause. Limbaugh is just one of them.

Add to the list Coulter, Hannity, Medved, Prager, Beck, Gallagher, and you have a group that really cares nothing about public policy. Rather, they prefer easy slogans:

Liberals/Democrats = Bad/Evil
Conservatives/Republicans = Good/Noble

Liberals/Democrats = Welfare Recepients/Gays/Immigrants
Conservatives/Republicans = Hardworking/Straight/Citizens

Liberals/Democrats = Hating America
Conservative/Republicans = Loving America

It's silly. The fact that most main street, small town, "flyover country" conservatives can (and do) recite Rush, Hannity and Beck more than Brooks, Larison, or Schwenkler, says more about the intellectual bankruptcy of the current conservative movement than Rush's speech.

Why the Conservative Politcal Action Committee would choose Rush Limbaugh as the keynote speaker at their 2009 national convention is beyond comprehension. “El Rusho,” admittedly, is a good entertainer, a comedian of sorts, but he is no political or social sage by any stretch of the imagination. .

Listen to one of his radio shows for its full three hours--the staged phone calls, the prepared scripts, the tortured statistics, the non-sequiturs, the twisted logic, the half-baked ideas, the gasping changes of direction in mid thought, the out-of- context sound bytes, the wrong predictions, the baseless information, the name-calling, false piety, blustering, mockery, sniggering—and nothing of substance shows through.

John McCain had it right when he called Limbaugh a Bozo and then apologized to Bozo for making the comparison. (Fox News, 2005)

That the CPAC would hold Rush Limbaugh in such a high esteem shows how low their intellectual standards have plummeted. Small wonder that so many fiscal and free-thinking conservatives are parting company with the CPAC. The leftists bent on taking over the Nation couldn’t be happier. All they need to do is sit back and let the CPAC unwittingly deliver to it them.

Conservatism as we knew it is dead. You can not conserve that which you do not already own.

Here's how out of touch Rush is: My dad is the quintessential Limbaugh conservative-- loves his guns, hates the gays, loves the military, hates the IRS, etc. Back at the inauguration I asked Dad if he hopes Obama is successful and his reply was, "Hell yeah! With the [economic] mess we're in I'd hope whoever is in the White House is successful!" Why does my conservative republican dad want Obama to succeed? Because he can't afford not to. He knows he'll get some tax money back from Obama because he's never going to come close to making 6 figures. He needs the economy to improve because he needs the company he works for to stay in business. He gains nothing by Obama failing.

Rush, on the other hand, has economic incentive for Obama to fail (his taxes will go up, his listeners will latch on to his anger) and in the meantime, Rush has plenty of cash to keep him living high on the hog while the rest of his listeners will suffer more if Obama's team can't turn the economy around. That's why Rush is out of touch--and why the GOP is entering an era of political wilderness.

Right wing Rousseauism. The basic design flaw of the US. On the other hand, it's the only tradition that an American Conservative can honor, since it's the only one we have.

Speaking of the Soviet Union, I'm guessing that conventions of the CPSU during the late 1990s went roughly like CPAC is doing.

Someone sent me a link to a great blog post comparing Rush Limbaugh to Chris Farley's character, Matt Foley. I don't know how to do links, but if you google "Rush Limbaugh Matt Foley" it comes up at the top.

CPAC's real mission is not to promote conservatism, but rather to preserve Reaganite orthodoxy against all challengers. Most of CPAC's movers and shakers came up in the 1980's, and they literally can't imagine a valid, successful conservatism that deviates from the way Ronnie did things.

At the moment, CPAC is worse than lame: it's boring and useless. The message coming out of this year's conference could have been delivered in any previous year, in response to any set of circumstances.

There are plenty of good, smart conservatives out there that are laying the seeds for renewal, but they're mostly outsiders and dissenters. The most interesting conservatives are guys like Rod, who explicitly dissent from some aspect of Reaganism, or under-35 writers like Ross Douthat, who don't see the 1980's as a permanent template for conservative success.

"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 do. Small case in point - I was driving in my car the other day and a commercial for Mark Levin's show (if you're not familiar with him, he's a conservative radio talkshow host who is sort of like Sean Hannity's Mini-Me) came on, wherein Levin said "Conservatism isn't just a political philosophy, it's a philosophy of life".

While one could argue he perhaps was referring to the idea that a prudent, pragmatic sort of existence anchored in frugality and moderation (one definition of conservatism) is the best one, I don't think that's what he meant. These people are cultists, folks, and they are a long way from Burke, Kirk or even Buckley.

Franklin Evans said, "I didn't vote for Obama (both times) because I 'love him'. I didn't vote for him because he makes me feel good (he doesn't). I voted for him because of actual, practical connections and hopes that his administration will do the right things.
And this is the key, for me: I stand ready to hit him with both criticism barrels if he screws up, or suggests actions with which I have a disagreement."

I heartily concur. I voted for Obama out of a cold-blooded calculation that he was best choice in this particular election. Romney *might* have swayed me, but Palin sealed the deal—for Obama.

I refuse to engage in Obama worship, but I also am willing to give him a chance and I WANT him to succeed, just like the commenter pointed out about his conservative father. If Obama fails badly enough, it is going to get very nasty for us all.

I skimmed through Limbaugh’s speech and was NOT impressed. I did a word count and it was well over 10,000 words. I didn’t watch the speech on FOX news, but even speaking rapidly, it had to take him over an hour and he said very little that was substantive. It was mostly jokes, sound bites, sarcastic asides, etc. (Obama’s inaugural was around 18 minutes.) I didn’t catch Jindal’s speech that everyone is panning so much, but I can’t imagine it could be too much more incoherent than Limbaugh’s was. This is what passes for intellectual leadership?

The conservative movement needs real thinking, real intellectual leadership. It needs another William F. Buckley, Jr. Instead, of ideas, conservatives have venting sessions, with an unhealthy admixture of bigotry and groupthink. Interestingly, when Rod had a post on the anniversary of Buckley’s passing, there were no commenters. I have to say I was disappointed. Did people not care?

The torch and pitchforks crowd are not helping the cause for conservatism one bit. It's downright embarrassing the way the zealots of the party are running it into a ditch. I'm praying for America's success I don't care what Rush says. The radical wing espousing failure makes me sick to my stomach.

The Republicans are now formally and institutionally committed to lunacy, which is why I, though a registered R , will not vote for that party in the forseeable future.

you know after reading some of your post, i agree i hope Obama does not fail. I hope he succeeds. I want all of the people that voted for him to loose their jobs, and go to hell and a hand basket. all of you suck. you do not have to right to take more and more and more and more and more money from me. my God, enough is enough. if you want to give more then give it.

It makes me want to slap people, really. i can't talk face to face with dumb asses. get a damn job, work your ass off, and make something out of yourself and tell the government to get out of your way.

What I find interesting, is that no one here has made a substantive, specific refutation of what Limbaugh has said. Lots of personal, snarky attacks, but little substance.
I catch bits of Rush's show during the week, and have listened fairly consistently for the last 20 years. He is both an entertainer and political/social commentator. While a very flawed human, (Whom among us aren't?), I find that his analysis, apart from his humor which can be quite juvenile, is often spot on.
I would really like to see criticism of Rush specific to his positions, and not conjecture of what his positions are. That would lead to a healthy debate and be fruitful.

There are still plenty of thoughtful conservatives out there to read. They just don't have a leadership position. Dreher is interesting. Andrew Sullivan is still a conservative, he's just pulled a Michael Dukakis by putting competence above ideology. The conservative-leaning libertarians at Volokh regularly make me think, and so does George Will. David Brooks has mastered the ability of communicating conservative ideas to liberals.

Lefties have our nut roots, too. Just look at the boards on Kos or Huffington. We on the left are just lucky enough to have a thoughtful, pragmatic leader.

Which leads me to painfully concede that Limbaugh is right about one thing--having good leader makes a difference. Part (but by all means not all) of the left's problem in the late 60's is that we lost three of our best leaders (JFK, RFK, MLK). Imagine the Right had lost Reagan and Goldwater.

Leadership counts.

I thought the Republican Party had already found their new leader at CPAC:
http://tinyurl.com/cmj9m8

I'll admit I'm torn. I watched a goodly share of Limbaugh on CNN and after he exhorted the crowd to not focus on policy, not re-examine their assumptions, I thought "conservatism is dead". And, as a liberal, I did chortle a little at the idea that conservatives seemed intent on spending more time willfully divorced from reality. Don't face up to the failure of supply-side economics. Don't admit that your ideas have been largely discredited in the minds of most Americans. That'll keep you busy while we nationalize healthcare.

On the other hand, I happen to believe that we are all better off from a reality-based debate between competing philosophies. It keeps us honest and guards against the weaknesses that both liberalism and conservatism are prone to. It isn't 1980 anymore and the sooner conservatives take a good long look at the world we live in - that they helped create - and articulate a set of policies rooted into their core beliefs in response, the better off we all will be.

Ah, mike. So much anger and so little grammar. The rugged individualism you espouse is a fantasy, mike. The matrix that enables your wealth and success is a product of thousands of social and, yes, governmental decisions over years. Just which parts of government should get out of your way, mike? How about the bloated Defense Department for a start? Maybe the increasingly militarized police departments all over America? Could we perhaps close down the hideously expensive and completely ineffective War On Drugs? But I suspect that the parts of Big Government you decry are those functions that actually help people, and you need to understand that so-called conservatives such as yourselves no longer have any credibility outside of your echo chamber. You did it to yourselves, mike. Trickle-down economics got a fair shot, and has proven to be an abject failure. So now you rage and want your fellow citizens to lose their jobs and suffer. That will bring people over to your side, mike. Primal screams can be entertaining. John Lennon did a terrific one with "Mother". Work on it.

In the words of Michael Sheen's Tony Blair: "Somebody please save these people from themselves."

Re: the United Soviet Socialists Republic God was erased. In some of the European socialist democracies God has become a part of history.

No government can "erase" God. That's as impossible as legislating that 2+2=5. If religion has fallen off in Europe (where many countries still have state-supported churches) the fault is not the government, it's the fault of the people themselves. If faith isn't in one's heart then all the state churches and public prayers in the world mean nothing at all.

I have to admit that this is one of the best columns of Rod's that I have ever read. He is 100% right in his analysis of what ails the conservative movement. To hear conservatives talk all we need to do to "fix" our current economic crisis is enact more tax cuts and more deregulation. Hello? It was the tax cuts and deregulation during the Bush years that got us into this mess! That should be obvious to anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size.
Conservatives seem to believe that government is the problem and that if people are just left alone to do what they want all will be swell. But we know that humans are sinful creatures and will lie, cheat and steal if given the opportunity. (The current greedfest that took place on Wall Street is a prime example.) Ergo we need watchdog agencies to keep people on the straight and narrow. That means regulation.
Personally I applaud what Obama is doing. Do I think the stimulus package is perfect. Nope, not at all. But it is 100% better than doing nothing which is what the conservatives seem to want government to do.
When Republicans stop listening to demogogues like Rush Limbaugh and start to honestly reevaluate what they did wrong then and only then will I consider voting for a Republican again.

Reading the comments here, I have the feeling that there is a deep sense of hatred for America as she is today amongst many conservatives, regardless of whether they have mastered spelling, syntax and grammar or not.

It puzzles me.

Certainly, I am highly critical of the many mistakes we have made as a nation over the last years. The disaster of our health care system, the stupidity of the current wars, the lack of focus on finding and killing our real enemies (does anyone except liberals even remember Bin Laden?)...the denial of global warming and refusal to make America energy independent.

Such a long list. But never, ever have I felt anything but love and hope for this country. What a contrast to the visceral hatred so many of you conservatives are expressing.

Perhaps we really should just find a nice little South American dictatorship for you, fascist rather than communist and let you all live there.

I would like to echo what some people have mentioned here, and offer a light tonic to Rod's pessimism on the state of conservatism in the US.

To do that, let me tell you what's happening in my own back yard. I am a recent GOP committeeman. Half of my area committeepeople are also relatively recent. This is common in my part of southeastern PA.

The old guard county party leadership, recently, attempted to press two institutional candidates for row offices. In years past, their endorsement by the party would have been fait accompli. They did not secure the endorsement this year, and there will be a competitive primary.

What I hope this little anecdote may be indicative of more generally is this: When political philisophies are in the wilderness, they do not rejuvenate at places like CPAC, although I know some reform minded folks that travelled there. Of course, they weren't on the podium. Nor does rejuvenation happen immediately afterwards on talk radio.

Rejuvenation starts now with county clerk of courts, and Borough Council. Then in 2010 it moves to state legislatures, and maybe a congress seat or two. Then, maybe, by 2016 you find new ideas and new people have become influential through the power of their ideas, and their ability to speak to real voters.

So the reform I think all conservatives thought was necessary even before the presidential election cannot be seen in Washington DC or heard on ABC radio today. If you did see it in those places, it wouldn't be real reform.

I've met Michele Bachmann. In many ways, she's awesome. Unless you're committed to the gay culture of death. Then I guess she'd be the enemy. Be that as it may...

Rod writes: "I share a degree of [Limbaugh's] skepticism over the expanding role of the state in American life under Obama, and his confidence that the greater responsibility for our own condition lies in individual and private-sector initiative."

This explains my love-hate relationship with Limbaugh; he's delicious when he's smiting libs hip and thigh, when he's on a parody roll. But his constructive ideas -- well, as Rod just detailed, they're fundamentally unsustainable

If you find Limbaugh's hate-filled, shallow, dishonest rants entertaining, you have a strange and rather sad idea of entertainment. How can you even give five seconds of attention to a man who hopes America will fail, just so that he can have his GOP unchanged and back in power? That's contemptible and unpatriotic by any standards.

If you find Limbaugh's hate-filled, shallow, dishonest rants entertaining, you have a strange and rather sad idea of entertainment. How can you even give five seconds of attention to a man who hopes America will fail, just so that he can have his GOP unchanged and back in power? That's contemptible and unpatriotic by any standards.

I am a Democrat (gasp!) who has also become concerned about the collapse of the GOP and the abandonment of what were once its ideals. America needs the dynamic tension afforded by a two-party system, and as much as I believe in the Democratic Party's ideals, there need to be some checks and balances politically --- a legitimate opposing party, if you will --- to insure the right issues are discussed, the right principles given consideration.

My fear is that the GOP no longer stands for old-school conservatism --- i.e., a careful and measured approach to matters of policy and fiscal stewardship. Principle seems to have been replaced by ideology, and ideology with expediency. There is even a Soviet-style attempt underway by various GOP political commentators and radio personalities to rewrite the history of the 20th Century; some have even gone so far as to blame FDR for the Great Depression, or claim that the US "joined the wrong side" in WWII.

Now more than ever our country needs reasoned debate between the parties; instead, we get more ideology and grandstanding from the deck of the Titanic.

"Only talk radio with its emphasis on Socratic debate over raw emotionalism..."

Now THAT is the funniest thing I've heard all day. Unless, of course, consumption of intellectual hemlock is the Socratic method being discussed here.

I would imagine Limbaugh is aware of and endorses the conservative view of fallen human nature. But I don't think that is contradicted by his optimism that people are better off under more limited government. I'm all for first principles--but if you're saying we should lead with pessimism, I think that's gonna be a hard sell.

I would imagine Limbaugh is aware of and endorses the conservative view of fallen human nature. But I don't think that is contradicted by his optimism that people are better off under more limited government. I'm all for first principles--but if you're saying we should lead with pessimism, I think that's gonna be a hard sell.

Irenaeus:
I've met Michele Bachmann. In many ways, she's awesome. Unless you're committed to the gay culture of death. Then I guess she'd be the enemy. Be that as it may...

I am part of the majority of America that wanted Obama to win. According to Bachman, that makes me the enemy, as well as the other members of that majority of America. Last time I checked, thinking you knew better than the majority made you an elitist. Though I'm sure the next time Bachman flat-out lies about what her past statements were--the next time she even lies about them while they are in a split-screen view with her--she will probably change her story again.

If conservatives stand for such a clearly unbalanced, dishonest, empty shell of a purposeless hatemonger as Michele Bachman, then they simply stand for nothing. They would be just as happy living in Syria or North Korea, as long as they had the opportunity to damn whoever was labeled as enemies of the ruling order in those countries too.

As for Rush: Obama has a bigger audience, more fans, better rhetorical skill, better political judgment, and is smarter. Fights between the two of them will probably be good for Limbaugh--controversy, ratings, merchandise sales--but a disaster for the GOP. So I say: bring it on!

mazirion: you've never listened to Rush Limbaugh's show, so it's obvious you're projecting. Keep the hate to yourself.

DonRoberto: The strawmen Repubs you've created are pathetic. As a conservative Republican all my life I've never met one who said we joined the wrong side in WWII - we fought leftist tyrants in that war (what the hell do you think national socialism and Italian fascism are?), and befriended the USSR because FDR was smitten with Uncle Joe - a murderous totalitarian. Read 'Liberal Fascism' and open your eyes. As for blaming FDR for the depression, you're wrong again. Conservatives know FDR didn't create the depression, he only exacerbated it by expanding government, attacking trade and killing jobs through regulation. You need to get out and meet some Republicans - the voices in your head make you sound childish.

Rod Dreher: I don't know where the insecurity comes from, but pulling selective quotes from Limbaugh's speech to frame him as simplistic doesn't do anything for your argument that Republicans aren't sufficiently moderate for you. Limbaugh's speech was an hour long, and it delved deeply and in detail what conservatism is - from fear of big government (and its corresponding threat to liberty), to individualism (collectivism has proven deadly to those who think for themselves), and the belief in American exceptionalism (idealistic to be sure, but so important in a country that accepts the responsibility inherent in being free citizens). Recognizing that you're not a conservative, It's easy to forgive your thoughtless simplification of it - but this:

"...these Right-Wing Rousseauists, see human nature as essentially perfect, except for the corrupting hand of government."

This thought is so juvenile I wonder if it makes any sense to answer it. Leftists (liberals and progressives alike) believe in the perfectibility of man - this is why the movement has murdered untold millions to clear the path for it. The right celebrates individual freedom not because it thinks human beings perfect, but because in an imperfect world, freedom allows the creativity of man to blossom. Sure, we will do terrible things to each other - bad people will win sometimes and good people will lose; it's an unfair world. But the absence of perfection should not mean that we ought to live controlled by elitists and bureaucrats who can mold us into government approved automatons. Human nature will never be perfect - the thought itself is tyrannical.

The contortions you go through to attach Rousseu with conservatism leads me to believe you don't understand either philosophy. To interpret an argument for a free market economy with "uncut progressivism" is doubly baffling. Why are you wasting our time with this drivel? Who do you think your audience is - children?

Limbaugh as Lenin.

Only a boomer could come up with the likes of this. I guess all references to Hitler are used up.

And white kids on dope? What's up with that, Rod? Auditioning for a Times column?

I've read all the comments on this blog and there are so many untruths and lies in many of them that it's difficult to know where to begin. It's interesting that Liberals and Obamaphiles find solace/comfort here and with your assessment. It says more about Rod and his weakened principles, than them.
1: it's obvious most people posting did not take the time to listen to Rush's CPAC speech, but sit back and make pronouncements on what he says/believes, much like the liberal left do every day with his radio show, and the comments here would be laughable if they weren't so dangerous. Dangerous? Yes, because they are based on ignorance and lack of considered thought. But what else is new?
2: For those that want to know about what Rush REALLY said as opposed to Rod's filtered view, Rush talked about CONSERVATIVE philosophy, not Republican ideology. Get it? Obviously not, since point #1 applies.
3: a poster comments about "re-writing history" of the Great Depression and FDR. Lord! Let's not question the history of the last 70 years and how it is portrayed/presented. Much like most of the history of the 20th century--it is presented/reported by LIBERALS! All history is recorded by those in power.
4: BTW, Rod, CPAC attendees were booing Tucker Carlson because he mentioned the NYT. Geez. Tell the truth. It makes one question your ability to "get it". You obviously didn't and don't.
5: Andrew Sullivan is NOT a conservative.
6: EddieInCA, your "facts" are not facts. Too many errors to discuss on this post.

There is just too much here to address. Leaving for a more thoughtful, informed and intelligent discussion elsewhere.

I'm not a Limbaugh fan, but I am a fan of intellectual honesty. You read this:

"So there will be different factions lining up to try to define what conservatism is. And beware of those different factions who seek as part of their attempt to redefine conservativism, as making sure the liberals like us, making sure that the media likes us. They never will, as long as we remain conservatives. They can't possibly like us; they're our enemy. In a political arena of ideas, they're our enemy."

And wrote this:

"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."

"Limbaughism"??? Sounds like Leninism? Creating a corny term and conflating Limbaugh's philosophy with the proven, deadly evil that is Leninism is absurd hyperbole.

Reread Limbaugh's statement above. While he too resorts to hyperbole with the "enemy" shtick, in his case at least he is making what is at least an arguable point, that the goals of Conservatives do not include having Liberals "like" them. At least he has a point even if overstated, whereas you did not.

Limbaugh says to beware of those in the party that want to 'make liberals like us'. Nowhere does he say or imply that they are the enemy.

He does say that liberals are the 'enemy' of conservatives within the scope of "the arena of political ideas". Over dramatic, but not absurd or hyperbolic.

Again, with all due respect, you overshot criticism and entered the realm baseless attack - and so lost a great deal of credibility. Too bad too, as you do make some good points and eloquent observations.

Bottom line, you should have resisted the temptation to go so far over the top.

Your mistake is that you confuse the many errors of modern conservatism and its standardbearers with viability and longevity of political power. Liberals aren't in power now because they are right, if that had been the case we would have won in 2000 and 2004. We're in power because a small percentage of the same morons who voted in W earlier this decade voted in Obama this time around. I think that many in this group would not recognize these finer points you have made and are using some other godforsaken set of twisted principles to vote for their government. And yes, I suspect that the media does influence this set of people.

I listened to Rush after the 2004 election, the very next day, and he said what you said, that Liberals would have to go to the desert for a long time and figure things out. And look what happened in 2006, and 2008. These projects, while seem comforting are simply wrong, and based off of what? I don't know. When Sarah Palin debuted and McCain's stock rose liberal bloggers and writers in Salon were griping about how it could happen again? How could conservatives win again? What's happened between then and now that suddenly we have all this confidence? Dude, it's the same America that existed in 2007, great depression or not. 80% of Americans still don't believe in evolution, they still don't know the names of the Supreme Court Justices or where Venezuela is on a map.

Way to read things into the speech. You extrapolate his comments beyond what he said to make every point.

Despite them marching in the streets calling Bush Hitler, monkey, idiot and war criminal, not one conservative talk show host called for censorship.

Yet the libs are rushing to any form of the Fairness Doctrine they can get through to silence the right. Who's being Leninist?

When Reid and Durbin predicted our failure in Iraq as if it was a forgone conclusion, nobody in the media called them on it.

Rush says he hopes Obama fails to socialize America and it's all they talk about for days.

Are you trying to get a White House interview? Trying to stay on the good side when the "Fairness Doctrine" comes to the Internet? Sorry, this is a religious site, those won't be allowed.

Rush is right on target with everything he said, so you had to read more into than he actually said to attack it. Freedom of speech and freedom to exercise your moral conscience are under attack. Two California doctors have already been ordered to inseminate a lesbian despite their moral objections and the availability of the service at many other doctors. That is coming, and it is the lost freedoms Rush is referring to.

Will you wake up before the civil war or rapture that is coming? Because it's going to be one or the other or both.

You all sure do seem to have a lot of time and a lot of labels on your hands. What you seem to be missing is a grasp of recent history and any sense of what most Americans want these days: job security, reasonable healthcare and retirement options and a future for their kids.

Our last President ran our country into a ditch. Along the way, he spent turned a federal surplus into a huge deficit, ran a trillion dollar debt to finance what turns out to a pointless war and decimated our civil liberties. If that weren't enough, he managed to squander four decades of good will with the result that the United States of America is seen as a fascist capitalist society, rigged for the benefit of the wealthy, and aligned with totalitarianism.

Nice work, that, especially in only eight years. This is what the current administration is left with. It's response? To be straightforward about the real cost:

- of the war,
- of rebuilding the financial system,
- of how it is going to be paid for.

If our country has been "systematically destroyed", that destruction has happened with the support of a Republican President and Congress that used free market ideals to justify the looting of our financial system.

Let me ask you this: for all your ranting about Jacobian revolts, who has benefited most over the last two decades of the "Contract of America"? Are most Americans making more or less money today? Do their kids have more options or fewer options? Do they have access to more healthcare or less healthcare? Is their retirement more or less secure?

The outcomes you suggest will result from President Obama's policies are already here, my friend. The collapse you speak of arrived six months before Mr. Obama took office. It can be, and should be, laid firmly at the feet of the so-called Conservative movement that invested in policies that supported the destruction of America's financial, political and spiritual capital.

-

Your Name: "Will you wake up before the civil war or rapture that is coming? Because it's going to be one or the other or both."

Whoops - looks like my raffish brother @ 1:05 am erred a tad on the side of charity.

Maybe it's time to consider an intelligence test for those seeking the franchise. That, and a mental health exam.

"Your Name",
Ahh another Kool Aide drinker from Dittohead land! I love how conservatives like you get all paranoid about the Constitution when a Democrat is in office but you totally ignored how Bush trampled the Constitution during his 8 yr reign.
You say that conservative commentators didn't call for censorship when we liberals marched in the street. You're right, they didn't. They called us "traitors" and some said we should be kicked out of the country!
And why do you keep harping about "The Fairness Doctrine." No one is calling for it to be reinstated and even if they were what is the big deal? It just says that all sides must be heard. It doesn't censor anyone's freedom of speech.
Reid and Durban did say that the Iraq war was unwinnable and they were right. It was and is an unjust war and there will never be peace there until we--the occupiers--leave.
Your example of freedom of conscience being under attack was weak at best. Doctors do not have the right to deny medical treatment to gay people simply because they disapprove of their lifestyle. That is morally wrong and bigoted.
Do yourself a favor and stop listening to Rush and Fox News for awhile. Try reading something that isn't ultra-conservative. You may actually learn something.

You all sure do seem to have a lot of time and a lot of labels on your hands. What you seem to be missing is a grasp of recent history and any sense of what most Americans want these days: job security, reasonable healthcare and retirement options and a future for their kids.

>Time on hands
Yeah , it's the weekend

What American (the new Americans...the Gimmie Americans) want these days:

- Job Security
Job Security doesn't exist. You can demand it. But it's not realistic and will never return. You said people are missing a grasp on recent history. Well I would be sure to include yourself in that

- Reasonable Health Care
Health care will be every more unreasonable the more Govt starts paying for people. You can not increase the demand for something (ie: by having someone else pay for your consumption) while the supply remain static and not either 1) have prices SKYROCKECT or 2) ration the supply

- Retirement Options
From what I understand the Federal Govt started stealing the Social Security funds sometime in the 60s. And there is nothing in the "trust fund" except some IOUs.

The Federal Govt is in debt over 50 TRILLION DOLLARS

So the Govt can't do anything about your first complaint. The only thing I can think of is by forcing Unions on every company. But if you do that, the companies will leave.

And the Govt's involvement in the last two things have and will only make them worse.

The solution is YOU. You have to manage your life to achieve these things.

There aren't enough people to be the tax base to pay for all these entitlements. They were aborted away.

Our last President ran our country into a ditch. Along the way, he spent turned a federal surplus into a huge deficit

There was never a surplus. They were stealing all the SSI money. Once they stole it all there was a surplus. The Govt was riding high on the false wealth creation of the Dot Com years. That was ending in 2000. The "surplus" was going away no matter what

With 2001 and 9/11, security costs were inevitably going up.

Now I ask you to observe how the Democrats have handled that past few emergencies?

The first emergency was when they first got into power in 2007.. and they decided not to fund Iraq war bill. They waited months and months.. and finally when they had the mitliary preparing to do triage for supplies. The Democrats passed a bill that had BILLIONS in unrelated pork.

They added , I think, $150 BILLION in unrelated pork ine the TARP bailout bill.

Now they just added 800 BILLION in fake "stimullus"

And just passed 400 BILLION (Ii thikn) spending bill from last year... last week

Now.. we're supposed to believe that if the Dem were in power at the time that they would have spent LESS than the GOP? Absurd.

I have my strong doubts that the people who complain about this actually really care. I dont hear them complaining about the massive spending going on now. If they REALLY cared about the Bush spending they would be more than upset about the spending now.

I am.

ran a trillion dollar debt to finance what turns out to a pointless war

Pointless? I think getting rid of Saddam was worth it. But I can see where people disagree. In any case, it took 6 years to come up with that cost. Obama has spent more than that in one month.

decimated our civil liberties

Name them. I dare you.

he managed to squander four decades of good will with the result that the United States of America is seen as a fascist capitalist society

Oh please. In the 80s Europeans hated us for defending them. In the 90s the Muslims were attacking us from one end of teh earth to the other.

So we finally decided to fight back.. and they hate us for it? No kidding!

Here's a clue: The rest of the world will hate us for EVERYTHING THAT DO..Unless we become a victim.. then they will all sad and tears. Otherwise they rather we not remind them of the evil in the world that needs to be foguht. They want to pretend it could be ignored or appeased.

rigged for the benefit of the wealthy, and aligned with totalitarianism.

You mean Obama I think. After all , kissing up to China, selling your great-grandkids to China. Talking to the maniacs in Palestinian Authority, the butchers in Syria, and soon the deranged in Iran. They want to losen the rope on Cuba and probably wants to fishing with Chavez.. friend of all his friends.

Gina: If you're using IE 7, there's a program out there called IE7Pro.

It has a feature that saves the text when you click an "Enter" button, so that you can recover it if there's an error.

It's great.

This blog has paraded long enough under a false title. "Crunchy Cons", the book, had enough conservative ideas in it to deserve the title, as did the blog on National Review. However, since the blog migrated here to Beliefnet, it has had less and less to do with conservative ideas and principles. And in fact, most of the commenters are liberals or even leftists, who seem to be drawn here by a desire to tear down any conservative concepts that emerge and destroy, by setting up straw men, any conservative spokesperson who arises.

And now, in fact, I would like to read Rod's definition of "conservative" or "conservatism". I wonder if many of us would recognize it.

Actually, since only about 5 of the 82 commenters to this post appear to be conservative, there are probably few conservatives left reading this blog. Those of us who are still here probably enjoy the occasional "crunchy" and cultural-issue posts, and hang around to get the liberal slant on political issues in a civil environment where the commenters at least have a decent command of English.

But the "con" part of the blog title is a con.

You sir must be smoking crack to get that out of limbaughs speech.

AML, Gina
I think what AML said is true. which might go some ways in explaining the cause of the deficiencies that I pointed out in my first comment. And why no one responded to what I said. It might require a little more than the usual caricature that's in the head of most Leftists.

I see very little talk of the Constitution. I see lots of ridicule. I see statements that the people want to suckle from Uncle Sam's teat

They're cheerleaders for the demise of Conservatives. Nothing wrong that I suppose.

But its very shallow. Disappointing.

And look at the news "Your name".

Someone's on crack to get "that" out of the speech.

The speech was 1h15m long.. are we mind readers that we know what "that" is. Of course not.

How do you know that "1) human nature is fallen," Dreher? You take it on faith, i.e., you believe it with no reason, or because it makes you feel good to believe it (a kind of intellectual hedonism.) But it's actually even worse than that. The idea that people are born "fallen" is positively irrational and contradictory, because it ascribes moral guilt to individuals without any individual choice on the part of those so condemned to engage in bad conduct.

Dreher can believe this crap-o-la if he so desires, but it is not a rational or intelligent belief.

Nor did Limbaugh say, in the matter of Rousseau, that people are naturally good, as Dreher falsely states. Rush states, rather, that people have "potential," and that a person "can be the best he or she wants to be..." This is sound, and Dreher is unsound - and pompous about it, too - when he apparently denies that people have the capacity for moral choice, and the potential to be good.

My quotes strayed a little bit , i couldn't help myself

Actually, since only about 5 of the 82 commenters to this post appear to be conservative, there are probably few conservatives left reading this blog.

Hmmm, a conservative who can attract liberal readers and maybe persuade them every now and then. He must be stopped!

If conservatives can speak only into the echo chamber, they will be in the wilderness for a long time.

Get over yourself, Rod. Obama's election is proof positive that personality and a strong, positive message win elections, not long-winded, recalibration of policies to "account for new realities".

Wow, Vince. You come in like the proverbial March lion. I admire your attempt to cite historical precedence, but it is a bit flawed.

The Constitution was the result of a large group of men debating all of the details. Word choices and phrasings were bandied back and forth (to the disgust of a few of them). I have one bit of advice, though: try to keep individual quotations in the context of the actual debate around the drafting of the Constitution, rather than try to shoehorn the quoted founder's personal attitudes, many of which were subsumed or even rejected by the consensus that gave us the final document.

I strongly suggest that every reader read The Federalist Papers. http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/ is an excellent website, or if you're like me the Garry Wills edited book can be purchased at most book stores. Vince, from your posts I'm assuming you've read them. If you have, perhaps you could come up with some quotes from them that better support your positions. Personally, I don't think you can, but I'd be happy to reread any Paper from which you quote and respond.

In the end, though, attempts to micro-analyse the founders fails when one simply reads the Constitution. Explicitly religious language is conspicuously absent from it, except in the negative (establishment, qualification test). Instead of insisting that the founders wanted a Christian-moral society, try thinking about why they valued morality but insisted on expressing it without the trappings (and traps) of Christian rhetoric.

Rod, Please please please do not tell me that you honestly think for one minute that you are a conservative. If your brand of conservatism, the conservatism that lost the last election, is the new direction of the Republican party then it will be a cold day in hell before I ever vote for another Republican.

There is NO COMPROMISE on right and wrong. Any compromise between right and wrong and the wrong always wins.

I can tell you did not listen to Rush's speech. You might have heard the speech, but you did not LISTEN to it. Progressivism? Leninism? You are either completly ignorant as to what progressivism and Leninism actually is or you are a liar.

"American progressives tend to support interventionist economics: they advocate income redistribution, and they oppose the growing influence of corporations. Conversely, European and Australian progressives tend to be more pro-business, and will often have policies that are soft on taxation of large corporations. Progressives are in agreement on an international scale with left-liberalism in that they support organized labor and trade unions, they usually wish to introduce a living wage, and they often support the creation of a universal health care system. Yet progressives tend to be more concerned with environmentalism than mainstream liberals, and are often more skeptical of the government, positioning themselves as whistleblowers and advocates of governmental reform. Finally, liberals are more likely to support the Democratic Party in America and a Labour party or Liberal Party in Europe and Australia, while progressives tend to feel disillusioned with any two-party system, and vote more often for third-party candidates." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism#United_States

"Leninism holds that capitalism can only be overthrown by revolutionary means; that is, any attempts to reform capitalism from within, such as Fabianism and non-revolutionary forms of democratic socialism, are doomed to fail. The goal of a Leninist party is to orchestrate the overthrow of the existing government by force and seize power on behalf of the proletariat and then implement a dictatorship of the proletariat. The party must then use the powers of government to educate the proletariat, so as to remove the various modes of false consciousness, such as religion and nationalism, the bourgeois have instilled in them in order to make them more docile and easier to exploit economically." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leninism

Your examples of quotes from Rush's speech have absolutely no similarities with progressivism or Leninism. Now that you have been
educated if you still believe your arguments that Rush's speech in anyway was progressivism or Leninism then you sir are a liar. The conseravite movement has no place for liars and if we cannot win elections without the support of liars like you then we will just have to lose elections.

I've never been quite clear who Rod Dreher is. I am quite clear, however, who Rush Limbaugh is.

Interesting that none of the usual posters hereabouts who identify themselves as conservatives are posting on this thread. I'm not seeing The Man From K Street or Reaganite in NYC, but I am seeing a flock of unfamiliar screen names all dispensing the same bile against anybody daring to differ from the CPAC line. Where did you guys all come from, anyway? Rabid folks such as the defenders of the True Conservative Faith on this thread are the reason why I left your precious movement. You might consider tuning out Rush for long enough to read some Burke, and then you might find out what conservatism is really all about.

The writer of this blog cannot possibly be a conservative...he doesn't understand Rush Limbaugh in the slightest.First, I resent the hell out of the democrats for indicting G.W. as a failure for eight years . They never gave him a chance.Now they want everyone to hope Obama succeeds...and succeed by pulling the usual democrat tax and spend ploys. Never changes for them. They get us into wars, spend billions on the worthless poor and somehow blame the republicans for those failures. Watch the silly Olberman or Maddow if you want to see how commie libs overlook democrat daily screw-ups. These two, along with several other dump and run media people are like enclyopedia salesmen who come to your home and lie like hell to get you to buy. Rush wants everyone to succeed. He believes that individual rights exceed collective power grabs.

Your Name: The writer of this blog cannot possibly be a conservative...he doesn't understand Rush Limbaugh in the slightest.First, I resent the hell out of the democrats for indicting G.W. as a failure for eight years . They never gave him a chance.

I believe I will have one of those, Rev. Jones -- but make mine a double, and don't spare the ice! Sure is hot today here in Guyana.

Rod -

It's pretty obvious by the numerous posts from non-regulars who have been scandalized by your post that you've hit a nerve in criticizing El Rushbo, the Great Maharushie.

I find it interesting that it's mostly your liberal regulars who are coming to your defense. Not that you need anyone to defend you... Ah, hell, you know what I mean.

As a Registered Republican (but not conservative), I truly hopes the party gets back to it's Goldwater tradition. At that point, I could conceivably contemplate voting GOP again.

One question is however: What is new about the stupid ideology presented by Limbaugh in his speech? OK, his propaganda was given more "legitimacy" by the stage it was presented on.
Other than that was the same insight less, reality defeating, paranoid fear mongering as always presented by him, Hannity, Malkin and the other crazies. The intellectual capitulation of the conservative movement has long been too obvious in its spokespersons; not that the wider public would care about it.

"Tip O'Neill and the federal government are the same: they're both big, fat and out of control." -- John LeBoutillier, 1981

Strike O'Neill's name for Limbaugh's and the quote still works.

PARTICULARLY the "out of control" part.

I actually left the GOP because of Limbaugh and Limbaughism. As he tightens his grip on what's left of the right, I see no reason to believe that I will be able to vote for a Republican or conservative candidate again in my lifetime. The Limbaugh cult has taken an exciting movement sparking with ideas and debate, and transformed it into an irrational and reactionary backwater, a tyranny of angry cliches designed more to prop up radio ratings than to advance a dialogue or move the country forward. I'm old enough to remember when the left destroyed itself from within by attacking dissent (and dissenters) in favor of a creepy kind of orthodoxy--it's sad to realize that conservatism can't even manage to fail in a fresh and original way, but is merely following the left in a second act that is, alas, pure farce.

Rod, I don't generally agree with you. That said, welcome. I left the GOP tent circa 2004. It is actually painful to me to be voting for Democrats as the lesser of two evils, but... FISA? Destroying evidence of torture? It's going to take more than platitudes about spending to get past the last 8 years. After 6 more months of recession, the average American will be even less interested in what the current crop of conservatives have to say, especially while we're still draining our coffers to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan. It's going to get far uglier, I'm afraid.

Panthera, I don't drink anymore, but I hoist a metaphorical brew in your honor. There's a fair amount we would likely never agree about, but your posts here are always well reasoned and worthy of consideration, especially when I don't agree with you. The CPAC bots, OTOH, are a waste of bandwidth and, although they don't know it, are not conservatives at all. They are free market classical liberals with a nasty (and completely contradictory) authoritarian streak. One wonders how they manage to keep their heads from exploding.

"If Dreher were to espouse mainstream conservative ideals"

Mainstream Conservative Ideals

1. Torture.
2. Running up huge deficits.
3. Spying on Americans without warrants.
4. Holding people prisoner without trial.
5. Regulation is not essential to the capitalist system.
6. Thrice-divorced, limp wristed junkies who've never done anything of consequence but sit on their fat asses and run their fat mouths are wonderful symbols of everything good.
7. Pretending that nothing has happened during the last 30 years of Conservative and GOP dominance in U.S. politics can teach us anything about anything.

Mike

The CPAC bots, OTOH, are a waste of bandwidth and, although they don't know it, are not conservatives at all. They are free market classical liberals with a nasty (and completely contradictory) authoritarian streak. One wonders how they manage to keep their heads from exploding.

They have heads?

If Dreher were to espouse mainstream conservative ideals instead of kissing up to Sullivan...

Quod erat demonstratum... well, maybe the question needed asking is "They have comprehension?"

I find Mr. Dreher's rather harsh critique of CPAC and the "white kids on dope" interesting for a few reasons. First, let me state that I agree with Dreher's statement:

"that 1) human nature is fallen, and 2) man must learn to live within limits."

However, I don't see where that contradicts what Limbaugh is saying when he says that government needs to get out of the way of individuals to pursue their own interests. I am both a daily reader of this blog, which turned me on to Wendell Berry, and I attended the Limbaugh speech. Does Mr. Dreher not see that extensive government control over our economic decisions necessarily leads to extensive government control over our moral lives? Government works through coercion. I don't see how it is "Rousseau conservatism" to believe that when men are left to their own endeavors, they have the greatest ability to choose that which is good. Limbaugh even recognized at one point that some men will not choose a moral path. However, freedom and liberty rightly conceived represent the ability of man to always choose the moral path.

With regard to the contrasting President Obama with President Reagan, Limbaugh is simply pointing out that as the President of the country, you represent something greater than yourself or even the times you live in, you represent an idea (whether this is a good thing or not can be debated) and as the torchbearer of the idea you have a duty to bring people up rather than keeping them down in order to impose new government policies. (See Rahm Emmanuel's comments).

I think if Mr. Dreher had attended CPAC he would have realized that there were probably more persons per capita in attendance who would have recognized that man is fallible and knowledge is limited than almost any other gathering of its kind in the country. So..."White kids on dope?" I respectfully disagree. I think it may be Mr. Dreher who needs to lay off the pipe.

"Does Mr. Dreher not see that extensive government control over our economic decisions necessarily leads to extensive government control over our moral lives?"

Where does torture, illegal spying and imprisonment without trial fit into that dynamic? And what, pray tell, have Democrats ever proposed (let alone enacted) that is as intrusive and invasive as what Republicans and conservatives championed during the whole Terri Schiavo mess?

Mike

Mbunge,

"Where does torture, illegal spying and imprisonment without trial fit into that dynamic? And what, pray tell, have Democrats ever proposed (let alone enacted) that is as intrusive and invasive as what Republicans and conservatives championed during the whole Terri Schiavo mess?"

It fits in by acknowledging the difference between law abiding citizens and non-citizen terrorists who wish to do harm to the country. I don't think you would have found any more percentage of the individuals at CPAC who think that torture, illegal spying, and imprisonment without trial of American Citizens were permitted than you would find in a general overview of the population. From a moral standpoint, I think that an overwhelming majority of those at CPAC could give you a very thoughtful answer (probably similar to the answer that Mr. Dreher would give) as to why the torture,illegal spying, and imprisonment without trial of ANY innocent person would be immoral.

The discussion of Terri Schiavo at the congressional level was mistaken and I think most of those attending CPAC would have desired that it be left to the state courts to decide what should happen to her (as ultimately was the case). As to what is as intrusive/destructive as the Terri Schiavo case, I actually think Rush outlined one area pretty well (and I am not always a defender of Rush, but when he's right, he's right). Federal Welfare policy, as pursued by Democrats in this country for 50 years has destroyed the family structures of many a home, particularly in our urban centers. Big government "intrusion" into the lives of citizens, (providing for them when in reality they should be enabled to learn and provide for themselves) is not only bad policy, it is morally wrong.

What is the precedent for giving due process to prisoners of war? Is there a legal kind of spying? Everybody knows first rule about torture- don't get caught, especially if nude twister hurts your pride. And you're off subject.

MBunge,

You are exactly right. The Judge of all men is going to hold me accountable for my actions, as He will to us all.

I don't recall saying anything about saying my soul was immortal and actually I think you may have "let your slip show" in attempting to cast me in such darkness.

However, what better an idea, than eternity, to have in the back of one's mind when considering to torture a person. It would do much to provoke caution in deciding who to torture and who to imprison, don't you think? It may even serve as a good tool in weeding out the innocent from the dangerous.

I agree, that in a perfect world, we would attempt to place every person before a trial and we would never need to use reprehensible tactics in order to obtain information. If we lived in a perfect world, we wouldn't even need to place anyone before a trial because we would live without evil. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world, and never will in this life. Men must make decisions, men must make judgments, and none of us has the ability to always operate from a position of ignorance, though ignorant about most things we truly are.

("if that 'conservative' says something I agree with, then there's NO WAY I'm a far lefty....so, that means I'm pragmatic and those people to the right of Sullivan are on the fringe").
Go through the comments of pretty much any post on gay marriage and see how strongly I agree with Dreher.

Like talking point liberals, talking point conservatives are dull.

It's becoming more and more apparent to me that Limbaugh is the Right's McCarthy for the Right. He finds communists around every corner. Since the Left no longer cares what he says, and he isn't a Senator, he targets the only group left to him - other conservatives.

...when men are left to their own endeavors, they have the greatest ability to choose that which is good.

The premises are false here.

"Men" are never left to their own endeavors, but interact with countless other people.

And perhaps the most clear-eyed commentary on "that which is good" came from St. Paul: But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

It was a Russian saint who counseled: "Acquire the Spirit of Peace and a thousand will be saved around you." And folks, you'll never hear that from El Rushbo.

As a liberal Democrat (yup, I fully admit it here), this may well be one of the best written and understood articles on the need for the Conservative movement to truly re-assess and re-define itself. As much as I want many progressive policies to be put into place, I think it does not behoove us in any way to have only one side of the political spectrum stating and implementing policy. It leads to excess and mistakes from hubris.

I welcome an intelligent conservative movement. It is that which can bring out the best in our own political beast.

Unluckily, the movement which says it is conservative right now has little to do with a conservative philosophy. It has everything to do with dogma and ideological purity. And the ideology has little to do with the problems facing our nation and our world today.

So, viva la someone who has a clue.

Krauthammer:

"Conservatives take a dim view of the regulation-bound, economically sclerotic, socially stagnant, nanny state that is the European Union. Nonetheless, Obama is ascendant and has the personal mandate to take the country where he wishes. He has laid out boldly the Brussels-bound path he wants to take."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/26/AR2009022602908.html?sub=AR

Rod,

You claim to be concerned with BOTH "big business" and "big government." Yet the result of government-run political economy is at best the enthroning of big business, and at worst social destruction. Large healthcare corporations are simply salivating at what Obama is throwing their way. The *last* thing they want is a competitive free-market economy.

Without entrepreneurs (READ: FREE-MARKET CAPITALISM!), Obama's budget is a damn fantasy.

Isn't government run by fallen human beings who must live within limits? What limit do you see to Federal government under Obama? His quest is LIMITLESS in the name of universal healthcare, green gobbledygook, and other pet projects.

Obama's actions bode ill for U.S. entrepreneurs. By muzzling the engine of economic growth while expanding Federal spending, he is inviting real disaster.

In due time his foot will slip. Will he take the Republic with it?

Franklin Evans

I always have acknowledged that the Framers wisely kept Govt out of Religion and Religion out of Govt.

But.. but... The Govt's "weight" (it being small) was premised on the society having a certain religious characteristic to it.

I see no contradiction in this.

The main problem I see with Conservativism today is that it requires Republican politician to put into practise.

As much as I seen them attacked here for being "ideological" all I have to say is 'If only'

No one beats the Congressional Democrats for ideological-drivenness. There are plenty of times that they caved but when they have the upper hand, the ideology , such that it is, runs the show.

BTW: I hate this captcha thing .. my eyes must be bad.i have the hardest time dicerning letters

Your hatred for Rush Limbaugh and for other conservatives like me appalls me. "Limbaughism" has nothing to do with Leninism. Since when did Lenin support individual liberty and free markets? If people like you and David Frum, et al. succeed in defining conservatism then conservatism is finished as a political force in this country. You cannot succeed by trying to equate traditional conservatives with Leninism. I'm sure you think you are smarter than me and Rush and Ronald Reagan and probably Milton Freedman, Hayek, and many others but I think you need to read and think some more before you write something else as ridiculous as this column.

Of course I blame the media for the Obama victory. He was never vetted. Obama was a below average US Senator who until last year never handled a budget bigger than Michelles grocery list. Of course I blame the media. Conservatives take hits from all sides. Hollywood types like Michael Moore and Oliver Stone, Day Time TV like The View and MSM. Not to mention magazines. But let the conservatives have one area of domination , talk radio, and the wacko left goes nuts.

--Yep, it's just that easy. No need to return to first principles and recalibrate policies to account for new realities.--

So, Conservatives aren't postmodern. Thanks for the compliment.

--This is a comforting lie. It is Rousseau conservatism: the idea that man is born innocent, but corrupted by society, or government. Remove the chains of government, and man will return to his natural, good state, which is one of limitless possibility. --

Oh, please. Limbaugh wasn't talking about anarchy.

--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. We must ever keep before us the America Idol, and the power of positive thinking.--

Yeah, because nothing helps people (especially spoiled weak people) through hard times more than telling them it's only going to get worse.

--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.--

The only hopelessness, sir, is in trying to treat the Constitution as a 'living document' to be interpreted, re-interpreted, deconstructed (to use a favorite pomo word), and basically changed to whatever liberals want it to mean.

--Anybody who challenges Limbavian orthodoxy is, ipso facto, the Enemy.--

Yawn. Not you're being childish.

--Um, what were the Nineties like in the former Soviet Union? --

It wasn't easy, but whose fault was that? Corruption was a major problem there. Yes, the people did have to adjust, and it took time. I was there in the late 1990s, and it wasn't a happy place. But they were adjusting when I was there in the early and mid 2000s, and things were getting better.

--This ideologically-driven right-wing Rousseauism, with Leninist overtones about the Enemies of the People? If so, then count me as an Enemy, because I want nothing to do with it, as I recognize it as simply a crudely politicized form of philosophical liberalism.--

Then by all means, please check out. With such rhetoric as you give here, please do just do whatever your own thing is.

It's tough when conservatives--realizing their policies have almost nothing for the middle- and working-classes of this country--have to start a public statement with the declaration, "We love people."

This just makes it obvious that they've done nothing to demonstrate any understanding that the reason for folks trying to make a living at $7/hour jobs is not laziness or lack of a moral compass. It's the result of failed economic policies by both Democratic and Republican administrations.

We are all in this together. And when the Republican party gets behind at least SOME of President Obama's economic policies the nation will begin to see that the Republicans believe this, too.

Mr Dreher,

You might, as a conservative, might want to have attended the Black State of the Union conference occurring across town instead of the CPAC conference. Maybe you would have found it more ideologically appealing to you. You could have heard hours of blaming Bush and claims that it was mostly racist whites who didn't vote for Obama and that even though Obama was elected there is absolutely no proof that America is any less racist than it was in 1962 or 1862.

It is an embarrassment to Beliefnet for you to try bastardize the definition of religion to apply to a speech by Rush Limbaugh. Apparently you are one of those 'conservatives' who doesn't like other conservatives. But charging him with leading a religious cult is a cheap shot and beneath you.

You know what the difference is between you 'conservative' review of Limbaughs speech and the review by Keith Olbermann? Neither do it. Enjoy your fifteen minutes of fame for attacking conservatives while claiming to be one. Look what wonder it's done by Andrew Sullivan, Ron Reagan Jr, Pat Buchanan, Ed Rollins, Kevin Phillips, Joe Scarborough, John McCain or Arlen Specter. You'll be amongst very loud company. You'll just hate attending the weekly luncheons.

Oh, and I love America. I think it is the greatest country ever conceived of by God or created by Man. And if you want to mock me for thinking so then mock away. I won't be the one taking prozac.

Rod,

Speaking as a conservative who voted for Obama (I can already hear the clamor of keyboards denouncing me as The Enemy, or a traitor, or worse), I have to say I took away from CPAC the same message. Essentially, it was "Who cares what more than 50% of the country thinks, our little 20% (and dwindling) is right and will always be right and anyone who says otherwise (even if they claim to be conservatives) is wrong, wrong, wrong!!!" There isn't a political party, much less a political movement, that survived for long with such fringe thinking and non-inclusiveness. The reason the Democrats won these last two elections, and in my view probably will for some time to come, is that whatever you think about their politics, they're inclusive and willing to listen to different viewpoints. Somewhere back in the 90's, Republicans and the rest of the conservatives forgot how to do that (assuming they ever knew how).

No offense to the fundamentalist Christians who read your posts, but I was born and raised an Episcopalian in a Goldwater-Republican home. I was taught that politics needed to be about ideas, about compromises, and about principles. I was taught to revere Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Kennedy. I was taught that Hoover and Nixon may have both carried the Republican name, but had compromised their principles and ethics, and therefore did not deserve my reverence. And I was taught that religion never, ever had any place in the political marketplace of ideas if both religion and politics were to survive.

About the time Reagan came along, the Christian Right already had a firm grip on the Republican party. I was too young to vote in 1980, but voted for him in 1984. I voted for Bush Sr. in 1988. But then things started changing for me. I think it began when I started hearing that a "Christian" would vote this way or that way, with the alternative message implying that if you didn't, you weren't really a Christian. It finally culminated for me when I spoke at a meeting of Republicans in the late 80's, and upon casually mentioning my Episcopalian upbringing, had not one, not two, but no less than five people telling me that I needed to be "saved" because I didn't "know Jesus"... including the lead speaker at the meeting!!! For me, the influence of Christian fundamentalism on the Republican Party had gone too far, and I witnessed firsthand what treatment moderate conservatives would be learning over the next couple of decades: believe everything we do lock, stock, and barrel, or get the heck out!

By 1992, I held my nose and voted for Clinton. Things improved economically under Clinton, but the influence of religious zealotry only got worse. By the time Bush Jr. came along, I put my hat whole-heartedly behind Gore and haven't looked back since (although I must admit, it took some doing pulling the lever for Kerry).

The influence of the Christian Right has waned in recent years, but it's gotten concentrated into that tiny 20% hard-core conservative bunch represented at CPAC. I'm still a conservative, by the "old" definition, but oddly enough, it's the Democratic party that embraces "old" style conservatism today, while the Republican party and the rest of the so-called conservatives out there have become reactionary, exclusionary, and bereft of new ideas. They don't even have an "intellectual leader" anymore, if Rush is any judge. That man HATES intellectuals, and if he is the de facto leader of the conservatives today, then they will dwindle away into a screaming bunch of misfits wearing tinfoil hats to protect themselves from the mind-rays of the "liberal commie fascist conspiracy" (do they even know that "fascist" and "communist" are contradictory political economic systems? Oh, of course not, because they've been reduced to jingoism without even the basic knowledge that would give meaning to those terms).

I fear for this country should another of these so-called "conservatives" find his/her way to the national stage. Until some more Buckleys and T.Roosevelts and Eisenhowers and such come along to bring them back to the "old" conservative values and fresh ideas appealing to more than a tiny percentage of the American people, they need to waft away into the political mists and we need to reform the Republican party under a moderate banner again... without the influence of the Christian Right and their xenophobic fundamentalism.

Just MHO, but as someone with a Poli-Sci/Economics degree who's also a man of the cloth, it seems like I might be on the right track here.

love how rush talks about loving everybody while at the same time the majority of the country is evil and his mortal enemy and out to get 'im.

if theres anything that demonstrates the pathetic descent of conservatives into the culture of victimization is the popularity of rush "rich, white men are oppressed" limbaugh.

"Conservatism is what it is and it is forever." Sounds like conservatives have a disposable waste problem. Nature has a plan for organisms that fail to adapt to changing circumstances: it's called extinction. "Conservatives take hits from all sides." Yeah, that last CINO (Conservative In Name Only) who occupied the White House sure damaged the brand. Then he folded, spindled and mutilated the Constitution to mean what he wanted it to mean before going to clear some brush in Crawford. Will all the “real conservatives” please stand up because the realer conservatives want to mow you down with their automatic weapons. The problem with this scenario is that we need conservatives to keep liberals on their toes and vise versa. The implosion of the GOP and conservatism is bad for America. Can we all at least agree that we want the good for America? So reboot already or do you like “wandering in the wilderness”?

I keep hoping that somebody is going to start a truly conservative party, based on traditional, conservative American principles. It would be the best thing that could happen to the nation at the moment. The GOP has decomposed to the point where it is now politically irrelevant.

Oh man,

This is so refreshing. Thank you so much for this. The thing for me is that at some point the absurdity gets overwhelming. But it is a way to connect us. I'm a full on progressive conservative (not a "liberal" whatever that means, but very liberal when it comes to people finding their way and making an honest attempt at living a decent life). I appreciate the checks and balances that we have as people when we debate in good faith.

But to read that transcript of this man is the height of pure absurdity, which always comes at the end of an era.

I look forward to when the grownups get tired of these childish games and say "enough." I feel like we're almost there. And when I say grownups, I mean the ones from all sides of the political spectrum. We all love this world, we all love our kids...thank you for being out there..don't let this dipsh*t ruin your real, valid, and necessary ideas into the ground. He's not dangerous to "liberals"...he's dangerous to Conservatives....seriously..can you think of a worse spokesperson? Palin pales in comparison. So I sincerely hope we can all marginalize this noise. This is not our America, this is pure absurdity. Nice clown act Rush...now get off the stage.

Thanks again,

C

For me, the scariest part of this is that Limbaugh clearly considers himself an intellectual. He's thinking William F. Buckley and I'm thinking Paulie Walnuts...

I've read a lot of posts and heard some intelligent conservative friends give about the same complaint as here, that Rush and his dittoheads are now defining a shrinking Republican party. My answer always is, "Well, you did it to yourself!" You intelligent Republicans were the ones who eagerly made the Faustion deal with the extremist religious fundamentalists and zealot defenders of a mythical white America in order to gain that edge in the voting booth.

Over and over again, it was your own party leaders who cheered on while the likes of Rush trashed good Democratic candidates with lies. It was you Republicans who, then and now, decided power was everything and politics was not about the voters, it was about the party.

So now the intelligent voter has left you in disgust, and you're left with the likes of the dittoheads who worship at the feet of a sociopathic radio personality. Do you know how disgusted most people are to see elected officials grovel and ask for forgiveness from this man? You thought you could control the beast, but exciting a lynch mod has consequences. Thus you reap what you sow.

"Limbaughism sounds a lot like Leninism."

Yeah, you "moderate conservatives" (AKA squishies) are so reasonable and avoid any hyperbolic attacks against those with whom you disagree.

Read The Corner, Rod. Rich Lowry let you have it:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmIxNjM0OTkxYzRkMmY3Y2VlYjhkNWIxM2E1ODUwMGU=

"No need to return to first principles..."

Isn't that what Limbaugh is arguing? He's railing against the moderates who want to simply tweak the Liberal/Democrat consensus, who want to go along to get along. As Jonah Goldberg put it, the people who think that if one side says we need a 1000 ft. bridge, and the other side says we don't, they'll say, "let's build a 500 ft. bridge". He's saying that too many Republicans and erstwhile conservatives want to give up the bedrock conservative principle of subsidiarity in order to make nice with the Democratic majority or the Obama administration. But it's obvious that once you give up the principle that the federal government shouldn't be involved in some area (e.g. education), you've basically lost. How soon will we see cutbacks in federal spending or oversight in education? Did compromising with Teddy Kennedy to get No Child Left Behind passed help promote conservative first principles?

"Do they really believe politics is dogmatic religion?"

Well, you're in favor of returning to first principles. You're just assuming that Limbaugh's definition of conservatism is some particular policy proposals (e.g. "one must always lower the top income tax bracket rate"), but that isn't really what he's saying.

Why don't you explain to us how conservative first principles are going to be advanced by anything the Democratic congress or the Obama administration has done so far or is planning to do in the future.

What Limbaugh is saying is NOT, as you say
"....Rousseau conservatism: the idea that man is born innocent, but corrupted by society, or government. Remove the chains of government, and man will return to his natural, good state, which is one of limitless possibility. "

That is you assigning that point of view to Limbaugh. I won't even get into the finer (and completely different) concepts of Leninism.

Reducing/Removing Gov't (particularly at the Federal level) will give the individual the chance to succeed or fail. It is the place of God, Church and society to develop the " natural Good state "to which you refer.

NOT Government. To think otherwise is akin to worshiping at the altar of the ballot box and the Church of C-SPAN. Government is the Church of Lenin, Trotsky, Marx, et al.

Government is by nature evil- albeit a necessary one. As we are fortunate to have a form of gov't that allows us to have a say in how we are governed, it should be the duty of every Christian to keep Government at arms length, and out of our daily lives as much as possible. Government programs ARE NOT charity. The are paid for the earnings of others extorted under threat of force (taxation), and true charity stems from the heart of the individual. Much of the "social net" is simply Government SUBVERTING the role church and religion have historically played in society.

What Limbaugh suggests is what we should all strive for on the basis of economics alone (think of the jobcreation, the better quality of life e.etc if gov't took less a share of of our earnings)- but morally it is an opportunity to succeed as Christians or fail as individuals, and have faith in God and ourselves to help one another as individuals, brother to brother, family to family, etc.

i hope you cross posted this at The Onion. Great read, comic gold.

Rod,

"Verily, that's the way to bring the party back: blame the media."
You're right that we don't have to get involved in this. The market is already putting them out of business, no doubt because they're too good at their jobs.

"The unpopularity of Republican policies has nothing to do with it." Republican policies or conservative policies?

"Yep, it's just that easy. No need to return to first principles and recalibrate policies to account for new realities."
Is it a first principle to account for new realities by changing your first principles? Yes, but only when the new realities show your first principles to be flawed, not that they happen to be marginally unpopular.

"This is a comforting lie. It is Rousseau conservatism: the idea that man is born innocent, but corrupted by society, or government."
This is just a straw man constructed by ignoring context and positing a false choice. Cheerleading for human potential and individual initiative in the face of the largest government intrusion into the private sector in our history doesn't imply a utopian outlook; and doing it while there's a growing public backlash against said intrusion isn't bad politics. Or perhaps we should suddenly forget that distrust of government is grounded in acknowledgment of man's fallen nature, or that government has near limitless potential to destroy human potential and prosperity. The rest of your comments on Limbaugh's cheerleading are just painting the eyes and putting the hat on your scarecrow.

"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"[?]
Well, Mondale lost the popular vote 60/40 and lost every state except his own, yet somehow the Democrat agenda has advanced steadily since then. Maybe you and Rush are both missing something, a possibility that any advance in that agenda increases the likelihood of its further advance. If that's so, then Rush is just fighting a holding action and you...well, what do you have in mind? It hardly seems that Democrats need your or my help for anything.

"Um, what were the Nineties like in the former Soviet Union? That experiment proved that free markets and liberal democracy can't take hold without the cultural and social preconditions for same. Ditto Iraq. But the Limbavian ideologues, these Right-Wing Rousseauists, see human nature as essentially perfect, except for the corrupting hand of government."
One nice thing about straw men is that, once constructed, you can just keep talking for them and about them. What the downfall of the USSR and Saddam "proved" is that we can free two populations from particularly dangerous--to us--and brutal regimes. (Regime? That's kind of like a government, isn't it?) But surely, unlike us, they will fail. No doubt they'll need to redraft their founding documents, have revolutions and insurrections, adopt unsavory institutions out of political expediency, see the rise of organized crime, fight civil wars...wait a minute! That is us! But no, that can't be, because we utopians could never conceive that such things could be.

"I share a degree of his skepticism over the expanding role of the state in American life under Obama, and his confidence that the greater responsibility for our own condition lies in individual and private-sector initiative."
I'm underwhelmed beyond the power of words to express. I'm going to make a note on this sticky pad right here next to the computer: "Dreher shares a degree of skepticism over Obama's agenda, so long as it's not crudely politicized." There...done.

Your name, Phillip, your name. . . ditto. You said it better than I could. Thanks for taking the time, I enjoyed reading it.

I know Rod is a smart guy, but what happened to him? This is beneath him.

Limbaugh's speech, as he has said all week, was designed to enunciate basic conservative princlples for the average American. That's it.

These shots fired back and forth here about his intellect, his appearance, his history are missing his point.

And debasing for all.

His point was to return to principles. From there, problems and issues can be addressed. Policies can be developed, and implemeted.

Reagan's and Hayek's and Friedman's principles can be applied to any problem, any time.

It is a matter of application and implementation. But the principles must come first. They are eternal. You adhere to them and forge ahead.

If you believe a problem or issue cannot be solved with those eternal conservative principles, the conflict lies not with conservatism.

The conflict lies in you.

For whatever reason, your belief in those certain principles and their effectiveness has wavered, or even failed. But that is not a sign of weakness or foolishness on your part. Nor is it a sign of enlightenment or new found brilliance within yourself.

But it is a sign something has changed.

Again, the conflict lies in you, and it is up to you to decide your next step. If those steps take you furthur away, a man like Limbaugh will call you on it. Not out of malice, but because he wants you to turn back.

In the meantime, this is our struggle. Let's make the most of our opportunities everyday, however big or small.

Limbaugh sure did last week.

But please, do not criticize others whom are trying to rally our cause while you do not adhere to our cause's principles. And don't hold conservatism responsible for the shift within yourself.

Cordially, MJS

I think that whoever suggests that America is becoming a socialist state, should first live in a socialist state. Then I think it would be obvious that America is far, far away from anything resembling socialism.

It is funny that budget overspending is suddenly becoming such a problem. I do seem to recall that Bill Clinton amassed a record budget surplus, and that George Bush, a Republican President, was the one who turned it into a budget deficit. And suddenly Obama wants to turn America into a socialist state? I can definitely see the logical line there.

And I also seem to recall that there is a massive financial crisis that is happening, approximately right now. We expect the government to just let that happen? Sure, perhaps the effects of the crisis isn't being felt as much by the individual, but cumulatively it is extremely serious. Obama, with his expansionary fiscal policy, isn't trying to turn the country into a socialist state, he is merely trying to prevent the collapse of the financial system. And so far I haven't heard a cohesive policy to combat the crisis from the conservative side, actually, I don't really hear a lot of discussion on policy from the conservative side.