Notes From D.R. | Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene

Can somebody tell Rush Limbaugh that war is not the answer?

For the past several months, the talk-radio superstar, who celebrates his twentieth anniversary on the national airwaves this week, has launched his own surge against members of what he calls the “conservative intelligentsia”, i.e., center-right pundits who allegedly have a distaste for Reagan-Goldwater conservatism and who seek to move the GOP to the political center. On Limbaugh’s enemies list are such figures as William Kristol, Fred Barnes, Ross Douthat and David Brooks, all of whom have suggested that the Republican Party must take a more pragmatic, realistic approach to politics.

It makes sense for Limbaugh to have an issue with Brooks, a brilliant writer who is nevertheless wedded to the traditional Northeastern Republican vision. Limbaugh has spent years condemning the influence of “blue-blood, country-club” Republicans who never really liked Reagan-Goldwater conservatism, although Limbaugh’s influence has never been strong enough to diminish the power the old-school Rockefeller types still hold in the Republican Party (it can be argued that moderate Republicans were, to various degrees, responsible for the nomination of every post-Reagan GOP Presidential candidate, including George W. Bush). Limbaugh and Brooks will never be true allies, because they enter the arena of ideas from different locker rooms.

However, Limbaugh’s grievance with Kristol, Barnes and Douthat is harder to figure out. As articulate as Limbaugh is, he has never coherently explained exactly how these “conservative intellectuals” are attempting to sabotage traditional conservatism. All three men have suggested that certain political tactics that worked in the 1980s are ineffective today, but that does not mean they hate traditional conservatism.

Kristol, Barnes, Douthat and center-right pundits such as David Frum and Ramesh Ponnuru have acknowledged that the country has undergone certain demographic and political changes that render traditional conservative appeals counterproductive. Unlike the late-1970s, fewer and fewer Americans are automatically inclined to support someone who endorses the concept of limited government—in part because the Republican Party’s limited-government rhetoric is so blatantly phony. Frum and Douthat have promoted the idea that the GOP needs to reposition itself as an entity that supports the economic and social health of the American working- and middle-class; Kristol, Barnes and Ponnuru haven’t gone that far, but they do recognize that merely mouthing the mantra of limited government will send the GOP into the ash heap of history.

There are legitimate objections to the Kristol-Barnes-Douthat-Frum-Ponnuru vision, and a skilled proponent of limited government could poke holes in their assertions—but Limbaugh doesn’t do that. He prefers to ridicule and insult the “conservative intellectuals”, implying that they’re closet liberals.

This is not the first time Limbaugh has launched an assault on other members of the right. In the late-1990s and early-2000s, Limbaugh would repeatedly lampoon libertarian Republicans, mocking their views as nonsensical and poorly considered, without ever explaining to his audience exactly why libertarian-minded Republicans were so shortsighted. I remember a 2000 broadcast where Limbaugh chortled as a caller mocked the libertarian GOP as “Republicans who just want to smoke pot”—a distortion of the views of serious libertarian Republicans.

Evidently, Limbaugh no longer feels the need to lambaste the libertarian GOP; now, he seeks to strip the “conservative intelligentsia” of its credentials. Why does Limbaugh feel the need to do this? Does Limbaugh wish to set himself up as the sole judge of what is and is not conservative?

His gripe with Kristol is arguably the most nonsensical of his feuds. It appears that this quarrel goes all the way back to the “Colin Powell for President” days, when Kristol (along with Bill Bennett) urged Powell to contend for the 1996 GOP nomination, while Limbaugh reminded his listeners that Powell was not a conservative. Presumably, Limbaugh regarded Kristol as a man who was willing to throw away conservative principles in the name of winning. Kristol, a pro-life conservative, probably had his own issues with Powell, but he recognized that Powell could defeat President Clinton, and that the removal of Clinton from office took precedence over ideological goals. Unlike Limbaugh, Kristol understood that a virtuous loser is a still a loser.

It’s depressing to listen to Limbaugh trash Kristol and other “conservative intellectuals” as would-be destroyers of the Reagan-Goldwater legacy. I’ve listened to Limbaugh for nearly fifteen years, and I give him all the credit in the world for challenging the mainstream media’s hegemony.  Without Limbaugh, there would be no Fox News Channel, no prosperous talk-radio industry, no conservative blogosphere. He is to the right what Jack Warner was to Hollywood.

Yet his success doesn’t give him the right to belittle those who argue that a new era requires a new approach. He has “talent on loan from God”, but he is not God himself. Limbaugh’s nostalgia for the Reagan era has apparently blinded him to the reality that the Reagan era ended on January 20, 1989. For numerous reasons—political correctness, the continued influence of the mainstream press, the one-sidedness of academia—old arguments and tactics won’t work anymore for the Republicans. The “conservative intellectuals” Limbaugh finds fault with understand that the game has changed. Perhaps these allegedly fraudulent conservatives are the ones who are on the cutting edge of societal evolution.