It happens I was listening to Rush also on my car radio, over my lunch break. I disagreed with his implying over and over, as he spoke about Daniel Goldberg’s critique of present-day liberalism, that conservatism had scored kind of a triumph over liberalism in that it was now considered hip, something liberalism was previously but is no more, according to Goldberg. I was saying to myself that if that was the basis on which Goldberg awarded points to conservatism and took points away from liberalism — how hip or unhip we were — then conservatives should ignore that kind of praise as representing the sort of thing we never sought (and I hope never earned — I’d hate to be found to be hip as regarded my political beliefs which to me are nearly on a sacred level) and which will get us exactly nowhere, of course. I was surprised that Rush found Goldberg’s praise so newsworthy. I was asking myself, “And if the twenty-somethings in question all find out what conservatives actually stand for, will they continue to find them so hip? I surely hope so, but isn’t that what we should be paying attention to?” Hipness may be something positive in the eyes of certain commentators, but can obviously only be a foundation of shifting sand as far as any serious political-philosophical edifice is concerned, or the extent to which it appeals to this or that demographic segment. I take no comfort whatsoever in hearing that sort of praise heaped upon conservatism by Mr. Goldberg or Rush Limbaugh.

Well said, Mr. Auster and Unadorned. The idea of a “hip” conservatism strikes me as very nearly a contradiction in terms. Better: Mr. Auster’s term, a “capitulation.” Pray tell, what in our popular culture is possibly worth exerting real toil to conserve? I say that as a 25-year-old man who is well aware of the allure of popular culture.

On the other hand, let’s keep in mind that Rush Limbaugh talks ALOT, and can hardly be held to the most rigorous account of everything he says.

Mr. Cella’s last point is well taken. However, these were not just passing comments, but themes that Rush has sounded over and over.

I had a long drive that day, and I listened to Rush on the radio. I agree with the above comments. Also, Limbaugh discussed the California governor’s race. He mentioned in passing that California “is a liberal state.” Never has Rush acknowledged the demographic changes in California due to uncontrolled immigration, which make it politically a left-wing place. He pretends that “Reagan-style optimism will win.” California is not the same state that elected Reagan in 1966 and 1970, but you wouldn’t know it listening to Rush.

Rush also apent a lot of air time promoting a show he will have on ESPN talking about pro football.

Well, since conservatism is no longer team spirit for the sake on an ideology, but only team spirit for its own sake, doesn’t it make sense that Rush would now move into sports broadcasting?

Rush’s failure to press the immigration issue is a graver an error than his morbid optimism.

Agreed. But I would describe it not as a failure to press the immigration issue, but as a refusal to discuss—or even mention—immigation at all. He may mention it occasionally now, but for many years, from the late ’80s through the late ’90s, the issue was NEVER brought up on the show. And I mean literally never. Either callers who wanted to speak about it were screened out, or callers knew that the issue was not allowed and didn’t bother.

About seven years ago, Rush did have a caller discuss immigration. The caller was a former resident of South Texas. He told Rush what had happened, South Texas had become Mexico. This caller stayed on several minutes and was allowed his say. After he was finished, Rush broke for a commercial. When he came back, Rush had no comment on what the previous caller had said and just dropped the subject.

Rush may take calls like this once every two years. One time, I heard him sneer at people who were emailing him to press the immigration issue. Overall, Mr. Auster is right. Limbaugh WILL NOT bring up the issue.

Pathetic. What _is_ it about immigration and conservatives? Why the poltroonery?

The driving force of support for immigration is whites’s need to demonstrate that they are not racist. Therefore, even if a person disagrees with immigration for non-racial reasons, his criticism of immigration will still be seen as racist. This means there is no escape from the racial aspect of immigration. People aren’t willing to deal with the racial aspect, so they remain silent.

I recall hearing a caller on Limbaugh’s show a couple of years ago from Barney Frank’s district. The caller told Rush not to be worried because most people in Frank’s district were in fact conservative and didn’t agree with Frank. That was even too much for Limbaugh to take. He pointed out that it was hard to imagine that most people in Frank’s district didn’t know the views of Congress’ most prominent homosexual.

After Clinton was elected, there was an attempt to reimpose the “fairness doctrine” on radio. Limbaugh called it the “hush Rush” bill. Limbaugh noted that all the major institutions in society were liberal, so the left was going after the last bastion of conservatism (talk radio).

When Limbaugh isn’t engaging in boosterism, he can be fairly lucid.

Lawrence is right. I have heard liberals describe any criticism of current immigration policy as racist by its very nature. If your a public figure, poltician or media personality, then the fear of being accused of racism is very real.

Not long ago I took Lawrence to task over the use of the term White to describe European Americans, on the basis that it was not useful as a descriptive term, and came with too much baggage. I now think I was wrong. Liberals are using fear and language policing to set the bounds of debate, and even to determine what can be debated to begin with. This has to stop, and the only way to start the process of fighting back is to reclaim the language of debate, and to stop caring what liberals say about us.