This will be a two-part post. I want to start by sharing something I hear today, and then finish by pointing out how subtle misdirection can be sometimes. It all started when I was listening to Limbaugh today and I have to say he hit on some brilliant observations. The primary thrust of the majority of his show was aimed at the revelation that Obama (for that matter, all Progressives) refuse to be seen as ever governing the nation. Rush stumbled upon this revelation while trying to explain how public opinion polling can show personal support for Obama while, at the same time, showing a sharp dissatisfaction with the direction in which the country is heading. The fact that people apparently do not connect Obama’s policies with the nation’s direction was driving Limbaugh nuts – until he gelled the components of things he has been saying since he hit the national airwaves and came up with the following analysis.
Instead of actually leading, Progressives – like Obama — position themselves as constantly campaigning against some shapeless, formless, nameless enemy. Depending upon the audience, circumstances and goal at the time, this enemy typically takes the form of “the Right,” “conservatives,” “big business,” “the rich” or “right-wing extremists” – among others. But the point is, as with virtually any dictator you can think of, Obama is always presenting himself as the savior of the people: the man who is fighting to deliver them from the clutches of this untouchable foe. Aside from the clear religious implication here, the net effect is that Obama can paint himself as an outsider, a hero — the defender of the people – and thus, distance himself from the result of his own policies. Think about it and you’ll see that this is true. Even today, a great number of Cubans still see Castro as a hero, and the same applies to virtually every dictator the world has ever known.
Rush also correctly connected this tactic to the teachings of Alinksy. But, sadly, this is pretty much where he stopped. Had he chosen to give us a history lesson, he might have gone on to explain that Obama’s tactics can trace their lineage something like this:
Obama the campaigner <– Community Organizer <– Saul Alinksy and Rules for Radicals <– Propaganda <– Edward Bernays <– Woodrow Wilson <– the ‘science’ of shaping and directing public opinion <– the Communist Movement ala Marx
Had he chose to go this direction, Limbaugh could have also hit on the fact that the revolutionary never studies how to govern because his sole purpose is to overthrow the existing establishment. What happens after the revolution has always been a vague notion to these people. Read what they write and they will all describe a different idea of the perfect society, but they also all seem to assume it will just happen by some accident or magic. They never explain what they really want or how they plan to get it, they only know what they don’t like and how they plan to destroy it. Hence what I have said for a long time: the Left is a force for destruction that must feed off the efforts of those who create.
Finally, Rush made one more factual and important point. He explained that the only way Obama or any Leftist can possibly get away with these tactics is if the press is working in conjunction with him. In other words, Obama is only succeeding in deceiving people and distancing himself from the effects of his policies because the media wants to protect him. This means the media is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the government (see my flow chart above: it traces directly to Wilson and the Progressive/Communist movement). And for the remainder of his show, Rush hammered on and blamed the media for a good deal of this nation’s woes. This where I part with Limbaugh’s analysis and start the second part of this post.
While I agree that the media is part of the government, this is nothing new – so is the education system. The catch here is that Rush is part of the establishment media. True, he paints himself as being independent, but he isn’t. Think about it. Throughout his entire career, no matter how poorly they have performed, what is the one thing Rush has consistently stood for? Preserving and growing the power of the Republican Party – period! However, in anything else, he tells his audience that they shouldn’t listen to anyone who tells them they can’t do something. If they have a passion for it, do it. So why not start a third Party – especially as Rush is always telling us the Republican leadership is incompetent or scared of the media or whatever? I mean, the country does report as being majority conservative in the way they live, so why not start the third Party with good conservative leadership? If Rush is correct, it would be a majority Party in short order. Such a move would also be in keeping with everything he has ever told people – except where the Republican Party is concern. Once you broach that subject, Rush immediately goes on the defense. Why?
And why did Rush taught Rubio today? Anyone who has been listening should have noted that Rubio is talking “conservative,” but he’s pulling another “W,” only this time, it isn’t “compassionate conservatism,” its “realistic immigration reform.” And people deny that the Republicans are Progressive? Don’t you see the word games being played here? Any way you slice it, Rubio is moving the Republican Party steadily to the Left. And to punctuate my point, why didn’t Rush at least mention Rand Paul’s rebuttal to Obama? Paul has closer ties to the TEA Party than Rubio, yet Rush didn’t issue a peep about him – not one word. Why? And why did Rush, Hannity and Levin treat Ron Paul the same way? Are you starting to see why I am skeptical of these “conservative” radio hosts yet – especially their claims to support the TEA Party?
You see, I have been listening long enough to have developed real concerns about Rush. Just as the Left has people who serve no purpose but to keep Democrats “on the reservation,” Rush’s insistence that “conservatives” stay with a Party that has clearly and repeatedly demonstrated it hates “conservatives” seems to be the Right-wing version of the same thing. Heck, Rush has even said the Republican leadership hates the “conservative” movement, yet he insists that “conservatives” – who he says are a majority in this nation – must stay in a Party that hates them and the ideas for which they stand. Instead, he focuses your hatred on Obama, the media and the Republican leadership. He doesn’t address the fact that the Republicans haven’t filed Articles of Impeachment. Instead, he talks about “political realities” and “strategic strategy.” Well, if Obama is the threat to this nation Limbaugh claims he is (and I believe he is), then why cover for people who are more worried about winning elections than doing their duty to protect the nation? Why tell me they have to worry about winning the next election when they have already shown they won’t do what we want them to do when they are given one-Party rule (i.e. 2004-2006)? Why keep up the pretenses and continue defending a Party that he, himself, has already admitted is a waste?
Well, I have learned to see these tricks when the Left uses them, so I am not going to remain willfully blind when the Right employs them. This is why I have come to a point where I suspect Limbaugh is nothing more than a gatekeeper: put where he is to keep “conservatives” on the Republican reservation. Else, the “conservatives” in both Parties might actually find they have more in common with each other than with their Parties and actually come together to form a majority third Party where the leadership in the Democrat and Republican worlds will have no power. Since gaining and keeping their power is really the only thing either of the major Parties really cares about, this makes more sense than the contradicting rhetoric coming from Limbaugh, doesn’t it?.
[Note: this could also be why the Left has always insisted that Rush doesn't mean what he says and that he is lying. It could be that they know something we don't. And that would explain why Limbaugh personally attacked the female seasoned citizen who called in the fall of 1994 and accused him of being and doing exactly what I just described. In fact, she is the person who first got me looking for evidence of this -- and that was long before I knew anything about Progressives or their connection to propaganda. But this is just a thought -- though it is a thought that all fits together seamlessly. ;-) ]