Beck Wrong on Limbaugh

NOTE: this is an editorial piece.  Please read it as such.

So Rush Limbaugh was on Greta van Sustren’s show last night and he not only attacked Obama, he came out and said the Republican Party is a threat to conservative values.  Now, in the interest of fairness, I did not see the interview.  I am responding to Beck’s accounting of it.  And in this account, Beck said that Limbaugh is advising conservatives and TEA Party types to work as hard as they can from inside the Republican Party to take over the Party.  Beck gave the impression that he agrees with this advice.  I think both Limbaugh and Beck are wrong on this point, and here’s why.

First, the TEA Party movement was not homogeneous.  When it first started, it was reported that as much as 37% of its membership was comprised of Democrats and Independents.  By urging this 37% to “work from within the Republican Party,” Limbaugh is urging the people who oppose the Republican Party’s agenda to actually make it stronger!  With all due respect to Beck, this is fornicating for chastity.  As to Limbaugh: this is exactly what I would have expected.  I have stated this many times in the past and this interview has only solidified my opinion on this issue.  Limbaugh’s role in our national politics is to keep those who actually support the ideals and principles of our founding on the Republican reservation.

This brings me to the second reason I believe Beck is wrong.  If you have identified a terrorist cell in the United States, and you know it is a real and present danger to the nation, what do you do?  Do you try to join it so you can “Work as hard as you can to change it from within” so it will no longer be a threat?  Or do you eliminate that threat as quickly as possible?  If you ask this former Marine, I’d say you kill the threat – NOW!  But this is not what Limbaugh is telling people to do.  Limbaugh is telling people to join the terrorist cell and try to change it from within.  The problem with this is it cannot work.  First, you have already told the cell (i.e. Republican Party) what you are going to do.  But, and this is the important part, all you do in the process of wasting your time and energy is make that threat stronger.   Even if you are trying to oppose their agenda, your numbers within the organization give it power.  Once again, Limbaugh is telling us to fornicate for chastity.

Now, I can already hear people telling me that the Progressives took over the Democrat Party the same way Limbaugh is telling us to take over the Republican Party.  I would answer yes, and NO!  First, as many may already know, I do not believe there are two Parties.  I believe they are two competing sects of the same Party pretending to be two different Parties.  But even if they are two Parties, the Progressives had to infiltrate the Democrat Party because they knew what they wanted to do would never get the support of the rank-and-file Democrat voter.  They had to work through deception and lies.  This only works when the people you are trying to infiltrate are unaware of what you are doing.  In this case, after Limbaugh has told people to do the same, the Republican Party leadership is fully aware of what is happening.  They will not allow such a takeover.

No, if you truly believe the Republican Party is a threat to the nation, and you truly believe the majority of this nation still holds what we call “conservative” values, then you act on what you claim to believe.  You kill the threat by leaving the Party and starting a new political movement aimed at restoring those values.  If you are correct in your belief, you will not only keep your base, you will pull from Independents who have already realized that this is what has to happen and left the other Parties.  But you will also pull from the traditional Democrat voters left in the Progressive Democrat Party.  In short, your new movement will become a super-majority in short order and you will have the political clout to affect your goals.  However, if you strengthen the threat by urging people to stay in it and feed it, all you do is hasten the demise of the nation.

43 thoughts on “Beck Wrong on Limbaugh

  1. Joe: Really interesting post. I have been an Independent voter for at least 30-years and I am likely to remain one for the remainder of my tenure in this particular reality. My interest and hope is in ideas, rather than any political party, but I am somewhat unusual in that regard. Most Americans, I estimate about 70%, fall in the large, barely differentiated middle with personal or family or occupational idiosyncrasies causing them to think of themselves and to register as “Democrats” or “Republicans”. My grandfather (Charles Clemson Edinger) was a Democrat who thought FDR was God because CCE was a Tool & Die Maker who rose to become the Superintendent of a military arsenal during WW II under FDR. My father (Charles Otha Edinger) was a Conservative Republican, one of six in Philly at the time, who thought FDR was the Anti-Christ, worked as a Financial and Insurance guy in the private sector his whole life and voted for one Democrat, Philly Mayor Frank Rizzo, in his entire life. Neither CCE nor COE had much real interest in politics. They registered and voted as they did for what they perceived to be their own and their family’s interests, but not for any particularly insightful reason. I think an alien invasion would be required to change the party allegiance of at least 70% of today’s Americans…in fact I think an alien invasion will happen first.

    My point is that 3rd party movements in America have a long, proud history of failure. From the “Bull Moose” to the “Dixiecrats” to George Wallace, John Anderson and the ultimate Loony Tune, Ross Perot, 3rd parties have generally hurt the party closest to their views and helped the party most opposed to their agendas. None have risen to permanent status and I think that will continue to be the case, primarily because no 3rd party will be able to attract the money and operational talent required in sufficient volumes to sustain itself between national elections. Mr. Limbaugh is first an entertainer who has amassed a considerable personal fortune by tapping into Conservative unhappiness with America’s direction. He is a very smart political observer and a deep student of the behavior of America’s political class, right, left and center. Mr. Beck is in the process of replicating Limbaugh’s success, while updating the approach to more effectively tap developments in technology. I think both Limbaugh and Beck are personally Conservative and while they sometimes choose to utilize “bomb-thrower” tactics, both are smart, sophisticated political animals who I respect and admire.

    Limbaugh bases his “capture the GOP strategy” on the realities of historic 3rd party failures in America. As I noted above, the marginally committed in America, the vast, undifferentiated middle, are the ones who win elections in our nation. When the Libs and the GOP carry out “get out the vote” campaigns, which always remind me of Tammany’s tactics portrayed in GANGS OF NEW YORK, I think most of the people who get carried to the polls will vote for whoever the people carrying them tell them to vote for or whoever gives them $20 in “street money.” As our really good President Calvin Coolidge stated, “The business of America is business.” And we political junkies pounding away on our blogs are the odd ducks, so the creation of a new 3rd party, regardless of its merits, is not likely to succeed, regardless of its philosophical purity or absolute rightness of cause.

    As an American whose ancestor, Samuel Rhoads, was elected Mayor of Philadelphia when he left a City Council meeting to urinate, and whose personal libertarian beliefs will never be reflected perfectly in any major party’s platform, I am resigned to affecting change within the GOP by the power of ideas and moral suasion. The Democrat Party has long been captive to the mortal enemies of we libertarians, the Liberal Progressives. And libertarians are too quirky to ever attract broad appeal, so we pragmatic libertarians (not to ever be confused with the Pragmatists of C.S. Peirce, John Dewey and William James) make common cause with the Republicans, holding our collective noses periodically and making use of their infrastructure, organization and not-as-terrible policies. Sometimes we get lucky, as with our greatest president of the 20th century, Ronald Wilson Reagan, who held many libertarian views, and sometimes not, as with a great American but wacky candidate, John McCain. But our ideas continue to grow in influence, as well they should, and some of our younger leaders, like Rand Paul, and others who hold many libertarian positions, like Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, are rising in their influence. I am resigned to this form of influence and I encourage my many Conservative friends to adopt a similar approach. Ideological purity in a lot like “wetting” one’s trousers in that it provides a nice, warm feeling and a sense of relief, but accomplishes little long term results. Cheers, CDE

    • CDE,

      I am not advocating a 3rd Party. I am advocating what President Washington told us to hold to: NO PARTY!

      As for Limbaugh: I think he was put in place to prevent a conservative backlash from destroying the Republican power base. I understand the history of 3rd Parties, but I also understand that NONE of the Parties we have now can honestly trace themselves to the founders. Guess what that means? 😉

      Now, in the fall of 1994, an elderly lady called Limbaugh’s show and accused him of being a Republican shill. She said she believed he was placed for the specific purpose of keeping “conservatives” in the Republican Party. Limbaugh got VERY mad, launched into an a hominem attack against this caller, called her crazy, hung up on her and immediately went to t a break. When he came back, the next segment – about 10 minutes – was spent denouncing her and “conspiracy theorists.” Now, Limbaugh may be right: she might have been crazy. But the way he reacted struck me as odd and, since that time, I have noticed that – no matter what – Limbaugh’s answer is ALWAYS “stay with the Party.”

      Now here’s my question: IF Limbaugh actually cares about the nation, then why the “Party uber alles” mantra? How can one have an allegiance to the Party AND to the nation at the same time? People will say they can, but you cannot. One MUST come before the other. So, if the Republicans are the threat Limbaugh now says they are, why keep strengthening that threat by staying with it when – historically – we KNOW nothing is going to change?

      One last note: have you been listening to Beck lately? He is moving more and more toward the “Libertarian” position. The only thing stopping him is he realizes the absolute necessity for morality to the preservation of individual rights and liberty.
      OK, one last, last thing: CONGRATULATIONS!!! You are now the proud winner of the “Most Verbose Blogger” award on the RNL 🙂

      • Joe: I’ll wear my “Verbosity” award with pride. The fact that I’ve earned it so quickly makes it all the sweeter and indicates you and my other RNL compadres are not holding up your end. You and I agree that no party deserves the actual allegiance of thinking Americans who embrace the vision of our Founders. But marriages of convenience are often quite successful and I view the current Dem’s as the party of the Progressive Collectivist hordes. The GOP has the infrastructure and resources to resist the disaster that Our Dear Leader will bring about if He is not resisted effectively. America is, in RWR’s words, “The last, best hope for humanity”, and so I am ready to sacrifice philosophical purity for an effective, pragmatic resistance. Yes, I am a gentleman of questionable virtue, but I am mean, as only the Irish can be, when something important is at stake. BTW, if you’ve never read Tom Wolfe’s description of the Irish in Chapter 16 of THE BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES, it is really worth finding and reading.

        • CDE,

          Compromising our ideals for political expediency is EXACTLY how we got where we are. You do know what they call it when you insist on doing more of the same and — this time — expecting a different result, don’t you? 😉

          • Joe: I disagree with you completely on this issue, which is a really important one. Barack Hussein Obama won both his presidential elections largely because Conservative Americans found John McCain and Mitt Romney insufficiently Conservative and so they stayed home in large numbers rather than holding their noses and voting for two men who were both measurably better men. In Romney’s case, he was the one person in the world best prepared to tackle the turn-around that a post-Obama America would have desperately needed. Instead, the Conservatives felt good about themselves and America got Obama and Obama.

            Philosophical purists are irritating, but ultimately very little comes of their intellectual-OCD. A few interesting interviews, some heated exchanges on blogs, but life goes on. Political purists give aid and comfort to their own worst enemies, all in the name of getting the last 10 – 15% of the ideological purity they require or they stay home and open the field to the Obamas of the world.

            What got us where are today in the US was two things. First, Our Dear Leader utilized the bureaucratic tools of the Federal government to suppress the most powerful and committed of his political enemies, the Tea Parties around the country, preventing them from replicating their incredible performance in the 2010 election cycle. This may have cost Mr. Romney 6 MM votes that would have given him the White House and the nation a brilliant turn-around artist with a proven track record with dozens of companies, the American Olympic Committee, and the People’s Republic of Massachusetts. Second, millions of Americans refused to vote for (1.) a Mormon (2.) a successful businessman who had saved millions of American jobs or (3.) a Conservative Republican politician who knew how to compromise and accomplish things. Another name for “political expediency” is winning elections so the bad guys don’t get to destroy our nation. I’m not sure why that is a difficult concept to understand.

            • CDE – While your post makes a lot of sense to someone with some sense, you do not mention the other two groups of voters that voted in Our Dear Leader; the group that voted for him simply because he is “black”, and the other group that voted for him because he promised not to take away free shit, but instead give more free shit (Obamacare). Yes, many white liberals or progressives voted for him because of the reasons you stated and tilted the election in his favor, but the majority voted for him for these other two reasons.

              • Mr. Cracker: You are absolutely correct that Our Dear Leader has been working hard to create a coalition of the dependent, and that group is approaching critical mass, where there will be more people receiving government “stuff” of various forms (Section 8 housing, Food Stamps, Obama-phones, free healthcare, WIC funds, etc.) and they will outnumber those of us paying into government support through taxes and fees. When that point is reached, the old adage that “He who taxes Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul’s vote” will kick-in and FDR-level taxation of the productive people in American society may return. That will kill economic growth, squeeze the private sector where all real growth and jobs exist, and could send America into the frightening downward spiral that Ayn Rand envisioned in AXIS SHRUGGED. As for the post-racial Liberal/Progressives who voted for Mr. Obama because of his race, my grandfather Charles Clemson Edinger always told us that one should show special kindness to children and idiots, but my position is that times have changed and Charlie-C never dealt with today’s political class. And I’m always nice to kids.

                My point with my earlier post was that even with the takers and White-guilt voters and the other special interests groups who voted for Our Dear Leader, Mr. Romney would have won the 2012 election and rid America of Obama-blight if all the people who knew better had just held their collective noses and voted against the greatest vacationeer to ever occupy the office. To be clear, I thought Mr. Romney was the right person for the job that had to be done…an experienced turn-around manager who actually understood economics (imagine that) and whose personal integrity and fairmindedness was beyond reproach. But one did not have to view Mr. Romney as the second coming of President Reagan to vote AGAINST the worst president in American history. I sincerely hope my Conservative friends examine the results of their having maintained their political virtue…He is on the Vineyard this week. Cheers, CDE

            • CDE, while time has proven Romney correct on several fronts since the election, it was not Obama alone who destroyed Romney’s chances at the White House. Romney, and his campaign at large was impotent, and hapless in their execution. They missed their fair share of opportunities by locking themselves in a prison of their own design in an effort to appeal to voting blocks they were never going to win anyway.

              • augger: You are on-target in your assessment of the Romney Campaign’s general incompetence. How such a bright guy and highly competent leader could have allowed his campaign to be so mismanaged is inexplicable to me. Where is Lee Atwater when we need him? Hell, where was Karl Rove? Mr. Romney had a completely failed president to run against who had destroyed the American economy, insulted our allies and bowed to totalitarians all over the world, and somehow his campaign couldn’t get the “messaging” right? Incredible! It was the mirror of Mr. Reagan’s campaign in 1980 against the second weakest president in American history. Of course the IRS vote suppression campaign and the Media’s collusion in repressing the truth about Benghazi and other scandals didn’t help, but Mr. Romney should have assessed the environment, taken the measure of his opponents and adjusted his strategy to take advantages of Obama’s myriad vulnerabilities. That’s what Mr. Romney had done daily at Bain and it is what we businessmen do every day of of lives. I can’t explain it , augger, and I’ve tried to figure it out.

                  • augger: I’ve seen no evidence that Mr. Romney is a Liberal/Progressive, other than the fact that he chose to locate his family and business in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts, but a lot of HBS grads go that route. Since I live in the 3rd world enclave of Connecticut, for both business and family reasons, I have a tendency to be understanding of those of us who live in alien cultures. I see Mr. Romney as a Conservative, partially because I’ve worked with a lot of very smart, very successful Mormons and not one of them is a Lib/Prog, and partially because he exudes a level of personal integrity that I’ve never found in my Lefty friends and associates. But mostly I see him as the premier business strategist and leader of our generation. His record at Bain was unparalleled. I know because I managed one turn-around and immediately went back to managing start-ups, which destroy one’s sleep patterns but is far simpler than what Mr. Romney accomplished in saving American jobs, companies and communities. We business people are generally pragmatic, problem-solvers by nature, especially those who are successful, and Mr. Romney is the poster child for competence on steroids. I understand that “Romney-care” may have been a bridge too far, but someone does eventually have to fix healthcare in the US, and there was little to lost in the Bay State. So maybe we agree to differ here, but can you imagine Mr. Romney, who gave his inherited wealth away to charity, works in soup kitchens and built the most successful private capital firm in history trying to explain our economy with reheated class-warfare speeches from 2009 or taking his family to the Vineyard on the American citizens’ dime? I can’t.

                    • I’m answering from a cell phone in the Emergency Room where I work, so I apologize in advance for my short answer.

                      I find little reason to question his charitable nature as I oftentimes do the same, however I also am reaching to attempt to find the logic connecting his conservative charitable nature to his socialist principled Romneycare. Likewise, I know healthcare needs to be fixed, likely better than most who visit here, but I cannot rationalize that need to a socialistic method.

                      Simply stated, there are better alternatives out there.

  2. I’mnot so sure Linbaugh was trying to say “change from with”….he’s beeb saying that for years. I think he is starting to Change. If so then Beck is wrong about his interpretattion. But I may be wrong in assuming what Rush meant on the Show.

    Beck is wrong as a Total Strategy ….but right in that those who CHOOSE to stay, and admit any Real affinity to Conservative values and Constitutional Principles MUST change it from within…IF they are to stay. Because the GOP as constituted now….DOES NOT support Constitutional Rule of Law……that is just Fact…..and Republican Base within the GOP have to be blind to not see it. The Bushes, Christie, Rubio, Rove ….these are all ENEMIES of a Constitutional Republic…..they DO NOT support “rule of Law”…..but rather Croney Capitalism via “Compromise” with the Liberal Left…..Amnesty as just One example…..NOT DEFUNDING ObamaCare through the upcomiong Continuing Resolution is another.

    GOP Base………………WAKE UP…………TAKE ACTION.

      • Joe,

        Today … infact coming up…….Hannity is engaged in his “resurrect Rubio Campaign”………and has been featuring Rove….YET AGAIN !! Putting him up as if he is a legitimate voice AGAINST Ted Cruz.

        I really wish you would go after Hannity ……….. I feel he does Daily Damage to the Very Causes you and I feel are crucial…..much more so than Rush…………AT LEAST put up a Post about HIM and his RINO tactics….there hasn’t been a single one.

        Rush today had Senator Mike Lee on for a Lengthy spot……AND he even brought him into the Studio !!!!!

        The issues Readers of RNL should be focusing on Legislatively…. calls, talking with Family and Neighbors etc are :

        The Defunding of ObamaCare in the Continuing Resolution.
        The Amesty Screw-overs in the Congress going on Behind our Backs.
        Keeping pressure to Defund the NSA….and,
        The IRS Scandal and the Profiling of the Tea Party.

        These four issues NEED to be having pressure put on our Representatives because they are STILL ongoing and active NOW…………………So along with defining who we are and what our ultimate thrust will be for the 2014 Midterm Voting…..we need to keep our Eye on the Ball with the Here and Now.

        I wish you and Utah would Devote some posts to the Four issues as GET OUT AND CALL YOPUR REPRESENTATIVE posts.

        Remember Nancy Pelosi said “we had to pass the Bill to find out what’s in it…..if we liked it ” ???

        Well…..there should be signs popping up all over supporting the Defunding in the upcoming CR…..sRepeating what she daid and saying…..”We passed it…..we see it….we Don’t LIKE it…….Defund it….Repeal it !! “

        • Don,

          I don’t speak about Hannity because I do not listen to him — at all. I gave up on him about 10 years ago.

          As for Rush, I am still holding out hope that — at some point — he’ll wake the heck up and join the fight. This latest spat may be an indication that he is doing so. But if all he does is keep hammering “change from within,” I’ll eventually give up on him, too. I’ll hold to my analogy of trying to infiltrate a terrorist group to change it from within rather than killing it off.

  3. I think Limbaugh has had an epiphany about the “two” parties. The fact that 37% of the TEA party movement are democrats is actually a strageic advantage. Infecting them with that virus helps to explain the venomous way the progresive movement attacks them. Now if Rush will just completely open his eyes and go after all of the progressives, then we would have something, but then he would be fired just like Beck was.

    • Old Vet,

      This is one of the primary reason I do not trust Limbaugh anymore: because he DOES know about and understand the Progressives!

      You have to be a regular, long-term listening who pays close attention to his show to catch this. If you are, then you have heard him mention Progressives, and you may have even heard him say they are also what he refers to as the “blue-blood, country-club” Republicans. But this usually happens ONLY when he is surprised by a knowledgeable caller who portrays themselves as such and conducts themselves in a manner that sounds rational and reasonable. When that happens, Limbaugh “appears” to drop the mask, addresses the topic in language even Beck would recognize and understand, ends the call and then never talks about it in those terms again — until the next time he is surprised, that is.

      This tells me Rush KNOWS, but that he PURPOSELY avoids the words and subject. Now answer me why he would do that UNLESS he is trying to deceive/deflect his listeners?

  4. Please do not blog on subjects you have not heard or viewed yourself. An editorial on what Beck said about the interview is worthless. What do YOU say about it??? You do not deserve to ride the Rio Norte Line and don’t think of boarding the John Galt Line. Write your editorials about what you know or get off this train!

    • Diane,

      Apparently, you are the one who is ignorant here — not me. I have a long history on this issue, and this post does not stray from the path I have been on for the past two years or so now.

      As for not hearing Limbaugh’s interview: I didn’t really need to. I know the man, know what he believes and knew what he was going to say. I have since seen the interview and, guess what? I was correct. The only thing new here is Limbaugh went on TV to say this and — finally — he put a little more point and verve into his position. But that’s about all.

      As for Beck: I know his positions, as well. I also know what Beck said Limbaugh said and I made this clear. I then addressed Beck’s accounting — specifically. This actually absolves me of any fallacy as I pointed all of this out before hand and then dealt with my post as a conditional.

      Finally, I DID write what I believe. I said as much.

      Now, if this does not qualify me to ride the RNL, take it to the boss. If he agrees, he has it in his power to make me go away. Until then, thanks for reading my posts 🙂

      • Joe: Say it ain’t so…What would we do without you? What would I do without you? I could go back to writing posts that were short enough that people could actually read them! And I’d get another 3-hours sleep per night. We libertarians would doubtless take over the nation, or at least the GOP. But there would be a void in my life, which your insults fill with a warm kind of feeling. You make the world a jollier place. Thanks, CDE

        • “I could go back to writing posts that were short enough that people could actually read them! And I’d get another 3-hours sleep per night.”

          I sincerely doubt that your posts require that much effort to write. 🙂

          @ Diane — I’m having a difficult time trying to parse your word salad. Can you attempt a re-write please?

          @ Joe — While I do not always agree with your analysis, opine, or writing styles, I seldom question your literary erudition. I wouldn’t waste a moment of my time responding to retorts from writers such as Diane who do not display much intellectual agility. However, when faced with a responder that possesses intellectual prowess (such as CDE), I would do so with more respect than should be granted to the other.

          I do not think you two are as far apart as you think you are.

          Just my .02 cents.

          • augger: I actually do put some effort into most of my more thoughtful posts, although my contribution above was offered to let Joe know I find his contributions quite interesting and I sometimes learn new things, which is my goal for everything I do. Just to warm things up a bit, do you know where the quote, “Say it ain’t so, Joe!” actually comes from? On the differences that Joe and I may have politically or philosophically, from my perspective they are probably negligible. I’m not certain because I find it sometimes difficult to draw Joe into some of our exchanges in terms of where he stands in his own beliefs. But I am not a purist, and that is by conscious decision on my part. My credo in this area is that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and I’m quite confident that by that standard I’m certain Joe and I are actually buddies. I don’t diminish our differences since I think Joe places a high premium on consistency and that’s certainly his right. I also have grown used to many people reacting negatively, not to my libertarian views, which most Americans support as obviously sound, but to the fact that I am honest in identifying myself as a libertarian (small “l”). I’ve found many Americans seem to identify libertarianism as somewhere between the Masons and Scientology. That’s a cross I’m comfortable bearing, so explaining what libertarians believe is something I’m used to doing at length. Cheers, CDE

            • “augger: I actually do put some effort into most of my more thoughtful posts”

              I think I may have to disagree. I think the application of thoughts to paragraphs comes easy for you. I see an easy flow to your writing whereas penning thoughts is a thing that I only do with ease when I am dictating a history and physical. Political posts require effort, and it shows.

              I’m getting older, and my memory is not the best Charles, but if my memory serves me, it comes from a trial. I cannot intelligently speak for Joe, but if I were hedging bets, I would bet that Joe’s conviction to his beliefs would not leave much room for that standard of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. I would agree that Joe does place a high premium on consistency, and of us all, I also believe that Joe studies politics much deeper than the rest of us, but again … that’s just an assumption. As far as Libertarians go, I think most folks are somewhat uneasy with them as the moniker has more than a few meanings. I have read “libertarian” sites that range from a platform of total anarchy something more rational as your definition of the movement. So I believe the trepidation folks might have for your offerings at the outset is somewhat something to expect, and once they get to know you better, they likely lighten up a bit.

              But my expertise is in sewing up lacerations, and whatnot. It is not in clairvoyance.

              Cheers, Charles. 🙂

              • Hi augger: I used to have two assistants who did nothing but transcribe letters and other documents for me and schedule meetings and appointments. Those days are gone forever, and a whole class of jobs and the people who did them has disappeared. I couldn’t type fast enough to catch a cold, but now I prepare all my regular documents and my assistant does all the technical stuff. And I can type fairly well.

                The process that takes some time is thinking about what I am responding to and coming to an understanding of what I think I want to say. When I start typing it does generally flow, unless I’ve gotten angry about something…then it flows too fast and I have to clean it up when I finish 12-hours later.

                I posted something yesterday that I hope you will find interesting. I tried to link Julian James’s theories about consciousness and the brain to the Lib/Prog/Marxian concept of “false consciousness.” I’ve been applying a similar idea to Mr. Obama’s prevarications for some time and I think it may fit. Take a look if you have time. I’ve been fascinated by research on consciousness, the mind and the brain for at least ten years and it only gets more interesting each year.

                I think you are correct that our friend Joe believes in “slippery slopes” and finds it helpful to not give ground. I’ve used the negotiating technique of “slice the salami” (which I didn’t make up) or gradual concession, many times. As long as I don’t lose track of where I stand I don’t generally feel the need to be unmovable. I don’t do any of that here because I have no need or interest in “winning” arguments…I just enjoy the exchanges and try to learn something from each. And I like and enjoy Joe very much. I have to leave for an appointment. Great talking with you, augger. CDE

                • Good morning Charles,

                  “I posted something yesterday that I hope you will find interesting. I tried to link Julian James’s theories about consciousness and the brain to the Lib/Prog/Marxian concept of “false consciousness.”

                  I seem to be having difficulty finding your post. Is it a new post, or a reply to an existing thread. Admittedly, I am uninformed with searching latest posts by author’s, so that is something I will attempt immediately following this post. I am interested in your thoughts.

                  Spot on in your assessment of Joe. He’s spent a great deal of his time here over the years identifying the elements of a slippery slope, and how to avoid them; much to our benefit, specifically mine. Given his background as a US Marine, Joe likely acquired the skills necessary to avoid “land mines” as it were.

                  • Hi auger…the post I referred is actually further down in this thread & it is addressed to Utah. Plz let me know you think. Thanks, CDE

          • augger – Agreed.

            @ Joe — While I do not always agree with your analysis, opine, or writing styles, I seldom question your literary erudition. I wouldn’t waste a moment of my time responding to retorts from writers such as Diane who do not display much intellectual agility. However, when faced with a responder that possesses intellectual prowess (such as CDE), I would do so with more respect than should be granted to the other.

            I do not think you two are as far apart as you think you are.

            Just my .02 cents.

  5. Joe,
    First, BAD analogy on Limbaugh. Your ostensible paranoia regarding his opinion on Progressives leaves me to believe your interpretation of Limbaugh’s past twenty-five years of advice/conjecture have not made the slightest impression on your Conservative views.

    There are opinions/ideas that Limbaugh stated that did not get my one hundred percent endorsement, but I do still consider him to be one of if not the most prolific Reagan Constitutional Conservatives, which I, as a Capitalist do follow.

    I do not read Beck as a daily fix, even though I do visit The Blaze for additional insight from time-to-time, but was impressed with Beck’s TV show when it aired. I view Beck as much too emotional in his opinion pieces and eventually will mature with exposure on his new ventures.

    I would like to get back to the main effort I consider uppermost in our agenda and that is marginalizing and defeating Obama and the democrats. There are too many corrupt, degenerate and despicable ideas emanating from Obama and the democrats, to waste our time over Limbaugh’s opinions of Progressives.
    EdwardS

    • EdwardS,

      WITH REGARD TO RUSH, I wasn’t aware that I made an analogy? I thought I was reciting what I have heard as well as making connections to actual historic observations.

      As for Limbaugh’s effects on me: I can assure you, he most definitely DID have one. He is the reason I considered myself “conservative” for so many years. HOWEVER, when I started to follow behind Beck’s exposure of the Progressive movement, I started going back to the foundations of the modern American conservative movement. THAT is where, when and why I decided I could not and did not want to be a “conservative.” CDE has recommended an EXCELLENT essay addressing this very issue and with which I almost entirely agree. I would second his recommendation that you read Hayek’s “Why I Am Not a Conservative.”

      This brings us to your “main effort.” If my position is correct, you have been duped into furthering an agenda that is contrary to the values you claim to support. If you focus on Obama as the source of our nation’s problems, then you (and formerly, I) have been tricked into serving as the American version of “useful idiots.” Go back and look at our government’s policies since the late 1960’s and show me where anything of any real import has actually changed. I doubt you’ll find much to which you can point as hard evidence of an ideological sway between Left and Right in that record. There is a reason for this: the two Parties are one Party pretending to be two. I’ve made this case, as well — several times. You can find it in the RNL records. But it is still historically accurate.

      And there is the rub. If my take on this is correct, and there is sound reason to believe it may be, then the powers that be could and most likely would be able to identify a conservative backlash and act to direct it in a less threatening direction. Limbaugh could serve that function without ever knowing he is doing so. All he has to do is urge people to stay with the “R’s” and he does the job. In terms of what staying with the “R’s” has accomplished since Limbaugh has been on the air, I don’t see why we should put any more faith in that course of action than we should in the Democratic policies that destroyed Detroit. Instead, we should be looking to history for those policies that have worked, and I would caution you that most of the record you will find is not as “conservative” as you, I and many others believe it to be.

      You don’t have to agree with me. That’s fine. I am very aware that I could be wrong. However, if I am, the likely result of that is that Limbaugh is far less informed than he likes people to believe. Given the company he keeps, and what I have heard him say over the years, I rather doubt he is ill informed. Either way, you should at least read Hayek’s essay — especially the first paragraph or so. It may help you understand what I learned and why I realize that “conservative” is actually the flip side of the Progressive coin.

  6. I’m not really sure it this has anything to do with anything, I guess each person who reads this will have to interpret it for themselves:

    People with paranoid personality disorder are generally characterized by having a long-standing pattern of pervasive distrust and suspiciousness of others. A person with paranoid personality disorder will nearly always believe that other people’s motives are suspect or even malevolent. Individuals with this disorder assume that other people will exploit, harm, or deceive them, even if no evidence exists to support this expectation. While it is fairly normal for everyone to have some degree of paranoia about certain situations in their lives (such as worry about an impending set of layoffs at work), people with paranoid personality disorder take this to an extreme — it pervades virtually every professional and personal relationship they have.

    Individuals with Paranoid Personality Disorder are generally difficult to get along with and often have problems with close relationships. Their excessive suspiciousness and hostility may be expressed in overt argumentativeness, in recurrent complaining, or by quiet, apparently hostile aloofness. Because they are hypervigilant for potential threats, they may act in a guarded, secretive, or devious manner and appear to be “cold” and lacking in tender feelings. Although they may appear to be objective, rational, and unemotional, they more often display a labile range of affect, with hostile, stubborn, and sarcastic expressions predominating. Their combative and suspicious nature may elicit a hostile response in others, which then serves to confirm their original expectations.

    Because individuals with Paranoid Personality Disorder lack trust in others, they have an excessive need to be self-sufficient and a strong sense of autonomy. They also need to have a high degree of control over those around them. They are often rigid, critical of others, and unable to collaborate, and they have great difficulty accepting criticism.

      • You can take it anyway you want. I meant it as an example of how left and right convince themselves that they are the only exclusive owners of the truth. How anyone takes it depends on how close it hits home, I guess.

      • Well, I guess it is a balancing act. Different people collect facts in different ways and form positions based on different amounts and qualities of information – one can never have every bit of information, so we do the best we can with what we have. Nothing wrong with being a little paranoid but when we reach what I have called the One True Patriot state there is no room for debate, only total acquiescence to a single position…and to me that is no different than communist totalitarianism. The Constitution was the representation of many different positions – and the Founders debated about their meaning before its creation and continued to do so afterward. That’s all I am saying – there are different routes to the same liberty and all of those are in opposition to “progressivism”. I don’t want to shoot our friends – or their ideas – just because they fight the same enemy in a different way.

        • Utah: You are an eminently reasonable person, and it is a pleasure to be associated with you and RNL. Paranoia, schizophrenia, and various other mental disorders distort the individual’s ability to perceive the external, sensory-based reality accurately and often bring about a blurring of the line between internally experienced “delusions” and external stimuli. Julian Jaynes, who I met and heard speak but never actually studied with at Princeton in the late seventies, developed an interesting theory in his research and in a popular treatment, THE ORIGIN OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE BREAKDOWN OF THE BICAMERAL MIND. Jaynes speculated that the “voice of God” which was “heard” in any number of religions during Bronze Age civilizations, represented the emergence of human “self-consciousness” or consciousness, in which the human brain developed for the first time an awareness of itself as separate from its environment. The holy men, and some holy women, “heard the Voice of God” inside their brains, but Jaynes speculates that those heavenly voices were actually the two hemispheres of the brain beginning to “communicate” for the first times. While Jaynes’ theory has some problems that I won’t try to outline here, it does provide a possible answer as to why the “Divine Voices” went silent as the brain became more effectively integrated and most humans with normal brain functions ceased to “hear” other voices “inside” their heads. Of course, Jaynes’ theory also provides a possible explanation for some symptoms of schizophrenia and other forms of paranoid delusions, since people suffering from those maladies could have brains that are not fully integrated, hence the difficulty they experience in attempting to integrate sensory-based and purely cognitive data.

          So what the heck does all this have to do with our generally politically and economically oriented discussions on RNL? One of the lesser know beliefs of Liberal/Progressivism and other forms of Collectivism (especially Marxism) is that reality does not actually exist as an objectively experienced set of “facts”, but rather “reality” is actually a series of subjectively experienced individual visions. Hence, my reality is different than “your” reality and so on and so on. In the absence of any objective reality, the reason why we non-believers cannot comprehend the shared “reality” of Collectivism is that we suffer from “false consciousness”, an affliction first discussed by the monsters who led the French Revolution and developed at length by Friedrich Engels. As implemented in the Communist Soviet Union, this doctrine led to the standard treatment for “counter-revolutionaries” to be long term confinement in barbaric Soviet “mental facilities”. Several of my old Chinese friends were classified as “Intellectuals” during Mao’s “Cultural Revolution” and were sentenced to hard labor and “reeducation in the peasant virtues”, essentially a similar treatment to the Soviet approach.

          Our Dear Leader’s “educational” cadres have been quietly taking a similar approach to correcting the “false consciousness” of America’s children on issues like race, where America, the only nation in history where a dominant race,White Europeans, fought a civil war in order to free a then subservient race, African Americans, is somehow the Great Satan. The consciousness correcting campaign in our nation’s government schools has extended to the marginalization of our Founders, who created the freest civilization in the world’s history, and our free enterprise capitalist economic system, which has produced the highest standard of living in a large nation thus far. The reason why Lib/Progs have sought and achieved effective control of our nation’s public schools, while seeking to eliminate or control private schools and to eliminate “home schooling”, is that our Collectivist fellow citizens are playing a long term, multi-generational strategy in which the false consciousness of we traditional individualistic Americans will be “corrected” by undermining our beliefs and America’s founding principles through “reeducation” of our children and grandchildren. If you doubt this strategy has been underway for some time, take a look at your children’s or grandchildren’s textbooks and you will be appalled.

          We are potentially one generation away from a time when those of us embracing the values of individual freedom and liberty, property rights, freedom of religion, speech, thought, association, assembly and free enterprise capitalism could find ourselves classified as delusional, paranoid or schizophrenic and subject to reeducation and/or “treatment” in government psychiatric facilities. It has happened before in China, Russia, Cambodia, Viet Nam and numerous other Collectivist nations. It is my view that our Liberal/Progressive friends are the ones suffering from distortions of reality, which clearly does exist, since they find it impossible to acknowledge the failure of everything they set out to achieve. Try reading reading Charles Murray, Thomas Sowell, Richard Epstein and Friedrich Hayek to get a clearer picture of the past crimes against humanity perpetrated by Collectivist regimes (Hayek, especially THE ROAD TO SERFDOM) and what has been happening silently in America for the last two generations (Murray, Sowell & Epstein), and then tell me I’m paranoid. I know you will!

  7. The time for talk is over and voting no longer counts because the deck is stacked and can’t be changed. It’s 1776 or bust.

  8. Pingback: Rising To The Bait | The Rio Norte Line

  9. To all: Thank you for the lively discussion and points of view. Dialog that is presented in this blog is the reason I enjoy visiting The RNL. I’ll have to remember some of the opinions expressed to get the responses evidenced by serious thinking on the participants identified today. Great posts, great ideas.

    Don’t be overwhelmed by the power of the words. Opinions and ideas are for informing, even if we disregard them.
    EdwardS

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.