Limbaugh: ‘Nationalism And Populism Have Overtaken Conservatism’ In GOP (Video)

[truth_seeker]

Limbaugh: ‘Nationalism And Populism Have Overtaken Conservatism’ In GOP (Video)

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/20/limbaugh-nationalism-and-populism-have-overtaken-conservatism-in-gop-video/

2:12 PM 01/20/2016

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh said Wednesday that Trump’s popularity is evidence that “nationalism and populism have overtaken conservatism” in the Republican Party

“The Trump triumph — the Trump coalition — is exposing the fact that it isn’t conservative orthodoxy, or conservatism or any of the hard work of the conservative elite,” explained Limbaugh, “that is causing people to be conservative.”

LIMBAUGH: It’s something really simple… They’re fed up with the modern day Democratic Party… The Republican Party establishment does not understand this. They do not know who their conservative voters are. They’ve over-estimated their conservatism… They’re not liberals. They’re not Democrat. Many of them do not want to be thought of as conservatives for a host of reasons. So somebody who comes along and is able to convey that he or she understands why they’re angry and furthermore, is going to do everything to fix it, is going to own them. What’s happening here is that ‘nationalism’ — dirty word, ooh people hate it — and ‘populism’ — even dirtier word. Nationalism and populism have overtaken conservatism in terms of appeal.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I get Rush on this. Trump is about winning elections and doing things, NOT about a debator's purity contest, aka the Senator from Alberta, sponsored by Goldman Sachs.

[musiclady]

So Rush is saying that Trump's popularity is due to the lack of actual depth of the Conservative movement?

If that's what he's saying, I might agree.  People who have always said they are conservative who are supporting Trump clearly weren't as conservative as they said they were. They're supporting both populism and nationalism, and not conservative principles.

I see that as a major negative for the country.

[aligncare]

Limbaugh: ‘Nationalism And Populism Have Overtaken Conservatism’ In GOP (Video)

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/20/limbaugh-nationalism-and-populism-have-overtaken-conservatism-in-gop-video/

2:12 PM 01/20/2016

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh said Wednesday that Trump’s popularity is evidence that “nationalism and populism have overtaken conservatism” in the Republican Party

“The Trump triumph — the Trump coalition — is exposing the fact that it isn’t conservative orthodoxy, or conservatism or any of the hard work of the conservative elite,” explained Limbaugh, “that is causing people to be conservative.”

LIMBAUGH: It’s something really simple… They’re fed up with the modern day Democratic Party… The Republican Party establishment does not understand this. They do not know who their conservative voters are. They’ve over-estimated their conservatism… They’re not liberals. They’re not Democrat. Many of them do not want to be thought of as conservatives for a host of reasons. So somebody who comes along and is able to convey that he or she understands why they’re angry and furthermore, is going to do everything to fix it, is going to own them. What’s happening here is that ‘nationalism’ — dirty word, ooh people hate it — and ‘populism’ — even dirtier word. Nationalism and populism have overtaken conservatism in terms of appeal.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I get Rush on this. Trump is about winning elections and doing things, NOT about a debator's purity contest, aka the Senator from Alberta, sponsored by Goldman Sachs.

Which is interesting, too. Because I've always thought of you as more moderate than me, and yet, here we are in agreement not only on a candidate, but also on broader political, philosophical issues regarding the GOP.

[ABX]

So Rush is saying that Trump's popularity is due to the lack of actual depth of the Conservative movement?

If that's what he's saying, I might agree.  People who have always said they are conservative who are supporting Trump clearly weren't as conservative as they said they were. They're supporting both populism and nationalism, and not conservative principles.

I see that as a major negative for the country.

That's how I take it and I see it as a reflection of the country. IE, it is a result of our decline (Idiocracy), not a leading factor.

[katzenjammer]

Rush's show today is doing a lot to find explanations for the confusion about what has been happening.

When the transcripts are posted later, I think that many will be interested in reading them if they haven't been able to listen to the show today.

[alicewonders]

We've moved past hoping a purist can win a national election.  If we are to have any effect, we have to WIN first.  There's no doubt a huge number of people are afraid we are losing our American ideals and that our so-called "representatives" no longer represent us.

Nationalism and Populism, it's a sign of extreme frustration among the electorate.  Both parties (really the Uni-party) have brought this on themselves.  We want to try something different, the other way is clearly not working.

 

[musiclady]

That's how I take it and I see it as a reflection of the country. IE, it is a result of our decline (Idiocracy), not a leading factor.

It's a very major negative for the country that winning is more important than principles.  Our leading candidate never even mentions the Constitution.

There is no way in all the world that this is a good thing.

[alicewonders]

Rush's show today is doing a lot to find explanations for the confusion about what has been happening.

When the transcripts are posted later, I think that many will be interested in reading them if they haven't been able to listen to the show today.

If people could keep an open mind and listen/read what Rush is saying right now - he explains it as clear as possible.  It would behoove everyone to hear it.  It's where we are right now and no amount of lamenting is going to change it.

[Scottftlc]

So Rush is saying that Trump's popularity is due to the lack of actual depth of the Conservative movement?

If that's what he's saying, I might agree.  People who have always said they are conservative who are supporting Trump clearly weren't as conservative as they said they were. They're supporting both populism and nationalism, and not conservative principles.

I see that as a major negative for the country.

I think the case here, and Truth Seeker makes this point often (and in my opinion he is correct in this) is that conservatism is very much a minority ideology.  A rather small and isolated minority at that. Basing a movement on any ideology is difficult and ineffective (Bernie will find this out). Basing it on a minority ideology makes success practically impossible.  In a national election, vision and perceived competence (getting things done) are far more more effective characteristics than is ideology. And novelty has also, more recently, become a potent factor.  This is generational, I believe, to some extent. Truth Seeker is correct, I believe, if we base our choice of nominee on conservatism, and if our campaign is founded on that ideology, we are certain to lose.  I assure you, the Democrat campaign will try very hard to paint the Republican, whoever it is, as an ideological conservative, because they know that if they can do that, their chances of winning go up dramatically. That is why some conservatives (I put myself in this category) see Trump as a very interesting new kind of candidate - simply because he changes the entire conversation of the national election, he turns the contest in a different, better direction for the Republicans.

[aligncare]

I think the case here, and Truth Seeker makes this point often (and in my opinion he is correct in this) is that conservatism is very much a minority ideology.  A rather small and isolated minority at that. Basing a movement on any ideology is difficult and ineffective (Bernie will find this out). Basing it on a minority ideology makes success practically impossible.  In a national election, vision and perceived competence (getting things done) are far more more effective characteristics than is ideology. And novelty has also, more recently, become a potent factor.  This is generational, I believe, to some extent. Truth Seeker is correct, I believe, if we base our choice of nominee on conservatism, and if our campaign is founded on that ideology, we are certain to lose.  I assure you, the Democrat campaign will try very hard to paint the Republican, whoever it is, as an ideological conservative, because they know that if they can do that, their chances of winning go up dramatically. That is why some conservatives (I put myself in this category) see Trump as a very interesting new kind of candidate - simply because he changes the entire conversation of the national election, he turns the contest in a different, better direction for the Republicans.

I heard Rush, and he explained it in his usual excellent, blue-collar idiom. You however, put a finer intellect into your perspective on the Tump phenomenon. Kudos.

[katzenjammer]

If people could keep an open mind and listen/read what Rush is saying right now - he explains it as clear as possible.  It would behoove everyone to hear it.  It's where we are right now and no amount of lamenting is going to change it.

You can lead a horse to water, but...

[katzenjammer]

I think the case here, and Truth Seeker makes this point often (and in my opinion he is correct in this) is that conservatism is very much a minority ideology.  A rather small and isolated minority at that. Basing a movement on any ideology is difficult and ineffective (Bernie will find this out). Basing it on a minority ideology makes success practically impossible.  In a national election, vision and perceived competence (getting things done) are far more more effective characteristics than is ideology. And novelty has also, more recently, become a potent factor.  This is generational, I believe, to some extent. Truth Seeker is correct, I believe, if we base our choice of nominee on conservatism, and if our campaign is founded on that ideology, we are certain to lose.  I assure you, the Democrat campaign will try very hard to paint the Republican, whoever it is, as an ideological conservative, because they know that if they can do that, their chances of winning go up dramatically. That is why some conservatives (I put myself in this category) see Trump as a very interesting new kind of candidate - simply because he changes the entire conversation of the national election, he turns the contest in a different, better direction for the Republicans.

 

(truth_seeker, more correct than some think him to be.)

[alicewonders]

I think the case here, and Truth Seeker makes this point often (and in my opinion he is correct in this) is that conservatism is very much a minority ideology.  A rather small and isolated minority at that. Basing a movement on any ideology is difficult and ineffective (Bernie will find this out). Basing it on a minority ideology makes success practically impossible.  In a national election, vision and perceived competence (getting things done) are far more more effective characteristics than is ideology. And novelty has also, more recently, become a potent factor.  This is generational, I believe, to some extent. Truth Seeker is correct, I believe, if we base our choice of nominee on conservatism, and if our campaign is founded on that ideology, we are certain to lose.  I assure you, the Democrat campaign will try very hard to paint the Republican, whoever it is, as an ideological conservative, because they know that if they can do that, their chances of winning go up dramatically. That is why some conservatives (I put myself in this category) see Trump as a very interesting new kind of candidate - simply because he changes the entire conversation of the national election, he turns the contest in a different, better direction for the Republicans.

As always, an articulate response Scott!  Exactly right.  We cannot win by continuing to lose. 

[truth_seeker]

So Rush is saying that Trump's popularity is due to the lack of actual depth of the Conservative movement?

If that's what he's saying, I might agree.  People who have always said they are conservative who are supporting Trump clearly weren't as conservative as they said they were. They're supporting both populism and nationalism, and not conservative principles.

I see that as a major negative for the country.

Credit goes to Limbo, not to me.

In the words of Al Davis, "Win Baby, Win"

(owner, General Manager, coach of the Oakland Raiders, from the golden years of conservatism, too.)

[Right_in_Virginia]

I think the case here, and Truth Seeker makes this point often (and in my opinion he is correct in this) is that conservatism is very much a minority ideology.  A rather small and isolated minority at that. Basing a movement on any ideology is difficult and ineffective (Bernie will find this out). Basing it on a minority ideology makes success practically impossible. 

In a national election, vision and perceived competence (getting things done) are far more more effective characteristics than is ideology. And novelty has also, more recently, become a potent factor.  This is generational, I believe, to some extent. Truth Seeker is correct, I believe, if we base our choice of nominee on conservatism, and if our campaign is founded on that ideology, we are certain to lose. 

I assure you, the Democrat campaign will try very hard to paint the Republican, whoever it is, as an ideological conservative, because they know that if they can do that, their chances of winning go up dramatically. That is why some conservatives (I put myself in this category) see Trump as a very interesting new kind of candidate - simply because he changes the entire conversation of the national election, he turns the contest in a different, better direction for the Republicans.

Thanks for this terrific post.   

[musiclady]

You can lead a horse to water, but...

Sometimes the water is tainted and the horse is smart enough not to imbibe.....   

[musiclady]

Credit goes to Limbo, not to me.

In the words of Al Davis, "Win Baby, Win"

(owner, General Manager, coach of the Oakland Raiders, from the golden years of conservatism, too.)

Yeah.......... Al Davis- cheater, dirty coach, and all around bad guy.

But the Raiders did "win'......... didn't they?

[Bigun]

I am going to go against the grain here and say that I think Rush is WAY over analyzing this! I think this presidential election, just like the senate elections in Mississippi and Kentucky two years ago, is about one thing and one thing only! Protecting the status quo in Washington! NOTHING else matters to the inside the beltway bastards!

[musiclady]

I am going to go against the grain here and say that I think Rush is WAY over analyzing this! I think this presidential election, just like the senate elections in Mississippi and Kentucky two years ago, is about one thing and one thing only! Protecting the status quo in Washington! NOTHING else matters to the inside the beltway bastards!

I think Rush may need to over-analyze why this oddity is happening, Bigun.

Because what it means is that what he has been proclaiming for decades is now being debunked.  He has always said that Conservative principles win elections.  Always.

Now he has to admit, or at least try to figure out why "nationalism" now has a greater pull among conservatives than actual conservatism does.  If he's going to maintain his popularity, he has to change his tune for the first time in over twenty years.  Principles don't matter any more when the vanguard of the conservative movement is a mere populist without a conservative bone in his body.

No wonder Rush is working so hard to have it make sense.......

It doesn't.

[HAPPY2BME]

We've moved past hoping a purist can win a national election.  If we are to have any effect, we have to WIN first.  There's no doubt a huge number of people are afraid we are losing our American ideals and that our so-called "representatives" no longer represent us.

Nationalism and Populism, it's a sign of extreme frustration among the electorate.  Both parties (really the Uni-party) have brought this on themselves.  We want to try something different, the other way is clearly not working.

===================================

[massadvj]

I think Rush may need to over-analyze why this oddity is happening, Bigun.

Because what it means is that what he has been proclaiming for decades is now being debunked.  He has always said that Conservative principles win elections.  Always.

Now he has to admit, or at least try to figure out why "nationalism" now has a greater pull among conservatives than actual conservatism does.  If he's going to maintain his popularity, he has to change his tune for the first time in over twenty years.  Principles don't matter any more when the vanguard of the conservative movement is a mere populist without a conservative bone in his body.

No wonder Rush is working so hard to have it make sense.......

It doesn't.

I have been listening to Rush for a long, long time.  I heard his very first talk program in Sacramento way back in the mid-80s and I have been listening since.  I have noticed that Rush has in recent years taken a decidedly more populist, working class tone.  He is much more likely to go after the GOPe, for example, and devotes much more time to illegal immigration than in the past.  He also almost never touts the benefits of free trade.

I think this is due to a shift in economics and demographics.  The middle class white male disenfranchised consumer is largely neglected by traditional media, and it happens to be a growing market in OPapaDoc's America.  On the other hand, the older male, self-employed market is shrinking.  So I think Rush has made subtle shifts in his programming emphasis in recent years to appeal to the former group.

[Fishrrman]

"Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh said Wednesday that Trump’s popularity is evidence that “nationalism and populism have overtaken conservatism” in the Republican Party"

Hmmm.
Wondering about that.

It's been said here (by at least one very insightful poster) that Trump is really campaigning as if he WAS "third party".

Could it be that those who support him comprise the ad-hoc members of that "new party"?
As distinguished from the existing "Republican" party?

One could still be a Registered Republican -- or an independent -- or a "Reagan democrat" (if there are still any around), and yet align themselves with the as-yet-unformed new party that Trump (and his message) personify.

In the same way that some of the Whigs began to "think different" and eventually coalesced into the foundling Republican party of the 1850's, leaving those Whigs who were impervious to change behind -- as the GOPe seems to be in the process of, today.

Calls to mind some lyrics, courtesy of Mr. Dylan:
  Come senators, congressmen
  Please heed the call
  Don't stand in the doorway
  Don't block up the hall
  For he that gets hurt
  Will be he who has stalled
  There's a battle outside
  And it is ragin'
  It'll soon shake your windows
  And rattle your walls
  For the times they are a-changin'

With another one for guys like Jeb!
  All your seasick sailors, they are rowing home
  Your empty handed armies, are all going home
  Your lover who just walked out the door
  Has taken all his blankets from the floor
  The carpet, too, is moving under you
  And it's all over now, Baby Blue.

The ground beneath the GOPe may be shifting, like Baby Jeb's moving carpet....

[Fishrrman]

alice wrote above:
"Nationalism and Populism, it's a sign of extreme frustration among the electorate.  Both parties (really the Uni-party) have brought this on themselves.  We want to try something different, the other way is clearly not working."

"Nationalism".
"Populism".

Sound like dirty words to serious-minded folk.
The stuff that so-called "true conservatives" feel should be consigned to the rubes (like me).

But they ain't.

It's going to -require- a heavy dose of nationalism and populism to save Western civilization in Europe, if it still can be saved at all.

And it's going to take the same right here, too.

[musiclady]

I have been listening to Rush for a long, long time.  I heard his very first talk program in Sacramento way back in the mid-80s and I have been listening since.  I have noticed that Rush has in recent years taken a decidedly more populist, working class tone.  He is much more likely to go after the GOPe, for example, and devotes much more time to illegal immigration than in the past.  He also almost never touts the benefits of free trade.

I think this is due to a shift in economics and demographics.  The middle class white male disenfranchised consumer is largely neglected by traditional media, and it happens to be a growing market in OPapaDoc's America.  On the other hand, the older male, self-employed market is shrinking.  So I think Rush has made subtle shifts in his programming emphasis in recent years to appeal to the former group.

You make good points.  He definitely has devoted much more time to attacking the GOPe and railing on illegal immigration in the last few years.  And you're also right about his lessening his emphasis on conservative economics.

So, yes, it does seem that he has been drifting towards populism rather than making a hard turn with Trump.

I just keep thinking every time I listen to him..... why aren't you pointing out that Trump was for everything you were against and was against everything you were for just a short time ago?

I have thought of it as a selling out of his conservative soul.

But maybe you're right.  It's just to increase his audience.  Unfortunately, he losing me because I listened to him because of the very principles that he is now denying in order to 'explain' Trump.  And I can't be the only one.

[aligncare]

Just want to point out a couple of things. One of the candidates is attacking Trump with old video of him from 17 years ago supporting abortion and other positions anathema to the right.

Well, 17 years before Reagan was first elected to office as governor of California, Reagan strongly supported Harry Truman. He even made a campaign appearance with him on stage in Los Angeles. Harry Truman who was for instituting government run healthcare. In fact, when you look at his early political life, Reagan was associated with numerous left wing activist groups. But people change.

If someone has moved to the right, that's a good thing. We should welcome them. Especially if they can kick some establishment butt once we elect them to office.