Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Why Rush Won't Talk About Rand Paul

Posted by Jack Hunter on Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:18 PM

I have long contended that most supposedly "conservative" talk radio hosts are as much a part of the Republican establishment as George W. Bush or Dick Cheney, something evident in how they defended the last administration with the same frequency and ferocity as they attack the current one. Their beloved Bush administration can justifiably be called the first, full blown "neoconservative" presidency, a label I gave context in February:

Neoconservatives care about one thing—war (and where they can wage it). Says contributing editor to the Weekly Standard, neocon Max Boot: “Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad,” a progressive, Wilsonian vision, if there ever was one. As for traditional conservative concerns like limited government, fiscal responsibility, and constitutional fidelity, these are ideas neoconservatives will occasionally pay lip service to, so long as none of these principles interferes with their more important task of global military domination. It is no coincidence that George W. Bush—the first full-blown neoconservative presidential administration—did not limit government, was not fiscally responsible, and shredded the Constitution, while still implementing the most radical foreign policy in American history. Writes conservative columnist George Will, “The most magnificently misnamed neoconservatives are the most radical people in this town.”

Most mainstream conservative pundits still possess the neocon mindset and haven't really learned any lessons from the Bush years. Rush Limbaugh still praises Donald Rumsfeld. Karl Rove is a permanent guest on Sean Hannity's radio and TV programs. I listened to Rush, Hannity and Mark Levin's radio programs today, and while Rand Paul's "Tea Party" victory in the Republican primary for US Senate in Kentucky made headlines across the nation, three of the most prominent conservative talk hosts barely touched it. Why? TheHill.com's John Feehery has nailed it:

Rand Paul’s election may very well mean the beginning of the end of the neo-conservative movement in the Republican Party. It also might mark the beginning of the end of the social-conservative wing of the Republican Party.

During the nomination process of the presidential election two years ago, I wrote about the impact of the Ron Paul insurgency and its potential impact. Paul was a fundraising sensation and he had a cadre of committed followers who believed profoundly that the federal government had grown too big, had become too intrusive, had gone to war for all the wrong reasons and was too involved in the daily lives of the American people.

Paul went after some pretty significant sacred cows in the Republican orthodoxy. He thought the Iraq war was stupid and that our foreign policy presence in the Middle East was a big reason why we were attacked on 9/11. He thinks that the war on drugs is a waste of time, and that if people want to smoke pot, well, that is up to them. He thinks that the security apparatus of the United States makes America more of a police state and should be downsized dramatically.

Two years ago, those were not popular stances to take with conservative Republican primary voters who were used to the political rhetoric of George Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove.

But that has all changed, at least in Kentucky. My suspicion, though, is that this changing sentiment is spreading around the country.

There has always been the myth of the freedom voter. Those are the voters who want low taxes and government out of their lives. Grover Norquist calls these voters the “Leave me alone” caucus. But the leave-me-aloners are often outvoted in Republican primaries by the neo-cons — who think that big government should have a role in our daily lives — the social conservatives — who think that government needs to have a role in dictating morality in our lives — and national-security conservatives — who think that it is well worth it to sacrifice some freedoms so that we can remain safe.

Ron Paul, and now Rand Paul, challenges each and every one of those assumptions. Ron Paul used to quietly challenge them from the safety of the House of Representatives, where one vote is rarely critical to the passage of anything.

Rand Paul, should he get elected to the upper body, will have far more power to fight for Paulism in that chamber.

Rand Paul will be more than the skunk at the garden party in the United States Senate. He will be subversive when it comes to critical Republican orthodoxies. He represents a profound threat to the neo-cons and the social conservatives because he is willing to fight for the belief that the federal government should truly stay out of the lives of the American people.

The voters in Kentucky found this message so appealing that they gave Paul a huge primary victory last night. We will see if the American people, who are so insistent publicly that they want their freedoms back, are really willing to sacrifice some security for their liberty.


Link

Comments (17)

Showing 1-17 of 17

Add a comment

 
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-17 of 17

Add a comment

Classified Listings
  • Lidl
    I have already shopped in Lidl store goose creek sc. three times. I find the… -tim wernicke
  • Black Bean Co.
    I am typically not one to complain or write a bad review but I felt… -Morgan P.

Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2017, Charleston City Paper   RSS