United States Professor David Azerrad Verbally Owns American Conservatism

[Curved_Sw0rd]

Well, if he's not the intellectual, then what are the sources of his ideas? And, perhaps more importantly, who's paying him to promote those ideas?

It's been a long time since I've listened to Rush so I'm gonna assume it's Modern Conservatism/Classical Liberalism/Enlightenment. And from what I can gather he's largely self-employed and pays for airtime.

 

[The Name of Love]

Probably the various radio stations airing him, on account of him being spectacularly popular among talk-show radio audiences? Same way comedians work, they get popular and draw crows, so they get payed more for doing it. And to refuse is to give up on some degree of wealth yourself.

From what I can tell, Rush Limbaugh is someone who isn't an ideas guy and is just parroting ideas that smarter, better funded people say.

It's been a long time since I've listened to Rush so I'm gonna assume it's Modern Conservatism/Classical Liberalism/Enlightenment. And from what I can gather he's largely self-employed and pays for airtime.

I would agree to both of these things. Modern conservative/classical liberal guy who is self-employed. Looking at his history, he was a firebrand who took advantage of a market niche that opened up after the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine.

The reason I say this is pretty simple: if he's not an intellectual, and he's just speaking his opinions on politics, then what you're getting isn't going to be anything that's systematic or well-thought out. It'll be a hodgepodge of what he's heard and read from elsewhere. I mean, everyone gets their ideas from somewhere. I just want to know.

 

[LordsFire]

From what I can tell, Rush Limbaugh is someone who isn't an ideas guy and is just parroting ideas that smarter, better funded people say.


I would agree to both of these things. Modern conservative/classical liberal guy who is self-employed. Looking at his history, he was a firebrand who took advantage of a market niche that opened up after the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine.

The reason I say this is pretty simple: if he's not an intellectual, and he's just speaking his opinions on politics, then what you're getting isn't going to be anything that's systematic or well-thought out. It'll be a hodgepodge of what he's heard and read from elsewhere. I mean, everyone gets their ideas from somewhere. I just want to know.

You listen to a four minute snip, of someone who is on the air three hours a day, five days a week, roughly 48 weeks out of the year, and you think you know what he believes?

I've listened to him on and off since the 90's. He absolutely thinks for himself, he absolutely has a systemic ideology, and he expresses it clearly. If you want it presented systemically, get one of his books and read it. His day-to-day show is infotainment, not a philosophical, theological, or political thesis.

 

[The Name of Love]

You listen to a four minute snip, of someone who is on the air three hours a day, five days a week, roughly 48 weeks out of the year, and you think you know what he believes?

I've listened to him on and off since the 90's. He absolutely thinks for himself, he absolutely has a systemic ideology, and he expresses it clearly. If you want it presented systemically, get one of his books and read it. His day-to-day show is infotainment, not a philosophical, theological, or political thesis.

Could you please enlighten me to the nuances of Rush Limbaugh's thought? What does he actually believe that would make him such an interesting thinker in your view?

Also, was @Curved_Sw0rd wrong to say Limbaugh wasn't an intellectual?

 

[LordsFire]

Could you please enlighten me to the nuances of Rush Limbaugh's thought? What does he actually believe that would make him such an interesting thinker in your view?

Also, was @Curved_Sw0rd wrong to say Limbaugh wasn't an intellectual?

That depends on how you define 'intellectual.' If you mean 'philosopher and profound thinker,' then yes. If you mean 'someone whose profession is to think about things and that's it,' then no.

In some circles, 'Intellectual' is an epithet on par with 'communist.' In others, it's a description for a category of profession or a skillset.


Regarding the nuances of his thought? You're asking for a multi-hour lecture at a minimum, there.

What makes him an interesting thinker, is that he both talks about and lives out his principles, and in so doing, has done more to advance the Conservative cause than anyone else in American media in the last 30+ years, as well as been a very successful businessman along the way.

 

[The Name of Love]

What makes him an interesting thinker, is that he both talks about and lives out his principles, and in so doing, has done more to advance the Conservative cause than anyone else in American media in the last 30+ years, as well as been a very successful businessman along the way.

"Advance the Conservative cause."

Again: the victories of the Left over the past 30+ years shows that advancing the conservative cause doesn't actually equate to anything I would want. I'm sure Limbaugh and I would agree with each other on morality, given how he's a conservative Christian. But in terms of actual politics, what is he advocating? What political philosophy does he have? From what I've read, Rush doesn't seem to have a philosophy so much as a list of policy prescriptions backed by some over-the-top statements and some kind of "American exceptionalist" ideal.

 

[LordsFire]

"Advance the Conservative cause."

Again: the victories of the Left over the past 30+ years shows that advancing the conservative cause doesn't actually equate to anything I would want. I'm sure Limbaugh and I would agree with each other on morality, given how he's a conservative Christian. But in terms of actual politics, what is he advocating? What political philosophy does he have? From what I've read, Rush doesn't seem to have a philosophy so much as a list of policy prescriptions backed by some over-the-top statements and some kind of "American exceptionalist" ideal.

Actually spend a protracted amount of time listening to him, or read one of his books, if you want a coherent ideology out of him, from his own words.

As to advancing the Conservative cause? Breaking the left's total monopoly on media is a huge victory by itself.

 

[Lanmandragon]

Well, if he's not the intellectual, then what are the sources of his ideas? And, perhaps more importantly, who's paying him to promote those ideas?

Why would anyone need to be an intellectual to have ideas?

 

[The Name of Love]

Actually spend a protracted amount of time listening to him, or read one of his books, if you want a coherent ideology out of him, from his own words.

As to advancing the Conservative cause? Breaking the left's total monopoly on media is a huge victory by itself.

Let's back up for a bit.

First, he didn't break the Left's monopoly on media. Ronald Reagan did that when he repealed the Fairness Doctrine. Limbaugh was just an entrepreneur who happened upon a niche in the market that he was able to exploit, much to his profit.

Second, Rush is either a false opposition to the Left or he isn't. If he is, then him breaking the Left's monopoly is about as effectual as the Outer Party winning an election in 1984. If he is, then he's strictly useless since his presence hasn't stopped the Republican Party from drifting to the Left.

Why would anyone need to be an intellectual to have ideas?

Because it's a definitional thing. Anyone who works primarily with ideas, engages in activity requiring creative use of the intellect, or is given to study, reflection, and speculation is an intellectual. A political pundit is not necessarily an intellectual though. They may be an activist playing to their base.

 

[LordsFire]

Let's back up for a bit.

First, he didn't break the Left's monopoly on media. Ronald Reagan did that when he repealed the Fairness Doctrine. Limbaugh was just an entrepreneur who happened upon a niche in the market that he was able to exploit, much to his profit.

Second, Rush is either a false opposition to the Left or he isn't. If he is, then him breaking the Left's monopoly is about as effectual as the Outer Party winning an election in 1984. If he is, then he's strictly useless since his presence hasn't stopped the Republican Party from drifting to the Left.

Massive logical failure here.

You have no idea of how much further the Republican Party may or may not have drifted to the left if Rush was not present. He has been an active, aggressive, constant voice for principled Conservatism for more than three decades. Do you have any actual evidence that this has had no effect?

In addition, Ronald Reagan got the fairness doctrine repealed, yes. You didn't see a sudden explosion of Conservatives on network TV or FM radio though. It was specifically and exclusively Rush Limbaugh who started what became known as 'Talk Radio,' and he is still to this day the undisputed king of it. Once he proved the business model, others came on board to considerable success, but still, none have been as successful as he has. He also did actually run a TV show for a while in the 90's, before deciding it wasn't worth the time and hassle to keep going.


Why are you trying so hard to deny his accomplishments?

 

[The Name of Love]

You have no idea of how much further the Republican Party may or may not have drifted to the left if Rush was not present. He has been an active, aggressive, constant voice for principled Conservatism for more than three decades. Do you have any actual evidence that this has had no effect?

Do you have any actual evidence for your claim that Rush Limbaugh has had any effect? From an outside view, he doesn't seem to be much more than a popularizer. I don't think he has any more effect on conservatism than Neil deGrasse Tyson does on science (that is to say, not much at all). There's no shame in being a popularizer, but that just means you aren't an intellectual in the truest sense of the word. You are just taking arcane ideas and presenting them to the masses in a digestible form, not actually, uh, helping advance a movement. Which is sort of my problem with people like Rush: they can be as well-intentioned as you like, but if the ideas they are receiving from on high are crap, they aren't doing the Right a service.

In addition, Ronald Reagan got the fairness doctrine repealed, yes. You didn't see a sudden explosion of Conservatives on network TV or FM radio though. It was specifically and exclusively Rush Limbaugh who started what became known as 'Talk Radio,' and he is still to this day the undisputed king of it. Once he proved the business model, others came on board to considerable success, but still, none have been as successful as he has. He also did actually run a TV show for a while in the 90's, before deciding it wasn't worth the time and hassle to keep going.

I admitted that he created a successful business, and that does deserve credit. Perhaps I am being too pedantic about whether he broke the liberal media monopoly. In that case, yes, he deserves some respect in that, you are correct. But this is besides my original point.

Looking at Rush's record, he appears to be most (in)famous for coming up with some tasteless jargon like "Gorbasm" or "Caller Abortion." By and large, I think what you've written is the biggest piece of evidence of my original point that Rush doesn't tackle interesting questions or consider any interesting ideas at all and is thus a part of my problem with the conservative movement. I don't see you, the defender of Rush Limbaugh, sharing his wisdom with me. If you were to attack any of my preferred political commentators (say, Curtis Yarvin) on similar grounds, I'd give a list of ideas and observations that make him an interesting thinker (such as "the Cathedral," "Cthulhu always swims left," "Nomos," "Formalism," and the Nazi Wikipedia thought experiment) and explain why they are interesting. Whether or not you thought he was right, he would have at least been thought-provoking. Can you honestly say that about Rush Limbaugh? Or are you just mad that I talked shit about someone you liked?

I'm laying down the gauntlet: either show me what he has or admit that Emperor Limbaugh has no clothes.

 

[LordsFire]

Do you have any actual evidence for your claim that Rush Limbaugh has had any effect? From an outside view, he doesn't seem to be much more than a popularizer. I don't think he has any more effect on conservatism than Neil deGrasse Tyson does on science (that is to say, not much at all). There's no shame in being a popularizer, but that just means you aren't an intellectual in the truest sense of the word. You are just taking arcane ideas and presenting them to the masses in a digestible form, not actually, uh, helping advance a movement. Which is sort of my problem with people like Rush: they can be as well-intentioned as you like, but if the ideas they are receiving from on high are crap, they aren't doing the Right a service.


I admitted that he created a successful business, and that does deserve credit. Perhaps I am being too pedantic about whether he broke the liberal media monopoly. In that case, yes, he deserves some respect in that, you are correct. But this is besides my original point.

Looking at Rush's record, he appears to be most (in)famous for coming up with some tasteless jargon like "Gorbasm" or "Caller Abortion." By and large, I think what you've written is the biggest piece of evidence of my original point that Rush doesn't tackle interesting questions or consider any interesting ideas at all and is thus a part of my problem with the conservative movement. I don't see you, the defender of Rush Limbaugh, sharing his wisdom with me. If you were to attack any of my preferred political commentators (say, Curtis Yarvin) on similar grounds, I'd give a list of ideas and observations that make him an interesting thinker (such as "the Cathedral," "Cthulhu always swims left," "Nomos," "Formalism," and the Nazi Wikipedia thought experiment) and explain why they are interesting. Whether or not you thought he was right, he would have at least been thought-provoking. Can you honestly say that about Rush Limbaugh? Or are you just mad that I talked shit about someone you liked?

I'm laying down the gauntlet: either show me what he has or admit that Emperor Limbaugh has no clothes.

He has a weekly audience of over 20 million.

If you don't think that's had an impact, there's no point in arguing with you.

 

[The Name of Love]

He has a weekly audience of over 20 million.

If you don't think that's had an impact, there's no point in arguing with you.

Emperor Limbaugh has no clothes! Thank you for admitting that.

 

[LordsFire]

Emperor Limbaugh has no clothes! Thank you for admitting that.

The sheer scale of your pretentiousness staggers me.

Edit: Let me make something clear here.

You have just ignored the meaning of my statement, and directly claimed that I have said something that I did not actually say. You are insulting me, condescending to me, failing to engage my point, and acting like you just won a point, all at once.

You have just showed an impressive ability to offend and insult in a single line, while contributing absolutely nothing useful to the discussion.

 

[The Name of Love]

The sheer scale of your pretentiousness staggers me.

Edit: Let me make something clear here.

You have just ignored the meaning of my statement, and directly claimed that I have said something that I did not actually say. You are insulting me, condescending to me, failing to engage my point, and acting like you just won a point, all at once.

You have just showed an impressive ability to offend and insult in a single line, while contributing absolutely nothing useful to the discussion.

You didn't engage my point. Which is why you lost the debate.

Understand, my contention from the beginning was that Limbaugh isn't useful for conservatism because he doesn't cover the sort of topics that would be helpful to a right-wing movement. Instead, he's a popularizer for Zombie Reaganism and mindless platitudes. Popularizers are only as good as the ideas they promote, and he promotes bad, useless ideas! This is such a simple argument that you don't engage with. Knock down its points, do something! Instead, you were full of bluster! If you have not conceded my point, then why are you unable to name his interesting ideas? Perhaps it's because... he doesn't have any?

 

[LordsFire]

You didn't engage my point. Which is why you lost the debate.

Understand, my contention from the beginning was that Limbaugh isn't useful for conservatism because he doesn't cover the sort of topics that would be helpful to a right-wing movement. Instead, he's a popularizer for Zombie Reaganism and mindless platitudes. Popularizers are only as good as the ideas they promote, and he promotes bad, useless ideas! This is such a simple argument that you don't engage with. Knock down its points, do something! Instead, you were full of bluster! If you have not conceded my point, then why are you unable to name his interesting ideas? Perhaps it's because... he doesn't have any?

I told you earlier in this thread that if you want a comprehensive take on his ideology, you can pursue that on your own time. You have in no way expressed understanding of his ideology. To the best of my knowledge, you watched one four minute video of him. That's it.

You claim he preaches 'Zombie Reaganism and mindless platitudes.' You have not substantiated this claim. You haven't even clarified what you consider 'Zombie Reaganism' to be.

You haven't won an argument. You haven't had an argument. You've made assertions and claimed victory. Which at this point seems to be your go-to method for arguing.

 

[The Name of Love]

I told you earlier in this thread that if you want a comprehensive take on his ideology, you can pursue that on your own time. You have in no way expressed understanding of his ideology. To the best of my knowledge, you watched one four minute video of him. That's it.

You claim he preaches 'Zombie Reaganism and mindless platitudes.' You have not substantiated this claim. You haven't even clarified what you consider 'Zombie Reaganism' to be.

You haven't won an argument. You haven't had an argument. You've made assertions and claimed victory. Which at this point seems to be your go-to method for arguing.

Well, seeing how I'm not going to watch thousands of hours of his content (because that's a fucking unreasonable), how I can't find anything he's written that isn't just random news articles, and how my only sources of information are what I can find online (which doesn't paint a good picture of him), I thought it'd be pretty reasonable to expect you, the person who is singing high praises of this guy and his big brain, to give me something. Instead, you are just like "take my word for it, this guy's amazing! Just watch a bunch of his rambling podcasts, and you'll see!" It'd be like me having you trudge through Curtis Yarvin's various, long-winded interviews to get you an idea of what he believes rather than sharing the ideas that attracted me to him.

I have been making arguments. You just claim them to be assertions because you don't want to argue against them.

 

[Free-Stater 101]

Well, seeing how I'm not going to watch thousands of hours of his content (because that's a fucking unreasonable), how I can't find anything he's written that isn't just random news articles, and how my only sources of information are what I can find online (which doesn't paint a good picture of him), I thought it'd be pretty reasonable to expect you, the person who is singing high praises of this guy and his big brain, to give me something. Instead, you are just like "take my word for it, this guy's amazing! Just watch a bunch of his rambling podcasts, and you'll see!" It'd be like me having you trudge through Curtis Yarvin's various, long-winded interviews to get you an idea of what he believes rather than sharing the ideas that attracted me to him.

I have been making arguments. You just claim them to be assertions because you don't want to argue against them.

You are being unfair, by making assertions that somebody has done 'nothing' for conservatism and yet when pointed evidence to the contrary. (Such as having so many viewer's and having been a viable voice in conservative media for over thirty years.) You still demand that those against you argument provide 'proof' of this despite the fact that you are the one making the accusation and thus burdened with proving it.

The above is debating in bad faith, because when someone suggest to you to look into something yourself you refuse citing it as 'too hard' and then throw a fit when they refuse on the same ground's.

So either of you both need to chill or one of you needs to stop making remarks without burden of proof and expecting everyone else to take them at face value.

 

[Deleted member 88]

There is also the important consideration that Rush Limbaugh and many of the mainstream conservative commentariat are speaking to a mass audience.

Not one inured with specific jargon or language.

I mean, does anyone expect Tucker Carlson(a far more precise and forceful presence than Limbaugh) to start referencing more advanced nationalist concepts and lingo? The sort you find in the dissident right? Does anyone expect Laura Ingraham to talk about the nature of American identity in an academic way? (She does and does well).

Same with Limbaugh. When your speaking to the masses you have to use the language they use, and not inside references and more specific jargon they won’t understand.

Personally I’d prefer they did. And try to get their audience exposed to some broader concepts and points of history that would clarify and develop their own understanding and create a more knowledgeable movement, but to do so risks alienating and confusing the audience.

@The Name of Love doesn’t seem to realize most people aren’t on the internet or reading political philosophy and have lives beyond that. Most of Rush’s audience isn’t reading complex works. That isn’t because their stupid, it’s because their unaware of this material and have no reason to.

 

[The Name of Love]

You are being unfair, by making assertions that somebody has done 'nothing' for conservatism and yet when pointed evidence to the contrary. (Such as having so many viewer's and having been a viable voice in conservative media for over thirty years.) You still demand that those against you argument provide 'proof' of this despite the fact that you are the one making the accusation and thus burdened with proving it.

The above is debating in bad faith, because when someone suggest to you to look into something yourself you refuse citing it as 'too hard' and then throw a fit when they refuse on the same ground's.

So either of you both need to chill or one of you needs to stop making remarks without burden of proof and expecting everyone else to take them at face value.

No, it's unreasonable for me to have to trawl through literal decades worth of recordings. This is the sort of "educate yourself" type nonsense I'd expect from a close-minded social justice warrior on Twitter.

I told @LordsFire over and over that being popular isn't going to make Limbaugh better. If Limbaugh is popular and is spreading bad ideas, then he's not going to be a boon for the conservative movement, now is he? And I have no damn way of knowing of this without looking through decades of work. At least give me some white paper or a book or something. Don't just say "listen to his stuff!"

@The Name of Love doesn’t seem to realize most people aren’t on the internet or reading political philosophy and have lives beyond that. Most of Rush’s audience isn’t reading complex works. That isn’t because their stupid, it’s because their unaware of this material and have no reason to.

I never said he was bad for being a popularizer. Rather, I said (or rather, implied) that was a popularizer of bad ideas. I said he wasn't improving the conservative movement because we don't need more popularizers. What we need is new ideas. And he doesn't have any.