Limbaugh: the Mark Steyn of amnesty

David B. writes:

Last week a caller told Limbaugh that we need to get ready for the fight to stop amnesty. Rush, in his know-it-all voice, would have none of it. He said, “Amnesty is going to pass. The Democrats won both houses. That battle is lost. Get used to it.”

Yesterday, he continued in this vein.

Rush acts like he has been fighting the battle, which of course, he has not. I don’t think his heart was ever in it. His rich friends have probably told him not to oppose open borders, and Limbaugh is an economic determinist, assuming he believes in anything at all.

Just as Mark Steyn says that the Islamization of Europe is a done deal instead of saying that this would be an inconceivable disaster for our civilization that must be resisted at all costs, Rush writes off amnesty as a done deal instead of saying that this would be a terrible disaster for our country that must be resisted at all costs. In June 1940 Limbaugh would have said: “The Nazis are going to win. They have conquered Europe and will soon conquer Britain. The battle is lost. Get used to it.”

For a Republican “conservative” like Limbaugh with his sports mentality, the most important thing is not allegiance to country and to principle. The most important thing is winning, namely winning against Democrats. So if he sees a fight in which the odds are against our side, or rather (as he sees it) a fight we’ve already lost, because the Democrats control both Houses of Congress, he has no interest.

But there’s something more going on here than that. After all, did Limbaugh say in 1993 and 1994 that there was no point in conservatives fighting against the Clinton health care plan, because the Democrats controlled Congress? No. So why is he saying it now? Maybe it’s because so many Republicans including the president support amnesty too; and also maybe because he just doesn’t give a damn.

- end of initial entry -

A reader writes:

Rush may have been being ironic when he said that thing about amnesty being a done deal. He does that sometimes. Just now he spoke to a caller who wanted to question Rush’s saying that he wanted his hearing back and stem cell research might help with that and so screw the babies, he wants his hearing, he didn’t do anything to lose it, why should he suffer and so on. And he had to explain that he was trying to illustrate the absurdity of much of today’s thinking, he didn’t mean it. Sometimes he says things to rouse the audience because he feels they are not doing enough too.

David B. writes:

A reader has asked whether Rush is just being “ironic.” I don’t think so. You have written that for over a decade, El Rushbo was absolutely silent on the issue. In the mid-90’s immigration was being talked about, but Limbaugh said nothing.

A few years ago, Howard Sutherland posted on the Forum that he wished somebody on our side could sit down with Rush and explain the case for restriction to him. I believe that WSJ types have already sat Rush down and told him that in order to stay in their good graces, he had better not go to far on the issue. This would explain it.

Incidentally, some years ago, I heard Rush say, “We don’t discuss abortion. It doesn’t do any good.” I suspect he stays away from immigration for the same reason. Namely, he doesn’t want to upset the WSJ and his rich golfing buddies. If you have listened to him for a long time, you will pick up on this attitude.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 09, 2007 08:53 AM | Send