Liberalism versus “ideology”

I heard that Rush Limbaugh said on Friday that President Bush is a good man, but that he doesn’t lead on conservative issues because he doesn’t want to be “ideological.” Limbaugh spoke the word “ideological” as if it were something bad.

But given the fact that liberalism is the default belief system of our society, if you’re not “ideological,” i.e., if you don’t take a principled, non-liberal stand against the prevailing drift of liberalism, then you’re inevitably going to be carried along by the prevailing drift of liberalism. The only way not to be a liberal is to be, in Limbaugh’s disparaging term, “ideological.”

Conservatives—or at least some conservatives—once understood this. But the conservatives have all become Republicans.

- end of initial entry -

Alex K. writes:

Limbaugh often goes on about “conservative ideology” and the need to use it to combat liberalism. He especially goes on about that in response to chatter about pragmatism, problem-solving, bipartisanship, and other codes for statist consensus.

So the thing with Bush is simply that Rush loves the man and cannot bring himself to criticize him. He has an obvious problem in that Bush is so profoundly unconservative and that the Bush era has been a disaster for conservatism. But he has stumbled on a sort of firewall for admitting this: Bush won’t “lead a conservative movement” because he isn’t an ideological sort. It would be too preposterous for Limbaugh to say, “This president I love is conservative and has done great things for conservatism.” So this is something he can say instead that sort of describes the situation, but stops the issue before it leads to the problem Rush doesn’t want to address: Rush prescribes conservatism as the true way for the country; Rush loves Bush; Bush is a disaster for conservatism.

So he has stuck with this line on Bush ever since he first thought of it. But in non-Bush contexts, Limbaugh does speak of conservative ideology as good and necessary. His understanding of it is different, and inferior, to yours, but he does think in terms of a conservative ideology combating a prevailing liberal one.

[Deleted name] writes:

With regard to your post on R. Limbaugh and “conservative ideology”: I have always been told that a key component of true conservatism is the absence of ideology, because conservative principles are based on reality rather than theories. Is this not the case?

LA replies:

Ideology has two distinct meanings. The first, specialized, meaning of ideology, the one you refer to, is that ideology is an artificial construction of reality, such as Communism, Nazism, Fascism, feminism, multiculturalism, or Podhoretzism-Bushism (aka democratism), aimed at creating a new social order and even a new humanity. In this sense of the word, true conservatives or traditionalists oppose ideology. The other, generic meaning of ideology is simply any set of ideas, principles,and beliefs. In this sense of the word, you can have a conservative ideology opposing the liberal ideology.

John D2 writes:

Formerly an avid Rush fan, as a traditional conservative who believes in America and Americans first, I can only say that the premiere so-called conservative talk show host in America has no principles, and perhaps never had any. I am disgusted by his defense of this most incompetent President. Bush has led America into the abyss, and you have to wonder why anyone would “love” him, or even defend him, considering the extreme damage he has done to our country. There is absolutely no voice of truth out there in mainstream talk radio. Every one of them has the same point of view. How can this be? They are bought and paid for, or maybe going along to get along. Either way, they lack integrity. This is truly a disaster for America, and the proof is all that we see going on around us. Needless to say, I don’t listen to any of locksteppers anymore, not even for a minute.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 27, 2008 01:50 AM | Send