AHC: in '92, Rush Limbaugh goes for brass ring on middle-class economics, far fewer personal attacks

Most of the bigger radio talk show hosts follow suit. Some of the smaller shows do, some don't.

1992 was a key branch point. A goodly number of American conservatives took the tact that not only were the policies of Bill Clinton mistaken, but that he himself and maybe Democrats in general were disqualified to be president.

And Rush does this ALT because he thinks he can win, and this will be the issue which turns the Republican Party into the permanent majority party (at least into the foreseeable future).

Tell me how it's possible, tell me how it's not, tell me some quirky and unexpected consequences. :)
 
Last edited:

EMTSATX

Banned
I am not really sure Rush wants a "permanent GOP" majority. He made/makes his money (behind the golden EIB microphone). By telling us how horrible the Democrats in power are.

Honestly who do you think Rush wants to win Trump or Hillary? He gets ratings saying the sky is falling.
 
I am not really sure Rush wants a "permanent GOP" majority. He made/makes his money (behind the golden EIB microphone). By telling us how horrible the Democrats in power are.

Honestly who do you think Rush wants to win Trump or Hillary? He gets ratings saying the sky is falling.
What did he even talk about during the Bush Administration?
 
I am not really sure Rush wants a "permanent GOP" majority. He made/makes his money (behind the golden EIB microphone). By telling us how horrible the Democrats in power are.
He might tell himself he wants a permanent GOP majority! Sometimes people do the right thing almost in spite of themselves. :p

Plus, it would be a new exciting adventure. He might start with briefly interviewing a number of Reagan Democrats on the air.
 
Back when Clinton took office on January 20, 1993, the conservatives probably including Rush were against the new administration's proposed policy of don't ask-don't tell in the military, which at the time looked like it was going to be a progressive improvement, turned out not to be. Anyway, on this one the conservatives were on the wrong side of history.

And then conservatives were really against Lani Guinier who was Clinton's appointee to head the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. They called her a "quoto queen," which was a smear and borderline prejudicial and maybe more than just borderline, and plus really inaccurate. She was kind of the opposite way. Instead of all in favor of minority majority districts, in which African-American voters or Hispanics voters have an excellent chance of electing a representative sharing their own race if that is what they want, Lani was in favor of multi-member districts. So, if there was five members of a city council, then each voter got five votes either for the same candidate or any spread of candidates, and a person who's a member of minority either an ethnic group, political viewpoint, occupation interest, then as long as members of this minority are reasonably strategic . . . but my goodness gracious this is complicated and probsbly not helped by the fact that Lani's an academic. But -- this whole thing could have blown up in the face of conservatives.

And even if the consevatives of early '93 are factually right, you're still just nibbling at the edges.

Go back to the playbook and talk about Kennedy and Reagan cutting taxes for economic growth. Again, interview five or six Reagan Democrats, maybe just a relatively short ten minute interview. But then if you like the way one puts things together and explains things, invite him or her back for a twenty minute interview. Theory: Rush is best when he has something to play off of.
 
Last edited:

Driftless

Donor
I am not really sure Rush wants a "permanent GOP" majority. He made/makes his money (behind the golden EIB microphone). By telling us how horrible the Democrats in power are.

Honestly who do you think Rush wants to win Trump or Hillary? He gets ratings saying the sky is falling.

I believe Limbaugh will never claim success for the US - his financial empire is built on finding/fabricating faults and sowing dissension wherever possible.
 
On Feb. 3, 1991, during the relatively early stages of the Persian Gulf War, Rush either promoted or organized* the following pro-U.S. rally. Now, I'm sure most peace protestors think they're pro-U.S., too, just that the war is not in the national interest. And I seem to remember that there was more than one such rally.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?16166-1/proadministration-war-rally#

I'd say this is an example of Rush promoting a positive and something which is more of a conceptual whole.

*I remember my mom telling me that Rush bragged that the whole thing was his idea. Don't know whether he did the organizational work or just talked it up.
 
Last edited:

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
His main focus during the administration of George H. W. Bush (Bush '41) was anti-political correctness and anti-affirmative action. As a white male teen at the time, this had some appeal. A few months into the Clinton Administration, I no longer saw him as an independent voice.

Among his contemporaries at the time were Morton Downey Junior on television. Dennis Miller at the time based on his stand-up shows was in a degree of political flux. He completely distrusted the religious right and suspected Reagan's grip on reality, but he was politically incorrect and intolerance of pacifism towards violent actors like terrorists or criminals. It was only into the Clinton Administration that he committed to the conservative side politically.
 
His main focus during the administration of George H. W. Bush (Bush '41) was anti-political correctness and anti-affirmative action. As a white male teen at the time, this had some appeal. A few months into the Clinton Administration, I no longer saw him as an independent voice.
I'm a little bit older than you, being in my twenties during the '80s, but that was my libertarian period! :)

Do you think it's realistic that Rush would try to become the de facto (informal) leader of the conservative movement and go after the biggest issue of all?

He'd probably have to take a leap of faith and say, Look, I don't understand economics either, but I'm honest enough to go ahead and say it, and then hope he gets credit for boldness. Which I think he probably would.
 
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying Limbaugh (as a symbol for all the American right wing media, I guess) should have done instead. Let's leave aside the question of whether Limbaugh, Downey, Miller and all that gang are in fact just showmen mainly interested in stirring up controversy and let's face it, hate, for the sheer ratings and notoriety of it all, and suppose some of them actually are seriously trying to bring about a conservative political vision. God knows I always thought they were.

They deal in controversy and hate, in my opinion, because a conservative regime in the USA is not in the rational interest of the majority of Americans. It is in the interest, arguably, of the rich. Even the rich ruling class, I would suggest, has an enlightened self-interest that takes a higher road, but unlike the majority of Americans, they have a fallback in the conservative program, and the conservative program is easier to enact--win-win for everyone by taking a high road is risky, whereas betting on the general degeneration of world civilization into a dog-eat-dog clusterfuck is a pretty sure thing, if no one with power and influence is trying to head it off. The path of US conservatism, as I have observed it to operate in my lifetime, is all about getting on a winning team and to hell with everyone else. Get rich, get safe behind the walls of your gated community, and feel free to fire on the rabble outside while you send lowly servitors to rob them. That's modern American conservatism, and the best deal it has to offer the common listener is to be one of the trusted lowly servitors robbing the other rabble under orders, for table scraps.

There isn't any positive substance to it whatsoever. That's why it is all showmanship, no substance, and that is why it is a politics of hatred above all else. There is no brass ring for the common listener, only the illusion of sitting at the right hand of the righteous war god who is going to smite all the filth, all the bad guys, all the losers. Don't be on the wrong side when Judgement Day comes, is the sum and total of the message.

Perhaps someone can show instances where any of these fellows ever had any message of substantial positive value to the mass audience, other than "hate and blame these scapegoats and not your boss for your problems?"

The closest thing to it is people like Pat Buchanan who might be sincere in believing that the standard of living of working class Americans can be raised--but only by taking actions that directly lower the standard of living of foreigners. Here too it is zero sum thinking; I wouldn't expect to win an election in the USA by suggesting that foreigners take priority over Americans, but I still have some hope a decent majority supports the idea they are anyway equal.

Maybe not. I remember corresponding with a guy re the younger Bush's invasion of Iraq, who remarked that his son went to Iraq to risk his life, and we still don't have cheaper oil. Apparently there are plenty of people who actually do think the USA has a God-given right to commit plunder and piracy for our own profit--in short their notion of Uncle Sam is indeed some kind of gangster.

The only light in which these Culture War Conservatives can come across as compassionate or even patriotic is that light, the one that says Americans are gods on the Earth entitled to prey on the lesser breeds, and has concern at injustice among our godly privileged selves. That such people generally are not agreed that all of us born here, even those whose ancestors have been here twice as long as say mine (because they were brought over as slaves the century before mine immigrated) actually qualify as being in this privileged circle seems only sensible to me. If we exclude all of humanity who are not US born as having full human rights, why not exclude tens of millions who are?

They can't bear too clear a light on what they are about, in my view, so personal attacks are of the essence.
 
You'll need to define more of what you mean by middle-class economics and as you hope Limbaugh would define it.
Good question.

And I don't mean the simplistic analogies such as "when one more person stops pushing and instead gets into the wagon" -- said during the midst of a recession when people want a job so bad they can taste it.

No, I mean he bravely takes on the macro issues. For example, he might say, Yes, Clinton ran and won on economics, and I don't know why an advanced economy such as ours, for all its benefits, is not producing enough good-paying jobs to replace lost manufacturing jobs. But I will bring a wide range of good people onto our show and we'll find out together. We will contest the Democrats on this issue and we will bring forth conservative proposals.

And some of this might depend on Rush's inclination to be a contrarian.
 
Even the rich ruling class, I would suggest, has an enlightened self-interest that takes a higher road, but unlike the majority of Americans, they have a fallback in the conservative program, and the conservative program is easier to enact--win-win for everyone by taking a high road is risky, whereas betting on the general degeneration of world civilization into a dog-eat-dog clusterfuck is a pretty sure thing, if no one with power and influence is trying to head it off. The path of US conservatism, as I have observed it to operate in my lifetime, is all about getting on a winning team and to hell with everyone else.
I agree that people recourse to the low road, and too damn early. It's like people don't know how to play a poker hand and get past the sticky points.

Here's another way Rush could be a contrarian: During the '92 Republican Convention, Texas Senator Phil Gramm talked about his friend and constituent Dickey Flatt who owns a printing business. And Phil mentioned his "Dickey Flatt test" -- is the program worth taking more money out of Dickey's income and not a hell of a lot of programs pass that test.

Rush could talk about, yes, this comfortable myth (?) that new job growth comes from small business. Don't know to what extent that's true, but he could dive into it. And enjoy standing apart from the Republican establishment.

And then, 80% of new businesses fail within two years. This staggered me when I first heard thus at age seventeen, but I think it really is true. So, Rush could talk with Dickey for ten minutes, and four persons who failed at business and probably lost a bunch of money for ten minutes each, and this would represent the baseline odds. And he could be very respectful saving the ambush for the politicians. And make the point, we're not doing people any favor by not leveling with them.

And honest to gosh, conventional economics is supposed to be about win-win and growing the pie.
 
And there Newt Gingrinch's "Contract With America" in '94, which by Newt's conscious choice focused [on economic issues <-- maybe not so much] mostly on procedural issues and some fiscal restraint. And arguably, this is what took Republicans over the top and won them majority in the House.

Well, Rush could have done this two years earlier!

http://prospect.org/article/key-understanding-new-congress-gingrichs-contract-america

Slightly condensed here for brevity’s sake, the document’s eight key tenets were:

Require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to the Congress;

Hire an independent firm to audit Congress for waste, fraud, or abuse;

Cut the number of House committees, and reduce committee staff by one-third;

.

.

.

Require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;

.
Will look for source which gives exact wording of all 8.
 
Last edited:
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2010/09/23/130068500/watching-washington-gop-pledge

The 1994 "Contract with America" included a pledge from Republicans that within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress they would introduce 10 major pieces of legislation:

— The "Fiscal Responsibility Act" (balanced budget; tax limits; line-item veto)

— The "Taking Back Our Streets Act" (anti-crime package)

— The "Personal Responsibility Act" (work-for-welfare; no welfare for minor mothers)

— The "Family Reinforcement Act" (anti-child-pornography laws; tax incentives for adoption)

— The "American Dream Restoration Act" (middle-class savings accounts; $500 per child tax credits)

— The "National Security Restoration Act" (no U.S. troops under U.N. command; funds for national security)

— The "Senior Citizens Fairness Act" (raise the Social Security earnings limit; repeal tax hike on benefits)

— The "Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act" (cut capital gains; enhance small-business "incentives")

— The "Common Sense Legal Reform Act" (product liability "reform"; limits on punitive damages)

— The "Citizen Legislature Act" (term limits for lawmakers)

Source: www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html
At the very least, different sources are emphasizing different parts of the 1994 House GOP "Contract With America." If the topic interests you, please dive on in and let's hash some of this out.
 
Here's my problem with this thread, GD--first of all, threads in these main fora aren't supposed to be places where we argue the pros and cons of particular political views. I ought not start a thread in pre-1900 that is all about "Was the program of the Brothers Gracchi a good thing or a bad thing for Rome?" I can have one where they take over Rome, and then the ones who think it would be bad have to roll with it, but get to point out all the downsides they think will evolve. I can have one where they are never born, where Cornelia Mother of the Gracchi falls into the Tiber and drowns first. Then all the folks who think the Gracchi program was a good thing can either try and identify the alternate leaders who would advocate, or explore the dire consequences. But it would be wrong to simply ask for a debate on the merits or demerits of what they were said to be trying to do, isolated from the question of "what if events had gone differently than OTL?"

Now what exactly is the purpose of this thread you have here? Are you asking us "how could the conservative radio shows have been even more effective?" As a happy constituent of the one-term Congressman Dan Hamburg who was targeted to be driven out of office in 1994 by Rush Limbaugh, I'm here to tell you that they were pretty darn effective as they were. At the same time, obviously they didn't achieve every thing they claimed to be desirous of; people went and reelected Bill Clinton to the White House for instance.

As I've said earlier, I don't believe that being more objective and less "personal" in their style would have "helped" them at all, because objectively speaking the program they pushed benefited a few at the expense of the many, and the more calm and fact-based their style, the more evident that these guys were in a literal sense enemies of the People. If we assume they are all well-meaning fellows who wish no harm to any reasonable person, then they themselves, in my opinion, would quickly come to change their views on just about every subject. I do not assume they were or are well-meaning; I think they knew what they were doing and took great pleasure in it too. They had the right style for what it was they were actually about.

The gist of your questions and responses suggests to me that you happen to think there was something good about these fellows and the message they pushed. I have, to put it mildly, a different perspective which means I think if they had been any more effective, things would only have gotten worse, and if none of them had ever been given airtime things would probably be somewhat better. But that sort of argument back and forth belongs in Chat.

On the level of a discussion of "what if," asking "what if Rush Limbaugh had chosen a less confrontational, less aggressive, tone and format" looks to me very much like asking "what if Hitler had decided to invade Poland with his forces restricted to using paint ball guns?" It's just bloody silly; there's no reason either of them would consider doing that. It makes no sense. And this should be plainly obvious.

So much so I think the purpose is really to draw out discussion of the merits and demerits of the platform these guys espoused--which I would do, but when I do I find I am not talking about their views so much as my own reasons for having very different ones. It may or may not be germane to someone wanting to write an ATL that diverges in the early 1990s, but only as background material mostly. Upon pausing and looking all over, I am pretty sure I'd be told it belongs in Chat.
 
The gist of your questions and responses suggests to me that you happen to think there was something good about these fellows and the message they pushed.
I'm going to take this as high praise. Actually, I very much bat politically from the left side of the plate! Yes, really. :) Writers, thinkers, journalists, and activists who I've learned from include Gloria Steinem, Ralph Abernathy, Edward S. Herman, Noam Chomsky, Rachel Maddow, Amy Goodman, Gene Sharp, Howard Zinn, David Dellinger, Letty Cottin Pogrebin, Henry Spira, and Jonathan Glover.

So, I think I may have done a pretty good job simply laying on the table some of where conservatives were coming from.

Clinton ran and won on by talking about people who were playing by the rules seemed to be sliding behind. Don't understand why movement conservatives didn't try and rebut him specifically on middle-class economics? ? ? Maybe they thought they were being both entertained and educated by talk radio. Should have been more insistent on the second point!
 
Last edited:
Top