In comment 23, Kirly said,
[Rush] sneered at policies because Conservatives act on their principles. Policies aren’t invented to please this or that (fleeting) constituency. Policies naturally fall out from a Conservatives principles.
Yes, I agree. Principles first, then policies — the why they’re called “principles”. Mr. Limbaugh was saying that we can’t abandon conservative principles by dickering over liberal policies, since that allows liberals to set the agenda.
But by mocking both the word and the idea of “policies”, he seemed to be saying that principles alone should carry the day. In other words, “we don’t need no stinkin’ policies”, or “let them eat principles”, if you will.
Now if he really meant that, he would be making a poor recommendation to both conservatives/Republicans and to the country at large. But I think he was just being inarticulate, perhaps a bit intellectually lazy and arrogant as well. On his radio show he does mock “policies” as he did in his CPAC speech, but he also provides policy alternatives based on conservative principles. In any case, David Frum (among others) was correct to note this failing in his speech to CPAC.
We know inherently that attempting to play Robin Hood is wrong (stealing from anyone is wrong for any reason) and thus we don’t think up policies which will do that.
Government redistribution is not exactly stealing if the taxpayers have representation in Washington and agree through their representatives to have some of their income/wealth redistributed.
I admit that it is similar to stealing in some respects, especially when it is done at levels that no one could justify, or when it is done under false pretenses. But the consent that we give to the process through the ballot box makes government redistribution truly distinct from real stealing, at least in this country.
If the taxpayers have had enough, and hopefully they have, then they should support and campaign for politicians who are willing to heed their complaints.
Did you even listen to Rush’s CPAC speech yourself? He explained it all quite clearly.
I listened to every last minute of it. He does explain it clearly in the context of what he’s been saying on the radio for the past twenty years. But as a self-contained primer on conservatism, I don’t think the speech was as clear as you to seem to believe.
I can especially understand why someone could misinterpret his CPAC speech given the controversy over his “I hope he fails” comments. He seems to be saying that no policy is better than a socialist policy (and he’s probably right about that), when he should be saying that conservative policy is much, much more than a rejection of socialist policy.
Thanks, Kirly, for responding to my comment.
