Have Rush and others realized the enormity of their mistake?

Rush Limbaugh Donald Trump

As of late Rush, Hannity, et al. have become particularly vociferous in lashing out at those who made an informed choice on who to support. Perhaps they are feeling the pressure of the multitudes who can now rightfully say, “we told you so.” Or, perhaps it is dawning on them that the priority of winning at all costs will come at the price of everything they hold dear.

Trump’s most recent moves to the left should make it painfully evident to Rush, Hannity, et al. the enormity of their mistake. While his recent proposal of paid maternity leave was not the first time Trump headed left, it was the first time that he advocated an entitlement directly opposed by those who support him now. In many ways the fact that he telegraphed his true ideological underpinnings early should be doubly painful to those who supported the man.

During the primaries Trump advocated for single-payer health insurance and denigrating the 1st Amendment, but these were summarily ignored. He also told us that he was quite capable of changing, but this fell on deaf ears. We had to win against Comrade Clinton and that was all that mattered. Thus, these flashing bright red warning signals were blithely dismissed by some for various reasons: friendship, ratings, or the win-at-all-costs philosophy, or even worse, deemed to be part of a brilliantly conceived and executed strategy.

The watchword of the time was that we had to win and that Comrade Clinton would be an extremely powerful foe. Winning at all costs was the priority and even if Trump had leaned left in the past, that was of no concern because he was winning – in the polls of the primary contests. Never mind the media had found that in Trump the perfect foil for Clinton. Never mind that millions of Democrat voters where unduly influencing our primary process. The latter was touted by Rush, Hannity, et al. as a new movement instead of a warning sign of troubles ahead.

We were endlessly told this groundswell was against the entrenched GOP Establishment, that for far too long had rolled over for it’s expansion of government with brand new entitlements and spending. So instead we will have a brand new entrenched GOP Establishment expanding entitlements and spending. Whoopee! Thus, we will have the bizarre situation in which conservatives supporting Trump are effectively touting that which they opposed a few months ago. All of this in the cause of defeating a woman of unknown aliments who, but for the grace of Obama, has but barely stayed out of an Orange pantsuit in a federal penitentiary.

So we have a candidate who told us he can easily change moving left and coming up in the polls to boot. These events will only serve to propel him further left. After all, this is a candidate who was on the side of the left only a few years ago, so it is only logical that he would return to familiar territory. It’s very likely we will have two candidates competing in handing out other people’s money and restricting civil rights. Instead of one candidate from each side, we will have two from the left.

This election could have been a turning point. After eight long years of Obama we could have reversed the damage and improved the odds of putting our representative Republic back in order. But, with the uniformed choice by some, that is not going to happen.

So, in the words of Willy Wonka (Gene Wilder), “So you get nothing, you lose… good day sir.” No wonder Rush, Hannity, et al. have become extremely defensive over what they have done.


As an engineer by training and student of history by avocation, I've always been fascinated by the interaction of technological advances and the march of history. My love/hate relationship with differential equations has taught me that one can use the initial conditions of the present to extrapolate events in the near term balanced with the knowledge of the past. History can inform those willing to listen as to what will happen in the future because the laws of human natural are as immutable as the elegant equations of Newtonian physics. In many ways political struggles can be distilled down to a conflict between individual and collective rights. I tend to favour the former rather than the later. Therefore I view the common sense civil right of self defense as the last bulwark of liberty for a free people. Giving up that basic civil right is a mistake free people can only make once. Over the decades of my life I have noticed that collectivists tend to cloak their ideology under ever changing deceptive labels while they falsely perpetrate old failed and discredited ideas as new in the name of ‘progress’. The actions and agendas with regard to individual versus collective rights are vastly more indicative than the political labels taken on by some. For the sake of simplicity I could describe myself as a Conservative. But the phrase ‘classic liberal’ also applies…

  1. Over and over Hannity talked about “bold colors, not pastels”. Then he pushed the most liberal Republican in memory. Hannity touted him as an outsider and an “insurgent candidate”, but he is the ultimate insider, a card-carrying member of the donor class.

    If Trump becomes president, he will be more successful than Hillary at passing liberal policy proposals, because he will have all the Democrats and some Republicans in Congress supporting him. The Republicans will unite against HIllary’s proposals if she wins, but they will never stick together against Trump’s liberal proposals if he is elected.

    Paul Ryan says that with Trump congressional Republicans can get their agenda signed into law, but we don’t even know if he will support their agenda, dilute it by making deals with the Democrats, or perhaps discard it altogether. We don’t know what he will do, but we know he is a big government guy, and he is all about the deal.

    Sean and Rush: What could possibly go wrong?

    1. I understand the sentiment, but once this is all over let’s see what they do. If they stay in the populist-nationalist camp then hopefully conservatives will marginalize them. If they come around and see the error of their ways then I think we would be wise to welcome them back, but of course with understandable and appropriate caution. Even if that happens, I would hope that they would not be seen as leaders. We have conservatives who stayed true, and they should assume leadership when this is over, even if Rush and the others abandon populism/nationalism and renounce their errors. (Of course Rush would say he has stayed conservative throughout, but that is nonsense. He needs to own up to advancing the most liberal Republican in memory, because he did advance him by legitimizing him as an “anti-establishment” candidate, and de-legitimizing the principled opposition to Trump as being about preserving privileges for “the establishment”.

  2. Trump has all but said other nations should get nuclear weapons, we should go to war with Iran over hand gestures and that Russia has no troops in Ukraine. But you are worried about maternity leave.

  3. RE: Bryan W.- I would hope that when the damage has been assessed these talkers would fade into history and never be heard again. The Left will have no use for them and the Right has seen them for what they are – base opportunists who preyed upon their desperation with the status quo. They are disgusting. These radio talkers have promoted an evil. They should not be forgiven, although it would be wise to forget them. We could never trust them again to provide fair coverage or objective commentary. They are useless. All they can do now is cash in as best they can (I’m sure they already have) and go vacation in perpetuity at Mar-a-lago. Rot in hell, Limbaugh.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

© 2017 The New Americana