Rush Limbaugh will be remembered as one of the most consequential figures in the history of American conservatism, because he reflected and shaped the world view of the post-Reagan GOP base more than any other single person.

Limbaugh is also a good example of how the distinction between “respectable” conservatism and “the more radical fringe” can easily be overstated. https://t.co/MD81JaUbpG
In 1992 George HW Bush had Rush Limbaugh open his final campaign event before Election Day. https://t.co/G580dznhkL
Rush descended from a well-off and well-connected family in Missouri, but he played the role of “pissed off Joe Six Pack” really well. He’s a perfect example of “plutocratic populism.” https://t.co/eUSIiffk07
Limbaugh’s cruel bigotry and aura of aggrieved entitlement was a feature, not a bug. In an era of shifting social mores, Limbaugh gave his listeners permission to be a-holes and be proud about it. He perfected the schtick that would get Trump elected.
Limbaugh's buffoonery actually shaped my politics in a significant way, though not in the way he intended. Between 1992 and 1997 I made several, 10-hour drives between Chicago (where I was in grad school) and central PA (where my family was). I listened to Rush each time.
Rush was still a fairly new figure in the political universe at that point, but he was becoming a big hit with a certain segment of the population with which I was experientially familiar, angry white people. I totally got why his bit resonated...and it wasn't good.
I grew up in a conservative small town. Both of my grandpas voted GOP. The idea of voting Republican, in 1992-4, was not some outlandish thing in the world I was socialized into. But Rush made it clear that being proudly deplorable was a requirement for membership in his GOP.
Between 1992 & 1997 I was becoming a US Historian. What I heard on Rush's radio show was an affirmation of the most anti-democratic impulses in the nation's history, and a rejection of the historical figures & movements who advanced the nation's ideals of equality and democracy.
Rush sounded exactly like all of the right wing lawyers, dentists, and real estate agents in my hometown who'd sit around at the Country Club bar and complain about black people and feminazis, and then climb in their Lincoln town cars and drive home drunk.
Rush, like those guys, was an elitist bully. He thought he was better than most other people, and he didn't even have the integrity to even try to tell the truth to his "dittohead" fans. He was a mean-spirited huckster who built a politics that harmed his working class listeners.
This is in part why I have so little sympathy for the conservatives of the 90s who now are shocked, shocked about what the GOP became. The worst of Trumpism was all right there on Rush's 90s show to behold. Choosing not to see the horror of what the GOP was becoming was a choice.
I find it terribly sad that "being hated by liberals" is something that Limbaugh was proud of. I'm sure he'd find my criticisms of him to be affirmations of just how great a person he was. He loved to make people angry. He loved to watch our political culture burn. What a legacy.
Anyway, if you're curious about how the GOP went from the smiley, sunny, optimistic Reagan messaging to the dark, foreboding, apocalyptic, resentful Trump...few transitional figures are as important as Rush.
Here's an archive of 5700 of Rush's shows from 2005 to 2017, in case anyone's interested. https://t.co/tUaozue8Eb
In 1994 it was clear that Rush Limbaugh became richer (because he was already from a family of means) and more famous BECAUSE of the vile and hateful things he was willing to say on air. He was proud of this. It was his brand. https://t.co/K7LwJvo3LX
So for all of those "conservatives" out there saying how formative Rush was for them. This is what they're referring to. THIS is what people loved about him.
He gave conservatives permission to take pleasure in hating their fellow Americans who weren’t like them, and then to call such behavior “the pinnacle of American patriotism.”

More from Seth Cotlar

Historian here, with a message for folks arguing against holding people accountable for the siege of the Capitol because "history will be the judge." We are in this mess, BECAUSE people in the past didn't hold their contemporaries accountable. Please don't repeat that mistake.

Nixon was forced out of office, but he was never held responsible for his egregious actions as President. You'll never guess what sort of precedent and example that set for the future President who most shared Nixon's moral turpitude.


In the 1970s, many "mainstream" media outlets buckled to right wing pressure & lent their platforms to gut bucket racists like James Kilpatrick & Pat Buchanan, rebranding them as "conservatives." We continue to reap the consequences of normalizing racism.


Here's a thread on Pat Buchanan. In the early 90s Charles Krauthammer and Bill Buckley, staunch conservatives both, called Pat a "fascist" and an "antisemite." And yet he still got major media gigs for DECADES.


Trump's career (and that of his family) is overstuffed with acts of white collar crime for which no one ever received more than a tiny fine as a slap on the wrist. Everyone one in NYC knew Trump was a morally bankrupt and corrupt crook. But somehow NBC still made him a star.
It's important to note how deeply rooted & completely canonical these kooky ideas are in the US far right, & how dangerous it is that a sitting president is giving legitimacy to them. It's like Father Coughlin, the John Birch Society, and Geo Lincoln Rockwell had an orange baby.


Thanks (I think) to @z3dster for bringing this batshit tweet to my attention.

There's a long history of the American center-right and center-left laughing at this kind of stuff. It is indeed laughably ludicrous. But it's important to know that to millions of people, this is their truth. This is how they see the world. And now the President is condoning it.

One hallmark of fascism is that it defines "communism" as its enemy. One can be opposed to communism without being a fascist. But it's impossible to be fascist without being obsessed with the existential (and often hysterically overblown) threat of communism.

Every significant, US variant of fascism has depicted itself as a movement of Christian patriots defending the US from anti-American enemies of Christ. One can be a Christian and/or a patriot without being a fascist, but fascists almost always call themselves Christian patriots.

You May Also Like

Funny, before the election I recall lefties muttering the caravan must have been a Trump setup because it made the open borders crowd look so bad. Why would the pro-migrant crowd engineer a crisis that played into Trump's hands? THIS is why. THESE are the "optics" they wanted.


This media manipulation effort was inspired by the success of the "kids in cages" freakout, a 100% Stalinist propaganda drive that required people to forget about Obama putting migrant children in cells. It worked, so now they want pics of Trump "gassing children on the border."

There's a heavy air of Pallywood around the whole thing as well. If the Palestinians can stage huge theatrical performances of victimhood with the willing cooperation of Western media, why shouldn't the migrant caravan organizers expect the same?

It's business as usual for Anarchy, Inc. - the worldwide shredding of national sovereignty to increase the power of transnational organizations and left-wing ideology. Many in the media are true believers. Others just cannot resist the narrative of "change" and "social justice."

The product sold by Anarchy, Inc. is victimhood. It always boils down to the same formula: once the existing order can be painted as oppressors and children as their victims, chaos wins and order loses. Look at the lefties shrieking in unison about "Trump gassing children" today.
🌿𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝒂 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒓 : 𝑫𝒉𝒓𝒖𝒗𝒂 & 𝑽𝒊𝒔𝒉𝒏𝒖

Once upon a time there was a Raja named Uttānapāda born of Svayambhuva Manu,1st man on earth.He had 2 beautiful wives - Suniti & Suruchi & two sons were born of them Dhruva & Uttama respectively.
#talesofkrishna https://t.co/E85MTPkF9W


Now Suniti was the daughter of a tribal chief while Suruchi was the daughter of a rich king. Hence Suruchi was always favored the most by Raja while Suniti was ignored. But while Suniti was gentle & kind hearted by nature Suruchi was venomous inside.
#KrishnaLeela


The story is of a time when ideally the eldest son of the king becomes the heir to the throne. Hence the sinhasan of the Raja belonged to Dhruva.This is why Suruchi who was the 2nd wife nourished poison in her heart for Dhruva as she knew her son will never get the throne.


One day when Dhruva was just 5 years old he went on to sit on his father's lap. Suruchi, the jealous queen, got enraged and shoved him away from Raja as she never wanted Raja to shower Dhruva with his fatherly affection.


Dhruva protested questioning his step mother "why can't i sit on my own father's lap?" A furious Suruchi berated him saying "only God can allow him that privilege. Go ask him"