My conservative colleague in arms Jay Homnick has a
great piece today titled “And the
Winner in Iowa Is… Rush Limbaugh.”
Jay is correct… and I (ahem!) pointed this out
here a while back in terms of the 2010
elections.
I will confess to writing along these lines with some
frequency. About Rush, who is the irreplaceable original here. And
about Sean Hannity and Mark Levin.
A word about these three people that needs to be said
again post-Iowa.
The other week I
wrote a piece about the need to make the case for a
conservative in the 2012 race. One of the points in
there is that time, alas, always moves on whether we want it to or
not… and there is always a generational hand-off of, well,
everything.
In the case of the modern conservative movement, this
moment has arrived — and actually been here for a while. The
Goldwaters and Reagans, the Buckleys and Rushers and Kemps are
gone.
Who will replace them? Strictly speaking, that’s
impossible. They were — as with every human being who ever walked
the planet — unique.
But that said, there is in fact a “next generation” of
conservative leaders who have picked up the baton and moved
forward. Without question, Rush Limbaugh is, if you will, the new
William F. Buckley. The man acknowledged by his colleagues and
peers in the talk radio business as the man who sets the pace, the
man with The Voice, the man American conservatives look to at
moments like Iowa.
And, thankfully, he isn’t alone.There have
always been these gritty tangles over the direction of conservatism
right from the get-go. Buckley had them. Goldwater had them. Reagan
had them. They are had today. The current fight has been with Ron
Paul and the attempt by his followers to hijack the conservative
movement and steer it leftward, labeling one and all who opposed
this abandonment of conservative principle “Neo-Cons.” Which is to
say, under the guise of the Paul campaign these people (decided
non-conservatives, perhaps we should just call them henceforth the
“Non-Cons”…take a look
here as but one example) were going to redefine everything and
everybody they didn’t agree with. Which, as it turns out, is both
conservatism itself as expressed from Burke to Buckley — not to
mention a lot of prominent conservatives as well.
They can’t stand Ronald Reagan. (Paul himself flounced out
of the then-Reagan led GOP in 1987 saying that Reagan’s Cold War
policies had made America “less safe today” — this as Reagan was
in fact forcing the collapse of the Soviet Union itself, an event
that by then was a mere four years distant.) They despised William
F. Buckley — and they cannot abide Rush. From Justice Scalia to
William J. Bennett, on and on and through a whole list of
conservative household names (yes, Rick Santorum is on their list
too) these folks have been out there trying to undermine and
disparage one and all.
This includes, but of course, both Sean Hannity and Mark
Levin. Each of whom has had buckets of vitriol dumped over their
heads for picking up the Reagan conservatism baton.
A word here about Mark Levin. This is someone who stepped
out on the Ron Paul issue right from the get go. Levin is one
thoroughly grounded conservative, as his friends and fans well
know. He had a keen understanding of exactly what was afoot with
Ron Paul and said so — out loud and frequently. The inevitable
abuse poured in, and he never relented in pointing out the
intellectual and moral flaws of the Ron Paul brand — a brand that,
as noted here, is on foreign policy decidedly leftist. Straight out
of the George McGovern “Come Home America” playbook, its leftist
roots are deep. Which is why so many liberal kids followed him in
Iowa.
Sean Hannity took his own tack — not taking sides but
providing a respectful platform for all these candidates to come
and talk — at length — any time. As a Reagan conservative he
openly, candidly and respectfully disagreed with Ron Paul on
foreign policy — while making plain his areas of agreement on
other issues. Time after time, if one was paying attention, he
questioned each candidate about their weaknesses or area of
controversy — Romney’s health care issue, Newt’s marriages, Herman
Cain’s sexual harassment problems… and yes… Ron Paul and his
controversial newsletters. For the latter he took tons of grief,
including from Ron Paul himself — and in true Hannity style
persisted anyway.
So post-Iowa? Whatever else comes down the pike this
primary season, one thing is crystal clear.
The base of the Republican Party — the conservative
movement — wants a conservative on this ticket. And they look to
Rush to help them do the vetting they don’t have the time or
ability to do.
They look to Sean Hannity — they listen, they watch. They
pay attention.
And they have listened intently to Mark Levin on Ron
Paul.
Last night, as we have noted, the combined vote for the
non-Ron Paul foreign policy candidacies far out-distanced that of
Mr. Paul. The Santorum and Romney vote alone was twice that of Mr.
Paul.
There are doubtless several reasons for this. But make no
mistake, millions of conservatives were listening to Rush. They
listened to Hannity and Levin. Why? Because in fact these people
are among the next generation of conservative leadership. Scratch
next generation. They are the current generation.
Ron Paul’s campaign will go on for a while. But his far
left foreign policy ideas were a distinct no-sale.
Iowans were paying attention. So Jay Homnick has it
right.
The real winner in Iowa is in fact Rush.
And Sean and Mark didn’t do so badly either.
A lot of conservatives owe them all a debt of
thanks.
