The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewIlana Mercer Archive
Still Addicted to That Rush: Revisiting the ‘09 CPAC Speech
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Rush Limbaugh died on February the 17th. In the encomiums to conservatism’s radio king, mention was made of his 2009 address at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C.

CPAC for short, or CPUKE before Trump.

At the time, I had surveyed the perennial, Republican Party dynamics surrounding the event. “Addicted to that Rush,” the March 6, 2009 column’s title, came not from Rush’s brief addiction to painkillers, following surgery, but from an eponymous hit by the band Mr. Big. (It, in turn, came from an earlier time when the American music scene produced not pornographers like Cardi B, but musicians like Paul Gilbert and Billy Sheehan.)

Nevertheless, that title alluded to one of Rush’s missed opportunities: Speaking against a war into which he was involuntarily drafted and by which he was almost destroyed: The War on Drugs.

Still, how petty does that war, in all its depredations, seem now?! How unimaginably remote do the issues Rush spoke to, in 2009, seem in light of a country that has come a cropper in the course of one year, due to an unprecedented consolidation of state power around COVID, compounded by an amped up, institutionalized campaign against white America. And, in particular, against white Trump voters.

Other than champion tax cuts and globalization, the Rovian cadre of the GOP had been doing what it has always done: Calling for a more upbeat, inclusive and diverse party. Michael Steele, then chairman of the Republican National Committee, today an “analyst” for MSNBC, had derided Rush as a mere entertainer, describing “The Rush Limbaugh Show” as incendiary and ugly.

Then as now, Steele’s main concerns were not those of main-street Americans. Rather, Steele’s cares were “conciliatory.” The Rovians, like the Never Trumpers and the Lincoln-Project perverts, believed in the urgent need to broaden the Republican Party’s base and “appeal” to traditionally hostile minorities, when in fact the GOP had been courting traditional Democratic constituents with every trick possible, with little success, all the while sticking it to the base.

The Steele-Limbaugh spat fell into Barack Obama’s lap. The former president was losing it—throwing everything and the kitchen sink at the thing he called “the economy,” but which is really no more than the trillions upon trillions of voluntary, capitalistic acts individuals perform in order to make a living.

Introduce government force and coercion into this synchronized spontaneous order, and it starts to splutter. The economy responds poorly to economic planning and planners. BHO had imagined that he could walk on water. America facilitated his fantasy. The former president was realizing that he was not the magic man he imagined he was. Desperate times called for desperate distractions.

In short succession, Democratic henchmen─Paul Begala, Stanley Greenberg, James Carville, and Robert Gibbs─began picking on Limbaugh. Strong-armed too by the Obama administration was CNBC reporter Rick Santelli, who led a revolt from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange against the bailout billions for mortgage delinquents. Little wonder, then, that the contents of Limbaugh’s speech at CPAC garnered less attention than the characters involved.

Rush spoke stirringly. He railed against the enormous expansion of government in the first few, frightening weeks of the Obama presidency.

But, as I noted at the time, not a word did one hear against the man who began what Barack was just completing. George Bush set the scene for Barack. Stimulus, bailouts, a house for every Hispanic—these were Bush’s babies. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights had been abandoned well before the fist-bumping Obamas moved into the White House.

“Contrary to popular myth,” wrote James Ostrowski, President of Free Buffalo, in 2002, “every Republican president since and including Herbert Hoover has increased the federal government’s size, scope, or power—and usually all three. Over the last one hundred years, of the five presidents who presided over the largest domestic spending increases, four were Republicans.”

“Include regulations and foreign policy, as well as budgets approved by a Republican Congress, and a picture begins to emerge of the Republican Party as a reliable engine of government growth.”

As rousing as his speech was, not a word did Limbaugh devote to the Warfare State, every bit as corrupt, corrupting, and bankrupting as the Welfare State. As I observed, at the time, over \$1 trillion was being spent yearly on imperial expeditions that were awash in American blood, but offered few benefits to the sacrificed, stateside and abroad.

Besides, I asked, “what kind of a nation neglects its own borders while defending to the death borders not its own?”

Rush rightly denounced the State’s failed war on poverty. It failed not because fighting poverty is not a noble cause, but because, given the perverse incentives it invariably entrenches, government is incapable of winning such a war. The same economic and bureaucratic perversions also make the State’s stalemated War on Drugs as unwinnable and ruinous.

Lysander Spooner, the great, American 19th-century theorist of liberty, defined vices as those acts “by which a man harms himself or his property. Crimes are those acts by which a man harms the person or property of another.” Government has no business treating vices as crimes.

If for harming himself a man forfeits his freedom, then he is not free at all.

Limbaugh accused Obama of wanting to transform America. This was obvious then, as it is today. But what of George W. Bush, who had wormed his way into the affections of conservative leaders like Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham (who used to call Bush a patriot)?

What, I had asked, was Bush’s insistence on unfettered, open borders if not an expression of his disdain for “America the way it had been since its founding,” to quote commentator Lawrence Auster (also since deceased)? The former president refused to enforce immigration law. That was his way of converting “America into something quite different.”

Just like Obama, Bush harbored a death wish for America of the Founders.

Added Auster: “Until conservative opinion makers render unto Bush the censures he richly deserves, especially for the same things for which they now excoriate Obama, their criticisms of Obama will have the [odor] of rank partisanship.”

It took Trump to dispatch Bush.


At the time, I had expressed my hope that conflagrations such as the one between Steele and Limbaugh continue and deepen. “It’s good for the GOP─the party needs to be gashed good and proper if a coherent articulation of ordered liberty is to be forged from the current philosophical chaos.”

Come to think of it, that this tract began with Rush Limbaugh, of blessed memory, and ended with Trump, is in itself significant. For it took the “Donald’s creative destruction” to finish the Republican Party off .

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She’s the author of Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011) & The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed” (June, 2016). She’s currently on Parler, Gab, YouTube & LinkedIn, but has been banned by Facebook and throttled by Twitter.

Hide 8 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Kerry C says:

    Rush had a tendency to toe the GOP line and if an R was in the White House, he never met a foreign war he didn’t like, but he did make it fashionable to beat the Left at their own game using mockery and humor, something that was very welcome in the early and mid-90s when the only Right-Wingers in the media were people like the human ventriloquist dummy George Will and maybe the McLaughlin Group.

    I think of all Limbaugh’s nicknames he gave people, Mrs. Bill Clinton was my favorite. I know it made that “Feminazi” Hillary see red.

    • Agree: Realist
  2. “But, as I noted at the time, not a word did one hear against the man who began what Barack was just completing. George Bush set the scene for Barack. Stimulus, bailouts, a house for every Hispanic—these were Bush’s babies.”

    Excuse me but President Bush, was on his way out and one of these two were going to be next president and they both voted.

    “Obama, McCain Join Senate Majority for Bailout
    Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain pulled off the presidential campaign trail just long enough on Wednesday night to cast what both of these cautious contenders hope will be “safe” votes favor of a financial bailout scheme based on the \$700 billion plan proposed last week by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson.”

    Trump sucks.

  3. Binyamin says:

    Rush Limbaugh was a disgusting man. He made fun of thousands of Americans who in the eighties and nineties were dying of aids. One can certainly take a principled stand against homosexuality, especially on religious grounds. But gloating at the suffering of others? It is ironic that the man who took such sadistic pleasure at the suffering of some of his fellow human beings himself died of unbearable pain. Like all bigots Limbaugh was a hypocrite. The man who ranted against drug addiction was himself addicted to various prescription drugs. Limbaugh helped to make the Republican brand toxic. He led many young, upcoming and ambitious Republicans to believe that being right wing means it is OK to be nasty, mean, unscrupulous and be devoid of compassion.
    Our former Toddler in Chief was a personification of this level of nastiness especially after he turned turncoat and jumped from the Democrat bandwagon into the Republican one. The nasty, unprincipled and cowardly Ted Cruz is another who exemplify the Limbaugh brand of Republicanism. With Texas freezing and hundreds and thousands of Texans without electricity, the disgusting Mr Cruz, instead of providing leadership for the people who elected him, runs away to sunny Mexico with his family. Limbaugh would no doubt be proud. Some Americans deserve the politicians they elect.

    • Replies: @Kerry
  4. the Jew-owned Zionist Uniparty

    will continue to win election after election,

    as it has since the 1980’s, while the White population goes contentedly extinct

    under its warm daily shower of Jewbucks.

    The Issacsohn-Mercer,

    a former resident of White South Africa who with her family helped overthrow the White regime in SA, and then wandered to Israel-in-Palestine and then on to America,

    and now operates as a Zionist agent in America,

    is well aware of all this. Which is why she writes such

    irrelevant, distractive libtard nonsense.

    • LOL: 36 ulster
    • Replies: @Kerry
  5. Kerry says:

    Oh man … what nonsense. I’m so glad I’m not you.

  6. Kerry says:
    @Haxo Angmark

    You are so uninformed I don’t know where to begin. Ilana Mercer is one of the only published writers who has the guts to write about the realities of the post-Apartheid South Africa. Check her website and search “South Africa,” or better yet get her 2011 book “Into The Cannibals Pot.”

    “The Issacsohn-Mercer,

    a former resident of White South Africa who with her family helped overthrow the White regime in SA, and then wandered to Israel-in-Palestine and then on to America,

    and now operates as a Zionist agent in America,

    is well aware of all this. Which is why she writes such

    irrelevant, distractive libtard nonsense.”

    Gotta stop with the inhalants, man.

    • Agree: 36 ulster
    • Replies: @Haxo Angmark
  7. @Kerry

    I’ve read it. In it the Jewess Issacson-Mercer admits no less than 5 times to

    her own and her family’s subversive activities in overthrowing “apartheid”.

    she has no problems, however, with apartheid in Zionist-occupied Palestine.

    the Jewess Issacson-Mercer is a Zionist agent posing as a pro-White patriot.

  8. Thank god the Bush’s–both of them—are gone. Trump too, as much as I resent the stolen election and the tsunami of left wing lies about everything under–and including–the sun.

    The only trouble with Trump’s departure is his replacement. (Harris Biden).

    This is the era of trouble.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ilana Mercer Comments via RSS
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Becker update V1.3.2