Posted under Globalism & Interventionism & Iran & Iraq & Media & NeoCons & Neoliberals
I normally listen to sports talk radio in the morning (the great Mike and Mike) because our local morning political talk guy is a GOP hack, but this morning I happened to catch Rush Limbaugh’s morning update. The subject was Obama’s dreaded liberal internationalism, which Rush of course thinks is a bad thing. I think Obama’s liberal internationalism is a bad thing too, but not just because it is liberal but also because it is internationalist. Rush has no problem with internationalism. He just wants unilateral, bellicose, shoot first internationalism and not that mushy liberal type. There could be nothing more internationalist than spreading democracy by force of arms and telling another sovereign nation what kind of weapons it can or cannot have for the sake of a third nation we supposedly have some obligation to defend.
The sad thing is, Rush really does believe that his brand of bellicose internationalism is the polar opposite of and the conservative alternative to Obama’s alleged liberal internationalism. But it is neither. The true opposite would be a philosophy that rejects internationalism in favor of particularism. Something you might call America First.
For the Rushes of the American “right” internationalism is just assumed. It is taken for granted. They can’t even think in terms that aren’t internationalist. But internationalism of this sort is inherently liberal. (Conservatism can be cosmopolitan. It does not require hostile parochialism, but it rejects the assumptions that underlie modern internationalism.) Conservatism is inherently particularist, nationalist (in the good patriotic sense), regionalist, localist and decentralist. So if Rush wishes to speak for the right he should be countering Obama’s liberal internationalism with conservative particularism, but he is so far from getting that.
Rush brags of having half his brain tied behind his back. Well perhaps he should untie it and make an effort to begin to understand how his bellicose internationalism is neither conservative nor the opposite of the liberal internationalism Obama is peddling.
Dave K on 18 Sep 2009 at 3:23 am #
Exactly right Mr.Phillips. What bugs me the most about Rush is that he acknowledges the ability of the federal government to muck up everything it gets its hands on domestically, yet he thinks when it comes to international affairs the USA is infallibly on the side of the angels! I cannot explain this blind spot of his other than by his naive belief in American exceptionalism. I wonder how many of his listeners buy this nonsense?
Chris Hewlett on 18 Sep 2009 at 3:36 am #
I’m a listener of Rush Limbaugh’s but I don’t buy the nonsense. It is fairly obvious that no one agrees with anyone 100%. I wish Rush would wake up also.
Bede on 18 Sep 2009 at 4:49 am #
Great post!
Chris Hewlett on 18 Sep 2009 at 9:49 am #
Rush told us yesterday that there was nothing fundamentally wrong with Washington, DC but it was just the fact that the wrong people were in charge. He has always said that third parties will just assure us of Democrat victory. We shouldn’t listen to people with the expectation of agreeing with them all the time.
D B Allyn on 18 Sep 2009 at 12:21 pm #
Thankfully, we don’t have Rush on any local radio stations, not that I would listen to him, but I would hear the comments of other “conservatives” about Rush’s insight into whatever “liberal” policy is under attack.
fellist on 18 Sep 2009 at 12:44 pm #
The sad thing is, Rush really does believe that his brand of bellicose internationalism is the polar opposite of and the conservative alternative to Obama’s alleged liberal internationalism.
I doubt it. The man’s an entertainer not a moral philosopher. If we had the benefit of a different culture where anti-interventionist brodcasters were as well-rewarded as pro-interventionists today I think we’d see a different Rush Limbaugh.
S.L. Toddard on 18 Sep 2009 at 3:37 pm #
Both Obama and Rush are proponents of liberal internationalism. The difference is that the former embraces a more multilateral approach, and the latter a unilateral approach. Either way, one is no less “liberal” than the other.
Alice Lillie on 18 Sep 2009 at 11:18 pm #
Rush’s internationalism seems to be like former Pres. Bush’s.
It is the desire for one world government originating in Washington, rather than the U.N.
Not much difference. World government is bad in any case. I’d go the opposit way and take power away from Washington, in favor of the states, then citizens in the states can decide how much power to take away from the state and give it to local government, hopefully with individuals able to use their God-given rights again.
See my blog.
roho on 19 Sep 2009 at 6:07 pm #
As an outside sales rep, my car, radio, and cell phone are my office all day long. Laura Ingram, Neal Boortz, Rush, and Hannity are on from start to finish as I drive in and out of frequency during the day…………..And the enemy of my enemy(liberals), is my friend. But, after awhile you start to hate neocons as bad as liberals! On the rare occasions that paleos call in to dispute a detailed definition of conservatism, these radio neocons cut them off, start a 10 minute rant, then go to a break.(They have NO INTENTIONS of allowing anyone to specify the difference in neocons and paleocons, and always call paleos libertarians!)…..Which I do prefer over neocons..Hannity is the worse!…………..The key is advertising, which is now so abundant on talk radio, that it takes 15 minutes of channel surfing to actually navigate around the damn sponsors! As more sponsors are picked up, the air time has to be pulled from somewhere, and these egomaniacs now take fewer and fewer calls, assuming that the listners wish to hear the host talk nonstop!
Talk radio is not what it was 10-20 years ago, and has evolved into a GOP rant session, political propoganda machine.
mikefromwichita on 21 Sep 2009 at 1:51 pm #
In many ways Limbaugh is a Judas who has done much to destroy what remains of conservative constitutionalism in America.
D B Allyn on 22 Sep 2009 at 1:07 pm #
I appreciate how precise mikefromwichita puts it and only wish the millions of “conservatives” out there could understand that !
James on 23 Sep 2009 at 6:35 pm #
Rush, Hannity and all the rest are worse than useless. As soon as we just acknowledge them as the Republican Party hacks they are the sooner we can get people to move beyond them. Listening to Rush actually makes me sick these days.
Eric on 18 Jul 2010 at 2:09 am #
what the heck? This article has too many big words in it to be comprehensible. Please explain what conservative particularism is in terms a simpleton like me can understand.