12 March 2012

Conservatism Has Jumped the Shark

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about Rush Limbaugh’s debacle over Sandra Fluke.  The worst part, in my opinion, is his apology:

The first apology by Rush Limbaugh, posted on his website over the weekend, sounded forced, qualified, almost defensive. The second, broadcast live on his Monday show, sounded sincere and heartfelt.
Rush Limbaugh did something not usually associated with either himself or bombastic talk radio. He apologized for calling a woman a "slut" and a "prostitute."

The definition of “prosititute” as defined by Merriam-Webster’s (Noun 1a) is “a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse especially for money.”  Since Fluke requested money in order to have sex, it would, by definition, make her a prostitute.  As such, there is no need to apologize to her for using a perfectly accurate and technically correct term.  And that’s what’s so troubling to me.

Ultimately, I see Rush’s apology as the conservative movement’s acquiescence to feminism.  Put another way, conservatism is now subordinate to feminism, which means that conservatism will soon become just another form of Marxist statism.

More proof of conservatism’s subordination to feminism is the way that conservatives trumpet their support for female politicians who have accomplished little of note.  Sarah Palin, for example, was about as qualified to be VP in 2008 as Obamao was to be president, at least per their respective public records.  Bachmann is another overrated female politician who is highly rated by self-styled conservatives, yet there is little in her record to suggest that she would be a conservatizing force.  Yet, conservatives embraced these women in a sad attempt to play the “we’re as cool as leftists now” card.  And so, the conservative movement has gone left.

Incidentally, conservatives are now as Marxist as the leftists, except that they favor the upper class more than the lower class.  (Both leftists and conservatives claim to favor the middle class, though they differ on practical policy.)  They are rhetorically identical, except for their favored classes.  Nonetheless, both play the class card.

Of course, it’s not like this development was overly difficult to anticipate.  Once the neo-cons got ahold of conservatism, and tried to promote their own  brand of government, it seemed obvious that the two differing worldviews were going to merge as one. The conservatives came to favor massive entitlement spending (in the form of Medicare Social Security); the left favors massive entitlement spending (in the form of welfare and Social Security). The right favors government intervention in foreign affairs (imperialist wars); the left favors government intervention in domestic affairs (regulation).  They are two sides of the same coin, and therefore it is only a matter of time until they meld together.

As such, there is no point in siding with the right since it is eventually going to become the left.  Furthermore, there really isn’t any point in differentiating between right and left anymore.  The only real question worth asking is:  what form of big government do I want. The principle has already been established, any further arguing is basically over price.


  1. I don't know if it is as much selling out as being aware of the power of media and leftist threats.

    Here in Canada, we have a conservative majority government, yet Harper doesn't feel the need to reverse decades of liberal social engineering (notably the abortion issue and feminist's reach).

  2. @Lovekraft- not acting on one's principles, or yielding to someone else's principles because it's profitable to do so is pretty much my personal definition of selling out. If the shoe fits and all that.