Limbaugh wrong on identity & Trump’s victory

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh claimed on his program today that “This election had nothing to do with White people who want their country back on racial grounds.” He repeated this point several times in the first hour of his show, employing the tried-and-failed “Dems are the real racists” argument. Limbaugh went on to say it was just abstract ideas – the rejection of socialism and embrace of the free market – that motivated Trump voters and not identity. It was an ideological election, Rush declared, not an uprising by working class Whites.

This analysis misses the mark entirely. Identity, sometimes implicit and sometimes out in the open, was central to Trump’s win. It was why the rising Alt-Right took notice of him and made him their champion. It is why a Southern nationalist like me, after not voting in a very long time, voted for Trump and helped his campaign in other ways. The Donald ran on throwing out free trade deals and giving his voters (the working middle class) their fair share of the government spoils. He ran on keeping Social Security and breaking up Big Media. None of these are free market proposals. The US Left is experienced in identity politics and they immediately recognized what Trump was doing. But rather than back down and apologize like a cuckservative he always hit back harder and his voters loved him for it.

Limbaugh did make a somewhat redeeming point about how Democrats encourage identity politics for all racial groups except for Whites. He asked what is wrong with White people considering their interests as a group.

But on the whole Limbaugh’s comments underscore the point my friend Hunter Wallace at Occidental Dissent frequently makes – Conservatism, Inc. is useless and must be dismantled and replaced with genuine nationalism. The Classical Liberalism at the core of US Conservatism, Inc. needs to be replaced with actual Rightist ideas and values – not first generation liberal values. This is especially true in Dixie. We can not afford to pretend that our politics are about Adam Smith when truly they are about Wade Hampton. We can not act as if our cause is tax cuts or privatizing Social Security when really it is our survival and that of our civilization.

rush_limbaugh5

7 Comments

·

Leave a Reply

  1. Yeah, who would’ve guessed that communist negro on CNN would be the only one in the MSM to accurately articulate what Trump’s election was all about…whitelash?

    Like

    • Actually, GP, it is frequently that we are betrayed by those who seem friendly, or, at least, somewhat to us, and that we are best served by some of our most trenchant enemies.

      For that reason, I make a point of regularly listening to our most ardent enemies.

      On that score, I can only say that Minister Louis Farrakhan was not only more clear about the recent election, both as to it’s meaning and it’s candidates, than were most of the other negro leaders, he was more so than many of our distant and ‘expert’ brethren.

      Like

  2. I remember when Limbaugh said that as a Missouri man, he supported the South. Then he went on to qualify that by saying that he didn’t support the Confederacy and wasn’t “racist©.” The enemy troops from Illinois, who occupied his hometown of Cape Girardeau, Missouri, during the war, probably weren’t checking on the local’s level of love or hatred for blacks.

    Like

  3. I suspect Limbaugh is partly right. For most of the Rust Belt voters, it was about jobs and trade. For the New Hampshire voters (even though it wasn’t enough to win the state) it probably was about the heroin epidemic (brought in by the libertarian Free State Project). For us in the South it was overwhelmingly about immigration. Notice Wisconsin and Iowa did not go for trump during the Republican primary, so white identity probably is not what drove them to vote for Trump over Hillary in the general. It’s possible that many Midwest voters were ok with brown immigration as long as it wasn’t muslim, so went for Trump just because of the muslim ban.

    Like

    • I think Mr. Davis is on to something. I can only say that, in my part of the country – the oldest part of The Confederacy – the northeastern part of North Carolina that was the immediate outgrowth of the Jamestown Colony – it was very racial for many people.

      Now, let me be perfectly clear, here, many would not speak it out in such bold terms, though, you just knew, both from listening to their conversation on the matter, and from knowing them, that it was so.

      In fact, for many the racial aspect was not chiefly about immigration, though, that certainly was a concern, it was about returning the New England Government to White Hands.

      The economy was a very distant concern to race.

      As to the North, I must make a division, as New Englanders are, almost to a man, completely dedicated to the notion of anti-race; and, hence, for those from The Granite State, ’twas most certainly about ABOUT the economy.

      Now, as to The Midwest, race was an issue – whether from rural Western Pennsylvania and New York or the central and Southern parts of Ohio, Indiana, and central and northern parts of Michigan, where I happen to know of a great deal of secessionist sympathy, though, in their case, I believe the economy, cultural issues, and the illegality of the present administration of The New England Government was, also, big concerns.

      Like

  4. Dear Mr. Cushman,
    Rush Limbaugh is a fascinating man, and I have enjoyed him for years. That said, though he comes from the southeastern part of Missouri, he is a scalawag, or if not, as close as you can be, without being one.

    His sole purpose, now that Hillary has been defeated, is to rejuvenate The GOP; and, to do that, he will make every attempt to pander to posture the Republican position, to the nation as being social moral (anti-racist) and financially constructive.

    He may be successful in that, as so many in the 50 states, are in a blithering funk over the notions of race. On the other hand, he may not be, as, if Mr. Trump is viewed as successful, in his tenure, he will leave a Republican Party owned by Trumpist populists.

    If I were a betting man, I would say what I said a few months back : The Republican Party is either going to become something quite new, or else it is finisht as a major party.

    Perhaps most ironically, The Trump agenda is almost identical (sans the integration plank) the same platform of ideas that constituted the Dixiecrat platform of the 1968 George Wallace run for president.

    In fact, when I mentioned that in a group, an octagenarian friend of mine, who workt on the Wallace campaign of that year, confirmed that, indeed, it is so.

    Quite right you are about identity and about survival. Unfortunately, 75 years of Jewish run -New England Government corporate media has created such a toxick environment, even many fine thinkers, such as Limbaugh, have a difficult time working their way around it; and so they remain largely in denial about it, as the cost of acknowledging would seem too dear.

    Ironically, those these conservative pundits fear most, The Left, already, as you implied, think the ‘worst’ of them, already – so the masquerade is one largely born in and perpetuated in their own mind.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s