From: aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush in the National Review
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:01:16 GMT
Organization: Indiana University


In <LARRY.92Sep27131245@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
>   >1) Clinton/Gore are moderates (even George Will admits that).

>	   But this is a statement of opinion (yours and George Will's),
>   not a statement of fact.  The terms "left", "moderate", and "right" are
>   certainly relative, and probably meaningless.

>So true. When you are far enough to the right, moderates are leftists.
>That's my major bitch with Rush, the Republican party, and many so-called
>"conservatives" posting to this newsgroup: lack of moderate viewpoints.

	What you seem to be decrying is not the lack of moderation, but 
the lack of simple tolerance.  I think that this is a real problem, not
simply in this newsgroup, but in our society as a whole.  Too many people 
listen selectively and leap to conclusions.  The opposite of moderate is
not liberal or conservative, but radical.  The radical is dissatisfied
with society because it does not instantly recognize the correctness of
his agenda.  He is impatient with anyone who doubts him.  A certain degree of
radicalism may be necessary for the survival of a particular creed, but
absolutism is seldom warranted. 
	By my statement, I meant to point out that while one man finds Clinton 
(or, say, Bush) moderate, another might find him unacceptably liberal, while
still another may dtermine that he is far too conservative.  Each of these
points of view is legitimate. 
               	
>Everything is simple black and white to Rush and his herd of Dittobrains;
>all Republicans are good, all Demos are bad, all conservatives are good,
>all liberals are evil, and anyone not 100% for Rush is the enemy. No
>middle ground is tolerated.

	Maybe this is true at times, but humor often requires that the
truth be exaggerated.  Rush Limbaugh is popular because he is entertaining,
and only secondarily because he is conservative.  

>   anyone who actually believes that a politician can make his life better
>   maintain this illusion at his own risk.  Though the principles upon which
>   this country was founded are noble, they have not been heeded, just as
>   Benjamin Franklin feared.  Modern Americans really do deserve the brutality

>Funny you mention Benjamin Franklin. A *real* character, who liked to run
>around bare assed naked [in Paris], and did all sorts of "naughty" things
>with the ladies. Inarguably a great man, I wonder how he would stand up to
>the modern politics of the bible thumping, self-righteous, puritanical
>Right? Ben would probably be out campaigning for Jerry Brown if he were
>around today. And, unlike Clinton, Ben would definitely know how to inhale.

	Why is it "funny" that I mention Ben Franklin?  I consider him to be
a man of great character, whose intellect has few rivals throughout history.
Of course, I define character as being something different from one's sexual
history or drug use.  I have often expressed my agreement on this newsgroup 
with certain points of conservatism, but I would be reluctant to call myself
a conservative.  Still, is it not a bit puritanical to presume that I am
a dogmatist because I disagree with Clinton?  
	I'm not sure that I can picture Ben Franklin campaigning for 
Jerry Brown, but stranger things have happened.

>   and hardship that they have prepared for themselves, but future generations
>   don't.  I have resigned myself to the likelihood that there will be no
>   nation, no small corner of this Earth, where there will not be a small
>   man with a ledger-book, waiting to transcribe the private facts of my 
>   life.  Bureaucracy is metastatizing, and soon these small men will be 
>   clogging our oceans and jungles.  

>They already are. They're called *management* in most corners, and a large
>part of what's wrong with the world nowadays. It's all part of Me Now, and
>the corporate grab. In a few years, the small businessman will be a rare
>critter indeed. (No matter that 2/3 of the non-government jobs are
>supplied by small business..)

	I have similar worries about the power of big business to do away
with entreprenuership.  Large corporations often collude with government 
policy-makers to do this.  What an argument for less bureaucracy!

>   Such a melancholy age it is becoming, one in which everything of 
>   value must be secreted. It is this way that a great people fall.   It seems
>   so unalarming and natural. The people demand tyrants: they shall have them.

>Tyrrants? The ones I'm worried about are the Fambly Values crowd, who keep
>insisting that we are a Christian nation, instead of a nation with true 
>religious freedom.

The religious instinct is something that a tyrant always uses, but he relies
on the decadence of the masses to do this.  By decadence I mean not the decay
of "family values" so much as the rise of vices which are seldom condemned
in these days of material comfort, such as sloth, and a corrosive atomistic
individualism.  We are a shockingly wasteful people.  The fact that the people
have abandoned the laws of the heart because of technological advance means
that the government will eventually step in and regulate our live still further.We have become inured to outrageous acts of violence. 
	The tyrant must have control over the economy and industrial functions.
This we are gradually ceding to the government, and by so doing, giving away
our freedom.  The tyrant usually appeals to a vague and inflexible morality, but
he gains power because the people have decided that they can no longer afford
to rule themselves.  Take Weimar Germany as an example.  The German people 
decided democratically to abolish the democratic process.
	Often the tyrant is a demagogue.  He manipulates a latent public
anti-intellectualism.  This is also a common characteristic of democratic
politics.  Clinton attacks "the rich," just as FDR attacked "economic
royalists," and Bush tries to paint Clinton as an egghead Oxford guy, just
as Eisenhower's compatriots did Stevenson.
	To criticise the morals of a people is not necessarily intolerant.
Jimmy Carter tried to address the modern spiritual crisis 13 years ago, and
was ridiculed for daring to blame the American citizen for any of our country's
problems.  Other great leaders throughout history have done so, often at
great peril to their fortunes, because they loved civilization and humanity,
not because they wish to impose an arbitrary set of rules on anyone.  Very
few of them have been heeded.  

Andrew Aiken  
 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,talk.politics.misc