{"id":4311,"date":"2016-02-01T19:53:18","date_gmt":"2016-02-01T19:53:18","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2016-02-01T19:53:18","modified_gmt":"2016-02-01T19:53:18","slug":"we_live_in_a_tumultuous_political_time_but_i_ve_seen_this_public_anger_before","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2016\/02\/01\/we_live_in_a_tumultuous_political_time_but_i_ve_seen_this_public_anger_before\/","title":{"rendered":"We Live in a Tumultuous Political Time \u00c2\u2013 But I\u00c2\u2019ve Seen This Public Anger Before"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Listen<\/a><\/p>\n

RUSH: Media Buzz is the name of the show, Sunday morning, Fox News Channel, Howard Kurtz speaking with a Republican strategist named Mercedes Schlapp about the primary race, and his question was, “Trump does get criticized frequently on Fox by some of the more prominent conservative commentators: Dr. Krauthammer, George Will, Jonah Goldberg, Steve Hayes. And then there\u2019s the National Review and Rich Lowry, which devoted a whole issue trying to say he\u2019s not really a conservative. But those aren\u2019t the only conservative voices, and some are sympathetic to Trump, Ms. Schlapp.”<\/p>\n

SCHLAPP: The Trump supporters, if Trump is not happy with Fox, the Trump supporters are not gonna be happy with Fox, and so what\u2019s happening is that, for example, like Rush Limbaugh, they have been more sympathetic —<\/line><\/p>\n

KURTZ: Breitbart.<\/p>\n

SCHLAPP: — and Breitbart — towards Trump and what Trump\u2019s populist movement is doing in affecting and impacting the electorate. And so in essence what\u2019s happening is is that you have just this conservative grassroots base that really, they\u2019re listening to the talk radio, they\u2019re mad at Fox, especially those Trump supporters when Trump is not happy with the network.<\/p>\n

RUSH: So Ms. Schlapp here is saying that El Rushbo and talk radio have more — this is in her opinion — more influence than Fox and conservative writers. I mean, that\u2019s one way of looking at it. I think it\u2019s more about alignment. Folks, it all boils down to who people think is the establishment and the elites and who they think isn\u2019t. It really isn\u2019t any more complicated than that, I don\u2019t believe. And the thing about the establishment, the elites is, I think they underestimate — I know they do — the sophistication of people that are not in their immediate orb, but they underestimate intelligence. They certainly underestimate the degree to which people think independently and are not the product of influence that stems from commentary or what have you. <\/p>\n

And I think even if you wanted to take it deeper than that, I think it also boils down to who people, let\u2019s call \u2019em voters, think is gonna fight for \u2019em and who isn\u2019t. And it\u2019s one thing to be a great conservative writer, and it\u2019s one thing to be a great conservative commentator, no matter where you are, but if that\u2019s all there is, then what good is it doing people. This is the view I think people out in the rest of the country have of all this. Yeah, there\u2019s some real brainiacs out there, some great commentators, we got some great columnists, but then what? What happens? <\/line><\/p>\n

They never counsel fighting the Democrats. It\u2019s largely a question of okay, what\u2019s it getting me? And it\u2019s not just these guys. You could say it about any conservative or Republican institution in Washington who\u2019s been out selling themselves, promising this or that. People are starting to say, “Well, where is it? Where is all this conservatism that I hear all the time? I don\u2019t see any of it in Congress, or much. I don\u2019t see any in the Senate at all. Where is it? Yeah, we got a lot of it on Fox, and, yeah, we got a lot of blogs, and, yeah, we got a lot of websites, but where is it beyond that?” <\/p>\n

“Yes, yes, Mr. Limbaugh, but what about talk radio?” Well, talk radio is considered to be in the mix each and every day. Talk radio is certainly not the establishment. It would never be permitted to be. No way in the world would it ever be permitted to be, unless, you know, it\u2019s NPR or a couple of other exceptions. But this all boils down to this campaign is not hard to understand. Arguments about populism — I continue to be misquoted about this. <\/p>\n

<\/a>I never said, by the way, just to get it on record, I never stated with ontological certitude or fact that populism and nationalism have triumphed or replaced conservatism. I never said it. I asked the question in speculating<\/a>, thinking out loud here while discussing all this with you, and that question gets cherry-picked and reprinted by itself without any notation that I\u2019m asking the question, not making a declarative statement, or what have you. I never, ever said it. Populism\u2019s always had an appeal and so has nationalism. And I understand why they have appeals. <\/p>\n

It\u2019s very simple. Populism and nationalism translated is: gonna make America great again. I hate to say it, but it\u2019s how it gets translated. We\u2019re gonna make America great again. America\u2019s gonna win. We\u2019re gonna win. America\u2019s gonna win. We\u2019re gonna win. We\u2019re gonna win. America\u2019s great. We\u2019re gonna restore America\u2019s greatness. It\u2019s very simple, versus a lot of conservatism, which is, “Well, you know, we can\u2019t \u2019cause Obama\u2019s in the White House. Well, we can\u2019t because we don\u2019t have the Senate. Well, we can\u2019t.” It comes to doers versus talkers. I mean, there\u2019s any number of ways that you can look at it. But to me, it\u2019s one of the most fascinating times, politically, of the entire 27, now into our 28th year, that I have been hosting the program. <\/p>\n

And I\u2019ll tell you, folks, you want to know one of the things that was happening that contributed in putting this program on the map, was something akin to what\u2019s happening now. Back in 1988 when this program started it wasn\u2019t long after that we learned about the House Bank and the House Post Office. And my first-ever appearance on TV as a host of a radio show was on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer and Judy Woodruff, and it was about the House Bank. <\/p>\n

Now, if you\u2019ve forgotten, the House Bank scandal was — and its point was so easy to understand. Members of Congress could go to the House Bank and write checks for cash without having the money in their account to do so. Some members of Congress were overdrawn tens of thousands of dollars. It was to the point that it didn\u2019t matter how much they were paid salary, didn\u2019t matter what their income was, because they didn\u2019t have to live on it. And both parties. But it was easy to understand. I remember being asked to go on — it was Judy Woodruff that interviewed me, it was my first ever time on one of these shows. <\/p>\n

And they were, “Why do people care about this?” They didn\u2019t understand it back then. And Judy Woodruff — and she was nice, don\u2019t misunderstand. This is before she learned enough about who I was to hate me. They were very nice. Very supportive, in fact. I was the new kid on the block. Who is this young little whippersnapper? Why, we\u2019ve never heard of this little guy out there talking conservatism, who\u2019s this little class clown? So they had me in there and she said, “Why is this such a big deal to people, Mr. Limbaugh? I don\u2019t understand.” <\/p>\n

I said, “Because the average American can\u2019t do this.” If the average American tried, he\u2019d be thrown out by his bank and maybe end up in jail, for crying out loud, and his creditors would be coming after you. There\u2019s no way. You go to the bank and you write checks for money you don\u2019t have, you get an overdraft notice, and you\u2019re shut down. And these guys can do it all the time, they can do it for years, and it doesn\u2019t matter whether they\u2019ve got the money or not. I said, “Ms. Woodruff, this is so easily understandable, there\u2019s nothing complicated about it. The American people can\u2019t do it, and they\u2019re not gonna put up with it.” <\/line><\/p>\n

Well, her guest following me was a congressman from Michigan named Guy Vander Jagt. And when my segment was over, they went to Guy Vander Jagt, and he raised his index finger. He was on from Washington. I did my appearance from my PBS studios in New York, same place Charlie Rose was doing his show then. May have been the same place, I don\u2019t know. Guy Vander Jagt looked at Judy Woodruff and pointed his index finger. He said, “Whoever that was, this radio guy, I\u2019m telling you, that is exactly right. This is so easily understandable.”<\/p>\n

And, folks, the lid was blown off this, and it was in part the reason Jim Wright lost his Speakership. And then we learned it wasn\u2019t just the House Bank, there was the House post office, and you could do similar things there. You know what you could do? <\/p>\n