First Bush, Now Rush - How Conservatives are Becoming America's Scapegoat

What's a crazed liberal to do now that Bush is no longer in office? Who will they blame for America's perceived failures? Where will they direct their incessant anger? The answer was given last week.

Recently:

Mr Obama has told Republicans in Washington to stop listening to the right-wing talk show host Rush Limbaugh, risking a new culture war with conservative voters.

His exhortation came as he enraged other Republicans by reversing George W Bush's ban on funding international aid to charities that perform or provide information about abortions.

The notion that the new President of the United States, in only his first week in office, would seem so preoccupied with a radio talk show host, instead of the impending economic calamity or other matters of more pressing concern has caused pundits from both sides of the spectrum to wonder aloud as to why President Obama would call out Rush Limbaugh publicly. Overwhelmingly, these pundits characterize Obama's invocation of Limbaugh as a "mistake". Just yesterday, the New York Post reported:

Obama has signaled the end of Bush Derangement Syndrome - the defining mental illness of the Democrats for eight years - and ushered in the age of Rush Derangement Syndrome.

You would think that victories in the presidential race and Congress would be enough for the Left. But no. Like Captain Ahab, Sen. Lindsay Graham still bristles at the "loud folks" in conservative talk radio. Democrats even drafted a petition denouncing Limbaugh last week, showing that trying to save the economy doesn't wait for petty personal attacks.

And from BostonHerald.com:

Now media and political analysts say the new commander in chief made a whopper of a mistake.

“He’s the president of the United States and all Rush Limbaugh is is a radio talk show host,” said Michael Harrison, publisher of Talkers Magazine. “Once again, Rush Limbaugh raises the stature of our industry to the world stage.”

Professor Thomas Patterson of Harvard’s Kennedy School said Obama’s snark “elevates” Limbaugh as a figure. “It strikes me that the president of the United States singles you out, somehow that means you are a counter-figure on some level. That’s a mistake.”

Brian Maloney, author of the Radio Equalizer blog, called it a political blunder of “epic proportions,” noting the story was picked up worldwide.

“Obama has now basically said that ‘my key political opposition is Rush Limbaugh,’ ” said Maloney, who said Limbaugh’s ratings were probably five times higher than normal yesterday. “He must have been popping champagne corks over the weekend.”

But Colby College government professor G. Calvin Mackenzie said he wouldn’t read “too much strategy” into the feud from Obama’s perspective. “Sometimes an offhand comment looks like something that’s been carefully thought out, and I’m not sure that’s the case,” Mackenzie said.

It may very well have been a "mistake". But it was clearly not offhand as Mackenzie implies. It was most certainly intentional as evidenced by Obama's proxy dogs of war who have taken the "mistake" and run with it.

Americans United for Change, a liberal group, will begin airing radio ads in three states Obama won — Ohio, Pennsylvania and Nevada — with a tough question aimed at the GOP senators there: Will you side with Obama or Rush Limbaugh?

“Every Republican member of the House chose to take Rush Limbaugh’s advice,” says the narrator after playing the conservative talk radio giant’s declaration that he hopes Obama “fails.”

“Every Republican voted with Limbaugh — and against creating 4 million new American jobs. We can understand why a extreme partisan like Rush Limbaugh wants President Obama’s Jobs program to fail — but the members of Congress elected to represent the citizens in their districts? That’s another matter. Now the Obama plan goes to the Senate, and the question is: Will our Senator"—here the ad is tailored by state to name George Voinovich in Ohio, Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania, and John Ensign in Nevada—"side with Rush Limbaugh too?”

Barack Obama has intentionally brought Rush Limbaugh into the political fray. This was no rookie mistake. The question is, why?

The aforementioned New York Post article asked the same question:

Why did Obama - who told House GOP leaders "you can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done" - even bring him up?

It could have been unscripted, one of the president's first political misspeaks. Or it could have been calculated (rather miscalculated), an effort to drive a wedge between Beltway Republicans and the outside-the-beltway king.

I think it points to a neurosis on the part of Democrats. By defining themselves more by who they oppose rather than who they are, they find themselves lost without an enemy.

This author believes there is more to it than offered by the New York Post. Something significantly more calculating. The Obama regime, now that it can no longer unite its minions via their hatred for George W. Bush and his perceived representation of the conservative American, is in desperate need of a new political scapegoat. Such is how all great totalitarian regimes have created and maintained their power.

During the first half of last century, fascist movements shared one common characteristic. Fascists often blamed their countries’ problems on scapegoats. Jews, Freemasons, Marxists, and immigrants were prominent among the groups that were demonized. Of course, the most notable scapegoat in the history of fascism was the Jew. For Hitler, using Jews as a scapegoat was perfectly logical--Jews were indeed omnipresent in European intellectual society, plus they already had a long history of being scapegoated.

Much like the Jew, the conservative, during the past 50 years of American history, has been demonized as the root of all that is wrong with America. And with George W. Bush now out of the picture, fascist liberals no longer have a face to attach to the "evil" conservative movement. So in an attempt to continue the scapegoating of the conservative, Obama has deliberately chosen to demonize the most high-profile conservative in America, Rush Limbaugh.

As mentioned earlier, Obama's inclusion of Rush Limbaugh in the political dialogue is no mistake, and it is now new. Last May, Obama spoke of Limbaugh:

At a fundraiser in Florida Thursday night, Barack Obama accused anti-immigrant crusaders Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh of "ginning things up" to such an extent that there was a rise in hate crimes against Hispanics last year.

"A certain segment has basically been feeding a kind of xenophobia. There's a reason why hate crimes against Hispanic people doubled last year," Obama said. "If you have people like Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh ginning things up, it's not surprising that would happen."

The Democrat party has no ideas that can, by themselves, garner the support of the American people. Their rise to power, and the maintenance of that power is wholly dependent on a convenient scapegoat. Conservative Americans have become that scapegoat (whether it be in the form of "the wealthy", evangelicals, or Wall Street bankers). For 8 years, George W. Bush served as the face of all that was wrong with America. But now, he is gone. So until a more prominent conservative figure comes along, Rush Limbaugh will serve as the face of the demon. And efforts to scapegoat conservatives will intensify. We are the new Jew.