‘Mr. Obama, Tear Down These Walls!’
Rush Limbaugh's speech at CPAC was reminiscent of President Ronald Reagan's speech at the Berlin Wall.
When Rush Limbaugh addressed CPAC on February 28, his detractors heard the same old “brash” speech they always hear when he speaks. Astute political commentators like Whoopi Goldberg called it “crappy,” and even RNC Chair Michael Steele, a conservative by almost any measure, called some of Limbaugh’s comments “ugly.”
Although Steele has retracted his criticism, he and those criticizing Limbaugh’s address missed something very important: this was Limbaugh’s moment. It was his equivalent to President Ronald Reagan’s speech at the Berlin Wall on June 12, 1987. And just as Reagan called on Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down” that wall, Limbaugh spent a considerable amount of time calling for Obama to tear down the walls he has erected between Americans and their freedom.
When Reagan spoke in Berlin in 1987, he said:
Behind me stands a wall that encircles the free sectors of this city, part of a vast system of barriers that divides the entire continent of Europe. … [And] as long as this scar of a wall is permitted to stand, it is not the German question alone that remains open, but the question of freedom for all mankind.
He spoke of the liberty-quenching nature of communism and voiced his conviction that:
Just as truth can flourish only when the journalist is given freedom of speech, so prosperity can come about only when the farmer and businessman enjoy economic freedom.
And Reagan, ever the Great Communicator, illustrated the distinction between free nations and those that are not, through an appeal to history:
Where four decades ago there was rubble, today in West Berlin there is the greatest industrial output of any city in Germany — busy office blocks, fine homes and apartments, proud avenues, and the spreading lawns of parkland. … Where there was want, today there’s abundance. … [But] in the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind — too little food.
Reagan hated communism, and he wanted it to fail because he recognized it as a tool used by tyrants and egomaniacs set on ruling instead of representing their citizens. Not surprisingly, his criticism of communism was called “crappy” in its own way, and to this day there are still attempts to explain it away as one of Reagan’s lesser moments by writers like NPR’s Will Bunch.
Limbaugh’s goal at CPAC couldn’t have been more consistent with Reagan’s goal in Berlin. And like Reagan, he spoke according to his convictions rather than polls when he said, “Our beliefs are not the result of calculations and contrivances. Our beliefs are not the result of a deranged psychology. Our beliefs are our core.”
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
AWR Hawkins is a conservative writer who holds a Ph.D. in military history from Texas Tech University.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
37 Comments
1. Mongoose:Well, all I can say is “Fat Chance”.
These people are totalitarian Marxist-Leninists.
This country is in the mess it is in mostly because of them, worse is et to come.
Mar 8, 2009 - 4:22 am 2. Meryl:OK. It’s official.
Now that we have Whoopi’s comment that Rush’s speech was “crappy”, the diagnosis is in. They’re all suffering from Rush Derangement Syndrome.
Whatever will they say if Rush gets on the air tomorrow and asserts that spring is coming?
Mar 8, 2009 - 4:27 am 3. Wadeusaf:I cannot understand how anyone who enjoys the freedom we have in the United States of America, would want the American Dream to fail. I hope America succeeds, which must mean by their very condemnation that I too hope President Obama fails.
Mar 8, 2009 - 4:41 am 4. ~Paules:In fact I hope he fails quickly and either resigns or finds some way to rescind as much of the damage he has already inflicted on the citizens and the constitution he swore to protect and defend.
There are those who purposefully refuse to get it. They are not worth the PHD they’re reputations get printed on. Thank you Mr. Hawkins for drawing such a fine comparison.
Rush is so reactionary that he traces his personal philosophy all the way back to the Bill of Rights. In a nutshell: Personal liberty is guaranteed by placing strict limits on government. How hard is that to understand?
Mr. Obama has stated that he wishes to see the Constitution as a statement of “positive rights.” It sounds innocuous on the surface to a public unwilling to consider the price.
The battle comes down to a this or that. Rush is de facto leader of the conservative movement because he was the only one with the guts to pick up the banner when it fell. The troops are beginning to rally. Republicans in congress need to listen.
Mar 8, 2009 - 5:55 am 5. MPHobgood:God bless Rush and God bless you, AWR Hawkins , for this article.
Mar 8, 2009 - 6:08 am 6. JackT:MPHobgood, Rush is going to need all the God-blessing he can get, cuz the devil’s got a hold on his fat ass. Keep it up Rush, we love it, no better poster boy for the GOP than a fat, loudmouthed, angry, hate-filled, racist, dressed in black.
Mar 8, 2009 - 6:56 am 7. Jeff:Rush’s speech wasn’t perfect, but the parts Hawkins has picked up on were. This is a fine article and I’m sure Rush is thrilled to be contrasted with Ronaldus Maximus.
Mar 8, 2009 - 7:58 am 8. Anonymous:too bad coward jack t can’t realize it takes one to know one. All the hate and racism is on the left.
Mar 8, 2009 - 8:08 am 9. Bill N:JackT,
Mar 8, 2009 - 8:17 am 10. Rotwang:Since all you seem able to do is insult the messenger, I can only assume that you have no logical rebuttal to the message.
Actually, Rush’s CPAC speech was a lot closer in form, setting and situation to P. T. Barnum’s euology at the funeral of Jumbo, the enormous performing pachyderm who was killed by a locomotive. Both men offered heartfelt, over-the-top, stentorian praise for a large dead thing that was urgently in need of burial, lest the crowd be overwhelmed by its roiling stink.
The parallels, of course, are broader than that. Both Limbaugh and Barnum occupy the same economic niche-role and employ an identical business model: Bang the drums, rile up the rubes, regale them with tales of magic, Arabian silks, mythical beasts, forbidden dances and feral jungle women — then sell them a ticket to see an aging, tattooed prostitute and a sabre-toothed, feathered chimera assembled from chicken-wire, angora and rendering-plant castoffs.
Limbaugh, like Barnum, knows his show is bunkum, but he loves the smell of peanuts and the sound of the calliope. And as long as it sells a bazillion dollars of hardwood flooring, adjustable mattresses, offsite data storage and chewable zinc “cold lozenges” (which Rush will gamely pitch, even when he himself is dripping snot and hocking up lung-nodes), he doesn’t give a rat’s ass that he’s duped you, as long as the gate receipts are solid. As every great showman knows in his bones, you can only con people who WANT to be conned — and what is so evil about giving the people what they want?
Did you ever notice that Rush never ventures forth to walk among his unwashed, living-wage listeners? Call me a cynic, but my guess is that a fortress-dwelling millionaire who spends a trucker’s annual salary on hand-rolled cigars and pedicures would likely be repelled by the sweaty, Skoal-sucking, deer-hunting, Ford-driving fan-base that paid for his private jet and his drug-romps in the DR. In fact, I guarantee that Rush will never meet any of his down-home, John-Galt-wannabee groupies in-person, unless they happen to be cleaning toilets in the Clubhouse at Bay Hill.
Mar 8, 2009 - 8:33 am 11. Bill N:Rotwang:
Mar 8, 2009 - 8:50 am 12. JL:Since all you seem able to do is insult the messenger, I can only assume that you have no logical rebuttal to the message.
Rotwang.
Mar 8, 2009 - 9:45 am 13. JL:Please explain how building bridges and roads will put money in the hands of borrowers and bond owners that have lost money because of a huge interest rate hike from 2003-2005 thus causing a liquidity crisis that is destroying the banking system and denying consumers and producers the means to exchange goods and services?
Sorry about the question mark. I would still like an answer from Rotwang to the question.
Mar 8, 2009 - 9:53 am 14. HLH:Great piece. Brings back memories of one the greatest of men, Ronald Reagan.
Mar 8, 2009 - 10:13 am 15. Rotwang:11. Bill N
The “message” — that Obama is an America-hating closet-Communist who wants to destroy our financial infrastructure and reduce all of us to serfdom — defeats itself. What chance does a penniless tyrant have against 300 million starving, pissed-off, well-armed citizens? C’mon, Bill, don’t be a right-wing douche.
George Bush, John McCain or Ronald Reagan would be doing exactly the same things. Cut taxes for the wealthy and rollback services? Fine, if you don’t mind firing millions of Federal workers who STILL draw pensions and benefits for not working. Implement a flat-tax? Fine, except that you’ve just ruined a million CPAs, and slashed the IRS workforce by 70%. Drastically reduce SS, Medicare, Medicaid and disability outlays? Works for me, as long as you can explain to me how “The Invisible Hand” is going to replace all the money you just vanished out of the system, and deal with millions of starving, sick Americans with no safety net.
Rush is a substance-free loud-mouth, an advertising pitch-man without a conscience. He’s all for a massive die-offs, riots in the streets, escalating home invasions, food shortages, cannibalism and Civil War — just as long as the downside doesn’t ripple as far as Palm Beach, or interrupt his daily foot-rub.
I’m sure he’s grateful to all the truckers, farmers, machinists and security guards he fluffs and panders to on his daily broadcast. I’m also 100% sure he won’t miss any of you, should he succeed in sabotaging your only hope of economic recovery.
Mar 8, 2009 - 10:48 am 16. Rotwang:12. JL — Please explain to me how two years of interest rate hikes created $7 trillion in bad mortgages and $600 trillion in CDS liabilities. Or are you just high?
Look — make-work projects aren’t going to save America. They’re only going to buy us time for a decent going-away party. Be grateful for that.
Capitalism, “free trade” and a global economy have finally brought us to their inevitable theoretical end-point. Everything falls apart, only the wicked win…and the rest of us need to wrap our heads around the notion that we are all Bangalore now. America has no monopoly on technology, talent or resources, so the whole “exceptionalism” thing is just so much sentimental bullshit. Corporations have no geographic loyalty, so whatever is left of “nations” will be reduced to cutting sweetheart deals and outbidding the labor costs submitted by Zimbabwe and The Sudan.
America would be dead, even if Sarah Palin were President. What’s happening is bigger than politics or policies, and in the end it’s all going to come down to how crazy we’re willing to get with our stockpile of nukes. That’s our only hope, ’cause we don’t have another chip in the game.
For those of you who think you’re John Galt, and Rusty is Captain America and the United States is a just, honest, righteous and shining City-On-a-Hill — well, good luck and fare forward, sucker. You bought the dream, now chew on it.
Mar 8, 2009 - 11:09 am 17. Scott M:wrecking the economy and increasing misery is not a “bug” of leftism, it’s a “feature.”
Leftists are the people that would rather make $50k when the average wage is $25k than make $100k when the average wage is $200k. They are angry bitter people, similar to a stereotypical ex-wife, whose great joy comes from inflicting “justice” on her former love, without regard for the objective benefit/penalty of either party.
Mar 8, 2009 - 11:28 am 18. Horace Wells:Mongoose
Try a little vocabulary building cause calling people Marxist Leninist totalitarians doee make some people think you are a crackpot.
Ronald Reagan never told jokes, supposedly self effacing, about how God thinks he is Reagan.
Anyone who needs a fat anti-intellectual bully who insults and speaks in gross over generlizations to tell him what and how to think is a person of negligible intelligence and integrity, a simple herd animal.
Like I said before, stick a flag and label it Reagan and I can sell lawn sausages as Italian sausages to con-tards
Mar 8, 2009 - 12:46 pm 19. Robert:Great parallel between the two speeches. As Rush would say, “Right on, Right on, Right on.”
Mar 8, 2009 - 1:22 pm 20. one of my own:Holy Jesus! Rush is now Reagan. Perfect. Wow, you folks are selling The Gipper’s legacy at rock bottom prices. The cult of personality around Reagan is beyond respect or contribution, it’s a self-generating myth machine. Kind of like Elvis but without the fried banana sandwiches. And now you’ve gone and discounted Double-R so deep that he’s now being flogged to promote some drug-addled gas bag. what are you thinking . . . comparing the “Great Communicator” to this thrice divorced admitted junkie who used his maid as drug mule? this Viagra-popping Whore Monger of the Dominican Republic? This . . . That . . . the other . . . Rush . . . Hail Rush . . . Vote fore Rush . . . Support Rush . . . listen to Rush . . . do what Rush says . . . Believe Rush . . . a-a-a-a-n-n-n-n-d-d-d SNAP!
That’s good . . . How you feeling?
Mar 8, 2009 - 2:35 pm 21. Bill N:Rot:
Mar 8, 2009 - 2:39 pm 22. ~Paules:Once again, insulting me only makes it plain that you have no argument worth reading. If you have something cogent to say, say it. If you don’t, keep on insulting people and exposing the vacancy of your hate-filled philosophy.
I come back after a few hours to check the comment thread and put my foot square in a pile of troll poo. Good God, it’s everywhere! Someone get me a shovel. Nay, this job will need a bulldozer.
Mar 8, 2009 - 4:32 pm 23. Wendy Weinbaum:O ne
B ig
A ss
M istake
A merica!
Mar 8, 2009 - 4:49 pm 24. Middleman:Rush Limbaugh’s fat bloated pill popping body is the symbol of everything that’s wrong with the Republican party.
Mar 8, 2009 - 5:36 pm 25. Richard P:For a bunch of intellectual, well educated leftists, the use of ad hominem arguments shows significant weakness in your argument. I am no fan of Obama, but will not sink to calling him names when I can use effective arguments against his speeches and policies. Raising taxes during a recession on those that invest to promote growth, only suppresses growth. To think that your policies will not affect the habits of the people invested in companies seems naive. The bad part is that almost everyone is invested in the market. To ignore the affects of these policies as just “gyrations” puts almost everyone’s retirement at risk and is irresponsible.
Every person participating in this thread makes decisions in accordance to their own economic situation. A person who makes $30k a year cannot purchase a million dollar sports car, possibly not even a used rust bucket according to where they live. This is human nature and to ignore this effect is tantamount to incompetence or worse malice.
During the early 1990’s the Democrat Congress and then President Clinton raised taxes on domestically produced luxury boats. Did this reap a significant tax return? No, it cost tax revenues (I have a problem calling taxes revenues, but I have to keep it simple) it closed the domestic boat building industry eliminating thousands of jobs. No matter how hard you try, the rule of unintended consequences always catches up with you. There are more examples from the “Great Depression”. Unemployment after spending all of that money, make work projects and taxing the life out of the “rich” did not recover until WWII. Look it up the numbers do not lie.
So the final question is are we going down the right path? This path has failed every time it is attempted. It failed in the 1930’s, was a disaster in the 1970’s, and cost Japan a decade of malaise. So will we wake up before we loose a decade? Only time will tell.
At least Rush said what he meant and meant what he said. There was no “nuance” or position with an expiration date attached to his words. You can disagree with him, but he will still talk to you even on his radio show. The same cannot be said about Pelosi, Reid, or Obama. When Obama was talking to the Republicans and they made suggestions his response was “I won”. Given that response who is willing to talk to whom?
Mar 8, 2009 - 7:24 pm 26. Meryl:I don’t notice any of the flaming re Rush addressing what he actually SAID.
Mar 8, 2009 - 8:22 pm 27. Big Red:22, paules. I think we have found a job that is “shovel ready”
Mar 9, 2009 - 6:52 am 28. Indy:Great piece. I only wish more people had caught what Rush was really saying. We are up against it here, and it would be quite helpful if Obama would remove the barriers to freedom like tax increases and regulation.
Mar 9, 2009 - 7:58 am 29. Christopher:First off, let me say this a great piece. Secondly, let me say the kind of comments made by “middleman” above prove that the ignorance in this country is so vast we may not be able to overcome it. Limbaugh is not important because of his looks, his weight, his clothes, or the number of aspirin he does or doesn’t take in the morning. He is important (as Reagan was important) because he speaks clearly the ideals which have undergirded our society since its founding; the very ideals that Obama wants to destroy.
Mar 9, 2009 - 8:24 am 30. Grover Pillsbury:Greetings, all.
Mar 9, 2009 - 8:42 am 31. Grover Pillsbury:We should collectively ignore Rotwang, because in my opinion he is a Communist along with the Obamessiah. All communist takeovers have been conducted this way: appeal to intellectual debate; then disarm the populace; then, after you have taken over, guess who they liquidate first: the intelligentia. Example: Fidel Castro, college professor, recruits his fellows, turns revolutionary, overthrows Fulgencio Batista, nicknamed ‘The Botcher’, then proceeds to out-butcher the butcher, starting with his former colleagues. When all the ‘brains’ are either dead or have joined him, who is left to oppose him? God save America.
OOPS, sorry – ‘Butcher’
Mar 9, 2009 - 9:21 am 32. Middleman:As far as Rush’s address is concerned, it was the greed that poisoned the market due to the current deregulations that put us in this position in the first place. I don’t agree with all of Obama’s methods, but it’s amusing that he is to be berated for trying to clear up what was screwed up by the people most of you support. Guess what, It didn’t work the way it was suppose to. Communism doesn’t work on a large-scale model in reality, just like unregulated capitalism doesn’t work on a large-scale model.
Mar 9, 2009 - 10:06 am 33. William:Right on. We are in a scary spot right now, and I am so grateful for Limbaugh’s refusal to cave.
Mar 9, 2009 - 11:34 am 34. G Alston:The comparison to Reagan is actually quite humourous.
Reagan spent money like crazy rebuilding the military. His detractors screeched about the then-record deficit. What Reagan did though paid back well enough (wealth creation) that by the time of Clinton the budget was balanced.
It’s fair to be critical of Obama’s spending; like most leftists he doesn’t get that spending money on technology (usually via the military) and energy is an investment.
Ike did it too. Interstate highways? MILITARY road system… investment.
The difference between liberals and conservatives isn’t measured as Limbaugh suggests by counting dollar signs, but rather what they’re spent on. Claims to the contrary are just that, claims, and aren’t substantiated by actual data/historical record.
If Obama promised to spend the same amount on creating 10 new nuclear power plants in every state of the union, I’d CHEER like crazy because this is an investment. Of course, that’s not going to happen. He’s an idiot.
Rush doesn’t see it either. He sounds like nothing more than an empty windbag because that’s all he is. In the end all you have is a windbag who doesn’t get it insulting an idiot who doesn’t get it.
Mar 9, 2009 - 1:24 pm 35. jacksonhunted:It’s not a matter of what we want. Obama has failed. He failed when he adopted policies that had never worked anywhere. He failed when he ignored historical evidence that what he desired created more want than have. It doesn’t matter what I want, what Rush Limbaugh wants, or what anyone else wants. Failure is the only possible outcome. Do I want Obama to fail? Yes. But it wouldn’t matter if I didn’t. Our Economic Illiterate-in-Chief would have sown the seeds of his Administration’s destruction either way.
The so-called “stimulus” plans and massive bailouts were Obama’s Iraq. They just happened in his first month in office, and unlike the war can’t be saved by a wise general or more of the same. I’m not even certain the nation can be salvaged because of Obama first and unforgivably reckless actions.
Limbaugh’s speech was good as those things go. But it was no more than acknowledging water is wet.
Mar 9, 2009 - 5:27 pm 36. Marc Malone:#34 G Alston – You make good points. I would like to clarify, however, that every budget Reagan proposed was balanced. It was the Dem Congress that created the deficits. The reverse was true of Clinton. The Pub Congress had to force him to accept a balanced budget. Clinton took credit for the ensuing boom caused by… (drum roll, please)… tax cuts and balanced budgets!
The good thing about Reagan’s military buildup, is that such never create a permanent bureaucracy. Military expenditures can be discontinued. That’s part of how the budget eventually got balanced in the Clinton years.
Mar 10, 2009 - 1:29 am 37. Horace Wells:Grover Pillsbury:
Mar 11, 2009 - 12:00 pmYou can tell someone is a reactionary fool when he calls everyone he disagrees with a communist.
Marc Malone, your thesis is total crap. The military is a permanent bureacracy full of smaller permanent bureacracies that have ceased to have relevance. Can’t you at least make sense for once, which starts by being honest? What about the military pension and benefit future costs, as well as maintenance on facilities?