That's your problem, then. I've already explained the distinction at least two different ways.
What you're missing here is the fact Rush is virtually "everyman's" introduction to conservatism in this day and age.
I don't think so. I might be wrong, but I strongly suspect that Rush's audience contains very few members for whom his show is an "introduction" to conservatism. In fact, I suspect strongly that his audience mainly consists of people who were already conservative before they started listening.
He is their entry to eventually knowing and learning from your John Derbyshires of this World.
Again, I'm not so sure about that. For one thing, there's no comparable outlet for what Derbyshire called "middlebrow" conservatism, which is where Reagan and Buckley operated. A broad acceptance of Conservatism at that intellectual level was the basis of the "Reagan Revolution." Limbaugh-style talk radio doesn't provide it, and there's really nothing else to provide it in a forum that reaches an audience that extends beyond the already-convinced.
We do have a much more difficult task than Buckley and Limbaugh did -- the mainstream media in their time were rather more friendly to conservative ideas, and more prone to giving time for extended discussion, than are the overtly partisan media of today. The reversal of that state of affairs will be years in the doing...
Painting Rush as "defining" conservatism is irrelevant in fact because of that loss of intellectualism as you put it. People will tune in, they will listen and begin to hear ideas that they've had themselves. They will begin to broaden their interests in conservatism and eventually come to those you believe are the true spokesmen.
That's a triumph of hope over experience. We've had 20 years to try out the theory and, if it were true, something like what you describe should already have happened. But it hasn't. Instead, we've witnessed an accelerating disintegration in conservative thought over that period of time.
Look at the audience Limbaugh has here on FR. Are we clueless?
Not clueless at all. But to be quite honest, I think much of what passes for "thought" on FR these days is just as shallow as what Limbaugh puts out -- long on reaction, but quite often short on perspective. FR is a much better medium for deeper engagement on issues, but it's also well-suited to quips and "sound-bite" posts.
As a result, the MSM doesn't actually have to address conservatism in an intellectually rigorous way -- Then why is he still on the air today, and as influential (oh, yes he is!) as ever? They've been trying this since day #1.
He's on the air because he does appeal to a large audience. That's not the same thing, however, as being painted as "what conservatism is all about." The danger to conservatism is precisely that Limbaugh is unable to create a coherent intellectual foundation for conservative priniciples.
That sentence alone deserved a ZOT! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAH!
I’m so happy for you and your obvious ascension over the rest of us wannabee thinking conservatives. My shallow thoughts just can’t compare. So with that I will say goodbye...