Is a New Generation Primed to be Captivated by Conservatism?

RUSH: Mike in Des Moines. You're next on the EIB Network. Great to have you here. Hello.

CALLER: Hey, Rush. Thanks. It's an honor. Okay, hey, yesterday early in the show you were talking about making a point on conservatives who are not intimidated by the media or their handlers either, that sort of thing, and you brought up, of course, Scott Walker. And, you know, in my opinion, he's not intimidated at all 'cause he has a set of core values that is solid. What came to mind when you were talking about it yesterday was... Here's a powerful analogy I think, and this has happened to me.

When you first came on the show -- and I believe I'm a charter member listener. I think it was the first week. It was August of '86, if I remember right, and I first heard you, Rush, on WHO, and I thought, "Who is this guy?" This is exactly what you say. You've made this point before. I think right now could be a watershed moment for our Gen Xers or Millennials coming up to have a leader to open their eyes to that, and we know they're out there. And it's deep, Rush.

I worked in public sector for a while at a local level. We had HUD contracts, that kind of stuff. But when these powerful liberal politicians get in (chuckles), it's not just a president or governors, even. It's who they appoint to key administrative positions. They hire who they want, and it goes down the line. You got a worker bees that think the same way. Rush, I tell you, it's gotta change, and I believe it can change and we need people like Walker who, based on their core values, fight.

RUSH: Let me tell you, you mention Walker. I've got a fascinating addendum to Walker. You know, Obama reacted to him signing that right-to-work law in Wisconsin, and Walker fired right back, which reminded me of something. I've gotta expand a story that I got into not in not enough depth yesterday. I also want to expand on a point you made about when you first started listen to the program. I appreciate the call, Mike. Thanks much.

RUSH: Okay. Welcome back. Great to have you. Mike in Des Moines raised a couple of great points, one about this program, one about me. He started out with his reaction when he first heard this program. And he's charterer. He said August 1st, '86. That would be August 1st of '88 is the actual year. But what he said he heard was somebody validating what he already believed, and that is the case, that is exactly why this program took off. There wasn't a national conservative media voice back in 1988. People forget -- and '88's a long time ago. It seems like yesterday to me. All these 26 years seem like yesterday to me, but in truth, it's a generation ago.

In 1988 the only cable news network was CNN. Back in 1988 we still had the media monopoly. We had ABC, CBS, and NBC, and we had the newspapers, the New York Times, Washington Post. We had USA Today. We had the LA Times. And they owned it. They literally owned what was media. They owned what was the news, the narrative every day. They also were in charge of what wasn't the news, what never got reported. They owned what was commented on. They owned the commentary. They owned opinion making. They owned everything.

They had a total majority, and that had led to what Spiro Agnew and a whole bunch of people had referred to as a silent majority, people that were unrepresented in the so-called mainstream media. Then here I come, bumbling and stumbling into all this, just trying to have a successful radio show. And people all over the world, when they heard it, glommed on to it. Not because they were mind-numbed robots who were being Svengalied into agreeing with me. No. They were simply reacting to hearing somebody who sounded just like them.

I validated what people believed. I was like a giant billboard. I wasn't creating anybody. Well, I might have been persuading some. But I was simply saying things people already felt, already thought, and his comment was that I was unafraid, that I fearlessly just kept saying it. I would love to tell you it was an act of bravery and fearlessness, but it was just I finally had a chance to do a radio show the way I wanted to do it. If you count the three years prior in Sacramento, it was the first time in my entire career I had been given the freedom to be who I really am. And that's all I was doing.

I think liberalism's crazy. I was laughing at it, making fun of it, making jokes about it all over the place, which just wasn't done. And it didn't take long, you know, within three months I'd become a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, hatemonger, extremist, you name it. But I kept going. And that's what he was talking about. And the further point that he was making, he was talking about Millennials, he thinks it's time to repeat.

He thinks that there's a group of young people who are about to encounter this program or other elements of conservative media and react to it the way he did and everybody else did back in 1988, and I hope he's right about that. There are cycles that take place as generations go by, and I think that would be cool if there were sort of a regeneration of all that happened in '88, which would be manifested by a bunch of people who have not listened here because they think I or the program or people like me are "Bleh."

Then they stumble into it and find out that everything they've heard about it is wrong and ended up liking it. So that's what he was saying he's hoping for, and he was building on that by talking about Scott Walker. I had mentioned Scott Walker yesterday as somebody who is fearless, has gone up against the left, has beaten 'em three elections in a row while being targeted for destruction, while his wife and kids were targeted for destruction. And he's done it again. The guy is fearless.

And I'll tell you somebody else that's fearless. Ted Cruz. I never mean to leave Ted Cruz out of this. I haven't endorsed anybody. I'm nowhere near that, and I'm not picking anybody here. Walker is just the latest arrival and so he's garnering a lot of attention. But Ted Cruz is fearless. Marco Rubio can be fearless, and so can Mike Lee now and then. I'll tell you who else is this Tom Cotton guy, this new Senator from Arkansas.

This guy is willing to tell this administration and the UN and the Iranian mullahs whatever they need to hear. He doesn't care what people say. He's gonna tell 'em the truth. And this is going to be infectious. People are gonna respond to this leadership once they see it and become exposed to it. They're demanding it, in fact, and they haven't seen it from the existing Republican leadership. And whenever they do see it they react to it favorably and positively.

Now, the latest Scott Walker story. Let me preface it this way. You know, I played in the Ernie Els for Autism charity golf tournament on Monday. I've played in every one of them. This was the sixth or seventh, and they're always the second Monday in March. And every year I run into a host of people, as you would expect, and they're all friendly, they are all us. And I'm not talking about the golfers, most of them are, too, but I'm just talking about the gallery, people that show up, the people that work at the clubs where the tournaments are held.

I don't run into problems, is the point. If there are, they stay in the background, they don't say anything. Everybody is supportive. They are big fans and all that. It's a lot of fun. And invariably they all ask me every year, it's predictable, cigar dinner, the same thing, wherever I go, at this point in every election cycle, "Okay, Rush, who do you like for the Republican nomination? Who's it gonna be, who's it gonna be, who do you think it's gonna be?" I alternately get frustrated with the question 'cause I think this is really about much more than just who the nominee is gonna be. That's important, don't misunderstand.

So when I tell 'em this year who I like, and I mentioned Scott Walker, it's an interesting case study because, if I'm being honest, most people don't know. They've heard the name. They might know that he is governor of a state. They might know he's a governor of Wisconsin. But they don't know what he's done. And part of that's understandable. I mean, here we are in Florida, he's in Wisconsin. What he's done hasn't made consistent national news. His campaigns, these recall elections, have made national news, but not of the kind that penetrate people's memory.

And I think that's a problem. I have always thought -- and I know the Republican Party can't choose either when it comes to candidates seeking the presidency, but the frustrating thing for Scott Walker is that -- you've heard this. I'm gonna be redundant here which I'm not excited about, but he's shown the way. Everybody who has called me over the course of the past six years to complain about what's happening with Obama the Democrats, everybody who has called me and said, "Why don't the Republicans do X?" My answer has always been, "There is a guy doing exactly what you want. He's doing it exactly the way you want and kicking butt, and he's beating them. His name is Scott Walker."

And the fact that this isn't known is indicative of a marketing and branding problem that the party has. We all know what we're up against, and we all know who's beating us. We all know why, and we all think we know what needs to be done to reverse it, and there's a guy that's doing it and has been doing it and has been showing how to do it and has been exhibiting leadership characteristics that everybody seems to be wanting and demanding, and they don't know.

I'm not talking about uninformed dolts that are asking me these questions. I'm talking about people that are prepared to commit big money to people. They don't know. They all know who Mitt Romney is, and they all know who Jeb Bush is, and they know who Ted Cruz is. They don't know Scott Walker yet. Which may be okay, because he's leading now, and this is a little bit early to be leading. The front-runner status this early offers you really only one place to go. But as I tell his story, their eyes widen and they get all enthusiastic, "I'm gonna check that out."

"No, I'm not telling you that. I'm not gonna go on record picking anybody yet. That's not the point."

Here's the latest news, though, that befits the message I'm trying to convey here. This is from Investors Business Daily, now called Investors.com. "Scott Walker Punches Back Twice As Hard At Obama -- If Republicans want to know how to respond to President Obama's barbs and attacks, they should pay close attention to what Gov. Scott Walker said after Obama smacked him for signing a right-to-work bill. Obama, who believes that he should comment on anything and everything under the sun, issued a written statement condemning the law.

'"I'm deeply disappointed,' he said, 'that a new anti-worker law in Wisconsin will weaken, rather than strengthen, workers in the new economy.' Obama then claimed that Walker's action was part of an 'inexcusable assault on unions, led by powerful interests and their allies in government.' ... But what's really interesting is how Walker responded to Obama's tantrum. Rather than meekly taking Obama's blows, as most Republicans seem wont to do, Walker punched back -- hard.

'"On the heels of vetoing Keystone pipeline legislation, which would have paved the way to create thousands of quality, middle-class jobs, the president should be looking to states, like Wisconsin, as an example for how to grow our economy,' Walker told National Review Online. 'Despite a stagnant national economy and a lack of leadership in Washington, since we took office, Wisconsin's unemployment rate is down to 5%, and more than 100,000 jobs and 30,000 businesses have been created.'

"Bam! In just two sentences, Walker shoved Obama's phony concern for workers back at him and pointed out that Wisconsin is growing its economy despite the flat recovery Obama's policies have produced nationwide."

Now, normally when Obama goes after a Republican, the result is silence. The Republicans have this screwy belief -- and by that I mean the leadership and the consultants and the donors, they have this screwy belief that "If there's any criticism of Obama, it will undermine our effort in gaining the support of independents and the Reagan Democrats." So they've got themselves talked into, "We can't be critical of Obama."

Scott Walker has undermined the liberal agenda in Wisconsin the entire time he's been governor. He has implemented his agenda while thwarting theirs. And as a result of implementing his agenda, he has cut taxes, he's creating a budget surplus, he's created 100,000 new jobs, 30,000 new businesses. Is that not what this country needs, not just in one state, but all over the place?

He's doing it with Reaganomics. He's doing it with supply-side, whatever you want to call it. He is limiting, he's downsizing the command-and-control structure of liberalism. This is a blue state we're talking about where he's done this, and he's done this in the midst of Sarah Palin type treatment. He's gotten Sarah Palin type treatment and more. He's withstood every attack. He's done it without any crying, without any whining, without any moaning, without any complaining whatsoever.

He doesn't even listen to it. He just ignores it and goes about the business of implementing his agenda on the basis that's what he was elected to do. He won the election. He has analyzed he won the election because he spelled out his agenda. It was supported, he's got the mandate to implement it. He does it. Exactly what everybody seems to think is necessary to reverse course nationwide. So that's what I tell people when they ask me. And I shouldn't be, but I'm openly shocked to their faces that they don't know any of it.

Examining my generation (I’m very early 30s), what I see is strong Libertarianism. A lot of them would probably benefit from some Ayn Rand books. Strong fiscal responsibility is prominent, and they’re fairly capitalistic.

Socially, however, they’re all bat-guano insane. My generation is firmly entrenched in the genitalia obsession, self-identification, and what difference does it make who you love?

Its going to be a complex mix. We’ll get what we need on economics. But the bottom may fall out completely on family and societal interaction.

Rush and most of the conservative talk show hosts are aging old white men who will be passing from the scene in a few years. Conservative talk radio needs a young Rush or Rushette capable of combining entertainment with a zest for conservatism and able to build a national audience among the current generation of young people.

Hannity and Beck are not the carriers of the flame. Both are middle aged, not young. Hannity preaches, he is not entertaining. Beck is flighty, inconsistent, and not focused. he will waver based on his business objectives. Rush, in contrast, has been steadfast over decades.

The greatest legacy Rush could give the conservative movement is to use his position, power, and money to find and assist a few new young conservatives with the core beliefs, intelligence, backbone, and charisma to carry the ball for decades.

Johnny Carson comes to mind as a great entertainer who used his position to identify and give new talent a start.

The great failure of the Reagan era was the loss of the GOP to the moderates once Reagan left office. At the state level aging conservative GOP politicians, like Jessie Helms in NC, failed to develop a new generation to succeed them. At the same time Bill Ayers and others were nurturing Barack Obama.

Conservative talk radio will die without new young stars. If they aren’t given a boost now by the current stars, the liberal media executives will make sure a new one doesn’t have a chance when Rush leaves the scene.

Mark Levin has a huge following of young people. Its rather odd, actually.

People my age and younger have heard of him, have read him, like the economic and governmental policy, and disagree socially.

It is also evident in the sheer volume of calls.

Most of Rush’s calls are older people, yes.

Levin’s calls are all my age and younger.

Alex Jones is fairly young, and has lots of young people working for him, but he sometimes gets a bit too heated in his presentation. He is also staunchly uncommitted to either party, so that appeals to lots of people.

It’s also good that his show is available in many formats that young people are more drawn to. I listen to his shows on YouTube, for example.

Young people came to conservatism in 80s despite growing up in 20 years of chaos, social change, protest movements, riots, and political scandal. They, and the older WW2 generation had had enough of it and wanted to pull the national character back to the last time things made any sense, which fell in around the late 40s-1960. It also helped that the Boomers were fatigued by all of the “fun” they had the past 15 years, and were nostalgic for their childhoods because they now wanted to raise their new families in a more stable nation.

The national mood was ready, and all it took was Reagan to bring it all together.

It wont be as easy this time, but I think the national mood is there. Now it is a matter of whom will be the Reagan of today.

You are making some really good observations. You are so right about how crazy the millenials (and gen x) are about sexuality. They have no appreciation for the importance of a traditional family because they can’t see how it’s better than “anything goes” for the continuing success of American society. They mostly weren’t raised to think that way by their two job parents or their public school teachers. But they are otherwise primed for conservatism. They want to be led and they crave stability. Obama sold them a young, hip father figure and they ate it up.

I think Mark Levin has a better time slot than Rush for younger listeners. Rush has that stigma attached to him by the left, too. Younger people think they already know his opinion on anything, yet it’s obvious when they open their mouths that they have never listened to him.

Its going to be a complex mix. We’ll get what we need on economics. But the bottom may fall out completely on family and societal interaction.

The only issue that matters is controlling the size and scope of government. If even the genitalia-obsessed come to realize that Big Government is inimical to their interests, the Socialist villains can be beaten back and there will be room for normal Americans to breathe again.

If every faction, however, continues to think giving government more police powers to control people they don't like is the correct path, everybody will continue to lose freedom in spite of whatever phony tribal chief Socialism puts forward to satisfy the demand that it's his/her tribe's "turn."

Not conservatives if conservativism means that the US should continue to be the world’s policeman. Younger people will also not support domestic policies that result in a higher prison rate or police state tactics. It would be wise for conservatives to more completely dissociate themselves with big government policies.

Free markets, individual rights, respect for life, federalism/states rights, local control, informed consent are issues where conservative values intersect with the values of young people.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.