rights.” Limbaugh, the “good Republican,”nwill probably go along. After all,nthe argument will go, “gay conservatives”nshould not be drummed out of the partyneither. This means that Wisconsin RepublicannCongressman Steve Gunderson,nonce described by RepresentativenBob Dornan as having a “revolving door”nin his closet because of his reluctance tonadmit he was a practicing homosexual,nwill be welcomed as a full-fledged membernof the GOP.nLimbaugh’s emergence as a “GOPnspokesman” ultimately means that henhas become a shill for a reincarnationnof the old Rockefeller wing of thenGOP, without Rockefeller. However, thisnstance puts him at odds with grassrootsnconservatives. He is taking heat for supportingnNAFTA and GATT, for wafflingnon immigration, and increasingly takesnshots at “moralists” in his audience. Thenproblem, again, is that his writings onnthe subject seem to have no relationshipnto his own life. He has written, for instance,nthat marriage “socializes and normalizes”npeople and that the “magic ofnmarriage” is beneficial. He has writtenncritically of America’s divorce rate, whichnhas quadrupled, and claims that he “instinctively”nunderstands the value ofnmarriage in society. Yet he just marriednfor the third time, and announced it tonthe worid as proof of his family values.nBut the most vulnerable aspect ofnLimbaugh may very well be his performancenas a pseudointellectual, then”Doctor of Democracy” whose “Institutenof Advanced Gonservative Studies” givesnphony educational degrees to those whonbuy them. His “Limbaugh Letter” wentnso far as to complain about a federalntraining program for a certain class ofn”underachievers,” defined as “peoplenwho didn’t go to college.” Limbaugh,nwho briefly attended college when thendraft was threatening him, denouncednthis as “subsidizing underachievement.”nSince his personal life has been anythingnbut exemplary, Limbaugh’s claimnto be an achiever must stem solely fromnthe fact that he makes a lot of money,nmainly by selling ads and trinkets, suchnas his “Limbaugh GommemorativenStein” for $79.95. Yet he makes the profiteeringnsound uplifting, boasting that “itnis here in this land that the universal humannyearning to improve one’s lot isnmost blessed, and in the sweet air of freedomneffort and achievement are most rewarded.nThis is America’s greatestnpromise, and she fulfills it still.”n44/CHRONICLESnIn fact, the evidence shows that, fornthe first time in American history, thenlargest percentage of people who are emigratingnfrom the United States are native-bornnAmericans. Figures indicatenthat as many as 250,000 a year are leaving,nlargely because the economy is stagnant,ncrime is rampant, and America’snheritage is under vicious assault. YetnLimbaugh, taking his cue from the Journal’sneditorial page, continues to try tonsell his audience on the notion thatnAmerica is still number one because ofnits “competitive edge” over the rest ofnthe worid. On the contrary, statistics revealnthat the United States ranks lastnamong the seven leading industrializedncountries in terms of long-term realngrowth in standard of living, and we haventhe lowest net national savings rate as anpercentage of gross domestic product.nLimbaugh even touts foreign investmentnin America, which has become a dangerousnsubstitute for much-needed domesticnsavings and investment.nIgnoring the evidence of America’sneconomic decline, Limbaugh carries onnabout the virtues of pocketbook conservatism.nFor a while, such talk can benexciting. I wrote several articles over thenyears touting Limbaugh’s success andnmessage. But it was my investigation ofnLimbaugh’s own lucrative and increasinglyntacky commercial activities thatnopened my eyes to his shortcomings, particularlynhis disservice to the cause manynof us were involved in for years before heneven registered to vote. In Novembern1993, after a caller to his radio programnmentioned my name on the air, Limbaughnwent into a tirade, accusing me ofnwriting that he had refused to make freenspeeches for “the cause”—conservativengroups. In fact, I had written in HumannEvents that he had waived his fees innsome cases. In the course of making thisncharge, he launched a vicious personalnattack on me, saying that I had “abandonednany pretense to accuracy” and wasn”incapable of the truth.”nLimbaugh has adamantly refused toncorrect the record, either on me or on hisn”conservative” credentials, leading me tonbelieve that initial suspicions about hisncommitment to “the cause” were wellgrounded.nIn short, the cause appears tonbe himself, with conservatism as a meansnto an end. But if Limbaugh’s desire is tongo down in history as a Republicannmouthpiece, rather than as a conservative,nthe least he could do is to send thenGOP a significant cash contribution.nnnThen we could safely assume he was finallynputting his money where his mouthnis, and that he has a financial stake in thenoutcome.nCliff Kincaid was for several years antalk show host on the ‘Newstalk RadionNetwork.nThe Rise of TalknRadionby Ron SmithnUntil the rise of Rush Limbaugh,ntalk-show hosts and callers werenpretty much ignored by the people whonregard themselves as the guardians ofnGorrect Thought. They seemed to regardntalk shows as forums for the intellectuallyndeprived, unworthy of attentionnfrom the ivory tower set. As we all know,nthis situation has changed markedly innrecent years, and in fact people like Limbaugh,nGordon Liddy, and me are accusednof all sorts of things these days.nThe President himself says it is awfulnthat anybody be given several hours a daynon the radio to say just what he thinksnwithout contradiction. He was referringnto ol’ Rush, who has been a sharp thornnin Glinton’s side for some time now.nOf course, it is risky to attack the idolnof millions of people, most of whom,none would assume, vote. Rush has a waynof making his critics pay a price. Afternthe New York Times columnist AnnanQuindlen made an unflattering referencento him. Rush perused, parsed,nand, yes, ridiculed every subsequentnQuindlen column for quite a while.nSince she is a solipsistic liberal of thenEllen Goodman school of personalizednjabberings, her writings are quite easilynridiculed. So, I might add, are Mr. Glinton’snfoibles.nOne of the things about talking on radionfor a living is that you have to defendnwhat you say every step of the way.nGhallenges to your conclusions are notnfiltered through the letters-to-the-editorndepartment. This is the chief reason, innmy opinion, why liberal talk-show hostsncome across so badly when discussingnpolitical or social matters.nIf Bill Glinton had a talk show,nchances are his famed approach of seemingnto agree with everyone he talks ton