Who is pulling the strings

Isn't there a Kungian Rule for this that goes something like: Man will enrich himself by any way possible while telling himself and others that his is a noble cause.

I have been guilty many times in the past of damning the good for not being perfect. Don't take my word for it. I was told this more than once in my Facebook days when I would criticize the government (and voters, by extension) for being so large and all-encompassing and wondering then how any truly conservative or Republican agenda could flourish when we are all basically part of the Cult of Entitlements.

I certainly agree with that article that the Left has an agenda. What the right has, well, you have to squint hard sometimes to see any staunch Republican agenda items that are being pushed. But despite this, they do seem to know how to raise money.

One of the problems is that these "elite" all go to the same schools. And although it's arguable that Republicans (or those who join the party) don't come out hardcore Marxists, they are tainted by it all, as witnessed by some of the truly "woke" thinks that preppy-boy George W. Bush said ("Islam is a religion of peace") even before that term had come into use.

I was shocked (shouldn't have been) when I saw inside the RINO Caucus when I had the chance a few years ago to spend a few hours with just Michael Reagan and Pat. Michael is a wonderful guy. But his politics were thoroughly McCainian at the time. The answer to all problems that the Republicans were having was that we weren't doing enough "reaching out." I told Michael that any "reaching out" that the Republicans did was not going to be looked at as being as substantive as the "reaching out" that the Democrats did with funds, favors, and (my alliteration stream has run dry...you add one). What we had to do instead was draw some lines in the sand, define the issues with stark and frank clarity, offer people clear choices, and that by doing so it was not only offering people something that was better for them but it was the only way out of where we were headed. There could be no future in a party that was always taking only half of what the Left had to offer, and calling that a victory.

Of course, I was wrong. There was lots of future in that party, and still is. That party continues to make oodles of money off of discontent while doing relatively little but being Democrats Lite.

Like I said, I think Michael Reagan is a great guy. But he's also a guy who makes his money in politics. And this is why I noted my alleged propensity to make perfect the enemy of the good. It should be shocking to anyone to reconnoiter the aftermath and note that, for instance, Rush Limbaugh got fabulously wealthy catering to conservative or middle-America discontent without contributing one iota to moving the needle right. But he, and a lot of other guys and gals, have sure found a way to make a lot of money.

I'm no angel. But if I had that kind of money, I would not have spent one million dollars on having Elton John sing at my wedding, for instance. I would have started a for-profit online (and/or brick-and-mortar) college system, taking after, and reinforcing, an institution such as Hillsdale College. We need healthy alternatives to what the Leftist culture is feeding us now via their control. That would be building brains and character instead of siphoning off money because of a simmering discontent.

So what honestly is the legacy of Rush Limbaugh? Shouldn't he have been our George Soros of the right, funding concrete ways to beat back the Left? And I'm quite sure he made many (and probably generous) anonymous contributions to this and that. But there is no lasting legacy because it was (in theme with this article) all about making money.