Reviewing Rush Limbaugh's CPAC speech, John Hawkins warns the conservative movement that losing the next election might be more devastating than what has already happened:

Conservatives have better solutions than either the left or the moderates in our own party can come up with -- ready to go, ready to improve the lives of Americans -- but very few people on the right are promoting those ideas.

Sure, it's possible we could win in 2012 on the same old stale agenda. But what if we don't? What if we run a conservative like Sarah Palin, and Barack Obama just manages to squeak out a victory, not over a squishy RINO like John McCain, but over a real conservative?

That would create a crisis of confidence in our movement. And that is why we can't afford to be complacent about our agenda, technology, or the grassroots.

As Rush said, we do need the "right candidate." However, we also need to improve our political agenda to show the American people that not only are conservatives philosophically superior to liberal Democrats, but that they have relevant, intelligent policies that will make a positive difference in their lives.

Let's face it, right now, no matter what "side" anyone is on, the GOP is still in a losing streak phase, and the mood of the party is dominated by doom-and-gloom, fatalistic thinking.

So I'm wondering about something. If continued losses in the next election are seen as inevitable, might the game become one not of winning, but of who gets positioned to lose next? Seen this way, it's not so much of whose turn it is to win, but whose turn it is to lose.

A game of musical chairs -- in which the "loser" nominee ends up taking the blame, and ultimately whoever did not win nomination gets in position as the ultimate "winner" the next time around.

Social conservatives would want to have a RINO or libertarian lose so they could play "I TOLD YOU SO!", while libertarians could do the same thing if social conservatives lose. I've noticed that people are already trying to analyze the last election this way, but it isn't so neat and tidy, because there's no consensus on which side "caused" the loss. Was it the RINO side (epitomized by McCain)? Or was it the conservatives and Sarah Palin? Personally, I don't think any Republican could have won the last election, because the amazing timing of the economic crash dovetailed perfectly with Bush fatigue, but that won't stop the "sides" from pointing the finger at each other.

I'm not here to live up to anyone's label or standards, and whether I'm considered a "real" conservative, a "real" libertarian, or a contemptible RINO -- that stuff is for other people to worry about, and it should not influence what I think, or why I think it. Labels are annoyances. So are party platforms, obligatory talking points, and demands that I agree with certain ideas and principles or else not be "real" enough.

I don't know to what extent Rush Limbaugh is in charge of the GOP (or "conservatism"), but because he's at the center of John Hawkins' analysis and many people respect him, I'd like to look at something else he was quoted as saying, which Hawkins properly describes as "punishingly effective criticism of the Democratic Party":

(T)ake a look at all the constituency groups that for 50 years have been depending on the Democrat Party to improve their lives. And you tell me if you find any. They're still complaining, still griping about the same problems. Their problems don't get fixed by government.

What's the longest war in American history? Did somebody say the war on poverty? Smart group. War on poverty. The war on poverty essentially started in the '30s as part of the New Deal, but it really ramped up in the '60s with Lyndon Johnson, part of the Great Society war on poverty. We have transferred something like 10 trillion, maybe close to 11 trillion, from producers and earners to nonproducers and nonearners since 1965. Yet, as I listen to the Democratic Party campaign, why, America is still a soup kitchen, the poor is still poor and they have no hope and they're poor for what reason? They're poor because of us, because we don't care, and because we've gotten rich by taking from them, that's what kids in school are taught today.

I don't think the answer to the question "What's the longest war in American history?" is "the War on Poverty."

It's the War on Drugs, dammit.

Drug war and the accompanying hysteria date back to the turn of the 19th Century, and it led directly to the 1914 Harrison Narcotics Act, the failings of which led to tougher laws and more Hearst-fueled hysteria in the 20s, then to the Reefer Madness hysteria, Harry J. Anslinger and his witch hunts, outrageous persecution of addicts and physicians alike, and finally, the formation of a truly malignant federal agency (the DEA). The worse the problem got, the louder grew the demand for ever harsher laws, and ever more prisons to put people for the dubious crime of self harm.

I'll spare readers a long rant about the rank stupidity and (IMO) downright evil nature of the drug war, but you all know I consider it a war on freedom. I don't blame Republicans any more than the Democrats, for both parties have perpetuated it, for it obviously suits the common needs of people who want power.

Of all people, I would think that Rush Limbaugh would have come out against the Drug War by now. But no; the last time I turned his show on, he was railing against a California proposal to legalize marijuana so it could generate tax revenue. Here's what he said:

Do you know what the largest crop in California is? What is the largest crop in California? Brian? Marijuana is exactly right. No, and listen to the numbers. And I'll tell you why this is important, because the state of California has got this $42 billion budget deficit, and the assembly realizes they're getting no tax money for it. They're considering decriminalizing it for the purpose -- this is how it all happens. This is how you get rotten socialist economic policies, which lead to the cultural rot of a society....

As to how "rotten socialist economic policies" "lead to the cultural rot of a society," I think that argument is better applied to the welfare state than marijuana. Rotten socialist economic policies did not create the demand for California marijuana; they only fuel the government's need for new sources of revenue. The demand for marijuana will be there whether the state is run by socialists or capitalists, whether the state taxes it or not. I think Rush assumes that legalization and taxation will somehow increase demand (or that increased supply will translate into increased demand), and that this increased supply and demand constitute "cultural rot" brought on by socialism.

By the same reasoning then, the end of America's War on Alcohol (accomplished by legalization and taxation) must have brought on cultural rot, along with all the rotten livers and brains...

FWIW, I think wars on freedom waged by a country that purports to be free constitute cultural rot.

If that makes me a detestable RINO, so be it.