(or, how to deal with Rush Limbaugh)
Many people credit Barry Goldwater with starting the conservative movement in this country in the 1960's. But the movement he started was ideological. The current "conservative" movement is also ideological at times, but what really binds them all together is their embrace of authoritarianism. Goldwater's ideological movement was co-opted by a bunch of bullies that never got over their childhood feelings of wimpyness, which gave us what we have today: a movement that is, at its core, based less on actual policy or even politics, and based more on authoritarian mentality and psychology. It appeals to people who want to feel macho and powerful for various psychological reasons under the guise of a philosophical movement. It appeals to people who both like to dole out and respond to a strict sense of authority. This is why the Iraq war, which was the complete opposite of conservatism, was supported by so many "conservatives." It had nothing to do with conservative values and principles -- and everything to do with trying to feel powerful and authoritative after our nation was attacked.
Even Ronald Reagan, the supposed hero of "conservatives," was nothing more than a drunken sailor when it came to spending and expanding the federal budget. And the rest of his policies were focused less on conservatism, and more on encouraging people to latch on to the needs of the powerful. Tax cuts for the rich and powerful. Empty swagger and bluster aimed at our foes around the world. First rate authoritarian populism, meant to capitalize on the sense of insecurity and weakness of the "Joe Sixpack" voter and make them feel powerful and macho.
This explains why religious fundamentalists are so attracted to the "conservative" movement today. Religious fundamentalists respond to a strict sense of authority, and have an image of god that is very authoritarian and punishing. Yet they are anything but conservatives in the political sense. They want more stringent government regulations in the social sense, and many of them are actually economic populists. Larger government in both areas. So why do they latch on to a political philosophy that theoretically runs so counter to their actual beliefs? They respond to authority. They respond to the bully in the room. They feel empowered by becoming the bully's friend, and feel even more empowered when they feel the bully berating other groups that are supposedly weaker than them. Minorities. Women. Gays. Intellectuals. Any group they can single out and pick on to make themselves feel powerful. That, my friends, is the true glue that has held, and is still holding this movement called "conservatism" together.
The end effect is that many leading pundits that represent the "conservative" movement these days simply act like bullies, looking to marginalize any group they view as "weaker" than they are. Some, like Hannity and Limbaugh, do it blatantly; others, like George Will, do it more subtly under the guise of intellectualism. It's really disgusting to the people that know better -- whether the are independents, moderates, or liberals. Paleo-conservatives, the Republican party's intellectuals of yesteryear, have deserted the party. But even despite the Republican party's complete lack of moral values, their reckless spending habits, and the fact that they can't manage a single organization -- let alone government -- the base of the party is holding together like glue. Why? Because, ultimately, they are bound not by philosophy. Not even by ideology. They are bound together by a psychological need. They are bound together by false machismo that tells them that they are still "boss," that they are morally superior, that they are stronger and more feared than the others of society. They are bound together because they get a rush from both responding to and doling out strict authority.
And when you are arguing with them, you won't get anywhere arguing on practical, philosophical, or even ideological grounds. You only make progress when you fight the bully and actually beat him up (figuratively, in this case). You fight them with the only thing they respond to: authority -- authority of your own. Only you use authority not for authority's sake, but simply as a means to an end. And that end is breaking up the authoritarian nature of the bully's popularity. But when that authoritarian nature is destroyed, you don't feel the need to replace it. Why do you do that? Because you are a liberal, and that's not our bag. We liberals are the ones that truly love freedom. Good liberals need to fight tough even though we are not authoritative by nature. Good liberals take the Rush Limbaughs, the Rick Santellis, the Sean Hannitys of the world on head on. Because we're not about bullying.
So keep that in mind. We're not actually fighting conservatism per se. Fiscal responsibility is good. Any pragmatic progressive will fight for that and advocate for that. In some cases, less government may be better, and in some cases, more. As progressives, we keep open minds to whatever might work at the time, and we realize that different strategies work differently in different circumstances. Progressives fight for the people with whatever tools we can effectively use. That is what defines us. We don't fight ideas or even ideologies, if applied in a pragmatic manner. We are a big tent. And when we fight the modern day "conservative" movement, essentially, we're not fighting this. What we are fighting is a collection of insecure people bound together by their common psychological need to feel macho. And it's a fight that we will more than happily take on.