This is in response to The Pragmatist's recent post about Rush Limbaugh. It also includes more general observations about Rush.
It takes a lot of listening to Rush to really "get" him. I used to do it when I traveled daily for my job - he was the most entertaining thing on the radio. His wit, creativity, outright humor, made him one of the most entertaining people in this counrty. What also attracts me to Rush is his ability to agitate specific groups of people so cleverly it is funny (Dan Greene,anyone)? Remember the Harry Reid fiasco? It was absolutely brilliant - Rush was laughing the whole time and Harry Reid, a disgraceful senator, was humiliated! Who else in this country makes such a mockery of truly laughable institutions such as Congress? Most importantly, though, is his deep seeded belief in the power and beauty of individual initiative molds its way into some very compelling motivational monologues.
Rush has thus far been branded as a windbag, out of touch, and someone so off the wall, he is not worth paying attention to. He is used by the left consistently to attempt to discredit Republican party policies (though recently, Rush has been openly attacking the Republican party). What is interesting about all of this is that Rush DOES matter, the left DOES care about what he says, they ARE bothered by him, and they DO want him off the air. If he is who everyone says he is, then why is his name consistently mentioned on capital hill? Why does the "Limbaugh Echo Syndrome" still roll through the halls of Congress and the White House? If what he says is hogwash, there is no reason for the left to be so completely annoyed with him. He is the only large voice remaining that is openly critical of the left and challenges the very assumptions of their policies. The Republican party certainly gave up on that, and other voices just don't resonate like his does. Yes, Glenn Beck seems more reasonable, but that is the focus of his show - Rush does just what Beck does, he just does it with more style.
Here are some common beliefs about Rush asserted by the Pragmatist. I have actually heard the full audio from each scenario.
1. He said that he hopes Obama fails.
Rush's statement was "if Obama attempts to initiate socialist policies, then I hope he fails [at implemting his policies]." This statement was not a personal attack, it was a statement about actions that Rush believes that Obama wants to undertake. Think about if someone was trying to break your arm. You would hope that this person fails - not at life - but simply in the damaging task that he intends to undertake. Of course, the general opinion cares not for what Rush meant because then it would not have a handy tag line. Rush cleverly phrased his statement that way because he probably knew that it would make national news and that it would drive more listeners to his show which in-turn drives ad revenue.
2. Rush did not apologize for abusing prescription pain killers
I happened to be listening to Rush on that day when he announced his addiction. He spent the last 20 minutes of his show not asking for any grief, admitting responsibility, and informing his listeners that he plans to take corrective action. This sort of addiction can happen to anyone - few who will admit personal responsibility for it. Most blame their addiciton on outside factors.
3. Rush attacked Donovan McNabb on Monday Night Football
Rush never did such a thing. His statement went something like this.... "Donovan McNabb is being hailed as the driver of the Eagles' success because the media wants to see a black quarterback succeed, the truth is.... it is the defense that carried the team." Rush's statement had nothing to do about Donovan McNabb - he made one statement about the media, then he made another statement about the Eagles' defense. When Rush gets put on a stage like that, everyone and their brother is gunning for him. Granted, maybe Rush should have kept the subject to football and stayed away from the media, but he was hired by ESPN to add some pizzazz to the show.
His article in the Wall Street journal is what is really humorous to me. I'm sure Rush chucked to himself as he wrote an article that one might see in a copy of the onion. The joke truly is on the public. The article had 2 purposes. First - to show that the whole term "bi-partisan" is a joke. He achieved this by associating his name with Obama's and placing it as the title of an official sounding proposal. Second - Rush wanted to drive listeners to his show, thereby filling his pockets. Remember, Rush has always publicly admitted that the sole purpose for his show is to "amass the largest listening audience possible in order that I may charge confiscatory advertising rates." I find it hilarious that everyone, even the Wall Street Journal is taking him seriously on this. I can't imagine how hard Rush must laugh at this gag every night.
Few people really care what Rush really says or means when he speaks because who really has time to listen to 3 hours of talk radio every day? A left-leaning media will naturally go after the biggest name, so few people who don't listen to him really know what he actually says or believes. In truth, Rush honestly cares about people and wants each person to succeed just like he has. It hurts him to see a government that takes away pieces of an individual's will to create for him/herself. Maybe the thing that makes people most uncomfortable about Rush is that he actually believes what he says. In an age where certainty is considered impossible, this character trait really bothers people.
I'll take Rush just as he is, thank you very much.
---------------------------
As a final disclaimer - sorry for any run-on sentences, bad grammar, etc... I am really pressed for time here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
To be fair
I heard all three of those episodes also,,,, (well, the mcnabb one I heard on replays)
The "I hope he fails" I heard originally and when he aired it again on the commercial publicizing it. The commercial did not carry the same connotation or the extended qualifications as the original. His original message was haphazard and included a good deal more angry sputtering that was amazingly edited out to make that commercial.
His apology for substance abuse has been mitigated by his attacks on others for using drugs, like cindy mccain.
The stuff about McNabb only serves to go against his stated goals. Besides, he has never stopped making comments like this since he was caught for it.
I actually think that what I wrote was along the same lines as what you wrote, which was, in some ways kind of flattering. I didn't even include the worst aspects of El Rushbo, one of which include his depictions of Michael J. Fox which were totally out of line.
Really, besides the question of influence, which I kind of addressed when discussing his listening audience, the only thing that we disagreed on was his wsj article. About which, I definitely had more kind things to say.
I would say that your description of him as a sort of Dan Greene argument figure (circa 2003-2005) would be good one,, but let me respond to this assessment as a Pragmatist, "What did it accomplish then? What does it accomplish now?" Your argument in favor of him is basically, A. He's a huckster B. He's fun and entertaining C due to A and B, he is a force in politics
I said that A was indeed true, and that B is no longer the case due to his poor communication choices and that Glenn Beck has bypassed him. The case you made for C is almost laughable, but I do concede (in my original post) that he is a force in the sense that most of large audience are probably registered voters.
My favorite line of yours is this: "Maybe the thing that makes people most uncomfortable about Rush is that he actually believes what he says. In an age where certainty is considered impossible, this character trait really bothers people." People didn't like that about Jesus, either, but he was right.
Post a Comment