Let's not Rush to conclusions

As we anticipated, people have strong and differing views on Rush Limbaugh. That’s why we began the title of our post with “Say what you will.” Our point was not to defend or demolish Rush Limbaugh’s political theories or cultural critiques, but to point out that regardless of what you think about him, he’s good at his job. Our opinion on this point remains unchanged.

What is his job? As we alluded to, and as he often states on his show (which I have listened to for more than 5 minutes), his job is:

“Illustrating absurdity by being absurd.”

What’s absurd? That an elected official would purposely misrepresent the words of a private individual with whom he knowingly and consistently disagrees, in order to smear that individual’s reputation, and then attempt to use his political clout to force that private individual to shut up. How did Rush illustrate this? By being equally absurd and auctioning off the written “threat” on eBay. What’s more, he gave the ridiculous proceeds to a support the very people he was alleged to have criticized.

That’s clever, if not brilliant.

Georgie and Married Man raised some interesting points:

"you don't think rush limbaugh is a hypocrite for calling for tougher sentences for drug felons and then developing a drug habit of his own?”

First, that’s a straw man that has little to do with the current topic. Perhaps that was Married Man’s point. Whether Rush is a hypocrite (in terms of drug use/punishment) is of no consequence when it comes to what he said about soldiers, how it was portrayed by Reid and the Drive By Media, and how Rush responded with one of the more clever things I’ve seen.

Second, we don’t happen to think that Rush is a hypocrite. If Rush argued for stricter drug punishments, and then was convicted of drug usage and said those stronger sentences didn’t apply to him, that would be hypocritical. As far as we know, he hasn’t done that. If Rush condemned drug usage, and denied that he had a problem (in the face of counter evidence), that would be hypocritical. He hasn’t done that, either. But to advocate for a certain standard, even if that person fails to live up to the standard, is not necessarily hypocritical. I once read a good definition of hypocrisy: hypocrisy is best understood as saying something while intending to do something else. For example: if a person has a tendency toward alcoholism, and advocates for sobriety (himself abstaining from drink), but while at a party is given a drink and gives in to the temptation, we would say that person is weak. But not an hypocrite.

Contrast that with Reid who, faced with Rush’s clever idea of raising money for a veteran’s children charity organization, attempted to take credit for the idea (which was not his), encouraged people to support the cause and give money to the charity, but then refused to support the charity himself. I’m not sure if that qualifies as hypocrisy, but sure as heck walks the line.

“however, your STRONG defense of rush limbaugh really bothers me. i'm not calling for him to be taken off the air and am mindful of your free speech argument. if you actually listen to this man for 5 minutes, however, it's really hard not to feel yourself enraged with anger. either at the people he's talking about or at himself for his hatred.”

Hatred is a strong word. We’ve listened to Rush off an on since we were in high school. He is not a man of hate. We’re not sure what exactly you’ve heard that makes you “enraged with anger”, so we’ll refrain from attempting to defend something we know nothing about.

this show, and shows like this, are harmful b/c they are so freakin' divisive.”

We’re not sure what you mean by “shows like this.” Since you admitted that you are mindful of free speech arguments, we’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don’t mean conservative talk shows in general. If you did, then the sole “divisive” feature of the show would be its political leaning. This leaves us with either talk shows in general, which we doubt you meant, or else this is a reference to similar shows of hatred. We know of no such shows.

It’s not our position to offer an apology for Rush. We happen to think he’s generally an intelligent voice in the midst of increasingly noisy political discourse. We don’t always agree with him, but we generally do. More importantly, however, we recognize that Rush is a constant target of attack by those who disagree with him, and (like this recent instance) they generally choose to attack the person, rather than analyze the merits of what he has to say. Rush has often jumped to the defense of others when they have been attacked unfairly.

For once, we thought we’d do the same.