Skip to main content

More on Rush Limbaugh and crybaby politics

Over at The Philly Post yesterday, I lamented "The Era of Martyrdom Politics" in which we try to advance our cause by being offended by what our rivals have to say about us. I mentioned the whole Rush Limbaugh/Sandra Fluke thing, writing: "Suddenly we weren’t talking about contraceptive policy anymore, but about how a man who made his career two decades ago by coining the term 'feminazi' and crossing numerous other lines is, no kidding, really, a very obnoxious sexist and this time we mean it."

In other words, Rush has always been a jerk—there's nothing new to see here! And I think Gawker probably gets at this point a little better than I did:
So here comes Rush Limbaugh—a media entity who has repeatedly, almost monthly, reveled in a transparent strategy of uttering whatever racist, sexist, homophobic slur comes to mind for the explicit purposes of riling his antagonists—to utter a sexist slur for the explicit purposes of riling his antagonists. And his antagonists got riled! This dynamic is very, very old. (And I have certainly fallen for it). It used to be a somewhat sloppy process. Limbaugh would say things, and maybe some people would notice and write an angry newspaper column. Over the years the calumnies would build up until Al Franken cataloged them in book form.

Limbaugh claims that he does not hate women. But his critics know that he does. So when he lets slip a "slut," it can become valuable evidence in proving your case. ("He claims that he doesn't hate women, but look! He calls them sluts.") The trouble here is that Rush Limbaugh obviously and unambiguously hates women. His utterance of the word slut in the present context adds no new information about Limbaugh or his beliefs. Pre-"slut" and post-"slut" Limbaugh are identical in all respects.
I think that's right. I think Sandra Fluke was right to be very offended by Rush Limbaugh. It's the difference between the generalized bigotry of the term "feminazi" and a specific accusation leveled at a specific person.

But there's still an element of kabuki to the whole cycle of offense and umbrage, and, well, meh. Making a big deal about Rush won't make Georgetown University offer Sandra Fluke health insurance that covers contraceptives—I'm not sure it will even push the needle very far. And that's what the debate is supposed to be about.

Comments

zeditor said…
People have every right to be outraged -- Sandra Fluke most of all. But I fear that campaigns to get him off the air will just fuel his passionate "those lefties are out to silence me!" response. And the national dialogue won't have gone anywhere but crazy. The fact that Rush Limbaugh has been tolerated, even coddled, for more than two decades says more about our toxic political atmosphere than it does about his particular brand of stupid bigotry. I guess this is the kabuki you refer to.

What's the answer? Honestly, I don't know. For him to realize his contribution to the cesspool of popular discourse and silence (or at least temper) himself would be nice. So would a million-dollar check in my mailbox today. Neither is going to happen.

I need to keep thinking about this. Thanks for helping me along.
namefromthepast said…
I'm not holding my breath that the outrage coming from the left will illuminate the exact same behavior seen elsewhere.

So far liberals continue to ignore the likes of bill mahar, chris matthews, among others.

Your post is purely disingenuous political bullshit since you don't have-at least I haven't seen-the same reaction to folks who share your political beliefs.

Kirsten Powers did a great job pointing this out in her Daily Beast column.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/04/rush-limbaugh-s-apology-liberal-men-need-to-follow-suit.html
Joel said…
Namefromthepast:

"Your post is purely disingenuous political bullshit since you don't have-at least I haven't seen-the same reaction to folks who share your political beliefs."

http://joelmathis.blogspot.com/2010/07/trig-truther-theory-why-im-giving-up-on.html

http://joelmathis.blogspot.com/2010/10/mother-jones-and-sarah-palin.html

http://joelmathis.blogspot.com/2011/06/joe-mcginniss-sexually-demeans-sarah.html

http://joelmathis.blogspot.com/2011/09/joe-mcginnis-sexually-demeans-sarah.html

I've got a pretty consistent history of calling out sexism on the left when I see it. You don't know what you're talking about. As per usual.
namefromthepast said…
My apologies Joel.

I haven't been following you long enough to have seen those posts. Shouldn't have commented before I checked.

I must admit I have been pretty frustrated listening to the whole debate over this issue and what seems to be a double standard in some places. That's probably a better way to express how I was thinking. Shouldn't have made it so personal.

Popular posts from this blog

Yoga

I've been making some life changes lately — trying to use the time I have, now that I'm back in Kansas, to improve my health and lifestyle. Among the changes: More exercise. 30 minutes a day on the treadmill. Doesn't sound like a lot, but some is more than none, and I know from experience that getting overambitious early leads to failure. So. Thirty minutes a day.

One other thing: Yoga, a couple of times a week. It's nothing huge — a 15-minute flexibility routine downloaded from an iPhone app. But I've noticed that I'm increasingly limber.

Tonight, friends, I noticed a piece of trash on the floor. I bent over at the waist and picked it up, and threw it away.

Then I wept. I literally could not remember the last time I'd tried to pick something off the floor without grunting and bracing myself. I just did it.

Small victories, people. Small victories.

Liberals: We're overthinking this. Hillary didn't lose. This is what it should mean.

Interesting:
Nate Cohn of the New York Times estimates that when every vote is tallied, some 63.4 million Americans will have voted for Clinton and 61.2 million for Trump. That means Clinton will have turned out more supporters than any presidential candidate in history except for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And as David Wasserman of Cook Political Report notes, the total vote count—including third party votes—has already crossed 127 million, and will “easily beat” the 129 million total from 2012. The idea that voters stayed home in 2016 because they hated Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is a myth. We already know the Electoral College can produce undemocratic results, but what we don't know is why — aside from how it serves entrenched interests — it benefits the American people to have their preference for national executive overturned because of archaic rules designed, in part, to protect the institution of slavery. 

A form of choosing the national leader that — as has happened in …

I'm not cutting off my pro-Trump friends

Here and there on Facebook, I've seen a few of my friends declare they no longer wish the friendship of Trump supporters — and vowing to cut them out of their social media lives entirely.

I'm not going to do that.

To cut ourselves off from people who have made what we think was a grievous error in their vote is to give up on persuading them, to give up on understanding why they voted, to give up on understanding them in any but the most cartoonish stereotypes.

As a matter of idealism, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on democracy. As a matter of tactics, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on ever again winning in a democratic process.

And as a long-term issues, confining ourselves to echo chambers is part of our national problem.

Don't get me wrong: I expect a Trumpian presidency is a disaster, particularly for people of color. And in total honesty: My own relationships have been tested by this campaign season. There's probably some damage…