JONATHAN CHAIT FEBRUARY 4, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The newest issue of Commentary has an ode to the goodness of Rush Limbaugh, authored by Wilfred M. McClay. Apparently, Commentary staffer, former Bush administration Minister of Propaganda and designated Jonathan Chait Blog Fodder Provider Pete Wehner called Limbaugh to inform him he was being so flattered, leading to this entertaining on-air exchange:
RUSH: Last night I'm minding my own business, actually reading a novel and I get an e-mail from my buddy Pete Wehner saying, "Hey, if you haven't seen it there's a great piece at our magazine, Commentary magazine: How to Understand Rush Limbaugh." And I thought, "It must be if Pete's pointing it out to me." This guy, Wilfred McClay, writes about, how to put this... we're into our 23rd year here and he raises things that have not been asked before other than by Zev Chafets in the book Rush Limbaugh: An Army of One. So we've linked to it at RushLimbaugh.com. ...
RUSH: Okay, to the phones. We'll start in Greenville, North Carolina, and Sarina. I'm glad you called. It's great to have you here, and hello.
CALLER: Hi, Mr. Limbaugh. How are you? It's such an honor to speak to you.
RUSH: Thank you very much.
CALLER: Anyway, I'm calling to tell you I'm a little bit mad at you because I got up this morning and I got on my Facebook and I saw the post that you had to look at that article on how to understand Rush Limbaugh, and I read the entire thing and it's absolutely excellent, and you told your viewers that you "hardly" recommend it, but it's excellent. Why?
RUSH: Well, no, no, no. I said I "heartily" recommend it.
CALLER: Oh, heartily! I misunderstand. That's my mistake. I thought you said you "hardly" recommend it.
RUSH: Why would I bring it up if I don't want to recommend it?
CALLER: That's true. I just wanted to tell you that I love you, I listen to you every day, I'm seven months pregnant, so I've got a genuine Rush Baby in utero.
As for the article itself, the only thing keeping the author from declaring that he, too, has a Rush Baby in utero is his lack of uterus. The many criticisms of Limbaugh (see for instance, David Frum's piece on the subject) are ignored or, at most, referenced only in the most oblique way. Of course, in so doing, McClay forces himself to miss the only things that distinguish Limbaugh from every other Republican talking head. Here, for instance, is McClay's account of Limbaugh's dust-up with the White House in January 2009:
Limbaugh had just stunned the country, days before Obama was inaugurated, by summarizing his feelings about the new president in four simple words: “I hope he fails.” Limbaugh impatiently brushed aside the happy talk about compromise and bipartisan cooperation and scoffed at the claim that Obama was a pragmatic, post-ideological, post-partisan, post-racial conciliator and healer. Instead, he saw every reason to believe that Obama would aggressively pursue a leftist dream agenda: an exponential expansion of government’s size and power, a reordering of the American economic system, and a dismantling of America’s role as a world power. Limbaugh was not alone in such views, but he was the only major figure on the right willing to stick his neck out at a time when the rest of the nation seemed dazed into acquiescence by the so-far impeccably staged Obama ascendancy.
The notion that Limbaugh was the sole right-winger unwilling to pledge himself to a bipartisan lovefest with Obama is, obviously, more than a bit strained given that GOP leaders came out in total opposition to Obama's economic rescue program even before he was sworn in. What actually set Limbaugh apart was not that he disagreed with Obama's economic program, or that he hoped it would fail legislatively, which would be a perfectly normal thing for a partisan to believe, but that he believed that Obama's plan was not even intended to spark the economy. Limbaugh wanted Obama to fail because he believed Obama was actually trying to foment an economic collapse. He said so repeatedly:
We have plenty of external threats, enemies across oceans, but we have a threat inside as well. This is something that I've never felt. I never feel that we had a president actually governing against the country, against the will of the people. I know we've had liberals. Clinton and Hillary were, and are. They're pedal-to-the-metal liberals. But they didn't want to destroy things. This bunch does...
Why aren't we growing jobs in this country like we used to? Why aren't we? It's not hard to do. There's all kinds of textbook evidence, real-life historical evidence of how to do it. We're not doing it; we're not doing it on purpose. It's payback time.
Or, for another example, here:
Obama is joyfully overseas talking about the decline of the US economy, happily presiding over it, implicitly acknowledging the decline of American dominance. It's what he's all about. He's happy he's made it happen.
The assumption that Obama is deliberately subverting the economy, not just pursuing misguided policies, dovetails with the notion of Obama as an alien subversive, which Limbaugh is also happy to encourage:
All right, little Barry is back in Indonesia, and they're all happy over there. Little Barry Soetoro is back and they're all happy over there in Indonesia. In fact, he was someplace in India, he was introduced by somebody from Kenya, and the woman says, "As a fellow Kenyan, Mr. President," of course everybody looked the other way, "What do you mean fellow Kenyan, we don't want to hear this," and now little Barry is back.
This kind of delirious, conspiratorial talk had been heard from ranters appearing at the late stages of McCain-Palin campaign rallies, but the campaign had vigorously distanced itself from it. The significance of Limbaugh's rant was a mainstreaming of what had been a marginal set of beliefs -- Obama not merely as a liberal, but as an alien, conspiratorial figure posing a fundamental threat to American liberty and working deliberately to subvert its strength. That is a genuine intellectual contribution, though McClay can't acknowledge it.
The only way an uninformed reader might be able to glean that Limbaugh has any controversial beliefs is McClay's reference to his manifold, powerful enemies:
He conducts his show in an air of high-spiritedness and relaxed good humor, clearly enjoying himself, always willing to be spontaneous and unpredictable, even though he is aware that every word he utters on the air is being recorded and tracked by his political enemies in the hope that he will slip up and say something career-destroying. Limbaugh the judo master is delighted to make note of this surveillance, with the same delight he expresses when one of his “outrageous” sound bites makes the rounds of the mainstream media, and he can then play back all the sputtering but eerily uniform reactions from the mainstream commentators, turning it back on them with a well-placed witticism.
"Surveillance" is funny word to use here -- it is generally thought to apply to the unwanted monitoring of private conversation, not the practice of listening to political diatribes broadcast on national radio so as to rebut them.
And why do Limbaugh's enemies "surveill" his program in the belief that he will destroy his career? McClay won't come out and explain, so allow me: Limbaugh is a racial demagogue. He plays constantly upon the racial paranoia of his audience. If he were black, we would call him a "race man."
Limbaugh is obsessed with race. In his telling, racism against whites does not just happen here or there, it has overwhelmed -- indeed, completely replaced -- traditional white-on-black racism. "Racism in this country is the exclusive province of the left," he says. In Limbaugh's world, minorities deploy racism endlessly and with impunity against whites, who are hamstrung by out-of-control political correctness. He presents Obama's agenda as the blacks' revenge against White America for slavery and Jim Crow. ("He's angry, he's gonna cut this country down to size, he's gonna make it pay for all the multicultural mistakes that it has made, its mistreatment of minorities.") Even such disparate events as a random school bus fight between a couple kids who happen to be black and a kid who happens to be white reveal, in Limbaugh's fevered mind, a widespread pattern of racial victimization against whites triggered by Obama:
You put your kids on a school bus, you expect safety but in Obama's America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering, "Yay, right on, right on, right on, right on," and, of course, everybody says the white kid deserved it, he was born a racist, he's white.
This is another interesting quality of Limbaugh's. He stands in stark contrast to the general pattern of a Republican Party that has steadily distanced itself from racialized appeals to whites. McClay, obviously, can't acknowledge that, either. Instead he offers up descriptions of Limbaugh such as "he reminds one of the affirmative spirit of Ronald Reagan and, like Reagan, reminds his listeners of the better angels of their nature."
18 comments
I actually had lunch with McClay (and a couple of other people) around two years ago, and we had a brief email exchange afterwards about a topic of mutual interest. I knew he was a conservative historian and commentator, but he was a very engaging and open-minded guy, as far that brief meeting went, and he seemed to take a realistic perspective on politics. My impression here is that he has switched off every critical nerve possible in order to write this ludicrous piece of unthinking fanmail.
- ironyroad
February 4, 2011 at 1:45am
Limbaugh may or may not be a racist, but my take on his act is that it is his reaction to being told that he should not be a racist or a misogynist (re: feminazis). So in response, he accuses. Also, I believe Limbaugh, who started in the early stage of internet communications (when bulletin boards and messaging were developing,) had struck up a communication link with Newt Gingrich because he often spoke of inside political information (he forewarned of the House Check Kiting Scandal before it became news). When Howard Stern commented on David Letterman about Limbaugh's success, Stern noted that it was odd that Limbaugh agreed with Gingrich on every single issue.
- Nusholtz
February 4, 2011 at 8:30am
Limbaugh's fans are fond of insisting he is not, in fact, a racist, that much of what he says is simply as an entertainer, that he is (in Rush's own words) "drawing attention to absurdity by being absurd". But even if one were able to peer into Rush's soul (assuming it exists) and divine that he has truly nothing but feelings of love peace and goodwill for all races, the fact that he chooses at every opportunity to spew racist bile over the airwaves to a fawning audience makes this utterly irrelevent. Read Vonnegut's Mother Night. Ultimately, we are what we pretend to be. This is never more true than when our words and actions influence the belief systems of countless others.
- Tristan
February 4, 2011 at 8:57am
I read this ridiculous bit of hagiography at Commentary when my issue came in the mail and I was going to email it Conor Friedersdorf in the hope that he would write about it at The Daily Dish but the February issue wasn't even online at the less-than-august neoconservative site. My favorite part of the article is when the egregious Wilfred McClay contends that radio would be worse and more aggressive if El Rushbo had never come along.
- liberalref
February 4, 2011 at 9:20am
Great post, Jonathan, but now I've got acid indigestion and dangerously high blood pressure. I need to get to a happy place.
- VBKim
February 4, 2011 at 9:29am
Of course Limbaugh is a racist, a xenophobe and an Islamophobe. He managed to blow all three dog whistles in 1 sentence: "All right, little Barry is back in Indonesia, and they're all happy over there. Little Barry Soetoro is back and they're all happy over there in Indonesia. " Good thing for Rush that Sarena in Greenville is giving birth to a genuine Rush baby. After all, he hasn't been able to sire one in any of his 4 marriages. And "An Army of One", ironic title for someone who avoided service because he had a giant zit on his ass.
- dubyadoubte
February 4, 2011 at 10:16am
The huge zit on Rush's ass did not prevent McClay from tunneling so deep into Rush's alimentary canal that he could see his molars. Good thing for McClay that it smells like roses.
- Geoff G
February 4, 2011 at 11:26am
Rush's racial obsession is also what got him fired from Monday Night Football. it shows up even when he is not engaging in demagoguery.
- JEFF FREY
February 4, 2011 at 11:43am
JEFF, I was thinking exactly the same thing...I have a tough time believing this guy doesn't realize he's a racist. Then again, never underestimate a person's ability to lie to themself.
- GSpinks
February 4, 2011 at 12:40pm
Rush who?
- wamba1
February 4, 2011 at 2:07pm
The Right is suffused with this stuff, and it barrages its supporters with the Big Lie that every bit of the slime comes from the Left.
- Mikelawyr22
February 4, 2011 at 2:40pm
Limbaugh said the same thing about the Clintons. He had a friend of mine so convinced that the Clintons were out to destroy the US economy that he sold a lot of his stock for safer investments. Of course, in the process, he lost out on the biggest gains the stock market has ever made (funny that Karma). But how could Rush be wrong? He says he's always right and I have to believe it. When will someone do an actual accounting, tallying up all the things he said that were matters of fact that are objectively wrong, or all the predictions of doom that were flat wrong? Media Matters this does this to some extent, but this is always discounted as "Well, everyone makes incorrect statements in the course of a 3 hour radio program." Yes, but what if he says almost nothing but total bullshit? What if 90% of the things he says are factually wrong or nearly all his predictions are hysterically off or ridiculous? Or is he like Bill Kristol and be continually wrong but still keep getting venerated by the MSM?
- RobertW
February 5, 2011 at 1:51am
Limbaugh's shtick is pointing out hypocrisy in a provocative (and at times, uncomfortable) manner. No more no less. And he's better at it than just about anyone else out there. And people generally love listening to someone point out why those they disagree with are hypocrites because it makes them feel a bit better for their life choices, hence the large audience. Those that disagree with him listen to him because they hear so much more than is actually said. Their mind fills in the gaps, and they too get to feel better about their life choices because these gaps are filled with bogeymen they are certain are actually there, without Limbaugh actually having said the words. It's a very simple formula. As for racism, look at Limbaugh's comments on McNabb (perhaps his biggest gaffe on race to date as it cost him a job): "I don't think [McNabb's] been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They're interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there's a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn't deserve. The defense carried this team." That comment was branded "outrageous and offensive" by the congressional black caucus. The NAACP called the comments "bigoted and ignorant." Howard Dean called for his resignation. Wesley Clark called the comments "hateful and ignorant speech" I wonder which specific sentence each were thinking about when they made their assessment of Limbaugh's comment? About that time, the NFL had been levying serious fines on teams for not interviewing enough people of color for coaching jobs. This was classic Limbaugh. Those that liked him said "hell yes, finally someone calls it as it is." Those that don't like him said "Hell yes, this man is a racists and should be fired." Limbaugh basks in the controversy as lines are drawn, and for 2 weeks it's all about him. Sides are taken, TV segments are devoted to analyzing everything, and Limbaugh sits back and smiles, his stature just a little bit larger. And he does this again and again. And it only works because his understanding of conflict and human nature is keener than anyone can imagine. Politically, Limbaugh could flip to the left in a heartbeat and do the entire shtick again without missing a beat. He's that good at what he does. Appreciate the skill, not the message.
- seattleeng
February 5, 2011 at 1:11pm
But the skill can't be truly appreciated if the skill is the coded articulation of white male resentment. That's not really a noble cause, to be very honest.
- ironyroad
February 6, 2011 at 1:02am
Irony, Limbaugh has male listeners at about the same % as Daily and Colbert, and almost 20% of his audience self-identifies as moderate to left. Given his massive audience, and given the puny audience of, say Olberman and Maddow, it means there are libs listening to Limbaugh that to Olberman/Maddow. Strange, eh? Pew Research breaks down the demographics for you. Also, read the Mother Jones article on Limbaugh. Teh man has this figured out. His shtick isn't white mail resentment. It's pandering to anyone who feels they worked towards the american dream, but were denied that due to government interference. He has a staggering 8M female listeners every day: Almost 3X what Oprah has. No idea on his numbers for black listeners. Pew also notes the knowledge of his listeners quite high: Higher than BBC, Colbert, Daily Show, Oreilly, MSNBC and CSPAN consumers.
- seattleeng
February 6, 2011 at 11:46am
Doesn't add up. http://mediamatters.org/columns/200903090031
- ironyroad
February 6, 2011 at 7:11pm
Funny that radio has had a long-established way for measuring all this, and if that didn't jibe with Limbaugh's numbers, the advertisers wouldn't pay it. Why would they? Why pay a 10X premium for something that didn't exist? And of course, Pew, who knows a think or two about polling, measured that 5% regularly listen to Limbaugh, and an extra 9% listen sometimes. There are about 250M adults in the US, so that is 12.5M that listen "regularly", and 35M that listen "sometimes". But I'm sure you feel better finding a Media Matters article that says this type of stuff just cannot be known. Jesus, Irony....
- seattleeng
February 6, 2011 at 10:05pm
Just the facts, ma'am . . .
- ironyroad
February 7, 2011 at 12:52am