Rush Limbaugh on the Other Hand


Jon Rowe

Jon Rowe is a full Professor of Business at Mercer County Community College, where he teaches business, law, and legal issues relating to politics. Of course, his views do not necessarily represent those of his employer.

Related Post Roulette

15 Responses

  1. Avatar Rufus F. says:

    Not sure why, but this reminds me of any number of public events that I went to between, say, 1988 and 1992. Were the early 90s really like this? Did things change somehow after that point? It sure seems that way.Report

    • Avatar theotherjimmyolson in reply to Rufus F. says:

      I would appreciate if you would expand on what you mean Rufus. The first time I saw this clip was the only time I enjoyed seeing Rush.Report

      • Oh, sure. I’ve just wondered for some time if the early 90s weren’t the heyday of “political correctness run amok”. It’s not to say that there aren’t plenty of angry protesters now, particularly in Berkeley. But, I remember this sort of hyperbole- Rush Limbaugh has the blood of blacks on his hands!!!!- being something I encountered more frequently in the world back then, and I was in Baltimore. I had friends on college campuses where kids were marching against Western Civ, I’d go to parties looking to get laid and wind up being harrangued about Andrea Dworkin and the phallocracy all night, riot grrrl was blowing up (someday I’ll do a post on my time living in a house in Arlington that was riot grrrl central when they were blowing up) and I just seem to remember there being a lot more ‘culture war’ protests coming from the left- picketing porno palaces and beauty contests and things like that. I’m sure stuff like that might well exist now, but I never seem to encounter it anymore. So, when people talk about “P.C. zealots”, it brings me back to the 90s. And it’s not like I’m a shut-in these days.

        I guess my question is whether the “Ohmigod! Rush Limbaugh has the blood of women on his hands!” people really did chill out, or if I’ve just gotten luckier in the college campuses that I now find myself on.Report

  2. Avatar theotherjimmyolson says:

    One of my problems is that I am a functional shut- in at this stage in my life (I’m 70) and the result is I have difficulty relating to what your describing. In my opinion after 40 years in which things only got worse many people have simply lost hope. speaking personally, I was optimistic in the early sixties that America was on the verge of a cultural blossoming, overcoming some of it’s worst failings. It now appears that that process, which I welcomed hopefully, was frightening to a majority of my fellow citizens and we are now mired in the backlash four decades on. I don’t think the term PC zealot has any agreed upon meaning to all people. I see it as just another epithet to hurl at people we dis agree with. Thanks for responding.Report

  3. Avatar tom van dyke says:

    “But, I remember this sort of hyperbole- Rush Limbaugh has the blood of blacks on his hands!!!!”

    Creeping genocide, dude.

    But yeah. I don’t recall that sort of hyperbole exactly, but mebbe things are getting better. I don’t think so, though. But I’d rather you’re the one who’s right about this.Report

    • Avatar Rufus F. in reply to tom van dyke says:

      I could be wrong in thinking of it as a matter of hyperbole. It could be activism that I’m thinking of. It seems like, by the time Bush I was President, you’d turn on the news and hear that Act Up was pelting a Church with condoms, NOW was picketing a Hollywood movie, Women Against Pornography was picketing a dirty video store, and 13 other protests were going on. Now, I occasionally hear about PETA doing something, or an anti-war protest, but not the same sort of culture war activism. Certainly, the left protests when the President’s a Republican and the right protests when he’s a Democrat; but this was more like people protesting cultural issues. Similarly, I don’t remember the last time I heard about the religious right picketing a movie or magazine- when did Dogma come out? I think that was the last one I heard about.Report

  4. Does anyone else think that might have been scripted?Report

  5. Avatar Michael Heath says:

    I got a kick out of how Mr. Limbaugh described himself as honest and sought-out dissent whereas he’s become the poster-boy for how to succeed by distinguishing oneself by demonstrating opposite traits.

    In addition Mr. Limbaugh uses the popular rhetorical argument falling under the rubric of ‘democratic conservatism’ (back then noted as the ‘silent-‘ or ‘moral majority’). This argument has a couple of traits as exercised:

    1) It avoids acknowledging constitutional projections of individual or minority rights and instead argues simple majorities have the right to limit or prohibit the exercise of minority/individual rights as if those protections didn’t exist and require a supermajority to overcome. This argument was very popular between 2001 – 2006 when Republicans believed they were on the verge of a permanent majority. “Will of the people” was a frequent argument justifying judicial rulings that constitutionally deprived individuals of their rights where defending that right was described as “judicial activism”.

    2) That the subject issue has Americans agreeing with conservatives when they frequently do not, which appears true in this case and recently – on many aspects of health care reform.

    While I couldn’t go back to 1990 on Gallup’s running abortion polls regarding public support for this type of 1990 Idaho abortion bill, from 1996 – 2003 support/opposition for protection of abortion rights when rape and incest is involved remained steady in the high-seventy percent range. Given that Gallup’s more general questions break-down with little variance from the early 1960s through the late-2000s with the exception that “legal in all circumstances” was trending upwards and “never legal” was trending down in 1990, I feel sale concluding that the public wasn’t even close to supporting Mr. Limbaugh’s position, he’s lying. Here’s the NYTs summary of this Idaho abortion bill.

    Mr. Limbaugh finishes by claiming CBS didn’t “evict” anyone from the studio. Yet he finishes the show with no one in the audience. I assume CBS must have requested that the audience leave, which is pedantically consistent with eviction given its definition means the expulsion with the law on your side. Are we to believe that the audience all felt sorry for Mr. Limbaugh and monolithically decided to leave in order to allow Mr. Limbaugh to finish the show without interruption or does some other alternative explain no one being evicted and yet a studio with no audience prior to the end of the show?Report

  6. Avatar Scott Hanley says:

    I also like the (oft-repeated) refrain that, so long as you aren’t being arrested for protesting injustice, you obviously can’t be suffering any injustice.Report

  7. Avatar tom van dyke says:

    I’m not familiar with this one. Perhaps an example would be helpful.Report