A Few More Thoughts on Rush
Apologies for the radio silence on Monday - here’s a Tuesday treat instead.
The remembrances of Rush Limbaugh continued over the weekend, and one theme that conservative critics offered was the idea that Limbaugh - whatever his strengths - became, over time, more angry, more paranoid, more resentful, and conservative politics began to mirror that outlook.
I think that’s undeniable. When I was first exposed to Limbaugh in the early 1990s and even up to the 2004 election, he was largely a jovial, happy warrior and while rough around the edges - more on that in a minute - he could be counted on to present something of a positive outlook. I’m not sure when things changed - I honestly stopped listening probably fifteen years ago - but Rush came to argue for the (false) narrative of conservative failure. This is a familiar narrative that suggests decades of GOP politicians failed to advance meaningful conservative reforms.
The problem here is that from the mid-80s to late-90s, conservative policies did hold sway and were largely effective. What no one seemed to realize, however, is that once those policies were enacted - welfare reform, major tax cuts, etc. - there was less to do on those specific issues. When you lower a tax rate by 15%, you’ve gotten most of the value out of the tax cut. Moreover, it’s much easier to convince centrist Democrats and independent voters that rates are too high when they are, in fact, very high. It’s a harder sell when your goal is to lower taxes by 2% or when the tax cut in question falls more favorably on upper incomes.
I think this is part of the explanation for the resentment that Rush and others of his kind demonstrated - they confused values (taxes should remain relatively low) with policies (taxes should always be cut). But the latter doesn’t necessarily flow from the former, and looking back, it’s clear that Republicans and conservatives should have moved in other directions. Indeed, had they done so, they might have been able to hold on to the center of American politics in a way that would have prevented both parties from slowly gravitating to their more extreme forms.
But back to Rush’s outlandish persona. Much of the criticism that has followed in the wake of his passing is from those on the left who recall his years of jokes and asides that are rather plainly sexist, racist, or homophobic. Now it’s possible that some of those things flew under the radar for some listeners, and I think it’s very likely that our lizard brains tend to hear what we want to hear and dismiss the rest. And Rush could be hilarious! I recall in 1992 my father would crack up every time Rush mentioned Ross Perot’s name because when he did, the producer would play a robust edition of “When Johnny Comes Marching Home.” That’s witty and funny - no one would find that offensive. But too often Rush pushed the envelope in an outrageous direction, such as the recurring riff on Barack Obama in 2006-2008 to the tune of Puff the Magic Dragon. It wasn’t funny and it absolutely played on racial stereotypes. Racial conversations are important but difficult - and talk radio is hardly the medium for carrying them out.
Perhaps the worst thing Rush did - and it wasn’t even intended to be a parody - was his criticism of Georgetown student Sandra Fluke. You may recall Fluke’s testimony before a House committee in 2012, wherein she testified about birth control coverage as part of health insurance. Rush took umbrage at the mere suggestion, calling Fluke a slut. Again, there are arguments to be had about insurance, birth control, and employer obligations - but reducing the issue down to one of slutiness vs. virtue was abhorrent.
So when conservatives praise Rush upon his death, they have to own all of his legacy, not just part of it. And if one is praising Rush uncritically, you have to wonder how much of Rush they really hard. If those conservatives heard the worst of Rush and still offer uncritical praise, they may be saying more about themselves than they intend.