Wednesday, March 11, 2009

A Rush of hate to the head

On Sunday The Huffington Post published a great article by Deepak Chopra, talking about how Rush Limbaugh, through a thin veil of so-called 'conservatism', has become a god unto himself and his listeners, without moral or ethical ground to stand on. He is angry, and that makes him right. As Chopra says,
Anything Limbaugh judges against is condemned, not by scripture, but simply by him being pissed off. Whatever Limbaugh hates -- however petty, personal, and arbitrary his animus -- is ipso facto wrong...To be outraged is to be morally superior.
Maybe some of you stopped reading at "Huffington" and already condemned this article or this post as liberally biased. But that's only because people falsely believe Rush to be a symbol of conservatism or the Republican party. These he most certainly is not. The only thing he can honestly claim to be a true representative of is hate.

There is no way to reach a consensus with the Rush Limbaughs of either party - everything is black or white, right and wrong, their way or the highway. There is no middle ground to be reached. It's easy to be an armchair activist (or a radio show revolutionary) because they're not involved in an endgame. Rush can shout and rant all he wants because his purpose in life is to shout and rant, and nothing more. There is no space at his table for anyone except those that agree with him.

But Chopra ain't a hater, and he won't judge:
We secretly love rascals, bank robbers, tricksters, swindlers, hell raisers, and outlaws. And when we feel so inclined, we laugh at them. Rush Limbaugh may represent a toxic form of entertainment -- and the bile he spews bears no resemblance to true morality -- but the fact that America makes room for him is something to be proud of.
The problem, in reality, is not that Rush Limbaugh exists, as I use to think. I enjoy listening to Rush on occasion for the same reasons Chopra talks about. He is so intolerant that it's almost - almost - funny sometimes. Rush is an entertainer, and he's good at what he does. The real problem is that he, and many who cower to him, can no longer tell the difference between fiction and reality.

4 comments :

  1. Scott1:05 AM

    good point. I used to think Steele was cool, until he backed down to Rush

    ReplyDelete
  2. I respectfully disagree. I think Rush can be impassioned at times. I'm not a regular listner either, I do listen at times. Hate is a label that is tossed around to stain alot of people we disagree with. I've witnesses vitriol in marches in DC with figures hung in effigy, shouts and calls to kill; I recall a popular liberal figure who disagreed with President Bush wistfully hoping someone shot him. To me, those are instances of hateful expression. Be careful not to label passionate defense of your beliefs as hatred.

    FYI Steele didn't 'back down' to Rush either, in my opinion. Wording makes a difference. I watched Steele's original interview, Rush's reply, and Steele's apology for mistreating a fellow conservative in an interview.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I did read the article on Huffington (I do read articles on there from time to time, just not a regular reader :-) I do like to think of myself as a critical reader. I don't enjoy biased rants from either liberal or conservative points of view that rely on ad-hominem attacks. I reread that first paragraph several times, just marveling at the choice of phrasing and tenor. I guess for people predisposed to the point of view, it comes across as even tempered editorial. But to my view, in an article talking about anger/hatred - gosh, the language he uses to discuss Rush / Bush / Steele / Palin - seems pretty angry to me.
    (Oh, did you see article on Fox today, pointing out that in 2001 Pres. Clinton's chief political strategist was hoping that Bush failed?)

    ReplyDelete
  4. You're right - it is rash of me to say that Rush is full of hate, since I can't remember personally hearing him use that word. But that doesn't mean he's not a representative of hate - calling everyone a "wacko" or "pinko" just because they don't agree with you doesn't do anything except piss people off. It incites hate in everyone - not just those that disagree with him. And it's not only Rush who is guilty of it. Al Franken does the same thing, just with a laugh.

    BTW I never had any problem with Rush's comments wishing Obama failure or whatever he said. I understand what he meant. If Hitler were around today would you wish him success or failure?

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...