Recently, Rush Limbaugh ran a three-day rant on a college student who testified before Congress. He called her a “slut,” a “prostitute” and said that she should sell him some sex tapes. As a result, Rush Limbaugh has lost at least seven sponsors, with the possibility of more to come. Here is the sad part. Of the various Republican candidates for President, only one has come out and clearly spoken against Limbaugh’s statements and subsequent apology. The rest have either waffled, or even defended Limbaugh, as Newt Gingrich recently did. The only candidate who spoke out was Ron Paul. Speaking of Rush’s apology, he said in part:
He’s doing it because some people were taking their advertisements off of his program. It was his bottom line he was concerned about. I don’t think he’s very apologetic. It’s in his best interest, that’s why he did it.
Sadly, Ron Paul is probably correct. What has been the response of various other Republicans? Well, they have gone searching through news archives trying to find examples of any non-current-Republican who used anywhere near such language. Or, they have looked for any Republican woman who might possibly have felt offended over some remark. And then they have gone out and said that this excuses what Rush said because everyone is doing it. Hopefully those of you who are parents can remember the rhetorical question asking whether if your friend jumped off of a building, would you do it as well. But, there are other serious problems with this argument as stated in a recent editorial by David Frum a well-known conservative pundit:
Point 1: Even by the rough standards of cable/talk radio/digital talk, Limbaugh’s verbal abuse of Sandra Fluke set a new kind of low. I can’t recall anything as brutal, ugly and deliberate ever being said by such a prominent person and so emphatically repeated. This was not a case of a bad “word choice.” It was a brutally sexualized accusation, against a specific person, prolonged over three days. …
Point 2: The cases that conservatives cite as somehow equivalent to Limbaugh’s tirade against Fluke by and large did bring consequences for their authors. …
Point 3: Limbaugh’s place in American public life is in no way comparable to that of David Letterman, Bill Maher or Ed Schultz.
Letterman is not a political figure at all; and while Maher and Schultz strongly identify as liberals, neither qualifies as anything like a powerbroker in the Democratic Party. I’m sure the Barack Obama re-election effort is happy to have Maher’s million-dollar gift, but I sincerely doubt there is a Democratic congressman who worries much whether Maher criticizes him. A word of criticism from Limbaugh, by contrast, will reduce almost any member of the Republican caucus to abject groveling. See, for example: GINGREY, PHIL. …
Point 4: Most fundamentally, why the impulse to counter one outrageous stunt by rummaging through the archives in search of some supposedly offsetting outrageous stunt? Why not respond to an indecent act on its own terms, and then — if there’s another indecency later — react to that too, and on its own terms?
Instead, public life is reduced to a revenge drama. Each offense is condoned by reference to some previous offense by some undefined “them” who supposedly once did something even worse, or anyway nearly as bad, at some point in the past. …
But too many Christians have been engaging in similar practices. Many have addressed any opposition as being worthy of excommunication from their church. Among the Orthodox, this might have meant mass excommunications, since we have bishops, priests, and deacons, who have voted for any of several political parties. We also qualify anyone who disagrees with us as being against us. More than that, should anyone dare to disagree with any laws that some Christians are proposing, then this makes it clear that the Christians are being persecuted and that the opinion of the person who opposes them is an opinion that comes straight from the pit.
But, I think that the worst practice is point four above. I have met all too many Christians who meet any outrage and dispell it by simply claiming that “your side” does it too. Any sense of decency and morality has been as lost as is Rush.
Christians do not convince people to listen to them by: using perjorative language, yelling at people, excommunicating even those who are not church members, and generally having a disproportionate sense of how much they are being persecuted. This is not to say that we should not take stands. But rather it is to say that the way in which stands are being taken, and the way in which even Christians are defending their favorite candidate by smearing others, is too far outside the pale. If you want to bring people to the Kingdom, take the stand you must take, but take them in love, gentleness, and a desire to bring healing to the souls of any who are lost.
Thank you, again, Father, for such an eloquent and appropriate comment.
To John McCain’s credit, he condemned Limbaugh’s outburst and said that others across the political spectrum should too. But, McCain isn’t running for president this time. Obama too phoned the law student and offered his support.
Even though most of the current candidates are asleep at the wheel, Limbaugh’s advertisers are paying close attention (finally). Dontcha love the free-market system? I mean, Limbaugh does. ‘Til now.
Father Ernesto you pinned the tail on the donkey again. I would extend the discussion in a different way as it might apply to the Christian life and specifically to confession and absolution. Influenced by our culture, instead of going to confession and confessing specific sins and hearing the specific word of absolution excuse themselves by saying that others have done the same or worse. We will never learn the power of absolution until we shed that mentality and confess our sins bluntly, plainly, naming them as sin, making no excuses. Then the might and gracious word of absolution works its wonders. If Rush is a Christian I would urge him to see his pastor immediately confess his sins and receive absolution. I pray he will know the joy of forgiveness but at the same time he will and must suffer consequences and that seems to be happening by losing sponsors. That is likely the best way to end this type of behavior. I am very tempted to publicly tell my congregation not to listen to Rush but that is using law instead of Gospel.
Art
Another thing I have noticed about conservative talk show hosts which I find troubling–they talk about their political opponents and use nicknames and diminutives of names that show me a little about those speaking not those spoken about. There are legitimate things to say about the current administration (as there are about any administration) and other politicized people on the “other side of the aisle” without demeaning them by not using their names. I think this sort of gambit is a cheap shot.
Morning drive-time radio where I am (Los Angeles) refers to Rush Limbaugh as de facto head of the Republican Party, usually when commenting how GOP candidates are pee-their-pants terrified of offending Rush or being denied Rush’s blessing.
I have only listened to Rush Limbaugh sporadically, and have noticed something. He has lost the sense of humor he had in his earlier days (circa 1989 or so). He has gotten a lot more dour and nasty and casually vicious as time went on. I suspect he started believing his own PR some years ago and is now fully convinced of his own grandeur and influence.
And then there’s Glenn Beck, the “Mormon Rush Limbaugh” who seems to be a Rush Limbaugh impersonator except more Rush than Rush.