Leave Rush Alone!
Sunday, March 29, 2009
As a well-meaning liberal, I find the Obama administration’s orchestrated attack on Limbaugh absolutely appalling. The White House has targeted a private citizen by name and Macalester’s student body couldn’t be happier. Has Obama gone mad? Or just fascist? Were the same thing to happen to one of our liberal golden children (Lenny Bruce and Mikey Moore come to mind) we would be up in arms, spouting some dogmatic non-truth about free speech.
Limbaugh—as well as other right-wing cultural malcontents like Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly—can (and absolutely should) be as rude as they want. No, I don’t find Limbaugh’s “Barack the Magic Negro” rejoinder charming or cute, just as I cringe when Coulter speaks of Christians as "perfected Jews" or O’Reilly of immigration policy. But would Limbaugh’s cultural commentary enrage us so much if they are simply unfair and untrue? Or do they contain a modicum of truth?
Though Rush and I disagree on many things, I think his analysis of certain cultural phemomenon, for example contemporary feminism, is bitingly accurate, though we may not want to admit it. What Limbaugh refers to as “feminazis” I see as the dogmatic-feminist-bourgeoisie with their painstakingly myopic view of the world, a world in which men are rapists, consent is black and white, and sex is political, ergo utterly boring. It is only in a society that has been intimidated by amoral lefties that women like Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon could reach mainstream status. I don’t agree with Limbaugh’s prescription for these cultural ills, but the diagnosis is accurate despite its acerbic choice of words.
You’re a twit if you think Limbaugh speaks for the Republican party. He’s an outsider, a crackpot, a crazed hermit. As a proponent of heartland conservatism he has been at odds with the Republican elite for years. But I suppose liberals wouldn’t know that because we only consume Limbaugh’s commentary through a biased filter, read: The Daily Show.
I’m also tired of people criticizing his lifestyle. So he’s a womanizer—so was JFK. So he obviously has some Major sexual hang-ups; so did Clinton. So he’s a wealthy pop-culture figure who pretends to be intelligent; so is Oprah. So he’s got an oxycotin problem…don’t we all?!
As an Obama supporter, I don’t agree with everything Limbaugh says. I was upset by his and Sean Hannity’s behavior on Inauguration Day, for example, when partisan politics should have been set aside. Nevertheless, I respect Limbaugh for his independent thought. His is the most provocative news analysis in the country. Not arch. Not substantial. Provocative. He goes his own way and writers and critics, myself included, should take a hint.
My point: instead of maligning crackpot radicals like Limbaugh we ought to look to them as barometers of culture, standing outside, looking in, and having the balls to critique accordingly. As a queer person of color with somewhat (shall we say?) “Strong” political opinions I am well aware that an outsider status affords a critic the ability to stand to the side and observe culturally normative tropes from the margins, see them for what it are: imperialistic, racist, sexist, and all those other buzz words the American Studies department likes to abuse. Likewise, Limbaugh can situate himself in opposition to the liberal pedantry disguised as right-doing and expose its more sordid and embarrassing sides. As liberals, we ought to desire the consultation of outsider figures, Right and Left alike, to help us see the things we can’t. That is the role radicals play in this culture.
We ought to implore Obama to get his staff's nose out of the dirt. We don’t need Special Olympics hating elitists like that anyhow. Obama’s dignity has been compromised; Limbaugh lost his dignity a long time ago.
