Saturday, February 20, 2021

Limbaugh’s Legacy: Normalizing Hate for Profit


 
 FEBRUARY 19, 2021
Facebook

Drawing by Nathaniel St. Clair

Rush Limbaugh’s death represents a moment for reflection on the state of American politics. Limbaugh amassed a fortune of more than $600 million over 32 years in the talk radio business, in the process building up more than 15 million regular listeners. It was no exaggeration when CNN referred to him as a “pioneer of AM talk-radio.” He made possible the rise of propagandistic partisan media, demonstrating that this format could be incredibly profitable for news channels looking for low-budget programming filled by pundits who tell audiences what they want to hear, while strengthening their prior beliefs and values.

Reflecting on Limbaugh’s legacy, The New York Times described the “rightwing” “megastar” by his “slashing, divisive style of mockery and grievance,” which “reshaped American conservatism.” CNN remembered him as a “conservative media icon who for decades used his perch as the king of talk-radio to shape the politics of both the Republican Party and nation.” MSNBC reported that Limbaugh was a “powerful and controversial voice in American politics” who was known for pushing a “conservative slant.”

One might have plausibly characterized Limbaugh as a conservative in the 1990s and 2000s, despite his conspiratorial paranoia against the Bill Clinton administration, and his long history of sexist and racist rants. But for those following his career over the last decade, it should be clear that Limbaugh had crossed over from conservative to neofascist in his politics. The racist and conspiratorial “birther” nonsense Limbaugh trafficked in during the late 2000s and early 2010s, his reference to liberal activist Sandra Fluke as a “slut” and a “prostitute,” his labeling of feminists as “Feminazis,” and his incessant race-baiting by trafficking in anti-black stereotypes and rhetoric, all reinforced his profile as a rightwing ideologue who had long straddled the line between conservative and far-right reactionary. But during the Trump years and in the run-up to them, Limbaugh’s politics became noticeably more extreme, as the Republican Party itself moved further and further toward embracing neofascistic politics.

This piece is not devoted to the “greatest hits” of Rush Limbaugh cliches that have gotten so much attention among critics. Rather, I review the most extreme of Limbaugh’s comments in recent years that have consistently been swept under the rug in mainstream academic, journalistic, and Democratic discourse. The simple reason for why you probably haven’t heard most of these statements is because they reveal Limbaugh’s politics to be neofascistic, and referring to a powerful pundit like Limbaugh in those terms simply will not do in polite society. In a country that has long convinced itself, in Sinclair Lewis’s famous words, that “It Can’t Happen Here,” American political culture simply won’t allow for the possibility that the U.S. has become neofascistic in its politics.

To be clear, when I talk about “neofascism,” I’m referring to a school of thought established by social scientists and journalists recognizing that, while the exact features of classical Italian and German fascism are not going to repeat themselves in future settings, we may observe enough of an overlap between the features of classical fascist regimes and current political contexts to speak of an updated, contemporary version of (neo)fascistic politics. More specifically, I am referring to a constellation of traits that relate to neofascistic politics, including the embrace of white supremacy, the rampant trafficking in conspiratorialism fueled by the cult of personality of a demagogic leader, support for paramilitarism and the romanticization of eliminationist rhetoric and violence against alleged enemies of The Leader, efforts to idealize and impose one-party rule, and Orwellian efforts to gaslight political critics by inverting reality and trafficking in blatant propaganda. I explore each of these traits, related to Limbaugh, below.

White Supremacy

Limbaugh’s bigotry never fit the conventional mold of white supremacists donning Klan robes or goosestepping Nazis shouting “Sieg Heil” to The Fuhrer. Modern white supremacy is much more subtle than that; its advocates have spent years – decades really – mainstreaming their hate rhetoric to a popular audience, while denying that they are trafficking in neofascistic themes. Limbaugh pioneered this form of white supremacist hate, although the primary target wasn’t black Americans, but Muslims and undocumented immigrants.

Limbaugh’s Islamophobia was unrelenting. He referred to Muslims in blanket negative terms, including:

1) The position that Muslims are unintelligent and incapable of serious intellectual accomplishments, reflected in Limbaugh’s comparison between “the number of Muslims who have been Nobel prize winners to the number of Jews who have been Nobel prize winners,” which he declared no “contest.” Limbaugh was clear that he believed “Muslim contributions to science and math are myths.”

2) The belief that Muslims are contemptuous of democracy, via Limbaugh’s claim that “there is not a Muslim nation democratic in the way we are anywhere in the world,” and by his dismissal of the 2011 democratic Egyptian uprising as a phony revolution pursued under the “guise” of democracy.

3) The contention that Muslims represent a fifth column in their alleged efforts to take over American politics, evidenced by his wild conspiratorial fearmongering – which was rejected as “dangerous” by Congressional Republican leadership – about the Muslim Brotherhood taking over the State Department through the “presence of Huma Abedin,” one of “Hillary Clinton’s top-level aides,” who Limbaugh described as “so close to the powers that be.” Abedin’s position concerned Limbaugh because, as he explained, “Human’s mother is best friends with the wife of the new Muslim Brotherhood President of Egypt.”

4) The myth that the public was in “panic” that “Obama is a Muslim,” with Limbaugh’s Islamophobia buttressed by references to the President as “Imam Hussein Obama,” and his claim that the President was a “defender of Islam,” and dead-set on “constantly denigrating Christians.” Limbaugh characterized Muslims as a foreign, exotic other, via his denigration of Obama for claiming Muslims are “a part of the fabric of America,” to which Limbaugh responded that he “didn’t know that.”

5) The position that Muslims represent a terrorist threat to the nation, via Limbaugh’s objection to distinguishing between “Islamic extremism” and “all of Muslims,” and his contention that “in a more sensible time,” “we did not say ‘German Nazis’ – we said ‘Germans’ or ‘Nazis’ and put the burden on non-Nazi Germans, rather than on ourselves, to separate themselves from the aggressors.”

Limbaugh’s white supremacy extended to his attacks on undocumented immigrants. Drawing on classic fascist themes out of Hitler’s Third Reich, Limbaugh referred to Latin American immigrants as an “invasive species,” comparing them to “mollusks,” while depicting them as an “invasion force” that “contributes to the overall deterioration of the culture of this society.” Limbaugh lamented that “we have now imported the third world,” and “they have not assimilated.” He warned that, due to undocumented immigrants, “we are at the forefront of a dissolution of a nation” – facing the “breakdown of organized society.” Perhaps not-so-subtly drawing parallels to Nazi-era propaganda and the purity of the nation and its racial and ethnic identity, Limbaugh warned about unauthorized immigration that “the objective is to dilute and eventually eliminate or erase what is known as the distinct or unique American culture…this is why people call this an invasion.” And Limbaugh recycled Nazi propaganda depicting Jews as an infection when he wonderedaloud about the “dangers of catching diseases when you sleep with illegal aliens.” When taken together, these comments reveal that Limbaugh was a shrewd operator. He was a bigot, consistently smuggling white supremacist themes into his programs, while being careful to avoid recognizing what he was doing, and counting on his listeners’ ignorance to obscure his recycling of Nazi-style white supremacist propaganda.

Conspiracy Theories and the Cult of Personality

Limbaugh made sure his political fortunes were inseparably linked to Donald Trump’s. This was abundantly clear in his conspiratorial rhetoric. He took as articles of faith the former President’s baseless “election fraud” propaganda, coupled with other wild conjecture about Democratic plots to take down Trump. Limbaugh speculated that the Democratic Party was attempting to infect Trump with Covid-19, that “radical leftists” and “the Democratic Party” had engaged in a “fraud” to “beat Trump” via “ballot harvesting” and other election scams in battleground states; that the Covid-19 lockdown represented an effort “to take down the U.S. economy” by imposing “globalism and world government”; that the official Covid-19 death counts were inflated due to “fake causes” listed “on death certificates” and the “staged overrunning of hospitals”; and that newly reported Covid-19 cases were “being reported in states that Trump needs to win,” implying that these cases were part of a coordinated Democratic effort to undermine the former President’s candidacy. None of these assertions were accurate. But fascists aren’t exactly known for embracing leaders who rationally engage in empirical evidence.

Conspiratorial Eliminationism

Closely overlapping with Limbaugh’s white supremacy was his conspiratorial eliminationism, which focused on black Americans and the Democratic Party. During the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, Limbaugh demonized people of color, stoking fear via his talk about “saving America from a race war that the Democrats are out there actively trying to promote…they want chaos, they want this constant us-versus-them aspect of daily life.” In contrast, Limbaugh claimed, Trump was “making it clear that he’s interested in people who are constructive, productive, generally happy. He’s not interested in parasites, the generally miserable.” The “parasites” reference was another example of Trump’s eliminationist rhetoric, echoing Nazi propaganda, but directed against the Republican Party’s political enemies. Limbaugh was equally vicious in his targeting of Black Lives Matter, which he classified as “Marxist” and a “full-fledged anti-American organization.” Limbaugh’s eliminationism also extended to LGBTQ activists, which he condemned for working with the “deep state” to impose a “30 years” long “cultural rot” in America. “What a cesspool the Democrat Party has turned the country into, what a cesspool American morality has become, what a cesspool the American left is turning our culture into,” Limbaugh lamented, as the country “descend[s]” into “a filthy gutter” politics dominated by “transgenders” and “gay people” fighting for, and winning equal rights. Such incendiary rhetoric was clearly intended to reinforce the belief in listeners’ minds that the U.S. was divided between two peoples – the hard working and the virtuous on the one hand, and the morally depraved and the rotten on the other. This language mirrored Nazi propaganda, which pitted notions of an impure minority against the lost purity and greatness of the nation’s past.

Eliminationism and Paramilitarism in Pursuit of One-Party Rule

Limbaugh was pining for civil war well before the events of January 6th at the U.S. Capitol building. He spoke romantically about rightwing paramilitary-style activists, referencing Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter by name in mid-2020, wondering: “Well, where are all the people with guns to ‘push back’ against the left? They’re [the left] threatening to beat you upside the head and do whatever other kind of physical damage to you they can.” Limbaugh called on “armed right-wingers” to “push back against the Democrats, against the left, against the media…who’s got all the guns in this country? We’ve got all the guns,” but the right was “not pushing back. If there’s no pushback and if the pushback isn’t seen, then people are going to get dispirited and think nobody cares about this assault on the country.”

Limbaugh eventually got what he wanted, as neofascist Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6thseeking to overturn certification of Democratic President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election. At the time, Limbaugh announced that “I actually think that we’re trending toward secession…there cannot be a peaceful coexistence” with “two completely different theories of life, theories of government” which he claimed divided American politics between left and right, and between Democrats and Republicans. Reinforcing this position, Limbaugh romanticized the Capitol insurrectionists, which he likened to Revolutionary War era rebels and patriots: “We’re supposed to be horrified by the protesters…There’s a lot of people out there calling for the end of violence…lot of conservatives, social media, who say that any violence or aggression at all is unacceptable regardless of the circumstances. I am glad Sam Adams, Thomas Paine, the actual tea party guys, the men at Lexington and Concord, didn’t feel that way.” Such statements made clear Limbaugh’s support for paramilitary efforts to impose one-party rule by overturning the 2020 election.

Gaslighting the Public on Neofascism

With such an egregious record of trafficking in, and embracing neofascistic political rhetoric, the rational observer should be asking a simple question: how did Limbaugh get away with it without being run out of the “conservative” media? One answer is that rightwing pundits have become expert gas lighters, smuggling in white supremacist and neofascistic rhetoric into their programs, while consistently stopping short of admitting this is what they’re doing. They rely on the staggering historical ignorance of their audiences, whom they correctly believe know little about classical fascism, and will not notice that they’re smuggling into programs extremist discourse, even as their followers come to embrace neofascistic political ideology.

A second way they get away with it is because the right projects their own neofascistic politics onto critics in Orwellian ways that seek to erase or invert reality. Limbaugh was only one of many pundits, including Mark LevinGlenn Greenwald, and Tucker Carlson, who claim that white supremacy and paramilitarism on the right do not exist, or that they are being promoted instead by the Democrats and their supporters. Limbaugh echoed this position, maintainingthat “white supremacy or white privilege is a construct of today’s Democratic Party,” and that they “are such a small number – you could put them in a phone booth.” Such a position, of course, is absurd considering that the former President and rightwing media spent years normalizing white supremacist and neofascistic political ideology, to the point where one in ten Americans and a third of Republicans say it is acceptable to hold neo-Nazi views, a third of the country engages in some form of Holocaust-denial, and a third agree that the U.S. should “protect and preserve its White European heritage.”

The United States has entered a crisis moment, fueled by the ascendance of rightwing extremism. The realities of neofascistic politics are being swept under the rug because it simply “won’t do” to admit that large numbers of Americans have embraced the ideology of hate. There is little hope of moving forward and beating back this extremism until Americans are honest about how pervasive the problem has become. “Conservative” media venues have been empowering and enriching the merchants of hate for years. We should remember this toxic history when we reflect on the legacy of Rush Limbaugh and his impact on American values and discourse.

Anthony DiMaggio is Associate Professor of Political Science at Lehigh University. He earned his PhD from the University of Illinois, Chicago, and is the author of 9 books, including most recently: Political Power in America (SUNY Press, 2019), Rebellion in America (Routledge, 2020), and Unequal America (Routledge, 2021). He can be reached at: anthonydimaggio612@gmail.com. A digital copy of Rebellion in America can be read for free here.

Limbaugh and the Echoes of Hatred


 

 FEBRUARY 19, 2021

Facebook

When I was attending a Christian college in the States in the 90s, I remember hearing the broadcasts of Rush Limbaugh blasting from some of the rooms of the dormitory where I was housed. At the time I remember feeling astonished that anyone could listen to this man for any length of time. Beyond his noxious rhetoric, I found his very cadence to be akin to stab wounds.

Of course, I was leftwing, antiwar, antiracist, anti-capitalist and queer. I wasn’t exactly his demographic. But the tone was unmistakable. It was one of cruelty. Of ridicule. Of dehumanization. Of hatred. And it felt like a battering. That it appealed to many self-professed American Christians at the school I attended was telling. Rush was, to them, a “culture warrior.” Battling “the gays, the blacks and the godless, anti-American communists.”

Fast forward from then to now. Fast forward through the Clinton years and his expansion of the racist carceral state. Fast forward through the Bush years and his murderous war based on lies against a country that never attacked the US. Fast forward through the revelations of war crimes leaked to the public thanks to the courage of Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange. Fast forward through the relentless attacks on civil liberties. Fast forward through the photographs of horror from the US gulag of Abu Ghraib. Fast forward through Obama’s drone wars, attacks on whistleblowers, and record deportations. And arrive just four years ago at the so-called “Trump era.”

Like Limbaugh, Trump revels in sadism. He has never hid his animus toward women or his visceral racism. He denied climate change and courted more war with his expansion of militarism. But he was a symptom of a greater diseased culture. An echo of the myth of “American exceptionalism.”

How we measure time is important. It is a metric that is not merely linear. It is a tumbler overflowing with events and trends. Of thoughts and actions, of policies and projections, both conscious and not. Limbaugh was one of many harbingers of America’s trajectory. When we look at it through this lens it should not come as a surprise that America ended up with Trump four years ago. But if we stop there, we will miss where it is headed now.

Limbaugh didn’t simply emerge out of nowhere. Neither did Trump. Their animus and cruelty arose from the collective psychic projection of the entire American project itself. A white Christian settler’s dream of “Manifest Destiny” that ended in massacres, genocide and the trail of tears. It was a slave owning empire that expanded via exploitation and brutality.

If we know this, we must also know that there was never any noble era in the official narrative of American history. Not in its experiments on unsuspecting Black men at Tuskegee. Not in the ash shadows on the pavement of civilians vaporized in Hiroshima. Not in the internment of Japanese citizens in concentration camps. Not in Jim Crow. Not in the nuclear bomb tests which irradiated the people of the Marshall Islands. Not in the ditches of Mỹ Lai. All of it led us to where we are now. And if recent history is any guide, political platitudes and niceties will not shield us from the consequences of such dark hubris.

We don’t know what Limbaugh’s inner life was like. We shouldn’t care too much, because the man spent most it lashing out at his opponents, dehumanizing or ridiculing others, especially those who were vulnerable or oppressed by society, and spreading falsehoods. The latter was especially true when it came to climate change and pandemic. But if we don’t recognize that his voice was a bellowing echo of America itself, a long cadence of cruelty, we will never understand that this trajectory has never been altered.

None of this should be disheartening if we do not subscribe to the American enterprise. There are other narratives, ones which have constantly and relentlessly challenged the cruelty of the dominant one. From the Abolitionists, to women’s suffrage, to the labor movement, to Civil Rights, to antiwar, to Indigenous resistance, to queer liberation, to environmental consciousness. All of them presented counter voices to the one echoed by vile figures such as Limbaugh or Trump. All of them have offered conduits for dissent. We need only the ears to hear.

One day, when one of Limbaugh’s vicious broadcasts was blaring from one of the rooms of that college I attended, I also heard the faint sound of a guitar playing outside. I longed to escape this torment, so I wandered out the door following the sounds, to a nearby park where I found a small group of people sitting in the grass under a tree. They were singing about peace and solidarity, and warmly waved me over to join them. Then, after a few minutes, something miraculous happened. I no longer heard the stinging timbre of that man who has just died. His echo of hatred was finally silenced, then, as it is now.

Kenn Orphan is an artist, sociologist, radical nature lover and weary, but committed activist. He can be reached at kennorphan.com.

Limbaugh and the Echoes of Hatred - CounterPunch.org


Rush Limbaugh dead at 70: A media blowhard for American capitalism

Patrick Martin
WSWS.ORG



Longtime right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh died February 17 at the age of 70, to gushing praise from Donald Trump, Fox News and the far-right media empire he played a key role in building. Limbaugh was not the first radio spokesman for ultra-right politics, but he was the most successful since the fascist “radio priest” Charles Coughlin in the 1930s. He now has hundreds of imitators on radio networks large and small, and on Fox television and its even more right-wing competitors like Newsmax and OAN.


Rush Limbaugh speaking with attendees at the 2019 Student Action Summit hosted by Turning Point USA at the Palm Beach County Convention Center in West Palm Beach, Florida. (Wikimedia Commons)

The obituaries that have appeared in the mainstream corporate media have catalogued many of Limbaugh’s verbal outrages, from his denigration of black athletes, to his bullying attack on Georgetown University grad student Sandra Fluke, whom he vilified as a “slut” for suing to force the university to provide birth control pills as part of its health care program, to his ridiculing of Michael J. Fox after the actor contracted Parkinson’s disease.

Lacking in such assessments, however, is an analysis of what Limbaugh’s career reveals about the nature of American capitalism and the trajectory of its political system. He was a thoroughly disgusting human being, a mouthpiece and apologist for reaction and defender of everything backward and benighted in American society. But his rise to wealth, fame and political influence came under definite historical conditions, and these deserve consideration.

Born into a politically prominent Republican family in southeastern Missouri, Limbaugh grew up as something of a disappointment. His grandfather had been a state legislator, then ambassador to India under President Eisenhower, and the local courthouse carried his name. His uncle was a federal judge, and his father a prominent lawyer and chairman of the county Republican Party. But Limbaugh dropped out of college after a year in 1970 to pursue his childhood dream of becoming a radio disc jockey and announcer.

Despite the glibness he would later demonstrate, he was fired repeatedly for inserting political commentary and insults into his announcing, and quit radio for five years to work in promotions for the Kansas City Royals baseball team. He returned to radio in 1984 at a station in Sacramento, California, succeeding another right-wing talk show host, Morton Downey Jr.

In 1987, towards the end of the Reagan administration, as part of a bipartisan campaign of deregulation, Congress repealed the “fairness doctrine,” which required broadcasters to provide equal time to those attacked by radio or television commentators. Limbaugh celebrated what he called “liberation” by moving to New York City and launching a right-wing talk radio program on WABC, flagship of the ABC radio network, which was soon syndicated nationally.

In 1990-1991, Limbaugh’s audience mushroomed as he denounced protesters opposing the Persian Gulf War, entailing the mass slaughter of the Iraqi army. The war of aggression was engineered and carried out by the administration of Republican President George H. W. Bush to cement the domination of American imperialism in the Middle East.

The timing of Limbaugh’s rise is significant. It coincided with the collapse of the Soviet bloc, from 1989 to 1991, which touched off a wave of euphoria in the American ruling elite, whose main political precept had been virulent anti-communism. Ronald Reagan was hailed as the destroyer of the “evil empire,” and pundits like Francis Fukuyama proclaimed the “end of history.”

Also important for the American political stage was the utter collapse of the US labor movement, with the trade union bureaucracy’s betrayal and defeat of strike after strike, beginning with Reagan’s smashing of the 1981 air traffic controllers’ strike. The AFL-CIO embraced a corporatist policy of labor-management “partnership,” through which the unions were transformed into organizations that blocked strikes, cut wages and drove “troublemakers” from the workplace.

The resulting political disorientation and confusion within the working class, compounded by the suppression of the class struggle, facilitated the rise of a form of right-wing populism, of which Limbaugh was one of the foremost practitioners. Political and media figures pretended to be voicing the complaints of ordinary people, “middle America,” against the dictates of “elites” based in Hollywood and New York City.

In the absence of mass working class struggles over jobs, wages, benefits and working conditions, the burning issues of the day were said to be “cultural” in nature: abortion, gun ownership, the environment, or racial and gender divisions.

This was abetted by the shift in the Democratic Party, which more and more abandoned even a limited identification with economic policies that raised wages and otherwise benefited the working class as a whole, in favor of identity politics. The latter furthered the narrow interests of sections of the upper-middle class, particularly among women and ethnic minorities, who hoped to benefit from a redistribution of privileges within the upper classes rather than their diminution, let alone abolition.

Thus Limbaugh could claim to be defending the interests of workers against “environmental wackos,” or of male workers against “feminazis,” without openly declaring his loyalty to Wall Street and his hostility to the working class. In the process, of course, he became fabulously wealthy, raking in as much as $80 million a year, building a mansion in south Florida patterned after Versailles, and purchasing a $50 million private jet.

Limbaugh helped create the template for hundreds of radio acolytes, as well as Fox News, founded in 1996 by Roger Ailes at the behest of Rupert Murdoch. Ailes had been the producer for Limbaugh’s four-year venture into television (1992-1996), and the format of much of the network’s programming was patterned directly on Limbaugh.

A major political breakthrough for the American ultra-right came in 1994, when the Republican Party swept the congressional elections, taking advantage of the collapse of Bill Clinton’s promise to implement a national health care program, which he failed even to bring to a vote despite Democratic Party control of Congress and the White House.

Newt Gingrich became the first Republican speaker of the House in 40 years, and his majority depended on an influx of extreme-right congressmen endorsed and publicized by Limbaugh and other right-wing talk-radio hosts. The Republican caucus even voted to make Limbaugh an honorary member, a tribute to his role in promoting their campaigns.

Through the subsequent twenty five-year period, both capitalist parties continued to move to the right, with the Democratic Party taking on the role of advocate for the stock exchange and the Wall Street banks—previously the mainstay of the Republicans—while the Republican Party incorporated southern racists, anti-immigrant bigots and outright fascists, culminating in the nomination and election of Donald Trump in 2016.

Limbaugh followed a similar trajectory, sometimes leading, sometimes lagging behind. He was a fervent proponent of right-wing conspiracy theories against the Clintons, which culminated in the 1998 impeachment, as well as the “birther” campaign that alleged Barack Obama was not an American citizen. He supported unsuccessful right-wing challengers for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 and 2012, and Ted Cruz against Trump in 2016 before going over to Trump lock, stock and barrel.

At the same time, Limbaugh suffered the consequences of what might appear to be divine retribution, except that it came so late. He went mostly deaf, likely the result of an addiction to oxycodone, for which he was ultimately to spend six weeks in drug rehab and narrowly escape prosecution. A heavy smoker, with a predilection for cigars (and a habit of dismissing the dangers of second-hand smoke), he contracted lung cancer last year and announced in October that the disease was terminal.

In the course of 2020, Limbaugh denied the dangers of COVID-19, comparing it to “the common cold” and claiming it was being “weaponized by the media and by opponents of Donald Trump.” He denounced the wearing of masks, opposed mask mandates, and encouraged young people “to live their lives and spread herd immunity.”

He gave a two-hour interview to Trump (a rare exception—nearly all his radio programs were interminable monologues with no guests). And he upheld the lie that Trump had actually won the 2020 election and helped stoke the insurrection of January 6. In other words, he spent the last year of his life as he had the previous 35, bullying anyone opposed to American capitalism and pav


‘Leftist Scum’ Memer Raised $400K for Planned Parenthood as a Special Tribute to Rush Limbaugh

“You know how to stop abortion?” Limbaugh once said. “Require that each one occur with a gun.”


By Carter Sherman
19.2.21


When Tommy Marcus learned that Rush Limbaugh had died, he grieved in the only way that felt right: He donated $100 to Planned Parenthood in Limbaugh’s memory, because the conservative radio host would have absolutely hated it.

Marcus posted a screenshot of his donation to his Instagram page, Quentin Quarantino, where he’d amassed more than half a million followers through months of posting memes about pandemic life and dunking on conservatives. At the last minute, Marcus decided to turn the post into a fundraiser for Planned Parenthood. He hoped it could raise $10,000.

By Friday afternoon, the Quentin Quarantino Rush Limbaugh Memorial Planned Parenthood Fundraiser had collected more than $400,000.

“It was really an experiment, and the results have been unbelievable,” Marcus said. Donations, he said, are averaging out at about $20 each.

“It’s really cool to see that such a polarizing figure and such a bitter history of Rush Limbaugh could inspire such a constructive and meaningful thing.”

Marcus, who’s 25 and based in New York City, works in social media full-time. Before launching the fundraiser, he’d posted several memes that, if they didn’t outright celebrate Limbaugh’s death, made it clear that Marcus was not sorry that the conservative icon was dead.

“Rush Limbaugh has been someone who’s spent decades clogging the airwaves with sexist, homophobic, racist, endlessly discriminatory propaganda,” said Marcus, who singled out Limbaugh’s track record of mocking AIDS and those who died from it as particularly offensive.

“He is really, to me, the embodiment of Trump’s America, of hatred, of the division that we see in our country right now.”

Limbaugh liked to take particular aim at feminists—or, as he called them, “feminazis.”

“You know how to stop abortion?” he once remarked. “Require that each one occur with a gun.”

Infamously in 2012, Limbaugh denounced Sandra Fluke, then a Georgetown University law student, after she testified in Congress in support of health insurance coverage for birth control, by calling her a “slut” and a “prostitute.”

“If we’re going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it; we want you to post the videos online so we can all watch,” said Limbaugh, who later apologized after a furious backlash.

Marcus has also taken to posting some of the direct messages he’s received from Planned Parenthood supporters.

“They made me feel less alone and never judged,” one person wrote. “I finally felt heard and safe.”

Another wrote in to condemn South Carolina for passing, on Thursday, a law that would ban abortion after just six weeks of pregnancy—before many people even know they’re pregnant. Planned Parenthood immediately sued over the law. On Friday, the organization secured a court order that will keep it from going into effect.

“During a pandemic that is raging out of control in our state because no one believes in science, this was the legislation they decided to pursue,” the writer messaged Marcus, adding, “As a survivor of sexual assault, waking up the past few days to see your fundraiser for Planned Parenthood has literally made my week.”

Marcus had used his page to donate money to groups like Planned Parenthood and No Kid Hungry, as part of what he calls an effort to “troll for good.” (His Instagram bio includes a description from a former follower: “You’re like if John Oliver made a meme page. Leftist scum.”) But this fundraiser is by far his most successful effort—and now he’s hoping it’ll hit $1 million.

“I’m definitely not going to stop this until it reaches $1 million, because I genuinely believe at this point that it’s completely possible,” he said. “I did not realize it was going to get anywhere near where it is right now.”

Paul Blest contributed reporting.



RUSH LIMBAUGH EMBODIED THE RIGHT’S DADDY COMPLEX


The talk radio giant indoctrinated a generation with his fatherly contempt for change

Talk radio titan Rush Limbaugh, dead at 70, is being remembered as a godfather of contemporary American conservatism, with its insistence on cruelty and the rejection of liberalism as unpatriotic. To describe his influence in the language of paternity is more accurate than you might think, as many of his fans discovered him at a young age, then stuck with the pundit as an elder voice of wisdom for decades afterward. It is no exaggeration to say that his audience, which was overwhelmingly male — a 2009 survey showed that men made up 72 percent of his regular listeners — saw him as a kind of dad. In fact, they’re saying as much right now.



Portly, balding, bellowing and often seen to suck a cigar, Limbaugh bore an interesting resemblance in look and demeanor to Archie Bunker, the bigoted patriarch of the 1970s sitcom All in the Family. His diatribes condemning minorities, feminists, environmentalists and pacifists had the sound of a father unloading his frustrations at the dinner table, with no one else able to get a word in. The Christian right has long emphasized traditional family structure, and you get the sense this is what they mean: Daddy knows best, so shut up and learn from him.






Even the QAnon believers and MAGA loyalists holding out for some kind of Trump comeback knew of Limbaugh’s talent for indoctrination. He was “effective at reaching” the insufficiently radicalized. He “educated” grade-school children and teens, and “saved” them from the mentors who might have instilled the values of inclusion, civility and open-mindedness. Like a shock jock, he drew in boys with offensive riffs; unlike them, he wielded scabrous mockery as a means to electoral change, and told his disciples to vote out the hippies pushing “political correctness.” Some experienced Rush as an extension of their real father, or an opportunity to connect with him — there’s a widespread nostalgia among those who remember him on the radio whenever dad drove them around. Some raised in Democratic households no doubt latched on to this incendiary in an act of pubescent rebellion, allowing him to usurp a father they rejected as a bleeding heart.





It’s impossible to estimate Limbaugh’s mark on the cultural landscape — and the damage he wrought across generations — without measuring the familial intimacy that millions feel toward him. It’s an esteem far greater than the right has for most of its governing leaders, media mouthpieces, culture warriors and clout-chasers, any of whom can be thrown overboard as a traitor in the blink of an eye when expedient or necessary. And this closeness helps to explain a stubborn resistance to everything from climate science to social equality: Daddy Rush spent his life railing against these things, so his flock will continue the fight in his name. Only Trump occupies the similar role of a reassuringly retro father figure, channeling the unapologetic chauvinism and masculine bombast of a fictional past when critique of white male supremacy was literally unthinkable, and subjugated women, queers and people of color knew their place.



A commonplace has it that humans must be taught to hate — ushered into intolerance — and that is what Rush Limbaugh did, with the snarl of an ornery dad who simply tells it like it is, despite what manners would dictate. This exploited a natural vulnerability in younger listeners, who, looking for a way to understand the world, grew accustomed to his complaints, adopting these before experience could set them on another, better path. His propaganda was insidious because he presented it as the antidote to propaganda, a ray of truth amid bullshit, meaning you never needed a second opinion: You were receiving the gospel straight from father’s mouth.

Through a quartet of marriages, Limbaugh had no kids of his own, no namesake to follow in his footsteps. Although the author Zev Chafets, who wrote a biography of him, noted that his views were shaped by his father — that he was always dedicated to “winning his father’s respect and approval” — a direct continuation of dynasty was besides the point, really, too minor in the scope of his project. What is a son or daughter versus an army raised in your image, that speaks as you trained them to, reveres you as paterfamilias and will not dare to question the authority of your status?

He got into the ears of a nation, and there he staked his rotten lineage. It will, I’m afraid, outlast us all.


Miles Klee  is MEL’s resident tank-top dirtbag, shitposter and meme expert. He’s also the author of the novel ‘Ivyland’ and a story collection, ‘True False.’
Rush Limbaugh Embodied the Right’s Daddy Complex (melmagazine.com)



Before Rush Limbaugh, Father Coughlin was America’s first demagogue of the airwaves

James T. Keane
February 19, 2021

(


Obituaries for radio personality Rush Limbaugh, who died on Wednesday after a lengthy battle with lung cancer, largely agreed that Limbaugh was a pioneer in the use of radio for a kind of political rhetoric that straddled the line between entertainment and deliberate incitement of hatred. His 32 years as host of “The Rush Limbaugh Show,” a radio program that was nationally syndicated and followed by millions, “transfigured him into a partisan force and polarizing figure in American politics. In many ways, his radio show was like the big bang of the conservative media universe,” Oliver Darcy wrote for CNN. Limbaugh “often waded into conspiratorial waters and generated controversy for hateful commentary on gender and race,” he added. “During the course of his career, Limbaugh started a number of fires with his commentary.”

Limbaugh was followed by others in radio and television and online who became his peers in partisan shock-jock “infotainment.” But it is a mistake to consider him the originator of the genre or style. He had his forebears, too, first among them the notorious “radio priest” of the 1930s and 1940s, the Rev. Charles E. Coughlin.


To read Father Coughlin’s articles and the transcripts of his radio broadcasts is to find tropes that have become all too familiar in recent years: a not-always-subtle anti-Semitism; a nativism combined with alarm in response to foreign invaders; open praise for dictators; “both-sides” arguments designed to excuse the policies of genocidal strongmen; the rhetoric of victimization served up to an audience of millions of whites; dog-whistles encouraging sedition and vigilantism; identification of Christianity as the true American religion; and, of course, histrionic claims of censorship when entities, both public and private, cut off his access to his public.


To read Father Coughlin’s articles and the transcripts of his radio broadcasts is to find tropes that have become all too familiar in recent years.


That last claim was often supported by the editors of America in the 1930s, part of an ongoing repartee between the magazine’s editors and the demagogic priest that warmed and cooled over many years, with Father Coughlin’s increasingly rabid anti-Semitism bringing virtually any mention of him in America to an end by the close of the Second World War. America’s editors also largely agreed with Father Coughlin’s position on the persecution of Catholics in Mexico by the regime in power, as well as his fervent anti-Communist stance (one matched by the editor in chief of America at the time, Wilfrid Parsons, S.J.).

Father Coughlin seemed at first to be on the path later taken by Bishop Fulton Sheen, a popular voice whose real appeal was to the religious sensibilities of his readers and listeners—both Catholic and not. According to Wallace Stegner, Father Coughlin had a “voice of such mellow richness, such manly, heart-warming confidential intimacy, such emotional and ingratiating charm, that anyone tuning past it almost automatically returned to hear it again.”

His original radio program “The Golden Hour of the Little Flower” and his best-selling newspaper Social Justice both had their roots in Catholic apologetics and devotional materials.

John LaFarge, S.J., later the editor in chief of America, wrote that Coughlin’s radio show “combined as did probably no Catholic program before or since the moving ingredients of sugary Eucharistic devotion, emotionally appealing sacred music, melodious oratory and a deep, passionate appeal to the inmost resentments of his forty million listeners in the United States and Canada, non-Catholic and Catholic alike.”

Forty million listeners would have been a third of the nation’s population in the mid-1930s, but that figure might also have been an understatement: His 1979 obituary in The New York Times claimed that at the height of his popularity, Father Coughlin was drawing a weekly audience of 90 million listeners. (O.K., that’s clearly an overstatement.) But there is no question he had a strong cult of personality surrounding him, as well as a huge and devoted following that included millions of Depression-era unemployed workers who saw him as the champion of the working man. It was a meteoric rise to fame for a man who only 10 years before had been appointed the pastor of a Michigan parish that served two dozen families.


His original radio program “The Golden Hour of the Little Flower” and his best-selling newspaper Social Justice both had their roots in Catholic apologetics and devotional materials.


Father Coughlin’s early departures from questions of religion usually involved broadsides against President Franklin D. Roosevelt, his longtime bête noire, or lengthy criticisms of the government’s monetary policy, U.S. organized labor and enemies (real and imagined) of the Catholic Church and the United States. His economic and political views led to more than one heated back-and-forth with Father Parsons, the editor in chief of America from 1926 to 1936.

By the mid-1930s, however, he was becoming increasingly political, most clearly in his relentless attacks of President Roosevelt. He courted Benito Mussolini and suggested the two collaborate on questions of state economics; he praised Adolf Hitler’s leadership; he began turning more and more to tired canards about Jewish opposition to Christians in America and abroad—including Germany. He also began to engage in wild conspiracy theories and delusions of grandeur. U.S. General Smedley Butler even told J. Edgar Hoover, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, that Father Coughlin had tried to recruit him for a venture in which Father Coughlin would raise a huge Catholic army and march south to conquer Mexico (deposing Roosevelt along the way).


His enormous audience meant he could sway the tone of national conversations; some commentators have suggested Father Coughlin was the second most powerful person in the country after Roosevelt himself. The subtle anti-Semitism of his earlier years began to take on a more strident tone in the late 1930s as World War II loomed and his own popularity began to fall: In the pages of Social Justice, he accused Jewish greeting-card manufacturers in the United States of (you knew this was coming, didn’t you?) “taking Christ out of Christmas.”

His fall from grace began in the days following Kristallnacht, the well-coordinated attacks on Jewish homes, schools, synagogues and businesses across Germany in November 1938. Those committing the violence went unmolested, while over 30,000 Jewish men were rounded up and eventually sent to Nazi concentration camps. Father Coughlin explained the incident away by noting that Nazism formed as a defense against international Communism, itself a Jewish plot—and so it made sense that Germans would defend themselves against those scheming to destroy their civilization.

Almost the entire Politburo of the Soviet Union was made up of atheist Jews, he claimed. And even if it were true that Germany was persecuting Jews, it was nothing compared to the persecution suffered by Christians in Mexico, in Spain, in the Soviet Union itself. Because U.S. newspapers and radio stations were controlled by “Jewish gentlemen,” he said, the persecution of Christians would never be fully recognized.


“I could have bucked the government and won,” he said. “The people would have supported me.”

After the German invasion of Poland in 1939, Father Coughlin tried to organize an “army of peace” to march on Washington, D.C., to urge the Roosevelt administration not to change U.S. neutrality laws. The “Friends of Democracy of New York,” an anti-fascist group, accused Father Coughlin of “inciting the American people to riot and civil war” and denounced him as “an enemy of democracy, a disciple of fascism, an advocate of violence, and a purveyor of racial hatred.”

His anti-Semitic rhetoric became more and more charged. International Jewry, he claimed, was run by a secret government descended from the Sanhédrin, who had condemned Christ to death; Jews were in league with Masons and liberals to destroy Christian civilization. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Father Coughlin argued that the entrance of the United States into World War II was part of a conspiracy between the British government, President Roosevelt and the Jewish people. Social Justice also published the notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a thoroughly discredited text claiming to reveal a Jewish plot to take over the world.

Radio stations began dropping Father Coughlin’s broadcasts on their own as early as 1940. The U.S. Postal Service also stopped distributing Social Justice because it was “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.” Father Coughlin charged that his free speech was being restricted (an argument, again, supported by the editors of America at the time), but the clock was running out. In 1942, Archbishop Edward Mooney of Detroit ordered Father Coughlin to stop publishing Social Justice and to remain silent on public matters. Archbishop Mooney also told Father Coughlin he was in danger of being tried for sedition by the federal government for his attacks on Roosevelt—as well as, presumably, his plots to raise an army to attack Washington, D.C., and then Mexico.

Like Father Coughlin, they are aware that the easiest path to power is to wrap oneself up in an American flag...or hold up a Bible.

Father Coughlin accepted his archbishop’s order and returned to the life of a parish priest in Royal Oak, Mich. For the remainder of his life he remained largely out of the public eye, though he continued to write articles and pamphlets against Communism and against the reforms of the Second Vatican Council.

In a phone interview two years before his death, Father Coughlin saw himself not as a demagogue or a racist but as a great populist hero. “I could have bucked the government and won,” he said. “The people would have supported me.”

It all sounds eerily familiar, doesn’t it? But that familiarity comes not just from Rush Limbaugh’s use of similar tropes and tactics. Rather, it is because Father Coughlin represented just one of many demagogues in U.S. politics and culture who have been able to successfully pinpoint our greatest fears, our hidden prejudices and our deepest resentments and thus to sway huge numbers of the populace into embracing seemingly contradictory or openly un-American positions. Like Father Coughlin, they are aware that the easiest path to power is to wrap oneself up in an American flag...or hold up a Bible.


Rush Limbaugh died as he lived | Opinion


Rush Limbaugh reacts as first Lady Melania Trump, and his wife Kathryn, applaud, as President Donald Trump mentions Limbaugh during his State of the Union address on
 Feb. 4, 2020. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File)AP


 By Mary McNamara Tribune News Service
Updated Feb 19, 2021

What is the appropriate response when someone who spent his life attempting to exploit and aggravate the political and social divisions of a nation dies? However the life of a professional divider is cast, any depiction or consideration will be greeted by howls of outrage from one side of that divide or the other.

To his many fans, Rush Limbaugh via his radio program was an early and dependable voice of reactionary conservatism. His raging contempt for any form of progressive politics was their raging contempt for any form of progressive politics. His willingness to insult individuals, particularly women, with terms like “dogs,” “slut” and “feminazi,” was just a gleeful bonus. His ability to spot liberal conspiracy in virtually every cultural and political development was a God-given talent, his willingness to twist fact into falsehood simply a necessary corrective to the liberal agenda that the mainstream media was shoving down everyone’s throat.

To his many detractors, Limbaugh was the devil, a corruptor of minds who catered to his listeners’ darkest impulses, a small star in a dying universe who turned his fortunes around by validating and exacerbating bigotry — a showman who leveraged economic, racial, ideological and geographic differences to create a system of Us vs. Them that damaged families, political parties and this country.

No matter which side you fall on, there’s no denying that Limbaugh was an early architect of the landscape in which every event is refracted through politics, where “fact” can be easily dismissed as “interpretation.”

No matter which side you fall on, Limbaugh paved the way for a baseline of incivility that has been normalized in political discourse.

No matter which side you fall you, Limbaugh helped to turn the public discourse in one of the most diverse and successful nations of the world into a competition between two teams: Red vs. Blue, liberals vs. conservatives. Us vs. Them.

His tools were limited — contempt, anger, outrage — but he wielded them like a master, whipping up fervor in both fan and detractor alike. He hosted, for a time, the most popular talk-radio program on the air, but still it was talk radio, which meant the vast majority of Americans never listened to him. Even so, they knew who he was; Limbaugh baited the mainstream media and the mainstream media bit. Time and time again.

Over the years, Limbaugh’s ratings and notoriety rose and fell with his willingness to be incendiary. Many were enraged by his provocations and pronouncements but only once, when sponsors pulled away after he called college student Sandra Fluke a slut for suggesting that insurance pay for birth control, did he actually damage his brand. And actually apologize.

The notion that conservatives in the greed-powered 1980s needed a voice seemed, to liberals anyway, laughable, given the many already existing conservative pundits, not to mention the continued control of state and federal government by Republicans. “The Rush Limbaugh Show” became syndicated in 1988, during Ronald Reagan’s presidency, and it’s difficult to understand how the party of Reagan, followed by George H.W. Bush and later his son, could have felt the need for Limbaugh’s voice in particular.

But that is the argument Limbaugh made, and it stuck — in 1994, Newt Gingrich would superglue the Republican Party to Limbaugh’s message and persona by calling the newly GOP-majority House the “Limbaugh Congress.” Limbaugh’s success, at a time when radio was entering what many considered its death spiral, did what all successes do — it spawned copycats. The current combative state of cable news, and indeed the news media as a whole, is the result of many powerful factors, including the very real need to compete for eyeballs, but it is safe to say that without Limbaugh there would be no Fox News and all that its ascendance implies.

What that implies is, among other things, a general, widespread suspicion and fear of the media; the use of false equivalencies in place of actual fairness; the increasing tolerance of reactionary groups, including the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis; an over-reliance on opinion and spin, and a common belief, on both sides of the political spectrum, that if you are not with me, you are out to get me.

When, during his early years, he was dismissed by mainstream media as being crazy, Limbaugh did what many successful people do — he leaned into those dismissals and courted the crazy. Like former President Donald Trump, who followed much of Limbaugh’s template, Limbaugh delighted in saying things that no one else would say publicly, much less broadcast on the radio, and his fans delighted not only in the things he said but also in his willingness to say them. In the name of conservatism, he openly exploited the suspicion many people have for government, liberal-leaning government in particular, but he also offered validation for open and latent racism, sexism and homophobia.

More than that, he leveraged the genuine bewilderment many feel as they realize that life is changing in ways they do not like, or that people or circumstances are not quite as they believed them to be, and transformed that bewilderment into rage.

He most certainly benefited from the fact that he was, for many years, something of a lone voice, but he was also very, very good at what he did.

People loved him. Many millions of people.

So what is the appropriate reaction to his death? Exactly what it has been — absolutely and predictably divided along political lines. Conservatives called him a trailblazer, a fighter, a true patriot and the voice of their movement. Liberals called him a bigot, a sexist and a partisan propagandist with a profoundly mean streak. The choice to praise or condemn him has become yet another Rorschach test of political team loyalty; the decision to stay silent has proved equally offensive and obituaries were immediately parsed for, depending on the parser, hypocrisy and bias. Everyone was outraged. Just the way Limbaugh liked it.

In a way, the response to his death was the perfect tribute to his life. One can only hope this divisive final chapter for Limbaugh will end soon and mark, as deaths often do, at least the beginning of the end of an era.

Mary McNamara is a culture columnist and critic for the Los Angeles Times.