The Secret to Rush's Success... Indifference

(Blog Post) Have to admit – I’m sort of fascinated with Rush Limbaugh these days. Terribleness aside, it’s been fascinating to see his revival in the mainstream news of late. And yes, his revival is a problem for Republicans – but not for the reason you think. Full Story »

Posted by Kaizar Campwala

See All Reviews »

Review

Marsha Iverson
3.1
by Marsha Iverson - Mar. 3, 2009

Interesting thoughts on the "Rush Problem," focusing on Limbaugh's motivation for his public persona and his impact on the political arena.

Equally interesting to have a discussion--in the media--of dealing with Limbaugh's craving for media attention by ignoring him. Viewing Limbaugh as an "entertainer" may well be appropriate. But I believe it is unwise to ignore the ramifications of his daily vitriol, whatever the motivation. There is a widening chasm between the far Right and everyone else...and the result seems to be casting a dangerous, hateful fringe as "mainstream Republicans." The sharp rise in hate groups, the growing threats on President Obama's life, and the blind rage raised in the waning days of the McCain Palin campaign are legitimate causes to pay attention to the impact of Rush's brand of "entertainment," and I fear that his devotees are far more frightening than he is. Limbaugh may be indifferent, but the wrath he raises is quite genuine. The quintessential Progressive dilemma is how to simultaneously support the First Amendment and loathe Rush Limbaugh.

Limbaugh is an entertainer. Period. Full Stop. Steele was right about that. He’s not a policy guy – he’s not a party guy. He’s a glorified – though very successful – shock jock. He wants to cause outrages. He craves press – negative press; positive press; it doesn’t matter. Basically, any attention for him – in any form – is a good thing.

For this reason, his incentives are completely different from the institutional GOP’s. To be frank, he has more professional incentives to root for the Democrats than for the Republicans. It’s much easier to shock and rabble rouse in the opposition. You don’t have to pull punches. You are free to play up the persecution complex so central to the Rush bloc of the GOP.

It’s better, then, for the GOP to avoid Rahm’s trap and just ignore Rush altogether. The mere act of discussing him is to necessarily be losing, regardless of what you’re saying.

Regardless of Limbaugh’s motivations, his impact on devoted listeners warrants concern. Is it better to discuss the listeners and their blind hatred without mentioning Himself? When does his bombastic BS—and O’Reilly’s, and Hannity’s, and the like—become the equivalent of shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater?

See All Reviews »

Marsha's Rating

Overall
3.1

Average
from 16 answers
Quality
3.0
Information
3.0
Insight
3.0
Style
3.0
Context
3.0
Enterprise
3.0
Expertise
3.0
Originality
3.0
Relevance
3.0
Popularity
3.5
Recommendation
4.0
Credibility
3.0
More How our ratings work »