PDA

View Full Version : LIMBAUGH & HYPOCRISY


DRMIZER
10-20-2003, 10:44 AM
The Center for American Progress "Bill Bennett Hypocrisy" award went to a most deserving recipient this week, Rush Limbaugh. Until last week, Limbaugh was in the service of two masters, playing both the mighty trumpeter for the army of interests waging the costly and devastating war on drugs, and also apparently playing the junkie who scored black market drugs in the service of his need for a fix. Limbaugh sneered at the ruinous consequences of the war on drugs, particularly for people of color. Fairness, he blustered, did not require reductions in the incarceration of people of color, but rather an increase in the incarceration of whites who, all too often, get away with illegal drug use.

Anyone expecting that Limbaugh or his apologists would lay down their arms and take up Limbaugh's call for the incarceration of white drug abusers like himself, or better yet, call for a dramatic overhaul of American drug policy, is in for a rude awakening. With appalling chutzpa, the conservative choir has excused Limbaugh's hypocrisy while simultaneously accusing "liberals and the media" of either themselves doing drugs or defending those who do. Indeed, according to the warped logic of one of his most vocal supporters, Limbaugh's hypocrisy is acceptable in large part because of the media's hypocrisy.

The right-wing's defense of Limbaugh is taken directly out of the Right's playbook: "When caught red-handed living a lie, deflect attention from your personal responsibility and shoot one directly across the bow of those perpetual evil-doers, 'the liberals and the media.'

Limbaugh's camp has to be relieved-indeed ecstatic--that the so-called "liberals and media" are squandering this moment to voice support for what is essentially a foregone conclusion. The reality is that Limbaugh is unlikely to serve any jail time for his illegal drug use for reasons that everyone in the anti-incarceration movement knows.

That analysis might begin in the conservative dug-out with their shockingly disparate sentiments of concern and support for the likes of Limbaugh, and their hardened, condemnatory attitudes toward the drug dependency of members of out-groups. We are told to "feel the pain" for Limbaugh and other right-wingers who are caught in hypocrisy while condemning those unlike them to the most punitive treatment conceivable. When members of their own group falter, people tend to attribute the cause to circumstances largely beyond their control. In Limbaugh's case, the cause was debilitating back pain. But with regard to out-groups, their "criminal" behavior is read not as circumstantial, but as the product of inherent characteristics so deeply entrenched that they must be rooted out through unyieldingly punitive measures.

Matt Drudge on MSNBC, "(i)t makes me want to reach out to him and say we love you Rush, we know you are going through terrible hell." Of course, anyone going through drug addiction is going through terrible hell, but the magnitude of drug addiction faced by others is rarely if ever addressed by the likes of Drudge. The fact that Limbaugh would risk his entire career under the weight of this addiction simply reveals how devastating drug dependency can be. "He must have known these things were damaging his hearing his whole career. He's the king of talk radio, everything is on the line. (I)t suggests a really hellish addiction, does it not?" Of course, the fact that millions of others face this addiction, and confront ever decreasing opportunities to rid themselves of it has not tempered the conservative support for the war on drugs. And if one wanted to press conservatives about their drumbeat of personal responsibility and choice, it's not too far off track to remind them that Limbaugh, unlike millions of others, had resources and the opportunity to seek treatment for his addiction. If there is any culpability to go around, shouldn't it attach to those, like Limbaugh, who have been bested by their addiction despite treatment, yet who continue the drumbeat for mass incarceration for those who have had no such opportunity?

Given the ability of wealthy and well-connected people like Limbaugh to secure their own treatment and escape punishment, there will be little pressure to make treatment and other non-criminal interventions available for ordinary Americans most threatened by today's drug laws. In all likelihood, Rush will return, rehabilitated politically, if not physically, and this sorry chapter will fade into distant memory.

Tico
10-22-2003, 11:54 AM
Whew you had a lot to unload hope you feel better now that you got that off your chest. I read your manifesto and all I can say is that addiction is a nasty thing no matter who you are.

All these liberals who preach compassion for drug addicts yet are now jumping for joy at the fact that Rush is a drug addict are just as hypocritical as Rush was. I don't listen to Rush I don't like extremist form the right or left but to actually be happy about someone with a drug addiction just to score political points again a talk show host...yes people a talk show "shock jock" is truly pathetic.

I hope he recovers and maybe now he can do some good for drug addiction awareness from his pulpit.

DRMIZER
10-22-2003, 12:03 PM
I just re-read my piece. Didn't know I said I was happy about Rush's addiction. And I was right. I didn't! Maybe your interpreter is broken and your forgetter works real well. I was simply explaining a few points.

I'm glad to give him as much sympathy as he has given to everyone he has tried to destroy on his talk show including the past President of the United States.. . . .no more and no less. Karma is a problem sometimes.
PS
In my early years I worked in a methodone clinic. I know how tough it is to get off any drug and, I also know if he had not have been outed by his housekeeper, he would still be chucking them in! He ain't finished with drugs yet!
PPS
I don't need to hear from a drug addict who lives in a $30 million mansion how to stay clean. That's for dittoheads!

allan
10-22-2003, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by Tico
\
All these liberals who preach compassion for drug addicts yet are now jumping for joy at the fact that Rush is a drug addict are just as hypocritical as Rush was.

Interesting. Columnist Jonah Goldberg recently asked readers to send him examples of prominent liberal columnists who were excited, or taking joy in the fact that Limbaugh was having problems. What that tells me is that there really are not very many Liberals "jumping for joy". After all, if there were it would be pretty easy for Jonah to spot them. And I think you would be hard-pressed to find examples of mainstream liberals who were happy that Rush is having problems. It is hard to take joy from the suffering of others.

DRMIZER
10-23-2003, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by allan
It is hard to take joy from the suffering of others.

That's true. But this time I'll make an exception only because he is a blow-hard who has done nothing but negative about anything he is against. And it seems to be the whole world. Good luck Rush!

JD3
10-23-2003, 12:54 PM
So, is hypocrisy a bad thing? And can I be a hypocrite and still be right?

Most people I know are hypocrites in one way or another. So have many great leaders been. Does it hurt their credibility? Sure. But I am not sure it should. few of us want to impose harsh judgments on ourself, but others are more than willing to that for us. Perhaps that is the way it should be, or at least that is how it is natrually.

And, you know, hypocrites also give us an object lesson about humility. Without the hypocrite, the words judge not least you be judged might not carry as much weight.

So, let us praise the hypocrite and the lessons they teach us. And let's honor the courage they show by being willing to step out there and make a judgment. Any time you do that, you run the risk of being wrong and later becoming a hypocrite.

Rest well Rush; I look forward to arguing with you and your positions again.

DRMIZER
10-23-2003, 01:35 PM
I don't hold myself out to be the "virtue of morality", "brain on loan from God", and on and on ad nausium. Being a hypocrite is condeming someone else for doing the same thing you do behind closed doors. My argument has to do with listening to some of Rush's earlier shows condeming drug dealers, druggies, pushers, ,etc. Oops, I forgot. . . . .he was over-using prescription drugs.

NetxMan
10-23-2003, 03:45 PM
He stopped saying anything about any of the above when his problem began. But does it really matter?

JD3
10-23-2003, 04:43 PM
I'll concede rush was a hypocrite. Does it matter? To his followers, I doubt it will very much. And that is the risk you take when you step out there. Give him credit for being crazy and bold enough to declare himself in public.

DRMIZER
10-23-2003, 07:36 PM
JD3. I'm sorry but I think you're right. Poor Rush!:(

azov
10-28-2003, 10:05 PM
Be that as it may, Doc, you're on target in deflating that fascist gasblimp.

"As you judge, so shall you be judged."

bmovies
11-05-2003, 03:04 AM
Self-Indulgent Liberal Man [George Neumayr: Aristotle on Liberals/Rush Limbaugh]
The American Prowler ^ | 10/17/2003 | George Neumayr


Modern liberalism, even as its philosophers hold that no act is objectively sinful, treats hypocrisy as a serious sin. Why? If nothing is sinful, why is hypocrisy sinful? Hypocrisy is sinful -- that is, damaging to the soul -- if the moral principles the hypocrite voices then violates are true. But liberals tell us those principles aren't true, that humans can depart from them without damage to their character. So what's the moral problem with violating a moral code liberals consider false in the first place?


Hypocrisy is a moral problem, but liberals can't reach that conclusion on the basis of liberal moral philosophy. In order to denounce it, they have to suspend their customary moral relativism and borrow the principles of conservative moral philosophy. Then, once the target of their moral outrage over hypocrisy is thoroughly eviscerated, they abandon those principles and return to a skepticism about right and wrong in which all forms of deception, including hypocrisy, are defensible.

Liberals on the hunt for hypocrisy carry an air of moral superiority. Why? Do they assume hypocrisy is a lower moral state than their standardless self-indulgence? Aristotle, among other moral philosophers, considered it a higher one. The hypocrite, whom Aristotle would call "incontinent," can retrieve his soul; the shameless see no reason to try, and therefore are morally hopeless.

``The self-indulgent man," he wrote, "is not apt to repent; for he stands by his choice; but the incontinent man is likely to repent…the self-indulgent man is incurable and the incontinent man curable; for wickedness is like a disease such as dropsy or consumption, while incontinence is like epilepsy; the former is a permanent badness, the latter an intermittent badness."

Aristotle compares the incontinent man to a "city which passes all the right decrees and has good laws" but fails to put them to use, whereas the licentious man is like a city which passes "wicked laws and puts them to use."

The latter is the city hypocrisy-hunting libertines seek to build., and woe to the conservatives who don't join them. Rush Limbaugh is their latest prey. The Washington Post this week recounted a "hilarious" evening Al Franken spent at a D.C. bar mocking Limbaugh. Franken, said someone at the bar, "does a great impression of Rush Limbaugh in a 12-step program. He said, 'Rush is having problems with the step where you acknowledge a higher power. He's wondering if you can acknowledge yourself as a higher power.' It was hilarious."

This is morally sicker than the abuse of painkillers, and probably not curable in Franken's case. Franken hates Rush not for breaking the moral law, but for once upholding it. Conservatives love the sinner and hate the sin; Franken hates the sinner and loves the sin.

Liberalism is an ongoing childish project to make conservatives cry uncle, and hypocrisy charges are the means of twisting their arms. The liberals' purpose in catching a conservative out in some hypocrisy is not to say, "You stepped away from the moral law you espouse. Go back," but to say, "You stepped away. Now keep leaving it and endorse our libertine laws." They don't see a soul in distress, but a potential convert to their libertinism. They nab conservatives not to save them but to silence their criticism of the liberal city Aristotle described. A city that sees no sin except hypocrisy. A city that takes pride in passing immoral laws and keeping them.

Hypocrisy is wrong, but a society which decides to live up to its standards by not having any is worse.

allan
11-05-2003, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by bmovies

Modern liberalism, even as its philosophers hold that no act is objectively sinful, treats hypocrisy as a serious sin. Why? If nothing is sinful, why is hypocrisy sinful? Hypocrisy is sinful -- that is, damaging to the soul -- if the moral principles the hypocrite voices then violates are true. But liberals tell us those principles aren't true, that humans can depart from them without damage to their character. So what's the moral problem with violating a moral code liberals consider false in the first place?


This would be an interesting article if it wasn't based on a faulty premise. I am not aware of any liberal who "hold[s] that no act is objectively sinful". Even if such liberals exist, obviously there are elements that are right and wrong within any society -- each culture develops their own norms, and members of that culture must abide by those norms.

Either way, the essay is attributing a belief to liberals that most liberals do not share -- and then arguing against that belief. It is a common tactic and an effective one, but it is intellectually dishonest.

NetxMan
11-05-2003, 09:52 AM
Good article bmovies.

DRMIZER
11-05-2003, 10:04 AM
Your position is indefensible. Limbaugh has made his millions trying to destroy anyone who sees life differently than him including the last administration. He deserves EXACTLY what he dished out! Karma, my man, Karma. The only thing this man is, for sure, is a media clown.

The funny point is he has become a standard, in his listeners minds, for family values and the ultra-right wing! Another joke! Party on Rush, Party on! (And he will just as soon as he is out of recovery.)

Captain America
11-05-2003, 01:43 PM
BUT.... we must not lose site that our neo-con druggie is on the air for entertainment. Being an ultra-right jerk-off afforded him enough money to be able to live the high life and still afford his dope. I imagine he could have been a liberal lefty just as easy if the market called for it.

We shouldn't take entertainers that seriously.

stjohn
11-05-2003, 10:11 PM
To add insult to injury it now appears that Rush is delinquent on some property taxes....

http://www.co.palm-beach.fl.us/tc_pubaccess/real_estate/retax_detail.asp?Fpcn=50-43-42-34-02-000-0110&Coll_num=331998410&Year=2000&PCN=50434234020000110&table_type=HST

DRMIZER
11-05-2003, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by Captain America
BUT.... we must not lose site that our neo-con druggie is on the air for entertainment. Being an ultra-right jerk-off afforded him enough money to be able to live the high life and still afford his dope. I imagine he could have been a liberal lefty just as easy if the market called for it.

We shouldn't take entertainers that seriously.

I could not agree with you more!!!!!!:D

DRMIZER
11-05-2003, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by stjohn
To add insult to injury it now appears that Rush is delinquent on some property taxes....

http://www.co.palm-beach.fl.us/tc_pubaccess/real_estate/retax_detail.asp?Fpcn=50-43-42-34-02-000-0110&Coll_num=331998410&Year=2000&PCN=50434234020000110&table_type=HST

Probably couldn't pay them in rehab (tee hee). He may not be able to pay them in jail either!