Paul Theroux Comes to Rush's Defense
And nails it. This is best bit of analysis I've seen on l'affaire Rush v. Fluke. Theroux, otherwise known as a travel writer and novelist, tries his hand at media criticism in this column and argues that our "condemnation of Rush Limbaugh shows our hypocrisy":
Virtually everyone in public life condemned Limbaugh, some mildly, some harshly, and none were more strident or hypocritical—as Sarah Palin was later to point out—than the hordes of liberals, Fluke-like in their sanctimony. Limbaugh had been offensive! Ms Fluke said she was contemplating a lawsuit—for what? Apoplexy was rife. The man whose whole career is based on offense and mockery had apparently touched a nerve. No one raised much fuss when he hauled out “Queasy” his pet name for Kweisi Mfume (born Frizzell Gray), or called Charles Barkley “Milk Dud,” and when he said that black quarterbacks couldn't rifle the ball he was merely admonished and lost a gig.
Limbaugh is referred to as “the virtual leader of the Republican Party.” Oh, really? If you believe that a cracker like Rush with a radio show is the “virtual leader” of the Republican Party, you need a good proctologist to reposition your head.
Limbaugh, like many mockers—and many successful populists—is a man with a mere high-school education who is able, partly through recklessness, partly through overweening self-regard, to reflect the justifiable anger of a large proportion of the white American public. This is the identical profile of Michael Moore. And by the way, both these semieducated men calling themselves men of the people are multimillionaires.
“Do you ever think you’re just a bag of hot gas?” David Letterman asked Limbaugh a few years ago, when he appeared as a guest. Limbaugh squinted and then, taken aback, denied that the thought had ever occurred to him, as Letterman to his credit said, “I certainly think I am!”
My gorge rose again when Limbaugh offered an apology, muttering about a poor choice of words, sorry, sorry, blah-blah, and of course no one believed him for a minute. Many of his sponsors bailed. Limbaugh’s spin to his listeners on this was “They don’t want your business!” The result was that he got even more listeners.
The whole affair has now begun to appear to me fairly interesting. The defense of Sandra Fluke is so shrill that it is almost as though many of her defenders actually believe there is a vicious taint of self-indulgence, if not sluttiness, in a female student’s clamoring for a federal mandate of subsidized contraceptives. How else to interpret such a welter of special pleading? They believe she actually needs defending.
Read the rest over at The Daily Beast.
- Comment (28)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Jun '10
Re: Paul Theroux Comes to Rush's Defense
Frozen Chosen: It's obvious to me that this is a man who clearly has no idea what he is talking about. His assertion that the Book of Mormon calls the Catholic Church the "Whore of Babylon" is totally false and is an insult to both the LDS and Catholic churches.
I suspect that what this fellow considers good satire agrees with his political views and that which doesn't is poor satire... · 16 minutes ago
I hope Mitt is preparing himself for all the stupid slanderous questions that he's going to be asked about his faith, all appearing the minute he ties up the nomination. The Democrats have them ready to go. They're just waiting for the right time to bring up all the religious wedge issues they can think of. And remember, anything that any Mormon ever wrote, at any time in history, will be evidence of "official church policy." He better brush up on his mission books.
Nov '10
Re: Paul Theroux Comes to Rush's Defense
For a really interesting and different analysis of Rush v. Fluke see this post at Hold the Mayo. Here’s a sample:
Apr '11
Re: Paul Theroux Comes to Rush's Defense
Limbaugh made himself and other conservatives look bad. Conservatism used to carry with it an air of gentility. Conservatives who argued that what Limbaugh said was no worse, and, in fact, was not even as bad as the things Bill Maher has said about conservative women are missing the point. Traditionally conservatism meant the maintaining of certain standards of behavior and discourse. The only way to plausibly continue making that argument is to discourage Limbaugh from descending into offensive name calling. Mark Steyn’s devastating piece about her in the National Review is sharply worded but not offensive—well, maybe it is to her supporters.
Having said that, you need no clearer demonstration of how liberals have lost their way than the events of the last few weeks. I’m convinced that 30 years ago the ACLU would have defended the Catholic Church against the administration. Jane Fonda supports an attempt to use the FCC to force Limbaugh off the air, apparently unaware that the Constitution that protects him also protects her. Current liberalism, the liberalism of the New Left 60s, is driven by emotion, case by case, not by any Constitutional principle.
May '10
Re: Paul Theroux Comes to Rush's Defense
Didn't Dr. Sowell, in the recent Ricochet podcast, speak about "intellectuals" who believe their expertise in one sliver of one subject somehow gives them authority to pronounce upon a multitude of subjects (with predictably disastrous results)? Theroux should stick to travel, a topic (unlike Rush, et al) he presumably knows of which he speaks. True, he may have stumbled onto a fact or two leftists need to hear (HT Doc)-- but, alas, will ignore.
Jun '11
Re: Paul Theroux Comes to Rush's Defense
Not a big fan of the Theroux article, but it's not bad. From the left.
I was a little taken back at the time when Rush plopped out the word "slut". I think it would have been perfect had Rush been patient and described a "slut" instead of using the word.
But he was, of course, right on with the analysis.
Oct '11
Re: Paul Theroux Comes to Rush's Defense
My goodness, of course I won't read the rest, the outline is enough to make me stiffle about such dribble, heard enough of that from Ms. Fluke!
Aug '10
Re: Paul Theroux Comes to Rush's Defense
Theroux's article is sniffish. It misrepresents the quality of the whole of what Limbaugh had to say about Ms Fluke by quoting the least interesting part. And it's nonsense that only people, who haven't read, say, "A Modest Proposal", would consider Limbaugh's comments on Fluke effective satire. I've read Jonathan Swift and Daniel Defoe, yet I think Limbaugh did an outstanding job, in his medium, of lifting up to ridicule the tyranny inherent in Fluke's " reproductive rights".
Edited on March 13, 2012 at 3:54pmTheroux's article also reeks of a bruised sense of self importance. I'd have to be paid to check out anything else he's written.
Apr '11
Re: Paul Theroux Comes to Rush's Defense
Theroux is a good writer, but he is a little full of himself. If you've ever heard him in interviews, his faux British accent is a little tiresome. The piece he wrote seems unfocused, probably because he wants to make sure we know he doesn't think much of Limbaugh. Actually, I know a lot of conservatives--folks who read the New Criterion, First Things, and so on--who think Hannity and Rush compromise the brand. Theroux is an old style lib who believes the Constitution makes no exceptions for free speech. For that, I give him and Michael Kinsley, who wrote a similar piece, kudos.