I feel the need to make a couple of comments (just like everyone else).
First, that I haven't really seen a lot of fear coming from Limbaugh's detractors on this forum. Their reactions range from thoughtful criticism to
visceral hatred, but calling that
fear is speculative at best and very possibly a case of wishful thinking.
Second, those who cast Limbaugh as occupying a political spectrum with Obama at the other end are recasting the framework. I speculate that those who
insist on this particular didactic do so because in such a world, the views they believe are correct land squarely in the center of the two.
Objectively, that's a very conservative viewpoint. Whether you think conservatism is right or wrong, that's the fact of the matter. Casting Obama
as an extreme opposed by Limbaugh obfuscates these facts.
Third, that Limbaugh's stated ideals (smaller government, individual liberties, et alia) sometimes contradict his stated opinions on several
subjects. To wit: Limbaugh is in support of federal drug prohibition. From a constitutionalist perspective (a perspective Limbaugh claims is his
own), drug prohibition should be a matter for the states to decide on an individual basis. Thus, his support of federal drug prohibition stands in
contradiction to his stated support for smaller federal government, individual liberties, and framer's intent.
Sources:
[1],
[2].
Fourth, that Limbaugh stretches credibility as a spokesperson of a sober-minded conservative viewpoint by engaging in polemic and hyperbole which is
harmful to a productive, even-handed political dialog. In the way of example, he's referred to credentialed scientists who are merely doing their
jobs in accumulating and analyzing evidence as "environmentalist wackos".
Source:
[3].
In conclusion, I suggest that no serious conservative should desire Rush Limbaugh as an ambassador for their beliefs. Rush Limbaugh is a brilliant
entertainer with an unusual knack for polarizing (and I'd argue distorting, but that's for another post) huge issues. He is not, however, a
studious advocate of the ideals he espouses. In the society our framers envisioned and wrote about, we would all try to learn from Limbaugh in
whatever ways we can. Attacking an entertainer is, put simply, silliness - though criticism is fair game. Elevating a controversial entertainer to
any position of serious authority in the political dialog is also rather silly.
If you've made it here, thanks for reading.
[edit on 15-3-2009 by JohnnyElohim]
