Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 03:15:51 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Thanks for the Rush
 <1992Nov8.034828.4977@gboro.glassboro.edu>

In article <1992Nov8.034828.4977@gboro.glassboro.edu>,
kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) says:

>I am no fan of Mr Limbaugh, and I consider his popularity to be irrefutable
>proof of how education has suffered under Reagan and Bush.  [ 1/2 8-) ]
>It is not that Mr Limbaugh is particularly stupid; I would say that he is
>about as smart as most US citizens.  But US citizens in general are not all
>that bright, and Mr Limbaugh, who is no smarter, considers himself some sort
>of genius.

First of all, I'd give most people a little more credit.  People in general
aren't stupid.

Second, Rush -is- certainly a great political thinker.  He is especially
good at thinking things through; he can tell you exactly what he thinks, and
why, about any issue.  I wonder if most people could do that; if they take
the time to completely and seriously think everything through like that.  I
don't think I could say that I do.

>However, I do not think he is particularly evil; or at least, no more evil
>than anyone else.  He is a political commentator, and political commentators
>often get galvanised so that they start imagining their ideas not only RIGHT,
>but OBVIOUS.  They delude themselves into thinking that anyone who disagrees
>with them is either self-deceptive or really stupid.

Well, though he certainly does believe himself to be right, I think the
over-confidence bordering on arrogance is more showmanship than anything
else.  If you listen for a while, you see that he doesn't always act like
that; not when he is seriously discussing an issue in a monologue or with a
caller.  Remember, though, part of what he does -is- entertainment, and it
has to be recognized as such.  I think a lot of people hate Rush because they
take him seriously when he is not being serious.  (For example, "Ignore the
news, enjoy your weekend.  When you come back Monday, I'll tell you what
happened, AND what to THINK about it.")

In truth, I don't think Rush always expects his beliefs to be obviously true.
Maybe in some more extreme cases, but not always.  Sometimes it will appear
that way, when disagreements simply boil down to philosophical differences.
(For example, whether it's moral to kill animals for food, or whether it's
worse to kill dolphins than to kill tuna.)

>And that, in the end, is Rush Limbaugh's problem.  He's not a bad guy, I don't
>think.  He's just woefully ignorant of the things he talks about.  He does
>slant the truth with an amazing bias -- if any of the `liberal media' did
>their job as badly as he does his, he'd never let up on them.  But he does not

His problem with the media is that they are -supposed- to, in theory, be
objective.  Rush himself, though, makes no such claim...obviously.  The
media shouldn't be biased the opposite direction, though.

>Mind you, this doesn't mean Mr Limbaugh is harmless; many people take him
>seriously, and believe the nonsense that he dishes out.  Every day they open
>their brains and let him pour in whatever gobbledygook he has dreamed up the
>night before.  I don't readily predict any dire results, but neither do I rule
>them out.  "If a blind man leads a blind man, both shall fall into a pit."

Rush has made the point often, and effectively, that people need to think
for themselves, and not just go along with whatever idiocy they hear... for
example, he illustrated this by stating (on April Fools' Day) that we
should raise taxes on the poor, to get rid of them.  Later, he told people
that they must always think about things, and not just willingly accept any
such thing they hear...   No, he doesn't expect people to mindlessly agree
with him. (The April Fools' Day stunt was just one example of Rush making
this point.)

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU