Schumer Could Have Been a Hero…

Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York was on ABC This Week this morning (click here for the transcript).  One of the topics that he addressed was controversial left-wing comedian Bill Maher, who has donated a million dollars to Barack Obama’s super-PAC.  Many Republicans are saying that Obama should give back the money, since Maher has called Sarah Palin derogatory names.  This is currently an issue because right-wing talk radio host Rush Limbaugh has received flack (and even drops in advertisers) for calling Sandra Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute”, and Obama and others on the Left have criticized that as uncivil discourse.  Republicans are responding that Bill Maher is uncivil in his discourse, too, and so the Left should criticize him as well.

When asked if the Democrats should return Bill Maher’s donation, Charles Schumer said the following:

“Well, no. I mean, look, the bottom line is that Rush Limbaugh’s comments were just nasty and directed at a particular young woman who had a particular point of view and was expressing herself. Bill Maher is a comedian. It’s much different. Rush Limbaugh has tremendous weight in the Republican Party. No one will rebut him. Bill Maher’s a comedian who’s on at 11 o’clock at night but has very little influence on what’s happening here.”

Schumer’s response is understandable, but it’s sad.  It’s understandable because Schumer does not want to make headlines by openly demanding that the Democrats return Maher’s money, since that would place the Democrats in an awkward position.  (I’ve watched enough of The West Wing that I can picture Josh Lyman arriving at that conclusion!)  But it’s sad for a variety of reasons:

1.  Contrary to what Schumer says, Bill Maher does have political influence, for Maher is giving a million dollars to the Democrats.

2.  Schumer’s attempt to downplay Bill Maher as a mere comedian while he criticizes Rush Limbaugh is quite a stretch.  Both Rush and Bill Maher are comedians in that they try to be funny, but they also claim to be presenting legitimate points-of-view on politics and policy.  In my opinion, Rush and Bill Maher are in the same boat.

3.  Right is right and wrong is wrong, regardless of who is doing it.  Unfortunately, in U.S. politics, people tend to give a free pass to their own side while condemning the other side.  One result of that is Schumer’s poor logic (at least on the issue of Rush and Bill Maher) that he displayed this morning.

4.  Due to pressures on politicians to be team players, it’s rare to find a politician who stands for what’s right, even when it creates an awkward situation.  Chuck Schumer could have been a hero this morning by declaring that Democrats should support civility and thus return Bill Maher’s check.  Instead, he chose to be a team player and to engage in silly partisan games.

This is not to say that Schumer hasn’t done good things in the area of civility.  He has appeared on right-wing shows and has discussed issues in a respectful manner.  After the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, he and Republican Senator Tom Coburn sat next to one another to show their commitment to transcending political polarization.  I just wish Schumer was more of a hero this morning.

Two Perspectives on U.S. Energy Policy

I listened to two talk radio shows today.  The first was that of Rush Limbaugh, the controversial right-wing host.  And the second was that of Thom Hartmann, a progressive.

I was especially intrigued by their different points-of-view on energy policy, which they talked about today because President Barack Obama has released proposals on energy.

Rush said that Obama is against drilling for oil because he is anti-American and believes that the United States has exploited the world.  Rush also said that Obama desires to shift America to green energy (i.e., replacing oil with algae).  Rush referred to Energy Secretary Stephen Chu’s remark that the Administration is okay with high gas prices (see here), as well as Obama’s lament that the United States has two percent of the world’s oil reserves yet consumes twenty percent of the world’s oil.  For Rush, the United States has much more oil than that, but it has been untapped due to Obama’s anti-oil policies.  Rush also expressed doubt that anything can replace oil, for the success of oil in the marketplace is an example of the best product winning.  Moreover, Rush affirmed that the Keystone Pipeline (which Obama opposes) would create jobs in the United States.

Thom Hartmann’s take on these issues was different.  First of all, Hartmann denied that Obama has been anti-oil in his policies or has supported high gas prices.  Hartmann played the part of Obama’s speech in which Obama lamented that Americans have paid so much at the pump.  Hartmann also stated that drilling for oil has dramatically increased during Obama’s Presidency.  Why, then, do we still have high gas prices?  Hartmann says this is because oil companies have exported the surplus oil, in an attempt to keep gasoline prices in the United States high and thereby maintain their high profits.  Regarding the Keystone pipeline, Hartmann stated that it would create jobs while it was being built, but afterwards those jobs would disappear.  Hartmann also said that the pipeline essentially exports oil to another country, meaning that the oil is not even for people in the United States.

Who’s right?  I agree with Rush that Obama is trying to weed us off of oil, since Obama is a strong proponent of green energy.  I am also interested in learning more about Secretary Chu’s comments.  But Hartmann makes sense when he says that the oil companies are trying to keep their prices high.  That’s why I doubt that giving tax breaks to oil companies will lift us out of our current state of high gas prices: we’ve been doing that, and it hasn’t worked.

That’s my opinion, and I’m far from being an expert.  I was pleased to listen to two sides on this issue.  What’s your view?

Kucinich and Kaptur; Rush and Hannity on Inconsistency

I have two political points for today:

1.  I read that Congressman Dennis Kucinich lost to Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur in the race for the Democratic nomination in Ohio’s ninth district.  I think it’s sad that redistricting put both of these fine leaders against each other, for I like them both.  For one, both are solidly committed to the middle class, and they’re not afraid to stand up to special interests.  And second, at least compared to other Democrats, they’re fairly pro-life on the abortion issue (though Kucinich has moved away from that).  Marcy Kaptur will go up against Joe the Plumber.  (Oh brother!)  I’ve written about Marcy Kaptur and Dennis Kucinich in the past on this blog.  See here and here.

2.  I listened to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity yesterday.  Essentially, they were arguing that the Left is hypocritical to lambaste Rush in the name of civility, when prominent figures on the Left are themselves uncivil.  Rush said that President Barack Obama laughed when Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. referred to Tea Partiers as “sons of bitches”, and when Wanda Sykes at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner expressed hope that Rush Limbaugh’s kidneys would fail.  And Hannity reported that Bill Maher—-who has used derogatory terms for Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann—-has donated a million dollars to Obama’s super-PAC.  Hannity asks if Obama will return the money.

I think that these points are legitimate.  My impression has been that, when many liberals and Democrats are confronted with this information, they give the obligatory response that Bill Maher is also wrong to be uncivil.  But do they then proceed to e-mail HBO and to tell it to take Bill Maher off of its programming, the same way that they have gone after Rush’s sponsors with a vengeance?  I don’t think so.  In my opinion, there is bias, and people tend to give a free pass to their own side for things that they condemn on the other side.

I said that I think that Rush and Hannity make a legitimate point.  But is it a valuable point?  And where exactly does it leave us?  All it does is encourage more squabbling and us vs. them.  Yes, life is unfair.  I may be criticized for things that others get a free pass for.  The people who criticize me may not even have the moral authority to do so, since their own lives are out of order.  But I’m still responsible for my own actions, and it is my responsibility to clean up my own side of the street and to try to be as civil as I can.

John Avlon on the Decline of Rush Limbaugh

John Avlon of The Daily Beast has an excellent article about the decline of Rush Limbaugh, both in terms of the number of his listeners and the quality of his program.  Here are some of my favorite quotes from Avlon’s piece:

“‘This controversy will no doubt give Rush a temporary ratings lift, but it won’t be worth the damage that’s been caused in terms of loss of revenue and advertiser confidence,’ says WTOP program director Laurie Cantillo, who previously directed Limbaugh’s flagship station, WABC. ‘It is perceived by many as an attack on young women who represent the holy grail for ratings. Women 25–54 is the prize demo for most advertisers. Rush’s remarks strike at the heart of the audience they’re trying to reach, hence the apology. This is an audience that’s already been in gradual decline on many right-wing radio stations, so Rush’s gaffe compounds the problem.’”

“‘There’s been a lot of research done on women and talk radio and while women are keenly interested in issues and politics, women tend to reject the in-your-face conflict and combativeness of politics. That’s just not how women are wired,’ says Cantillo. ‘We prefer more civil discourse on the issues. And that’s why all news and talk programming that’s more even-handed are gaining popularity.’  While Rush is still a giant of the talk-radio industry, there are signs of erosion. Right-wing talk-radio ratings have been declining, at least in part because of PPMs, a new, more accurate way of measuring listenership. In Chicago, Boston, and Minneapolis, local talk-radio stations outperform the station that airs Rush and his national conservative-talk cohort. In San Diego, Philadelphia, and Washington, the local NPR station outranks the Rush affiliates.”

“In what might be another ominous sign for Rush & Co., Mike Huckabee will be starting a nationally syndicated radio show in April for the Cumulus network, which could be positioned to displace Rush in some markets. A former preacher, governor, and presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee is highly conservative, but he is also unfailingly civil.”

“There is an irony in the spot Rush has put himself. His career first took off when he was hired as a replacement for the professionally offensive Morton Downey Jr. at Sacramento’s KFBK. ‘Rush was hired because he was passionate but polite—a nice Midwest guy. The agreement was that he would not be rude or cruel,’ says Valerie Geller, his former program director at WABC, director of Geller Media International and author of Beyond Powerful Radio.”

Some will probably doubt that there was ever a time when Rush was civil and polite!  After all, he used the terms “feminazis” and “environmental wackos” even in his early days.  But, in my opinion, whenever Rush focuses on discussing and debating the issues rather than calling people names, he can be quite effective, even logical at times.  And there was a time when he was more willing to dialogue with people about the issues in public, for he appeared on news programs and talk shows (i.e., Donahue) and debated people who disagreed with him.  He still does that sort of thing on his radio program, on some level, but I remember when he had more of a public profile in terms of discussing issues.

I’m pleased that there is a growing number of people desiring a civil discussion of issues—-an exploration of differences and policies as opposed to name-calling and “us vs. them.”

It’s Not Censorship (Technically-Speaking), But It Still Stinks

This will be a rambling post.

In a sense, I can identify with the companies that have pulled their sponsorship from Rush Limbaugh’s radio program.  These companies support such values as civility and respect for people, and they do not feel that Rush practices those values.  Consequently, they choose not to support Rush.  I understand and I respect that.

But I myself have no intention of trying to get Rush kicked off the air.  In fact, I’m getting sick of conservatives getting kicked off of programs, period.  I think of Pat Buchanan being fired from MSNBC due to pressure from a left-wing group.  In my opinion, we lose out when voices are silenced.  And, while we may think that society would be better off if certain voices were simply not heard, I believe that those voices should be addressed and countered through debate, not silencing them.  (I’m refraining from using the word “censorship” here because the government did not remove Pat Buchanan from MSNBC, and I define censorship as the government repressing freedom of speech.)

“But you’re a right-winger, James.”  Well, I’m more middle-of-the-road nowadays, maybe even center-left.  But let me say this: I’m not going to join right-wingers to get things kicked off the air, either!  The conservative American Family Association has long liked to target sponsors to get certain programs kicked off.  I have not joined them, for I happen to like the shows that the religious right dislikes (i.e., Desperate Housewives, Picket Fences, Brothers and Sisters, etc.).  L. Brent Bozell (nephew of William F. Buckley, Jr.) has for years sought to remove Family Guy from television.  I happen to like Family Guy.  I think it’s funny.  It goes too far at times, but I’m not going to support getting it kicked off the air.

Another pet-peeve I have: When someone expresses an opinion, people act surprised and outraged that he has expressed that opinion.  I have in mind Kirk Cameron’s recent comments on homosexuality, which GLAAD has criticized.  Look, criticize away, for this country is all about debate!  But should we really be surprised that Kirk Cameron made those comments?  He’s a conservative Christian!  Of course he feels that way!  There are many people in the United States who still believe that way!  I hope Kirk Cameron is not pressured to contrive some phony apology.  People are still entitled to their opinion, even if that opinion is wrong and (in the eyes of some, such as GLAAD) outdated.

I tend to admire people—-on both the Left and also the Right—-who acknowledge and respect that there are people with different points-of-view, whether or not they agree with those viewpoints.  Let’s go a step further.  I admire those who also try to understand why other points-of-view exist.

The Rush-Sandra Fluke Debate

Here are some links regarding the Sandra Fluke and Rush Limbaugh controversy:

Sandra Fluke’s submitted testimony: here.

Rush Limbaugh’s explanation of his position and defense of his controversial remarks: here and here.  (On the first Rush link, there is a video of Sandra Fluke’s testimony.)

Both are worth taking a look at, in my opinion.  For one, Sandra Fluke and Rush disagree about whether or not contraception is affordable and accessible.  Rush argues that condoms are cheap and that Planned Parenthood’s own figures demonstrate that contraception is not as expensive as Sandra Fluke says.  Fluke, however, responds to this sort of argument and provides reasons that contraception is so expensive.

Second, Rush sees the debate primarily in terms of sex.  He asks why women can’t limit when they have sex, rather than demanding that society pay for their contraception (either through taxes or premiums).  Fluke, however, argues that there is much more to the issue than that.  There are women with problems that can only be redressed with contraception.  She refers to a 32 year-old friend who had “to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries” (Fluke’s words). Because her insurance would not cover this medication, it got to the point where the doctor had to remove her ovary.  Now, she experiences early menopause, which can lead to “increased risk of cancer, heart disease [and] osteoporosis” (Fluke’s words).  Plus, she can no longer have children.

As many of my readers know, there is more to the debate than this: Rush calling Sandra a “slut”, people trying to get Rush kicked off the air, etc.  But I’m choosing to focus on the parts of their arguments that have a degree of substance.

Nixon’s Civil Rights 18

In my reading of Dean Kotlowski’s Nixon’s Civil Rights right now, I am in Chapter 6, “A Cold War: Nixon and Civil Rights Leaders”.  The chapter is about how President Richard Nixon had a tense relationship with civil rights leaders.  Part of this was because civil rights leaders disliked Nixon’s focus on providing African-Americans with economic opportunity rather than integration, and they criticized Nixon for favoring a slow approach to the desegregation of Southern schools.  Moreover, Nixon’s continuation of the Philadelphia Plan to empower minority businesses took a bit of time to produce results, and so civil rights leaders labeled it a failure.  On Nixon’s side, Nixon did not care for Ralph Abernathy preaching to him.  Nixon preferred to reach out to the African-American silent majority, which actually was not a majority of African-Americans at the time, but which consisted of African-American ministers and businessmen.

Something that stood out to me was what Kotlowski narrated on page 173.  Nixon adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan suggested in a memo that the “issue of race could benefit from a period of ‘benign neglect’” (Moynihan’s words).  Kotlowski states: “Moynihan protested that the phrase ‘benign neglect’ was neutral, coming from a 130-year-old report on British policy toward Canada.  In Nixon’s opinion, reporters had given Moynihan a ‘bad rap.’  Neither Moynihan nor the president realized that they implicitly had compared civil rights policy to British colonialism.”

This makes me wonder if the controversial things that public figures say necessarily mean what people think that they mean.  When Rush Limbaugh said that the Obamas were “uppity”, for example, did he really mean that they were not acting in a manner that was fitting for their race, as people claimed when they looked at the history of the use of “uppity”?  Or did Rush simply mean that the Obamas think and act like they are superior to others?  I’m not saying that I agree that the Obamas think they’re superior, but it does seem to me as if many project onto people’s words things that the people may not have meant.

Frum and the Relevance of Less Government

In the waiting room a few days ago (to see my therapist), I read David Frum’s Newsweek article against Rush Limbaugh, Why Rush is Wrong.

Frum argues that the conservative message of less government will not mobilize voters as it did in the 1970′s:

The conservatism we know evolved in the 1970s to meet a very specific set of dangers and challenges: inflation, slow growth, energy shortages, unemployment, rising welfare dependency. In every one of those problems, big government was the direct and immediate culprit. Roll back government, and you solved the problem. Government is implicated in many of today’s top domestic concerns as well…But the connection between big government and today’s most pressing problems is not as close or as pressing as it was 27 years ago. So, unsurprisingly, the anti-big-government message does not mobilize the public the way it once did.

To my surprise, however, Frum is still somewhat of a conservative. He laments: Decisions that will haunt American taxpayers for generations have been made with hardly a debate. The federal government will pay more of the cost for Medicaid, it will expand the SCHIP program for young children, it will borrow trillions of dollars to expand the national debt to levels unseen since WWII. And, while he maintains that Republicans should focus on the high cost of health care rather than tax cuts, he is firm that their proposed solution should be “free market health-care reform,” not socialism.

I think Frum has a lot of good ideas, but I’d hardly call a commitment to less government politically irrelevant. There are still people who believe that big government suppresses the economy and liberty. I recently checked out a 2006 book, Size Matters: How Big Government Puts the Squeeze on America’s Families, Finances, and Freedom (and Limits the Pursuit of Happiness, by Joel Miller. In some cases, oppressive government intervention is obvious to Americans, for I still hear middle-class people complain about taxes and regulations they deem unreasonable.

In other cases, many don’t seem to realize that the problems the government claims it wants to solve may be caused by government in the first place. How many Americans know that the Community Reinvestment Act pressured lenders to make high-risk loans, which resulted in our current economic crisis?

Joel Miller argues that big government drives up the cost of health care, and, while I haven’t gotten to that part of the book yet, I’ve heard from others how that could be the case. Under Ben Witherington’s posts ‘Sicko’– It’s Enough to make you ill and Canadian Nurses love ‘Sicko’: Hand out free tickets to help prevent the Canadian system going the American way, there were commenters who showed how government over-regulation limits the supply of hospitals in America, driving up the cost of health care. Michael Tanner documents in Leviathan on the Right that the Republicans in Congress under Newt Gingrich sought to restrict hospital competition. And, on the radio a few nights ago, conservative conspiracy theorist Dr. Stanley Monteith (a physician) said that the feds really clamped down on county clinics, which provided inexpensive health care. Frum assumes that government intervention is no longer a problem, when it very well may be.

I also think that a message of fiscal responsibility can be popular with a lot of Americans. During the election, I heard Obama supporters lament that the Bush-deficits would have to be paid by our children. And one criticized Governor Sarah Palin for taking out a bond, which future generations of Alaskans would have to pay.

One thing Frum’s article brought to my attention is that Obama’s S-CHIP expansion can easily become another entitlement. To be honest, I don’t give a flying flip about most conservative critiques of the expansion. It covers the middle class? Heck, the middle class can use help with their high premiums and health care costs! People would leave private insurers for the government program? Oh well! The private insurers will have to compete for once. Poor babies! But another entitlement? That’s something that concerns me, especially since the cost of our current entitlements continues to go up, leading many to forecast a significantly higher tax burden for future generations.

Maybe less government can be a powerful message, if Republicans articulate it well and actually practice what they preach.

Felix on Rush, Part II

For background, see Felix on Rush, Part I.

This is Part II of my comments on Felix’s anti-Rush Limbaugh post. Felix’s quotes are in italics.

At a community “Obama bash” I went to this Saturday afternoon, a woman questioned that me as a conservative (albeit a moderate conservative that Rush hates with a passion) what draws me to President Barack Obama, I explained that President Obama transcends party politics. Those who feel that it’s cliche to say that he’s a transformational leader—tough, the proof is in the pudding! America is blessed at this time for somebody who dares to look outside the box for a change.

I can understand Felix’s point here, for I had the same impression when I read Barack Obama’s Audacity of Hope. Obama goes out of his way to hear and acknowledge all sorts of perspectives–right, left, and center–and those who knew him as a law professor relate that he was that way back then. I liked the parts of Obama’s book that criticized government bureaucracy, especially when he said he can understand why people get frustrated when they visit their local government office and notice the bureaucrats taking their sweet time.

At the same time, I have no idea why a conservative would vote for Barack Obama. And I don’t just ask this about Felix. I wonder it about Peggy Noonan, or my Republican relatives, or the red state of Indiana. In so many respects, Barack Obama is a liberal. He’s trying to jump-start the economy with more government spending. He’s overturned George W. Bush’s pro-life policies on abortion. He’s a nice guy, and he has good ideas, but he’s not exactly a conservative Democrat.

This brings me to the next quote:

Frankly, the Republicans need to be co-operating with the President but at the same time not compromising their principles. As a conservative, I believe that President Obama needs to listen to the voice of fiscal responsiblity and yes, some kind of fiscal restraint when necessary. This is where the Republicans should come in make their case. Does Rush Limbaugh want the the very liberal, tax and spend wing of the Democratic party to call the shots?

I’ll probably be contradicting myself in this part. Part of me wonders if bipartisanship is truly possible, when both sides have such different points of view. If Barack Obama wants to jump-start the economy through more government spending and “tax cuts” for people who don’t pay taxes, and conservative Republicans find such ideas anathema, then why should they support Obama’s plan?

At the same time, bipartisanship has occurred in the past, so it’s not beyond the realm of possibility. There’s No Child Left Behind, the Prescription Drug Benefit, ethics reform, Kennedy-Kassebaum, welfare reform, etc., etc. During the Clinton health care debacle, there were Republicans who proposed alternative plans to address the rising costs of health care. And I remember watching on C-Span a remarkable example of bipartisan cooperation: Conservative Senator Tom Coburn wanted to cut stuff out of farm subsidies, and liberal Senator Tom Harkin said he shared that goal, but didn’t like Coburn’s way of going about it. So they agreed to meet and see what they could come up with.

I’m not sure why bipartisanship sometimes occurs, and sometimes does not. It doesn’t always grow out of a spirit of cooperation, for the balanced budget and welfare reform of the 1990′s emerged after a lot of clashes between Clinton and the Republican Congress. They argued and debated and fought and stalled until finally they could arrive at something that both agreed upon.

What’s my point? I’m not sure. It’s nice when both sides can work together to accomplish something, but it’s not always feasible when the positions are too different. And good bipartisanship doesn’t always require people to roll over and play dead (as Obama seems to want the Republicans to do), for diamonds can emerge out of a knock-down, drag-out fight.

Rush in his narrow ideology believes that the Republicans must seize power, take power for the sake of it.

I don’t think Rush wants Republicans to gain power for the sake of power. He wants them to gain it so they can make conservative policy. Rush’s problem with the Republicans is that they don’t always have that same commitment to conservatism!

Felix on Rush, Part I

On his political blog, The Way I See It, Anyway, Felix wrote a post about Rush Limbaugh’s “I hope he fails” statement on President Obama (see Pitying Rush Limbaugh and his idiotic assertion). I’m going to respond to pieces of Felix’s post, but this isn’t exactly a point/counterpoint in every area. Felix discusses why he used to like Rush, and that got me thinking about why I like him. So here we go!

Felix’s statements are in italics.

I remember in 1992 when Bill Clinton was elected president, what I heard from then U.S. Senate Republican leader Bob Dole saying that, he wanted Bill Clinton “to succeed” in his presidency but somehow in 2009 we have another Republican leader (thankfully not an elected leader but one of the airwaves) who dogmatically asserts, “I hope he fails.” At least Bob Dole was (and I believe he still is) a gentleman in every sense of that word.

But what did Rush mean when he said he hopes Obama fails? I’ll include a link to the context of his remark so you can decide for yourself (see here), but my impression is that Rush isn’t praying that Obama will plunge America into a major depression. Rush says: “If I wanted Obama to succeed, I’d be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he’s talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things…We’re talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that?” Rush hopes Obama will fail to set up socialism in America.

But first, I should and need to make some serious confessions about myself in this post. My own mother a few days ago asked me a damn good question, “How is it that you were once a fan of Rush Limbaugh?” Trust me in my early 20’s I drove some people nuts of my fanship of Limbaugh (my dad was not even exempted, neither some people at the church I used to attend or people at my-then workplace at that time). Trust me, as I turn 39 today (yes the last of my thirties on my birthday)—I have grown up and have been through a lot of hard knocks. I think I am far, far wiser than the naive (but well-meaning) person as I was in my early 20’s. I also think that at time, Rush Limbaugh was filing a void. I was at that time a member of a fundamentalist sect (to be fair which was moderating in it’s hardline stances in which I am eternal grateful but that’s another topic), I was a college graduate but was unemployed for a while, scrimping at various jobs. He was articulating my dissent and anger at the excesses of the left wing which included radical feminism, radical environmentalism, the freewheeling lifestyles of Hollywood’s rich and famous and those who had little care for the traditonal family.

There’s a lot there! As Felix notes, Rush was really big in the early 1990′s. I listened to him because he helped me through my feelings of isolation and alienation–with his rants against elites and the establishment. But my problem in those days was that many of the elites in my small town high school actually liked Rush Limbaugh, almost to the point of never questioning him. I like Rush much more now when he’s not a big-time fad. Part of me still listens to Rush because I resent not fitting in. Academia can be a liberal arena, and it’s good to hear someone who can articulate my values and frustration. But I don’t feel compelled to agree with Rush on everything, as I take what I like and leave the rest.

I’m not a major dittohead, but I listen to him on-and-off. I like his broadcasting voice, his conversational style, his grasp of nuance, and the way he uses little-known articles from the mainstream press to undermine liberalism. When the mainstream press boldly feeds us some half-baked narrative and expects us to accept it on the strength of them being smarter than us, he has the audacity to question it, and I applaud him for that.

I guess one pet-peeve that I have with Rush is that he expects all of us to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps. When a teacher called in to his program and said he had a hard time paying for health insurance, Rush told him it was his choice to become a teacher, so he should take responsibility for his own actions. I’m not going to say the teacher made a bad choice, but what I often get from Rush is, “You made your bed–now sleep in it! Get out, start a business, and go to work” (my paraphrase and interpretation). But we all make poor decisions every now and then. Not everyone has a keen business sense, and getting a high-paying job is not always easy. Should we have to suffer because of that? I once heard Rush say something like, “People complain about not having health insurance, and they want the government provide it. Have they ever thought about getting it for themselves?” Hey, I’m sure they would, if everyone had the ability to make loads of money. Not everyone does. I know I don’t right now.

When I listened to Rush as a youngster, the whole world looked like it was ahead of me. I couldn’t envision myself being out of work, or having a hard time paying for health insurance, food, or rent. I graduated seventh in my high school class, and summa cum laude from DePauw University! I went to Harvard! I was on my way to finding my niche, and it would be high-paying!

Now, I’ve learned that many with Asperger’s have difficulty finding, getting, and keeping jobs. I realize that, if my family didn’t help me out, I could be begging on the streets. All of a sudden, Rush’s song of “Ain’t got no home” doesn’t sound all that funny anymore. I now see that making one’s way in life is not exactly easy, and I’m not as eager to tell people to sleep in the bed they made just because they didn’t make the best decisions in life.

I think Rush does well to point out why socialism doesn’t work, and I don’t believe he’s an entirely uncaring person, since he gives a lot to charities. But the mantra of “personal responsibility” rings hollow to me these days. Sure, people should try to better themselves and contribute to society, but they shouldn’t fall through the cracks because they made some poor decisions in life.

I have to take a shower and leave for church within minutes, so this will have to be Part I of II. See you then!