catapult magazine

The democratic party is blaming Rush Limbaugh for its most recent political losses. Tom Daschle expressed concern a few days ago that Rush Limbaugh and “Rush Limbaugh wannabes” are setting dangerous trends in American political discourse. The former democratic majority leader urged democratic liberals to get involved in radio to turn the tide back in favor of the Democrats.

Daschle is concerned that politics and entertainment are getting confused. Limbaugh says that Daschle is trying to undermine his show by calling it merely entertainment. Entertainment, Rush says, has always been mixed up with politics and is a high calling. People need entertainment, that’s why we love Jay Leno and David Letterman’s political jokes. Rush also says that if Daschle had his own radio talk show, Daschle would certainly demonstrate just how unentertaining politics can be. What is the proper relationship between politics and entertainment?

Please clarify your question – entertainment as in Hollywood? Talk radio is not entertaining. It’s a way of life. :)

Rush definitely appeals to a certain segment of the population. And whether really conservative or really liberal, people at either end of the political spectrum are known to be extremely diligent voters with intense grassroots organizations. That’s all that is. The people who listen to Rush are already “converts.” He preaches to the choir and that choir happens to be very effective politically when they want to be. In my opinion, no one listens to Rush and changes their minds about candidates and their political party of choice. They’ve already decided. Rush Limbaugh is the Conservative’s Patton – he rallies the troops and distracts the enemy. Daschle’s just a baby and can’t accept that the voters have spoken. Rush is just a small part of the bigger picture.

Daschle was suggesting that Rush incites people to violent discourse—death threats and demonization (calling people “femi-Nazis”, “environmentalist wackos” etc.). I think the bigger issue, though, is that our media outlets have more influence on politics than politicians themselves, not because people are persuaded by Limbaugh and “Limbaugh wannabes”, but because radio and television has more of the country’s attention.

Clinton often complained that as soon as he would leave after one 20 minute interview, Rush would come on the air for three hours, five days a week, making his own points and presenting his own analyses. This leaves politicians at a disadvantage when it comes to communicative power. The alternative, then, might be for politicians to become more involved in media in order to represent themselves and promote their own views. I’m sure Daschle would consider this alternative to be very dangerous, however. He seems to want to keep politics separate from entertainment.

Clearly, we don’t want our politicians to be expert entertainers (this is what bugged many of us about Clinton). By the same token, I love the fact that Rush Limbaugh is on the air, but I wouldn’t want him in political office. Still, I’d much rather watch David Letterman than listen to campaign acceptance speeches on election night.

Tom Daschle’s a baby? Do you even know what limbaugh said? You may not agree with daschle’s politics, but I dare say that if somebody said the following about you, you’d be pretty concerned and upset, especially if it resulted in threatening and / or harrassing calls to your family

I still don’t see why Daschle would be insulted and, if he’s wasting time being insulted by Rush, yes, he’s a baby. It’s Rush Limbaugh, for goodness sake. He’s deliberately fanning the flames and whipping his listeners into a frenzy so they remain passionate about their politics in a nation of political apathy and ignorance.

I’m not sure why Democrats would even give him the time of day or even bother getting ruffled about that particular tirade, because like I said in my previous post, Limbaugh preaches to the choir (i.e. people of like mind). Anyone with a contrary opinion to Limbaugh’s who actually watches or listens to him just wants to be aggravated.

And quite a few of those who listen to him disagree with most of what he says, which dispels the myth that everyone who listens to Rush Limbaugh are mind-numbed robots.

I also find this quote by Rush Limbaugh to be rather civil, especially when you contrast his sentiment with that of the Democrats, who collectively booed Republican Trent Lott for attending the Wellstone funeral. Rush’s quotation does not seem to promote death threats to senators. Rather, it is merely a passionate oratory from a guy who seems to care about the future of America. Whether or not you agree with Limbaugh’s ideas about what’s best for America, the entertainment media is the perfect place for this kind of talk. Perhaps Rush is loved by many precisely because his way of speaking counters the double-speak and slippery language often used by politicians in political discourse.

you’re repeating the lie spread by the media, grant. Democrats did not “collectively boo” trent lott. There were a few scattered boos, which is unfortunate but not unexpected when you have a very emotional crowd gathered, but there were actually so few boos that it was nearly unnoticeable. I was there. I didn’t hear anything, though I don’t doubt that some people did boo.

mrsanniep, I’m not quite sure why you’re excusing his statements simply because “he’s expected to whip people up into a frenzy”. And if you’re not sure why daschle would spend any time worrying about what limbaugh says, perhaps you missed the part about him receiving harrassing and threatening calls because of it. The next time your family starts receiving threatening phone calls because of somebody whipping likeminded people into a frenzy, let us know whether or not you “waste any time being insulted”.

Rush Limbaugh is the quintessence of slippery political discourse.

Jonner -

My family has been the object of harassment from the media. My husband has been chased down Capitol building hallways by reporters, shown on the evening news, included in newspaper articles and basically lumped in with Wisconsin’s “villians of the day,” hand-selected by our state’s journalists because of his prominence within political circles. I went through most of my pregnancy with such a circus, with my in-laws calling three times a day needing to be pacified … and you know what? It doesn’t pay to be insulted by these people. They wither when ignored, but thrive on both love AND hate.

So no, I don’t understand how Tom Daschle, in order to survive in politics and maintain his sanity, continues to let members of the media like Rush Limbaugh get under his skin. As someone close to many people currently under scrutiny in Wisconsin politics, I can tell you that seasoned, innocent politicians don’t get flustered by media flack.

And if Tom Daschle is that unfocused as a leader, well, then he deserved to have the majority taken from him.

Grant – I don’t think his listeners are mind-numbed robots. They certainly are more likely to agree with him, however, than not.

What I’ve been trying to avoid all this time is the issue that underlies much of this, which is the influence our media personalities have on people. I’d rather not think of people as zombies that do what Rush Limbaugh tells them to do (though he did not tell people to write death threats) just as I don’t want to blame Marilyn Manson for the Columbine murders.

Certainly, the media has control over how we see things, as jonner points out about the Wellstone funeral (since you were there, I’d really like to know if it seemed more like a rally for the democratic party as was reported in the media or a solemn memorial), but don’t you think a good majority of people understand the context in which Rush Limbaugh speaks and do not take his radio commentary as reason to send death threats? Limbaugh’s commentary could just as easily be interpreted as a reason to vote democrats out of office (According to Daschle— and Rush—this is exactly how people responded to Rush’s commentary in the last election).

Grant, it’s interesting that you proposed Rush’s popularity might be based on the fact he’s contradicting political rhetoric and that the public responds to that, because I’ve always thought his appeal (and I haven’t really tuned in to him for awhile) was because he was a member of the media saying things that contradicted the spin of mainstream media members (basically, nothing to do with politicians themselves). I chalked his popularity up to the fact the public sees liberal bias in the media, so they turn to Rush for a breath of fresh air.

I really think the media in general have become more and more irresponsible in their quest to be America’s watchdogs – and their ability to make or break someone’s reputation is unbelievable. But the relationship between the media and politics is so intertwined, it’s like a mini-Appalachia (no offense to my Kentucky friends). Newspapers started in this country to promote political agendas (American Revolution, anyone?) and tarnish people’s reputations. Being “unbiased” is a notion of the 20th century, developed not out of a sense of ethics, but out of someone’s pocketbook – it made newspapers more appealing to everyone. Then there’s the First Amendment, which many journalists use as an excuse for mediocrity and irresponsible journalism. It justifies their existence, they think, indefinitely. Frankly, I don’t know what to think about where we go from here – how to improve the relationship between media and politics. And I’m a former member of the media, even.