Getting a Rush Out of Limbaugh

“Meticulous, in-depth analysis has always been the goal of this column,” asserts Howard Rosenberg (“Today’s Guest on Rush Limbaugh: Narcissus,” Calendar, Sept. 3), whereupon he blithely proceeds to criticize the Rush Limbaugh TV show on the basis of a single half-hour that he watched.

Limbaugh’s TV show, reviewed as theater, is bare-bones simplicity itself. Limbaugh faces the camera from behind a desk against a static backdrop with an occasional visual graphic or audience shot thrown in. That’s it. Everything else is Rush Limbaugh. If you like what he says and how he says it, you like his TV show. If you don’t, you find some other alternative.

Rosenberg’s “review” is largely a thinly disguised assault on Limbaugh’s political point of view. There’s nothing wrong with that providing that it is labeled for what it is, not camouflaged as something else.

Rosenberg begins by acknowledging Limbaugh’s immense popularity. “But what about the issue of fairness?” he trumpets. In a burst of magnanimity, he then stipulates that “Limbaugh, of course, has a constitutional right to express himself as he does.” But it soon becomes evident that Rosenberg wants to place extraordinary burdens on the show in exchange for that constitutional right.

He complains, “ . . . his shows are Maginot Lines of conservatism that unfairly accommodate no opposing views.”

First and foremost, and with no apologies, Limbaugh is a political commentator, not just a talk-show host. Does every political commentator have an obligation to provide time within his own show for his opposition? And precisely who is being treated “unfairly”? The people who watch and listen to Limbaugh are obviously satisfied with his shows. So where does “unfairly” come in?

It appears that Rosenberg is ready to join the current liberal-chic tizzy of the week, the so-called “Hush Rush” movement, advocating the resurrection of the free-speech-restraining Fairness Doctrine that was properly buried years ago, just for the purpose of squelching Limbaugh. He states, “. . . when it comes to Limbaugh, Fairness Doctrine supporters may be on the right track.”

He goes on to say, “It’s not only the liberals and Clinton advocates who deserve to have their views heard in conjunction with ‘The Rush Limbaugh Show’ but also the multitudes who don’t share Limbaugh’s views of Limbaugh.” (Hold everything! Does this really mean that “the multitudes” who don’t share a talk-show host’s opinion of himself “deserve to have their views heard in conjunction with” the host’s show? This is an amazing suggestion! How many people out there would love to tell Sam Donaldson or Phil Donahue what they think of them “in conjunction with” their own shows?)

Rosenberg seems to have forgotten how the system works. The “multitudes who don’t share Limbaugh’s views of Limbaugh” have access to the same effective remedies that have always existed: Change the dial or flick the “off” switch.

As to the “liberals and Clinton advocates who deserve to have their views heard,” there are other multitudes who believe those views have already been propagated ad nauseam by the media. Rush Limbaugh finally emerged to serve as a partial counterbalance.

Why do the liberals “deserve” anything more than they have been able to obtain on their own simply because Limbaugh has the wit to develop an audience-getting mix of entertainment, information and opinion that an astonishing and still-growing number of people want to watch and hear?

The solution should be obvious. Have the clamoring “multitudes” Rosenberg appears to have discovered go out and find their own version of Limbaugh.

Legislating the force-feeding of “opposing views” to Limbaugh’s vast audience (the logical application of the words “in conjunction with”) seems to be Rosenberg’s idea of fairness. Limbaugh’s radio program reaches more than 20 million listeners a week and the TV show adds millions more. The liberals have nothing to match it, and can’t stand it.

It is safe to assume that Rosenberg envisions himself as a defender of constitutional rights ready to man the ramparts at the first hint of any action by government that would have a chilling effect on free speech. It is very hard to believe that one lone successful conservative talk-show host could so easily convince him to join the forces supporting anything as potentially threatening and repressive as the euphemistically entitled Fairness Doctrine. Does Rosenberg really want the government to dictate who and what must be heard, and the conditions of delivery?

There are other indications of Limbaugh’s appeal. His book “The Way Things Ought to Be” has become the fastest-selling hardcover bestseller of all time, now approaching the 2.5-million mark. His picture on the cover of U.S. News and World Report and the accompanying story led to a sellout at newsstands that week. It produced what was reported to be the highest number of sales for a single issue in that magazine’s history.

Limbaugh is for real. He has tapped into the wellspring of positive beliefs and cherished moral values that the long-quiescent “silent majority” still believes are what this country is all about.

Twenty million regularly listening Americans can’t be dismissed lightly. Furthermore, it isn’t necessary to agree with Limbaugh on all his views to support his core beliefs concerning individual responsibility, the free enterprise system and his opposition to the growing oppressive interference by government in human affairs. Simply enough, that is the real basis of his appeal.

Rosenberg ought to listen to Limbaugh regularly for a few weeks. He might begin to understand why so many people find him to be the most refreshing and outspoken antidote in a long time to the failed liberal policies that have created such a mess for us.

Counterpunch is a weekly feature designed to let readers respond to reviews or stories about entertainment and the arts. If you would like to rebut, reply or offer a better idea, Counterpunch wants to hear from you. Write to: Counterpunch Editor, Calendar Section, Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles CA 90053. Or Fax to: (213) 237-7630. Articles should not exceed 600 words.