X Close

How Rush Limbaugh shaped American conservatism Reviled by the Left and revered by the Right, the partisan presenter was mainly motivated by money

Agitprop frontman: Rush Limbaugh with Former First Lady Melania Trump. Credit: Mario Tama/Getty

Agitprop frontman: Rush Limbaugh with Former First Lady Melania Trump. Credit: Mario Tama/Getty


February 19, 2021   4 mins

Back in 1990, Rush Limbaugh, the titanically successful right-wing media personality who died this week, attributed the rapid success of his nationally syndicated radio show to “the perception by real people that the primary disseminators of information in this country are, shall we say, slanted to the Left”.

It would be difficult to realistically dispute that contention, then or now. Though the “information disseminators” who populated the precincts of mainstream thought 30 years ago were perhaps less overtly activist-minded in their orientation than they are today, the basic proposition still holds.

Limbaugh’s fantastically successful show (reportedly 20 million daily listeners at its peak) mostly consisted of his uninterrupted extemporaneous riffs on the news of the day — with an impishly comedic tinge. His main source material was lightly-organised newspaper clippings and faxes. He seldom did interviews and took relatively few phone callers. In theory, he wasn’t doing anything particularly revolutionary — but simply by synthesising American politics through a vastly different lens from anything else which had been on offer for a mass commercial audience, he became one of the most important US political and media figures of all time.

Ronald Reagan wrote a reverential note to Limbaugh in late 1992 that illustrates why nearly the whole of the American Right is in extreme mourning upon Limbaugh’s death from lung cancer. Though Reagan’s mental acuity was in stark decline at that point, he got it together sufficiently to credit Limbaugh for having “become the Number One voice for conservatism in our Country” — supplanting Reagan’s own vice president, George HW Bush, who had just lost re-election to Bill Clinton. Earlier that year, Limbaugh had stayed in the coveted Lincoln Bedroom of the White House at the invitation of Bush — who even carried Limbaugh’s overnight bag for him, as he would later gleefully recall on-air.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that most of the self-identified conservatives I met growing up in the 2000s — the kind who would go out of their way to inform you that they were proud no-nonsense conservatives — attributed their political identity specifically to Limbaugh. Usually, the origin story was because he was the only midday in-car entertainment option for a motorist who wanted something other than music or sports. But it later developed into a full-scale, self-directed, ideological adventure, with Rush always there to serve as a trusted guide. A sprawling industry of liberal commentators likewise fashioned their own political identities in direct opposition to Limbaugh, alongside the legions of imitators he also spawned.

There will always be a market for media offerings which pride themselves on being unbound by the cloying primacy of liberal cultural hegemonic values. Especially as those values become ever-more monolithic in corporate America, enforced through the imperious dictates of Human Resources regimes. The excesses of oblivious dingbat celebrities and “woke” activists will provide endless fodder, if that’s what you are into.

But the demise of Limbaugh raises the question of whether that broad anti-hegemonic sensibility necessarily begets any intrinsic attachment to the Republican Party. Limbaugh was so revered by elite DC conservatives — many of whom did not exactly care for his brash personality traits — because of his ability to connect the cultural dislocation of ordinary radio listeners with the imperatives of institutional movement conservatism.

Annoyed by the sanctimony of liberal Hollywood? That annoyance must also somehow translate into steadfast support for the lowering of corporate tax rates, per the formulations of Limbaugh. Tired of being lectured by obnoxious elites in New York and LA who think they know better than you how to run your own life? You are also somehow obliged to back whatever foreign military escapade Washington cooks up. And of course, always ultimately vote GOP in November, lest the nation crumble into irreversible decadence.

Much of the coverage of Limbaugh’s death has focused on his lavishly affectionate relationship with Donald Trump, who awarded Limbaugh a presidential medal of freedom in the middle of the State of the Union address in 2020; Trump made his first post-presidency media appearance Wednesday in homage to his dearly departed golf buddy. As did Mike Pence, the former Vice President — a one time talk radio host himself, who earlier in his career beamed on the floor of the House of Representatives that it was the “literal truth… to say that I am in Congress today because of Rush Limbaugh”.

But more instructive perhaps as to the whole of the Limbaugh legacy was his equally voracious support for George W. Bush, who released a statement fondly remembering his “friend” Rush, and extolling how helpful he had been during his presidency.

Switch on the radio at any point in the early-to mid 2000s, and you’d hear extended Limbaugh soliloquies on the virtues of the Iraq War and the rock-solid trustworthiness of Bush’s leadership. Shortly before the invasion, Limbaugh heralded the profundity of Bush’s “monumental vision” in the arena of foreign policy, and praised Bush as having exactly the right temperament for the job because he ignored critics of his Iraq strategy. After all, opponents of the war were little more than delusional freaks who fundamentally hated America. On his way out of office in January 2009, Bush regaled Limbaugh at the White House for a private luncheon in honor of Limbaugh’s birthday, presenting him with a “little chocolate microphone”.

The bitter feud which subsequently broke out between Trump and the Bush family dynasty would, on the surface, seem to have been a quandary for Rush. In one of the most astounding moments of the entire 2016 presidential cycle, Trump stood up at a Republican primary debate in South Carolina and accused George W. of lying the country into war. It was exactly the kind of rhetoric that Limbaugh would have spent probably three shows in a row mercilessly lambasting as emblematic of un-American left-wing zealotry.

Much has been made of the ideological meaning of the Bush-to-Trump evolution of the Republican Party, and there’s no doubt that segments of the coalition did genuinely undergo a transformation in thinking after the disaster of Iraq. But the seamless transition figures such as Limbaugh made from one to the other shows that there was always a market for commercialised partisan entertainment in support of whoever the Republican standard-bearer happened to be. Limbaugh was always candid that his primary motives were ultimately financial — and the money kept rolling in thanks to his service as the agitprop frontman of a movement conservative apparatus which brought him into the fold.

However, resisting the obnoxious encroachments of liberal pieties doesn’t necessarily require hardcore, partisan fidelity to the Republican Party, which Limbaugh exemplified for virtually his entire tenure in the public domain. Given the technological advancements since Limbaugh began syndicating his radio show, audiences have become more diffuse. There is plenty of appetite for a kind of counter-hegemonic synthesis that doesn’t ineluctably flow into unflinching partisan support for one of the two major political parties. This was clear long before Limbaugh’s death — but perhaps this week will hasten the realisation for Republicans that the constructs they’ve clung to since the Nineties can only last so long.


Michael Tracey is a journalist in Jersey City, NJ

mtracey

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

60 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago

When the sub-head says “mainly motivated by money,” you’d think there would be some evidence of that. The left hated Rush and continues to because he resonated with roughly half the country. God forbid anyone challenges the left’s hegemony over media and messaging.

stephen f.
stephen f.
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Thumbs up.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Talk radio is dominated by “conservatives”…how is that working out?
WSJ, Fox News, Breitbart, Talk Radio…surely “conservatives” would be winning left and right…

Last edited 3 years ago by Jeremy Smith
stephen f.
stephen f.
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

It’s good to see you post-I was beginning to think that you were another of the drop-offs.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  stephen f.

Got work to do

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo, etc etc. And the WSJ, other than the editorial page, is quite a reach.
Talk radio is working out quite well, thanks for asking. It’s not my fault the left cannot make it work for them.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Regarding WSJ there is a difference between News Reporting and Editorial position. Or do you want the news page to report that Trump’s inauguration crowd was bigger than Obama?

Last edited 3 years ago by Jeremy Smith
Daisy D
Daisy D
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Yes, unapologetically financially successful – due to brilliantly conveying a message that resonated w/the vast majority of Americans – doesn’t equate to ‘mainly motivated by money’.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Daisy D

A minority of Americans, How many people really listened to his rambling?

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Agree re: ‘mainly motivated by money’….what a weird headline. Aren’t MOST people motivated by money? We all have to eat and be housed. Perhaps the Left is still hoping that the government will take over ‘caring’ for us, i.e exhibit A: the Obama project, ‘Life of Julia’ which was targeted at fearful single women who seemingly couldn’t cope without mommy & daddy’s support; He ensured them that from the minute they were born, the USA gov’t (Democrat Party) will be there to provide food, housing, birth control, abortions, baby sitting, etc. What’s wrong with making-a-living, and a good one at that?
Rush Limbaugh transformed the American political landscape over his lifetime, and for the good (and lots of laughs!). Very few people can claim that.

Last edited 3 years ago by Cathy Carron
robert scheetz
robert scheetz
3 years ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

If his content ensued from the profit motive, he was just another snake oil salesman or gasbag politician, swindling his audience. Is that your position?

Terry M
Terry M
3 years ago
Reply to  robert scheetz

A snake oil salesman tells you his product is good for all sorts of things that are not supported by data. Rush usually had backup for his information, and drew the conclusions he felt were justified by that. He was often – certainly not always – right. And he was remarkably prescient is some ways, for example the whole brouhaha about gender identity he foretold back in about 2014 IIRC.

Most of the ‘quotes’ that the haters spread are from his parodies, or his use of irony, you know where you say the opposite of what you believe. He also mocked people by imitating them saying outlandish stuff. So any quote that you hear or read must be put in context, much moreso than most commentators. He was kind of a cross between what SNL and Bill Maher would be on the left, but without the anger. He was nothing if not cheerful.

robert scheetz
robert scheetz
3 years ago
Reply to  Terry M

I listened off and on for almost 30 yrs and found his analytic simple minded. His analytical frame for all matters was liberal v conservative which he interchanged with left and conservative, and Democrat/Republican reflecting absolutely nothing in reality. He was aggressively/defensively anti-intellectual with no grasp of concepts in political economy and American history.
He never acknowledged the Corporatist control of both parties, nor that they are in near unanimous accord on 95% of budget & policy matters. He never acknowledged the bipartisan support of the ascendant economic and foreign policy doctrines, neoliberalism/ neoconservatism, and supported their (bipartisan) trade pacts and wars.
His humor, mispronouncing names or affecting exaggerated Spanish/Aramaic/Ebonics pronunciation was annoyingly adolescent. His promo schtick, obvious, and tediously unchanged for 30 years; the send-up of feminism, gays, environmentalists, etc., tiresome superficial stereotypes, and his bawdy jokes, body noises, and bathroom humor, low grade locker room genre (very much in the style of SNL and Bill Maher).

Last edited 3 years ago by robert scheetz
Karen Cox
Karen Cox
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Conservatives are such perfect marks for conmen like Rush. He told you losers that your pathetic misery was the fault of women, immigrants, Black people — anyone but your stupid, lazy, worthless selves. You controlled the government for most of the last 40 years and yet in all ways that matter, you’ve lost. This country is darker, gayer, more female, more immigrant, more college-educated and less dumbshit-white-male than ever before. Enjoy circling the drain and joining your tinplate idol Limbaugh in being completely forgotten.

glenn gordon
glenn gordon
3 years ago

rush was this that and rude, but why was trump such a scumbag to the leftwing media?
the moment trump called out cnn as fake news,,? are journalist that afraid of scrutiny ?,,,,,,,,the media to myself lost a lot of cred in 5 years,,,,,,

Seb Dakin
Seb Dakin
3 years ago
Reply to  glenn gordon

You know, something similar happened with me. When Trump first called CNN fake news, I thought it was a bit over the top, pointless even. And yet five years later, I basically agree with him. It’s as if he clawed at their mask, it kind of came off, and they just thought what the hell, let’s stop pretending. The BBC’s barely better, some of the print media that I used to merely disagree with have gone full-spectrum hysterical, and the kind of censorship that online vehicles have started to engage in, particularly in the last 12 months or so, is a serious concern for a free society.

stephen f.
stephen f.
3 years ago
Reply to  Seb Dakin

Thumbs up.

Andre Lower
Andre Lower
3 years ago
Reply to  Seb Dakin

I realize that this will be construed as a pure inflammatory comment – but perhaps the media vehicles (CNN, etc.) have realised early on that there was no hope in arguing with the latest wave of conservatives about facts?
Right now intelligent discussion is just not possible. It will take some time – and effective governing from Biden, as he certainly realizes – before passions once again give room to reason. Until then, we’ll keep wasting time in the futile one-up arguments that became the hallmark of the last Republican president.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
3 years ago
Reply to  Andre Lower

College education in the humanities means very little today. The days when being a scholar, meant writing Latin and Greek and speaking three to four European languages are long gone.
My experience of construction sites is that the blue collar workers do respect articulate, erudite engineers with extensive experience but they can recognise codswallop when they see it. 
Look at any structure and piece of equipment you use. They exist because of competent blue collar workers.
Water flows well at gradient of 1 in 200, always has always will. If the foreman does not do their jobs properly and the pipes are incorrectly laid, sewage can back up very quickly. Where the sewage comes from; male or female, homosexual or heterosexual, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, atheist, black or white does not matter. Laying sewers at depths of 6 to 7m below ground have a high fatality rate due to unstable ground. Clearing sewers of blockages is very unpleant and dangerous work.
What is absurd is the contempt that many college educated people have for those who undertake dirty difficult and dangerous work. Civilisation will prosper without many college educated humanities degrees; it cannot without the blue collar workers.

Judy Johnson
Judy Johnson
3 years ago
Reply to  glenn gordon

Some people we agree with express their opinions in an uncouth manner and others will express their views (and ours) more graciously. Similarly for those with whome we disagree. Trump happened to have no couth at all but his oinions are a different matter.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago

20 millions listeners? Talk Radio has a ways to go…
As far as I know I never listened to him. I always listened to Howard Stern when I was often in the US.
Anyway, Limbaugh seems to have been totally wrong on Iraq and his enthusiasm for Bush, who was appalling on every level. But he was probably right on quite a few other issues.

Last edited 3 years ago by Fraser Bailey
Terry M
Terry M
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

You may remember that there was some at least some uncertainty about the whole Iraq invasion in the early days of its discussion. But when Colin Powell made his (in)famous speech at the UN everyone on the right and many on the left closed ranks, Hilary Clinton and John Kerry among them.

I listened to Limbaugh almost daily in the 90’s but very little since then. He frequently included a mix of parody, satire, and irony in his programs. Many of the ‘pull quotes’ you see people attribute to him were from those humorous pieces and represent not Rush’s views, but views of someone he was mocking. If you hear them in context this becomes clear.

Limbaugh followed whomever most closely represented his view of conservatism, and became a cheerleader for that person, Reagan, GHWBush, Dole, GWBush, McKain, or Trump. He certainly did some mental gymnastics to accomplish this, but you can probably best describe his goal as combatting leftwing idiocy and profligacy, which was uniformly present in the Democrats.

stephen f.
stephen f.
3 years ago
Reply to  Terry M

Thumbs up-excellently stated.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Terry M

I voted your comment up – I just like to point out that people that opposed the war (perfectly legitimate position) were called traitors and cowards and haters of America.
Rush was one of those people that (personally didn’t serve) but listening to him you would have thought he had fought at Thermopile (with the Spartans obviously).

Terry M
Terry M
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Yes, there are many ‘chicken-hawks’, me amongst them, sort of. I was lucky to only be 1-A for a short time during the lottery when I could have been jerked into VietNam pretty easily. Fortunately they never got to my number 160 since they got to 143 in my district. One more month or so and I would have been in uniform …. or Canada.

I regret supporting our military adventurism. Probably the only action that was legit in the past 40 years was Kuwait and Afghanistan for a while.

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago
Reply to  Terry M

You missed a lot of fun. ‘They’ say the most exciting thing in life is someone shooting at you, the second most exciting thing is shooting back!

Last edited 3 years ago by George Lake
George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Thermopylae…hot gates!
But spot on Rush…..yet another Daft Dodger, or
Natural Born Coward. The problem is there were so many they achieved critical mass, and even boasted about it at the time!

The only time you can bang on about war is when you have actually
“Pulled up a sandbag” yourself. Everything else is mere waffle.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

CNN this past month has the lowest ratings ever with just 225,000 watching at prime time. No wonder they are going bankrupt. Rush’s audiences were H_U_G_E as one of his fans would say : )

Last edited 3 years ago by Cathy Carron
Terry M
Terry M
3 years ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

Those are the Trump haters since the Trump hate is now yesterday’s news so CNN has no product of interest to them.

Andrew Baldwin
Andrew Baldwin
3 years ago

I only listened to the Rush Limbaugh show when Mark Steyn was guest hosting for him, but the format was the same. Funny, I hadn’t really noticed just how few callers there were for a phone-in show until Michael mentioned it, but it’s true. A show like Ontario Today, which always has a guest and lasts less than an hour has way more callers than Rush’s show which went on for three hours. However, the callers seemed to be much more carefully screened, so that they always had something interesting to say. By contrast, the Ontario Today callers that get through are often boring people with nothing to offer. When there is an interesting caller with something valuable to say, the tight format precludes them being kept on the line very long and they are often cut off in mid-sentence. Michael asks if other right wing talk radio hosts could learn something from Rush’s format. I would think all talk radio shows could learn something from his format.
The calls were screened by the show’s producer, Bo Snerdly, the pseudonym of James Golden, a black American. The vile New York Times in its obituary for Limbaugh suggested that he was a made-up person. It obviously didn’t like to admit that this vile racist hatemonger (according to the mainstream media) had a black producer. 
What happened to the rule that you only say nice things when an important figure dies within twenty-four hours of their death? It certainly wasn’t followed with Limbaugh, with the mainstream media spewing up something like 1984’s two minutes of hate against him to signal his passing. That was the treatment he got on the Canadian national network from CBC Washington correspondent Paul Hunter, arguably the most boring TV journo in the world. I suspect that his hatred of Rush is strongly mixed with envy for a hugely superior talent.

Karen Cox
Karen Cox
3 years ago
Reply to  Andrew Baldwin

Pustules like Limbaugh, whose legacy is nothing but lies, hate, and the misery he inflicted on people, should be commemorated only by honest assessments of what a complete waste of oxygen he was. Rats and fire ants are better uses of water and nutrients.

M Spahn
M Spahn
3 years ago

One of these days someone is going to take all of that well-earned resentment of the woke left and hopefully NOT steer it to the Globalist/Chamber of Commerce/Forever War wing of the Republican Party. That’s when things will get interesting.

Ross C
Ross C
3 years ago

To be fair Limbaugh was among the first take advantage of the removal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, well before others took the commercial imperative to abandon balanced reporting, for profit.
At the point he gave gleeful AIDS updates set to music he abandoned any pretext of belonging to humanity or traditional Christian values (as compared modern American Christian values). I think by any measurement of those traditional Christian values he’ll be experiencing a warm afterlife and meeting his own kind.

Jonathan Barker
Jonathan Barker
3 years ago

Limbaugh was of course one of the original post-modern relativists, a purveyor of fake “news”, and alternative “facts”. More than anyone he birthed a nation of ditto-dead zombies. America is now reaping the perfect cultural storm created by these millions of know nothing PT Barnum suckers.
Barnum was of course wrong – there are thousands of suckers born every minute. Limbaugh was the perfect ring-master of this now everywhere know nothing circus.
As a result of its zombification American “culture”, or what remains of it is quite literally disintegrating.
For an outsiders assessment of this obvious fact check out the essays on this UK based site by a deeply humanist cultural critic
http://eand.co

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago

More than anyone he birthed a nation of ditto-dead zombies. America is now reaping the perfect cultural storm created by these millions of know nothing PT Barnum suckers.
You folks are so predictable. Everyone not like you is a sucker or zombie. Never mind the antifas or cancel culture or the morass of academia, all creatures of the left. Oh, no; it’s that horrid, retched right that’s to blame for everything, and it’s all Rush’s fault.

stephen f.
stephen f.
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Thumbs up.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

What is the connection with antifa and calling a clown a clown!
Plenty of people like Rush (remember chickenhawk accusation) were gung-ho for Iraq but they (Vietnam) in their youth made sure to run away from service.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Plenty of people like Rush (remember chickenhawk accusation) were gung-ho for Iraq 
Hillary and Bill were gung-ho for Iraq, too, as was every single Dem who later sought the party’s nomination in 2004. That they were all wrong is what it is.
What is the connection with antifa and calling a clown a clown!
The connection is the predictability of Jonathan’s post in which everyone who disagrees with him is a zombie, but the people on his own side who commit murder and mayhem get a pass. It’s called hypocrisy.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

the article is about Rush not BLM.
Did Hillary and BIll call the war opponents :
America haters & traitors
Rush did that, and so did plenty of other “conservatives”.

Last edited 3 years ago by Jeremy Smith
Terry M
Terry M
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

The Donkeys are NOW calling milquetoast Republicans who happen to like Trump, wear a MAGA hat, or show up at his rallies ‘haters and traitors.’ At least Rush was making it about an issue rather than a personality. And don’t forget the left has a long history of supporting our enemies a la Jane Fonda, so some were actually traitors.

stephen f.
stephen f.
3 years ago

Reading your post, it is vividly apparent to me that you are an eager consumer of news that fits your pre-conceptions, where nuance is non-existent. Zombie indeed.

David Stuckey
David Stuckey
3 years ago
Reply to  stephen f.

I thought that this was Unherd-home of sensible reasoned debate?!

stephen f.
stephen f.
3 years ago
Reply to  David Stuckey

“ditto-dead zombies”? “suckers”?…oh yes, I have digressed from the sensible and reasoned…

Andre Lower
Andre Lower
3 years ago
Reply to  David Stuckey

Not these days, unfortunately. You are underestimating the destructive power of the master populist that just left the US presidency. He somehow made people actually take pride in parroting his manners and shallowness of argument. His legacy will take time to dissipate.

Francois Pignon
Francois Pignon
3 years ago
Reply to  stephen f.

As are you, me, and anyone else participating in the consumption of news-media. We all choose our news sources based on how well they fit our pre-conceptions, including those we use as punching bags and as inspiration for creating memes that mock and ridicule those we think deserve it.
Thumbs up, stephen? In one hand, yes, while the other proudly hoists the middle finger.

Last edited 3 years ago by Francois Pignon
robert scheetz
robert scheetz
3 years ago

Excellent analysis. He did indeed explode the hegemonic liberal decorum, and the identitarian lunacy of the liberal Coastal Culture. All which greatly needed to be done. But as you say he defended (always omitting to analyze the big picture, using rather the specious procrustean liberal-conservative manicheanism) the ascendant neolib/neocon programme. And always all subservant to ( “obscene profit breaks”) his personal greed.

enoch.lambert
enoch.lambert
3 years ago

If Rush’s content was what was being left out, then sure media was “slanted to the Left”. That’s probably the most superficial thing that could be said about the state of media at the time. But compare what eventually arose on “the Left” after the end of the Fairness Doctrine: Democracy Now! It had actual news content covering crucial issues and events ignored by the “hegemonic” media, and which brought on all kinds of interesting people you’d never hear otherwise. It wasn’t just endless harangues railing against the “hegemonic” whatever almost solely for the sake of stirring emotion. Limbaugh’s failures were apparent far before the (second) Iraq War

Jonathan Barker
Jonathan Barker
3 years ago

Also check out the book by Ian Reifowitz titled:
The Tribalization of American Politics How Russ Limbaugh’s Race-Baiting Rhetoric on the Obama Presidency Paved the Way For Trump
Meanwhile remember that everyone transmits (in all directions) their thinking, their emotional states and the condition of their psyche altogether. As such every single person affects everyone else, and thus altogether the collective psyche.
So how then did Limbaugh’s entirely toxic rantings affect and shape the collective US psyche? Toxic negativity all-the-way-down.
And some/many people (especially so called conservatives) then wonder why everything is so awful, with no apparent means of correcting or rightening the situation. Some so called conservatives praise Limbaugh as a wonderful chap who was just having fun.

Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
3 years ago

“I see Fascists! Fascists everywhere!”
Really? That’s “deeply humanist”? Deeply disturbed, I would say.

stephen f.
stephen f.
3 years ago

You clearly are just another mono-source crank that blithely tosses out the “racist” calumny…truly a “toxic” rant.

David Stuckey
David Stuckey
3 years ago
Reply to  stephen f.

In contrast to your sensible reasoned argument-please have some self awareness. Ironies abound!

stephen f.
stephen f.
3 years ago
Reply to  David Stuckey

There is rarely a reasonable path to take with someone who tosses out the “racist” meme.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago

For years (as long Democrats were in power) Rush used to bang on about deficits…well
Nobody is a fiscal conservative anymore. All this talk about concern for the deficit and the budget has been bogus for as long as it’s been around. – Rush Limbaugh- July 16, 2019.
After banging on about deficits we discover that Rush never cared about it! Did Hillary made him do it? NY TImes? BLM?
The man was a fraud. And the fact that he was so influential on the “conservative” movement says a lot about the “conservative” movement in USA – a collection of charlatans, clowns, fraudsters and degenerates. But as we all know the liberals made them do it!

Terry M
Terry M
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Are you retarded? That quote is Rush complaining about the Repubs as closet big spenders, he is not supporting them.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Terry M

That was him justifying Trump’s spending and tax cut.

Karen Cox
Karen Cox
3 years ago

It doesn’t surprise me in the least that Michael Tracey loved Limbaugh because they share a prime motivation: hatred of women. Limbaugh’s one sincere belief was the women existed solely to serve the physical needs of men, even going so far as to insult a 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton for her looks. (Clue, guys: Limbaugh’s looks could be used to induce vomiting. The man was physically completely disgusting.) Tracey also hates women who refuse to cater to his desire for submissive teenage bikini models by existing past legal drinking age.

Limbaugh’s death made me very happy this week. The world is no longer polluted by his pustulence. I look forward to walking an incontinent dog on his grave.

Allan Edward Tierney
Allan Edward Tierney
3 years ago

Vile creatures such as Rush Limbaugh can survive in a country such as the USA due to the level of ignorance that still prevails among a large section of its citizenry. Fantasy has been a pervading cultural aspect of North America since its founding, fantasy being more saleable than reality. It simply comes down to money. Money at all costs is the most fundamental aspect of the U.S. ethos. It hardly matters what consequences arise from this pursuit, “It’s all good” as they say. In a nation where status is everything and history little to nothing very few concern themselves with probity. Notoriety will do. And lies, hate and slander that make money? What’s the problem?

Last edited 3 years ago by Allan Edward Tierney
Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago

hate, lies, and slander haven’t stopped the people who hate Rush, but your condemnation of them is missing for some reason. How come? It’s always telling when leftists summarily dismiss anyone not like themselves as ignorant, the same left that runs the education establishment, most of the major media outlets, and largely shapes the culture. But, sure; this one outlier of a radio host is the problem.

stephen f.
stephen f.
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Thumbs up.

David Stuckey
David Stuckey
3 years ago

Well said-I lived there for 6 years a while ago-in the 70s it was moderately sensible, and then Reagan was elected and the school of Milton Freedman and Hayek too over and it became as you stated above. Despite costing 2.7 times more per capita, their health care is appalling, and they have some of the worst health outcomes in the World! The market and money is everything.