Last week, the LA Times published an item by a fellow named Andrew Klavan that dared liberals (I call them leftists as I am a liberal in the classic sense) to listen to Rush Limbaugh. Klavan accused them of inventing many of the themes they attribute to Limbaugh and wrote that few of them listen. Today, the LA Times printed an op-ed purporting to be a reply, although it is filled with misstatements and inaccuracies. I’m not sure they ever did listen. Maybe they tuned the radio to the program, but that is not necessarily listening. For example:
First, the academic; Marc Cooper Director of Annenberg Digital News at the USC Annenberg School for Communication:
The ditto-head audience relies on Limbaugh the same way that a drunk uses a lamp post or the way a fundamentalist zealot relies on Scripture: not for illumination but rather for something to lean on.
“Call Limbaugh’s rants offensive, racist, extremist or just plain intellectually insulting, if it makes you feel better. I think it’s more useful to understand him instead as a form of religious experience, one of the more dogmatic strain. He’s a completely reliable inspiration and reinforcement for those who are embittered and battered and who confuse their natural allies for their enemies.
It is very common for these people to refer to Limbaugh’s audience as “Dittoheads.” Do they know where the term comes from ? I suspect they assume that it means the audience all agree with Limbaugh, hence “ditto.” In fact, it refers to the tendency of callers, once put on the air, to waste time telling Limbaugh how much they like his show, etc., etc. “Ditto” means, “I think you’re great but assume that as stipulated.” It has nothing to do with agreement on the topic.
The professor goes on to write:
. Like the ditto-heads themselves, I also listen to Limbaugh strictly to reinforce my preconceived views. When I am feeling most powerless, most misanthropic, most suspicious of the ability of humanity to think clearly, when I’m flooded with fears that we might be living in the twilight of the bipeds, there’s absolutely no one better than Rush Limbaugh to reaffirm my views. Thanks Rush.”
I wonder what he teaches his students, if not “preconceived ideas”?
Next, the newspaper editor, Laurie Ochoa Editor in chief, LA Weekly:
“Any real ditto-head can tell you that liberals have always been an important part of Rush Limbaugh’s audience. They may not get a lot of caller airtime — “Rush babies,” budding right-wingers with, as Limbaugh likes to put it, “perceptions beyond their years,” and flirty female conservatives will always get on the show before cranky lefties — but Limbaugh loves to lecture and tease his liberal listeners.
Once again, the insult then an inaccuracy. Liberal callers go to the head of the line and anyone who listens knows that. He will even keep them on for lengthy periods and hold the call past station breaks. She either doesn’t know this (most likely) or is lying. Two more misstatements:
Less interesting to me are the over-hyped skirmishes between Limbaugh and the Obama administration, which are mostly about ratings and political posturing. I listen for the subtler themes that worm their way into our national dialogue. It was morbidly fascinating to hear Limbaugh plant his father’s anti-FDR bias into the bailout debate. The contrarian idea that Franklin Roosevelt actually made the Great Depression worse found its traction on Limbaugh’s show and quickly spread to cable news’ talking heads.
First, I didn’t know that Obama was that concerned about ratings as it was he, not Limbaugh, who started the “skirmishes.”
Then we have the second lie or evidence of ignorance; “The contrarian idea that Franklin Roosevelt actually made the Great Depression worse .” Has she ever heard of Amity Schlaes’ book or about the UCLA economics professors study ?
I suspect that the only way people can be this ignorant, and supremely unaware of it, is if they read the LA Times every day.
Tags: LA Times, Rush Limbaugh
Good piece! After listening to Limbaugh for a month, I’m very impressed, and I’m not even a conservative*. I can understand why his show has the devoted following it does. I’m even thinking of ponying up some cash to become a member of his Web site.
Last week, Limbaugh had a journalism student on the air, who was assigned to write about him. The conversation was fascinating, as Limbaugh explained that everything he says is on his Web site, but journalists usually just quote from his critics, and never call him.
*Limbaugh’s favorable discussion of Ayn Rand and Penn Jillette indicates a strong libertarian strain.
Notice the theme of bitterness and clinging to guns and religion ? These folks are all marching in lockstep and think they are independent thinkers. I see a lot more ideological diversity on the right than the left. You are an atheist. I am an agnostic pro-choice life member of the NRA. They don’t understand how narrow their own window on life is. They are all standing in line at Starbucks talking about they are committed to diversity.
I’m not on the right, but the sentiment is appreciated. My lefty friends are disappointed/aghast when they find out that I pal around with you evil right-wingers. 🙂
“They don’t understand how narrow their own window on life is. They are all standing in line at Starbucks talking about they are committed to diversity.”
🙂 While the right is open to the possibilities of the world?! 🙂 I have no problem calling out liberals on our narrow world views, but to expand that into a some ode to the wide world view of those on right…well that’s just funny.
Hope everyone is doing well.
Honest criticism is always worthwhile reading. The article in question is just silly. That they never bothered to listen was obvious. You want an informed opinion from a lefty on Limbaugh, read Paglia. She actually listens to him, you can tell from her comments about him.
Rush is a great orator. He speaks volumes with no notes. He can hold an audience in person or on radio pull fact after fact backing up his opinion by memory alone. He is entertaining and is having lots of fun. Obama can’t say two words without the teleprompter. Obama is a good reader though. He ought to read for books on tape someday with that talent.
I enjoy listening to Rush’s show. And his calling out Obama on his hurtful policies by saying he hopes Obama fails was a stroke of brilliance. His audience has increased. One example of that is Bradley, I believe, who began listening due to that specific incident. These Times journalists are mere amatuers compared to Rush.
James, the right, as you call it, is far more diverse. Bradley is an atheist and libertarian. I am agnostic and pro-choice. The Democrats did not allow Bob Casey to address the convention in 1992 because he was pro-life. Look at the furious attacks on Lieberman because he supported the Iraq War. The candidate the left ran against him is the prototypical limousine liberal, Ned Lamont whose grandfather was JP Morgan’s partner.
Among other issues, I think blacks are voting against their own economic interests with regard to immigration. The Republicans have multiple threads; libertarians like Bradley and me, religious right who seem closer to the blacks who voted for Prop 8 in California, and national security conservatives who share views with Joe Lieberman.
My only concern about gay marriage is one about whether the issue will be used to attack churches that decline to perform the marriage ceremonies. We seem to be slowly giving up a number of freedoms and I worry.
Mike,
🙂 I didn’t know my comments were connected to blacks or same-sex marriage! LOL
As for the right and its diversity. I guess it was diversity that gave Steele a whole lot of grief when he hinted he might be pro-choice.
James
James, I think Steele got a lot of grief for several missteps. One he flubbed the whole Rush Limbaugh thing. Second, you don’t poke the cage of one of your major base groups like that. Remember the flap about Obama and free trade during the campaign ? I’m not referring to the officers of the party. They have to avoid stepping on toes. I’m saying that there is plenty f room for other opinions in the party. Steele is a charming guy. I’ve met him. So was Ken Blackwell, who was his principle rival for the job, but Blackwell did not get the endorsement of the Ohio party because they thought he ran a weak campaign for governor in 2006. Rudy Giuliani was a major candidate and is pro-choice. The irony is all the Democrats who claim, like Reid, to be pro-life but never ever cast a vote that way. It’s a wink and a nod, like Obama’s position on gay marriage.
Mike,
I have no issues with Steele; however, I do think it’s interesting there is all of this talk about Republican ideological diversity, and a pro-choice comment from Steele made everyone go crazy. As for Rudy G being a major candidate, he didn’t do that well in the primaries. He just took third in FL. Seems like Repubs liked Huckabee over Rudy.
My point that BOTH sides have blinders on when it comes to ideological diversity and neither comes off smelling like a rose.
And by the way: I’ve had the same conversation with my liberal brethren who are sure our side is all about diversity while your side has purity tests.
Rudy made a tactical mistake in delaying his campaign until others had gotten too much support. Huckabee is not a viable national candidate. He is a good orator and we have seen how far that can take a flawed candidate.
Mike,
Makes no difference if you see Huckabee as a viable candidate. Based on the primaries Republicans were more into him than Rudy.
We do agree that Rudy ran a terrible campaign, putting all of his eggs in the FL primary.
James
He will attract the fundamentalist Christians but his appeal is pretty much limited to that group. He is a populist candidate and his record as governor of Arkansas is not at all conservative.