I was watching, recently, the brilliant documentary about one of my all time cultural heroes, Joe Strummer of the band The Clash, called, appropriately enough Joe Strummer: The Future Is Unwritten. Joe Strummer, an extraordinarily humane and pioneering musician died much too soon, at the age of 50; at several points in the film, I had tears in my eyes. Great film, though, and an experience that made me feel a deeper bond with the legacy of this hero.
In light the supposed "controversy" then of Wanda Sykes' supposedly "tasteless" or "inappropriate" comments about Rush Limbaugh, I am thinking today of Joe Strummer, of free speech, and of the apparent cosmic injustice of a good guy like Joe Strummer (or, if you will, John Lennon or Heath Ledger or Jam-Master Jay or D. Boon or Elliot Smith or Jeff Buckley or Kurt Cobain or many others you might think of) leaving us much to early while at the same time scumbags like Limbaugh get to stick around. And I need to say this upfront; while I certainly am not going to go so far as to wish Limbaugh kidney failure (that is, to actually die soon) and I don't think that the joking Wanda Sykes literally meant this, either) I do want to see Limbaugh seriously suffer, in some meaningful way.
Why should Limbaugh suffer? And how? I think that the answer to the first question should be rather obvious, but should it not be, I'll give my rationale; Limbaugh should suffer because he is a bully who abuses his position of privilege. He is extremely privileged to be well compensated financially, earning the kinds of dollars that most people will never see in their lifetimes, in exchange for hosting a daily hate fest/distortion campaign. With his skilled radio voice, he has managed to convert his own bigoted and narrow minded views of the world into a propaganda that reaches millions of listeners and that reinforces a world view that harms us by harming our political life.
Fundamentally, Rush Limbaugh is a dishonest and self-serving man earning wealth, power and privilege.
In contrast, to use my earlier example, Joe Strummer achieved success, but not on a Limbaugh level; Like Limbaugh, Strummer used what he had, in his case, his music - both with the Clash and as a solo artist - as a platform for conveying his views of the world to his audience. But unlike Limbaugh, Strummer had a sense of humanity and humility. Unlike Limbaugh, who literally embodies the rightwing philosophy in all the ways that he lives, Strummer was an inclusive guy who thought about others besides simply himself, and Strummer was man enough to be able to go back and forth in debate with those who might have disagreed with him. And unlike Limbaugh, Joe Strummer was an honest man. And his honesty came through in his music, just as Limbaugh's dishonesty comes through in his radio propaganda and in the echoed bleatings of his dittohead followers.
Rush Limbaugh is a hateful and harmful figure, and I have no real compassion for him. I think that is there is anything to the concept of karma, Limbaugh deserves the bad karma that he would have brought upon himself.
So, like Wanda Sykes, I'm prepared to be a bit glib and to express an extremely negative set of feelings toward Limbaugh and what he represents. When I see him image, I tend to react viscerally and with disgust. On the other hand, I won't go so far as to literally wish him death, or even a physical condition that could possibly lead to his death, as I think that that is an ethically problematic thing to do.
But some real suffering in Limbaugh's life? I hope so.
Ideally, this suffering would entail Limbaugh losing his radio show; without it, he would be nothing, and surely that would be a major source of suffering both for him and his cause. However, I recognize that as long as he has both high enough ratings and sponsors willing to pay for the air time, this is unlikely. He also has those in his cause whom he helps, and they thus have a vested interest in seeing him continue.
Better, then, might be to do all we can to marginalize him using every possible satirical weapon at our disposal, i.e., marginalization via ridicule. Which also means getting those who do not agree with him to engage in a marginalization via ridicule of Limbaugh. And while this will continue to give him the attention he craves, it will come with a price, namely having at least a shred of credibility. This shred of credibility might, of course, be shrinking for Limbaugh, but it can made much much smaller.
Limbaugh's privacy, which I am sure he values, should also be breached, at least a bit. Surely there are some more skeletons in his closet, besides the ones we alreadly know. Given Limbaugh's blatant disgregard for the rights and well being of ordinary citizens, and given that he is a public figure, I would have no problems with his private life being subject to some scrutiny; if such treatment was good enough for the Clintons, it is good enough for Rush.
Finally, we might consider some more anti-Limbaugh billboards such as this, but with the aim of totally delegitimizing his message. We can probably get a bit more pugilistic than this if need be.
And, as far as a possible response to Limbaugh/Clear Channel billboards, I am all for free speech working in both directions.