Obviously, we know what Rush Limbaugh is.
As anyone not living under a rock knows, Limbaugh invited a heaping spoonful of scorn on himself for attacking Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke, calling her vile names as part of his, ahem, discussion of the matter of mandating contraceptive coverage. He has lost a significant number of advertisers as a result. For one of many, many good summaries of the affair, see this article.
So I started thinking about some of the other things Rush has said over the years that got my blood boiling. My own particular focus in terms of writing and scholarship is on how multiethnic societies, such as our own, try to develop unity across ethnic lines.
Rush has made a particular specialty of working in direct opposition to that effort, as he has over and over again sought to exacerbate racial tension by ginning up white fear and anxiety and hatred toward non-whites, especially black Americans. There is one particular rant, which I also explore in my forthcoming book, that I want to mention here because it is, to my mind, the single most odious thing Limbaugh has said, at least since President Obama took office (and that is saying something).
On June 4, 2009, Rush declared:
This has been the argument the Reverend Jackson has proffered throughout my life -- that it's impossible for minorities to be racist because they don't have any power. Well, president of the United States. We're talking now about a Supreme Court justice. The days of them not having any power are over, and they are angry. And they want to use their power as a means of retribution. That's what Obama's about, gang. He's angry; he's going to cut this country down to size. He's going to make it pay for all the multicultural mistakes that it has made -- its mistreatment of minorities. I know exactly what's going on here.
Let that statement sink in as we cross the jump.
First off, Limbaugh makes a clear divide between "us" and "them," a lines that divides America into two groups: minorities and whites. It couldn't be any clearer from his statement. He speaks directly about minorities, using that word, talks about them as "them" and states that they now have "power" and are "angry" people who will "use their power as a means of retribution." This retribution, he argues, will be enacted to "make [America] pay for...its mistreatment of minorities." It's obvious against whom this power and this retribution will be used, all those who are not minorities, i.e., whites.
Limbaugh also claims that this approach is exactly Obama's approach as President. Furthermore, minorities/Obama are defined as opposed to America, he (and they standing with him) want to "cut this country down to size." So, to Limbaugh, white people=America, and Obama/minorities are going to enact vengeance on white people/America if they get their way.
Wow.
Limbaugh walks right up to the line of fomenting race war. He all but calls for white people to meet at the town square with their guns and attack before they are attacked themselves. This is the language of hatred, pure and simple.
Here we see Limbaugh standing 100% diametrically opposed to the language of national unity that Obama has used (which I analyze in great detail in the book). Whereas Obama has sought to invigorate bonds that bring together whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Americans of every background, Limbaugh wants exactly the opposite. We know this story, the elites have always sought to keep average people of different races angry at each other so that they don't unite in a cross-ethnic, "American" coalition that would push for a more just society.
More broadly, this is why progressives need to continue (as Obama has done throughout his career) to talk about American national unity. There is a progressive kind of American "nationalism" or national identity. Although this hasn't always been the case in our history, Americanism can be a powerful force for good, for inclusion, and certainly for coalition-building. The left cannot cede Americanism to the right-wing jingoists.
Limbaugh and his ilk recognize that for sure, and that's why they want to divide us at any cost. That's why they will go to the kinds of extremes he went to in the remarks I've cited above. And that's why those remarks got my blood boiling.