Rush Limbaugh – RIP ‘Get Off My Phone!’

 by Simon Lemieux

Trump and Limbaugh
(Wiki Commons)

It would only be fitting to reflect on the recently departed controversial conservative American talk radio host and political commentator, Rush Limbaugh, by having an attention-grabbing headline that is untrue and inaccurate but sounds somewhat plausible. That in many ways was the essence of the man. The actual quote, ‘Get Off My Phone!’ comes from fellow ‘shock jock’ and radio host, Glen Beck; it could just as easily have come from Limbaugh himself, perhaps it did originally, who knows, just sayin…. 

Limbaugh who died aged 70 on 17th February, has been credited as the man responsible perhaps more than any other for discrediting objectivity, truth and civility in his largely unscripted radio shows. His radio show which began in 1988 with just 56 stations taking it, became enormously popular with its clientele. He reportedly earnt $87 million a year. His stock in trade? Questioning, provoking and dog-whistling all the foes of the right-wing in American politics: AIDs victims, LGBT Americans, non-white Americans, illegal immigrants, feminists, liberals and pretty much anything to do with the Democrats. To the liberal establishment, he epitomised all that was worst, vulgar and unpalatable about the new assertive, aggressive conservative Republicanism that gathered pace throughout the 90s and beyond, reaching its apogee with Trump and Trumpism. 

How low could he stoop in his attacks? Answer – pretty low, attacking a 13 year old girl, Chelsea Clinton, daughter of Bill and Hillary? Now this episode, in part, was Limbaugh’s ‘genius’; he never made the insult directly; it was ever more slightly subtle, an innuendo, an in-'joke'. But everyone listening knew what he meant. In the same vein, he cast doubt on Obama’s birthplace and thus presidential legitimacy, frequently using his middle name, Hussein, to reinforce the point that, you know, Obama was not quite 'legit' and a bit 'foreign', maybe even 'Muslim'. Unsurprisingly, he colluded with the ‘stolen votes’ and ‘rigged elections’ narrative post 2020 election. Limbaugh kept the show on the road right to the end.

To his conservative fanbase of whom there were millions, he was broadcast across more than 650 radio stations on Premiere Radio Networks and attracted 15 million listeners, he spoke truth unto a liberal establishment and an often hostile national media. He pressed the right buttons on the right, expressing views often missing from the mainstream ‘fake news’ media. He earnt the admiration of Donald J Trump who in 2020 awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honour in the States. Trump used to call into his radio show and offer his insights, and when his death was announced commented “He was a fantastic man, a fantastic talent. People really respected him”. Hardly a surprising eulogy; like Trump in his Twitter days, Limbaugh thrived on controversy; did he really just say that? Like DJT, he was the consummate showman, very rich personally (his personal fortune has been estimated at around $600m) and frequently married, his fourth wife Kathryn being some 26 years his junior. Like Trump he too owned a luxurious pad in Palm Beach Florida not far from Mar a Lago, having relocated from New York to escape higher taxes. He also wrote a couple of best-selling books, The Way Things Ought to Be and See, I Told You So. He could also be generous to charity, giving over $4m to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation back in 2007, and hosting an annual fundraiser on his radio show for Leukemia & Lymphoma Society of America, that raised millions of dollars over the years. So what were some of the high (or, rather, low) points of his career as a talk show host? 

He was condemned for his characterisation of women and reproductive rights. A little more than a month after the deadly Sandy Hook murders of 20 six- and seven-year-old children and six adults back in 2013, Limbaugh said, “You know how to stop abortion? Require that each one occur with a gun.” He also he claimed feminism was “established so as to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society.” Perhaps his most infamous comment though were the comments he made about Sandra Fluke, a third year Georgetown law student, in 2012, who had spoken to members of Congress arguing for government funding of contraceptives for university students. He did, later, apologies, sort of… ‘My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.’

His comments on members of the LGBTQ+ community were infamous. In 2020, he turned his sights on then Democrat presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg, now Transportation Secretary in the Biden administration, claiming then-president Donald Trump could “have fun” debating “a gay guy kissing his husband on stage.” Most infamously, perhaps, in the 1980s, he mocked those dying from AIDs, then a fatal condition mainly concentrated in the male gay community. To the sound of song titles designed to mock the dead, he read out their names. He did later apologise for these “AIDS updates” saying in the 1990s that, “It was a totally irresponsible thing to do.” because it ended up making fun of people who were dying long, painful and excruciating deaths when they were not the target.” 

Another low point concerned Back to the Future actor Michael J. Fox, who suffered from Parkinson’s disease, when he appeared in a 2006 political ad backing a Democrat candidate. Limbaugh’s reaction? “In this commercial, he is exaggerating the effects of the disease,” Rush said in, while mocking Michael’s tremors. “He is moving all around and shaking, and this is purely an act. I have never seen Michael J. Fox display any of these symptoms of the disease. He can control himself enough to stay in the frame of the picture and he can control himself enough to keep his eyes on the lens, the teleprompter. But his head and shoulders are moving all over the place. This is really shameless, folks. Either he didn’t take his medication or he’s acting.”

It should also be noted, that he was a long term sceptic of climate change, initially referred to COVID as nothing more than a ‘common cold’ and made light of the risks associated with smoking.  He once said it was “a myth” that second-hand smoke causes illness or death and argued that smokers aren’t at any greater risk than people who “eat carrots.” “Smokers aren’t killing anybody,” he declared in an April 2015 segment of his show before then going on to argue that tobacco users should be thanked because their purchases generate tax dollars that funded children’s health care programs. He died after a battle with lung cancer. He was a prolific and unapologetic cigar smoker. Do the maths…..

Not surprisingly then, his death, while mourned by many, has received starkly different reactions in other quarters. Owen Jones tweeted, ‘You shouldn't speak ill of the dead, unless you're talking about Rush Limbaugh, in which case, absolutely fill your boots about this racist, homophobic, sexist trash.’ Trans activist, Imara Jones summed him up as, “An incessant misogynist who dehumanized trans people, as well as gays and lesbians,” adding. “His legacy is shameful and wicked. Even in death, it should not be whitewashed.”

So there we have him, a polarising figure in a polarised America which he helped create and profited from. But for all the lies, prejudices and anger he generated, Limbaugh’s life and death poses some serious questions worth considering.

Firstly, there is the whole issue of the media and news as entertainment. For Limbaugh and for many others, on both sides of the political divide, truth and reasoned debate mattered far less than shock value, sensationalism and creating an echo chamber of the like-minded. Over half term I watched some old television clips with American TV hosts interviewing Enoch Powell and Ayn Rand, both controversial figures in their own ways but also both clearly intelligent and articulate individuals. The relevant point is that the hosts probed hard but let them speak and develop their views. Nowadays, the likes of Limbaugh would either have shouted them down if an enemy or encouraged/provoked them to be deliberately inflammatory and ‘play to the gallery’ if a political ally. They would either have been muted or handed a megaphone; neither is helpful or healthy. Once we confuse and conflate opinion with actual news, we’re on a slippery descent into the realm of ‘facts that fit my worldview. Truth as I’d like it to be.’

Secondly, Limbaugh and his ilk epitomise the whole debate about free speech and free opinion. Many liberals and progressives would have loved him to have been silenced for language and views they understandably saw as hateful, bullying, divisive and cruel. He certainly pushed boundaries, but it begs the question, where and who draws the line. Few in the UK might sob over Trump’s life ban from Twitter, but as the Roman poet Juvenal put it, ‘Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?’ Who will watch the watchmen?  Are we content that the harsh opinions he espoused while alive, have rebounded on him upon his demise? Does the venom of the left, the absence of regret over the loss of human life, represent a refreshing and cathartic ‘You reap what you sow’ or is it just sinking down to the level of one’s political and ideological enemy? Do recent tweets of the liberals merely reinforce and reflect that very polarisation which Limbaugh himself was central in formulating in the first place? Adding further fuel to the bonfire of civil discourse?

Lastly, and for me the most disturbing is what I might term the ‘inner Limbaugh’ we all to a degree possess, albeit in different ways. What do I mean? As mentioned earlier, Limbaugh made a speciality of pressing those inner buttons of prejudice and stereotypes and verbalising them for his listeners. These are ugly raw inner sentiments we all, if we are honest, harbour in some shape or form. This transcends personal politics, race, gender, faith etc. We might have different ‘buttons to be pushed’ but we delude ourselves if we deny their existence. The more open question of course is whether we actually need someone out there flicking the ‘on’ switch.

In that last sense, perhaps Limbaugh and the incivility that he spewed, forces us to look at our own prejudices and attitudes, to hold a mirror to our own souls and attitudes. We probably find it easier and morally satisfying to dwell on the flaws, prejudices and unkindness present in Limbaugh’s broadcasting career, than any inner prejudices and hatreds in our own. Is there a Limbaugh lurking somewhere and with a different accent, within ourselves? That perhaps is the deeper dilemma and question.