It's no surprise that Rush Limbaugh's memory is short. In his battle against our "welfare state" he forgets that he once received public assistance. In his battle against Obama's "bastardization of the Constitution," he quotes the Declaration of Independence but cited the (either misquoted or paraphrased) words (depending on whether you think he’s a gas bag or a genius) as part of the Preamble to the Constitution, and in his battle against anything Democratic, he seems to have quickly forgotten that the President of the United States is OUR president, the nation's president, not just the president of the people who voted for him.
It wasn't too long ago that Rush was reminding liberals of this. Rush seems to have forgotten that outside of the campaigns very few but those who are as extreme in their views as Rush, ever want any president to fail.
Rush seems to have forgotten that while many of Bush's policies seemed doomed to failure from their inception, simply pointing that out is a far cry from actually rooting for them to fail. I'm not telling anyone anything new when I say I wasn't a big fan of the war in Iraq. It's never been justified. It's never accomplished anything and the cost will never be recouped. BUT not only did I, a card carrying liberal, NOT want it to fail, I actually participated in it at MY commander in chief's request even though I thought it was a stupid idea and I didn’t vote for that commander in chief. That’s what Americans do. I hoped, with that eternal optimism that many Americans have, that I’d discover something in Iraq that aligned with what Rush and Cheney and Bush were telling us back home… that some shred of logic might make it all clearer to me. I was disappointed, but I did my job and made it home.
What did Rush do? He ran his mouth in support of the war, forgot that it hasn’t panned out as predicted, then quickly abandoned his false patriotism to publicly wish for the failure of the man elected by Americans to lead America.
In my weakest moments, I too was pretty disrespectful to my commander in chief. I regret that I let my frustration get to me to that extent. I have no excuse. Unlike Rush, I was never under the influence of prescription pain killers that weren't prescribed to me. While I voiced my opinion about who the NEXT president should be, often invoking the actions of the current administration's all too public failing policies as evidence in support of what I believed, I never hoped that the current president would fail at anything. I simply wanted to replace him the next time around because of the failures no one else could even conceive. That’s what Americans do.
Unlike Rush, I realize that our leaders, as representatives of our nation, set the course of our nation. Though Rush tried to mitigate this throughout his 90 minutes of blather to C-Pac last week, there's no getting around the basic idea: root for the nation's leaders to fail and you're rooting for the nation to fail.
It doesn't surprise me that Rush feels this way. He's supported failed national policy for most of his working career. In fact, if it weren't for applying false logic, oversimplification, and yelling louder than anyone else in the room in defense of failed policy, he wouldn't have a job. No one would know who he is.
What surprises me most about the speech is how closely it ties the Rush mentality with the American presidential assassins described in Sarah Vowell’s Assassination Vacation. In this humorous travelogue/autobiography of all sites associated with three president killers, Vowell provides a glimpse into their lives, their thoughts (through diary entries and other museum displays) as well as the lives of the presidents these men killed, the lives of the presidents that took over, their opponents and supporters, and the stereotypical American. (You know by now that I’m no history buff, but this is the kind of book that is an interesting character study that just happens to make the history come alive in the process only because its subjects just happen to be historical figures. You know what, that’s not even entirely accurate since Vowell and her many traveling companions are not historical. OK, so I’m not a literary critic.)
Anyway, two weeks ago, comparing Rush to America’s presidential assassins would have been purely to elicit response... nothing more than my own, misinformed opinion spread over the Web as the Web allows and begs, but Rush has given my comparison teeth with this latest media charade. Using not only a well covered semi-political event, but also Fox TV's coverage of it as his forum, Rush made clear that he is an ungrateful, childish, disrespectful and extremely arrogant hypocrite... just in case anyone was still wondering… who actually believes his own dogma. He demonstrated that the only thing he even pretends to honor from the greatest nation in the world is his ability to pull large amounts of cash out of its bleating lambs. This is all to say, somewhat more frighteningly, that he seems to have an awful lot in common with John Wilkes-Booth, Charles Guiteau and Leon Czolgolsz.
Jealousy, you say? Perhaps a tinge on the surface, but Rush is actually my motivational example that money and fame generally aren't worth what one has to give up for them.
There was a time when Elvis was a hero of mine, but the fat sweaty guy in bedazzled, oversized collared, fringed jumpsuits who eventually died on his toilet was a quick lesson for me about what a hero is. These days, when someone famous shows up on an infomercial, or on one of those "Where are they now" or "Celebrity Rehab" shows, that same lesson is learned all over again. But good old Rush has saved us the trouble of wondering when it will happen to him. Instead, he's made the leap on his own with one last dying gasp broadcast on his beloved cable channel. Naysayers might argue that he's always spewing attention-worthy drivel clearly intended to capitalize on the "there's no such thing as bad publicity" theory for achieving fame, but this new low has "grand finale" written all over it.
Even I didn't believe he would ever sink this deep into the smelliest mud... actually voicing his desire for the nation that made him rich to fail. I'm surprised he didn't offer himself up as an example of what's wrong with us these days. That would have been the final nail... the Kool-Aid stains on his chin.
So anyway, how does this link Rush to the likes of Wilkes-Booth, Guiteau and Czolgolsz – killers of Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley - you ask? On the most basic level, they, like Rush, they truly believed they would be greeted as heroes for their courageous acts by a grateful nation. They were arrogant SOBs who believed they were divinely called to right the wrongs under which the entire nation suffered. Wiles-Booth thought himself a pillar of the Republican party. Guiteau believed that as well and that he deserved, and was even qualified to be the U.S. Ambassador to France. Czolgolsz, well, he was just an anarchist so maybe there’s no real link… no, wait, anarchists want government to fail so that in its absence, life will be beautiful. That’s more like Rush than I thought. Isn’t anarchy just the logical extension of the notion “that government is best which governs least?”
It’s also no coincidence that Roosevelt, who stepped in for McKinley, was a centrist who brokered revolutionary deals that, while not necessarily pleasing to both labor and industry, addressed both of their needs in a rational manner void of politics and partisan patronage. It’s almost as though, as Vowell puts it, he stopped being a Republican. (her words, not mine) I’m sure the pundits of the day felt Roosevelt was driving the nation to ruin with such revolutionary ideas as rational discussion, compromise, and trying to understand several perspectives before pronouncing policy.
But back to the arrogance of the assassins…
In the context of a joke, Limbaugh actually told his C-pac audience that God is jealous of him. Even in his attempts at self-deprecation, Limbaugh redefines arrogance. The only thing those assassins had over Limbaugh is their willingness to fully commit their egos, and their lives to the final task. Limbaugh, comfy in what he takes from our nation – at least until his wish comes true and the nation is no longer, won't go that final step/bite the hand that feeds him/prove his hypocrisy, but what he told his audience and the Fox viewers, was that he fully supports the thinking.
Wilkes-Booth believed that he spoke for both the North and the South and that his actions would not only heal a bleeding nation, be lauded, seen as justified, praised even, but, more specicically, that he could save the Republican Party from what Lincoln had done to it. He was shocked and almost suicidal when he learned this was not the case.
Czolgolsz must have been shocked when, while standing in line to shake President McKinley’s hands/shoot McKinley at the World Fair in Buffalo, he was actually tackled and beaten by a cop and a citizen who had been in line behind him. McKinley, bleeding on the floor of the convention hall, actually told the cop who joined the citizen to go easy on his assassin. Proving that those who actually rise to leadership rather than just lobbing arrows at their leaders from behind, can put personal desires aside and do what’s right rather than what will make them rich and famous. That’s a hard job to have. Rush’s job is much easier… so much so in fact, that I do it for free!
Charles Guiteau's trial was known for the entertainment value provided via Mr. Guiteau's nonsensical tirades. Though he made it clear with the speeches that he had lost his grip on reality, he undermined his own defense team's insanity plea by actually putting together entertaining speeches, even poetry about how wonderful he is and how God told him to kill President Garfield... that, in fact, the murder would save the Republican party.
The only difference seems to be that back in those days, folks had enough sense to laugh at Guiteau, not with him. They came to the trial to hear what kind of goofiness he would spew next, NOT to hear the "truth" about what's best for our nation.
Luth,
Out
