I’ve been listening to the show — over the website, without the commercials — for the last month, so I’ve developed my own opinions about Limbaugh. One thing I’ve noticed — which doesn’t come up in the linked Time interview — is that he has no real affinity for social conservatism. He likes to talk about the “3 legs” to the “stool” of conservatism. (That sounds so wrong!) But this leg man is only interested in 2 legs: national security and economics. He doesn’t care about family values and that sort of thing. He’s constantly alluding to his interest in having his fun with women and evading any burdensome entanglements. He has absolutely no interest in children. And he brags about his pleasures: parties, good food and drink, cigars, comfy beds, nifty gadgets. He gives every sign of being a shameless sybarite.
Why, the man who termed the word “feminazi” is practically a feminist, because he thinks women are inferior pieces of meat to be purchased on the open market. The rich cad is just the other side of the family man patriarch. Both think women are subhuman, to be used for sexual reasons and not to be taken seriously as human beings. For instance, here’s a social conservative recently on the subject of rape:
“Rape, ladies and gentlemen, is not today what rape was. Rape, when I was learning these things, was the violation of a chaste woman, against her will, by some party not her spouse. Today it’s simply, ‘Let’s don’t go forward with this act.’ ”
When the cads rape the women they’ve been assigned as sex objects (the unchaste), the social conservatives have their backs 100%. Anyone who wears the name of feminist should grasp that pretty much immediately. It’s almost like Ann’s full of shit or something.
45 Responses to “Ann Althouse, Democratic feminist, speaks on Rush Limbaugh”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
You’re probably right that Ann Althouse should have grasped the ramifications of Limbaugh’s weltanschaung (wiltin’ schlong?)
She does have a larger point, though, however obvious it might be: Conservative power brokers (Limbaugh is one) often don’t actually believe their own bullshit when it comes to social issues. They’re primarily about low taxes and deregulated markets and massive miltary expenditure (priorities that may seem paradoxical, but there you have it).
They used the religious right to ride into power in 2000 and then largely ignored them minus lip service. They pulled it off perfectly, with “true believer” George Bush up front, and deeply cynical Rove and Cheney pushing all the buttons. The religious right now feels betrayed, which I suspect is why Huckabee had such a surprise showing.
I think it’s worth noting that Limbaugh, whose audience largely comprises the religious right, actually holds that audience in contempt to some extent. I don’t think Althouse was saying he’s more enlightened than she previously suspected; I think she’s pointing out that he’s inauthentic, a huckster if you will.
Agreed from me - no comment on Althouse, but I agree that “social conservativism” is much more complicated than just evangelicals or family values. Used to teach at a big southern university, tons of college republicans. Many of them were Christian, of the serious bible-toting variety. But more of them were paleocons of the bow-tie variety - free markets and security were solid, and “social conservativism” meant denying “special rights” to “special groups” - gays, women, people of color, etc. This is functionally and ideologically quite distinct from the biblically-based ‘family values’ argument, and it often comes accompanied by very unchurchy behaviors in terms of sex and drugs - no less misogynist, but decidedly unChristian nonetheless. These folks, like Rush, tend to slide into libertarianism a lot more easily than their Christian comrades. This supports my general contention that libertarians are just republicans who like drugs. At any rate, it suggests to me that even if the unholy Republican-evangelical alliance comes apart, it’s not like we can count on the less-Christian right to be less misogynist.
I don’t see how she’s full of shit here. She didn’t say Limbaugh is a feminist, just that he is not a social conservative, which seems to be correct.
Reminds me of the movie Pinky a 1949 movie about an African American woman passing as white. If you can overlook the fact that a white actress is playing an African American part (what? Why couldn’t Lena Horne or another black actress have done it?), it shows a scene which I’m surprised made it past the censors; Pinky is walking home in the black section of town, when two white men in a car pull up beside her. They say “This is a dangerous area, ma’am. Do you want us to give you a ride home?”
Pinky retorts “I live here, and it’s safer than most of the white part of town!” then turns around and stalks off. Now they’ve found out that she’s not white (wife material) but black (sex object) he two white guys in the car turn from knights into wolves, and they try to rape her. A brutal scene, but sadly typical for African American women.
I think what Amanda’s saying is that being a family values guy is hardly incompatible with also thinking of women as sex objects. In fact, they’re the same: the length of purchase desired is the only difference. “Family values,” or social conservatism, as defined by the right, are antithetical to feminism. (Though in my view feminism is absolutely essential for any kind of family harmony, but I’m a big leftist that way.)
Brendan, the point is that “social conservative” means sexist fan of the patriarchy. Limbaugh is in fact exactly like the Falwells and Dobsons of the world, barring a few differences in personal lifestyle. I don’t think they’re really too worried about restricting his freedom of choice, because he’s a rich white man. They may have mildly different personal habits in their pursuit of the patriarchal dream, but they’ll always be able to sit at a table together. Gay-bashing and banning abortion aren’t his top priorities, but it’s not like he isn’t in full support of that stuff. So I’m not sure how he’s not a social conservative. There’s always room in the patriarchal pantheon for indulging some men their proclivities, as long as there’s no chance of women getting liberated while they do it.
Wait just a minute!
You mean to say that Rush is using wingnut rhetoric and talking points just to keep the Koolaid-drinkers listening? That he doesn’t really believe in half (or more) of the shit he spews? That his entire life surrounds being rich and using his money in the endless pursuit of pleasures of the flesh? Shut Up! You’re joking, right?
And Althouse sees this and thinks it’s false advertising?
Well I guess she’d know - she claims to the a leftist and a feminist and it seems like she is actually neither.
Just imagine what she would say if Limbaugh had tits…
Funny world we live in…
“Gay-bashing and banning abortion aren’t his top priorities, but it’s not like he isn’t in full support of that stuff. So I’m not sure how he’s not a social conservative.”
Althouse must be misconstruing the pursuit of pleasure as being opposed to “social conservatism”. I’d like to know since when…?
BTW, I remember one of his schticks was “caller abortions”, where somebody would piss him off, or they would ask him, and he would play the sound of some vacuum and some screaming or something, pretending to perform an “abortion” on the caller. Real class act.
I don’t know if he actually believes in anything except the power of money. I could quite easily picture him as the kind of guy (in his younger days) who would drop his pregnant GF off at the clinic with some cash just to take care of their little “problem” and not bat an eye…
“There’s always room in the patriarchal pantheon for indulging some men their proclivities, as long as there’s no chance of women getting liberated while they do it.”
Damn straight! Boys will be boys, and all that. As long as girls are held down, it’s all good…
Blue jean,
thanks for the link to Pinky. I must have seen that movie when I was very young and forgotten all about it. Your post brought it all back. That and “imitation of life” were two of the only movies that at least addressed the question of racism, the absurdity and cruelty of the color bar, and the issue of passing in that era. the right of the patriarchy and of individual males to determine who gets what treatment–who is a “lady” and who is “prey” is something that post feminist men and women have allowed themselves to forget, just like they think “noblesse oblige” refers to heroic actions and not the right to rape and pillage.
aimai
There’s certainly differences between one flavor of social conservative and another, but they’re not significant in any real political sense. Althouse is being fundamentally dishonest with her making excuses for Limbaugh.
Godmonkey, I think “huckster” is the right word. Limbaugh doesn’t believe most of the crap he peddles; he only wants to make money, and his audience of Dittoheads are sheep ready for the shearing.
Even for those conservatives who don’t go around spouting off about “famblee values,” you have to notice how many have been divorced - sometimes more than once - and how many are remarried to much younger women. OTOH, with the Dems, you have Barack Obama and John Edwards, who to all appearances are actually LIVING “family values,” being happily married to their first and only, same-aged spouses.
Conservatives LOVE divorce - as long as it’s rich white men who are the ones initiating. They LOVE what sociologists call “multiple partner fertility” - as long as it’s rich white men having kids with different women. Let teh wimminz or teh brown-skinned folks seek divorce, all of a sudden they’re hussies and rabble who hate men, children and Teh Famblee.
“Just imagine what she would say if Limbaugh had tits…”
He doesn’t now?
It also highlights a pretty common thread among the religious right — a focus, not on sin in general, but particular types of sin in particular — statistically outlying sin, if you will. Haranguing/working towards the eradication of heterosexual divorce and adult hetero fornication are just not on the menu, but these things are very unChristian aspects of our society and common among church attendees. But if people are indicted on sins that a good chunk of the congregation probably commits about every other Saturday, instead of the activities of “those other people”, they just might not come back next Sunday.
I thought Rush Limbaugh was married. Oh, well. It’s been decades since I heard his spew, anyway.
Althouse is, as always, an idiot.
Godmonkey, yeah. When it’s anything versus money, the money wins out with them.
Incidentally, I nearly mistyped your name as “Godmoney.”
You nailed it, Ailurophile. You left out that conservatives love cocaine and pills in their wild years — as long as it’s privileged white people on the tail end of an extended adolescence. (In the case of “playboys” like Limbaugh, adolescence can last a lifetime as long as they have money and aren’t smelly artists or whatever.)Let it be brown people getting high and drugs are Public Menace No. 1!
Not socially conservative? You mean because the debonair playboy sowing his wild oats (yeah, not exactly a description of Limbaugh anymore) wasn’t as integral a part of the 50s patriarchal dream as Father Knows Best?
The idea that men are allowed to slut around until it’s time to become head of a family always part of the conservative line that Dobson and Falwell preach, even if only by omission. Otherwise there would be purity balls for teenage boys and their mothers. And not so much blather about how young men who weren’t going after women like Dick Cheney at a game farm were in danger of teh gay. And most important, if there weren’t playboys, how would you know who the bad girls were?
I’m beginning to suspect that “social conservative” is becoming the new punditocrat word for “poor” or “low class” (and the rich folks deluded enough to give a shit what the aforementioned folk actually think), which is synonymous in pundit-world with “bigot”. The sheer number of political figures who are being painted as not “social conservatives”, Limbaugh, McCain, Romney, etc., who nonetheless oppose abortion rights, equal pay for equal work, anti-discrimnation laws, and gay rights, is staggering.
Meanwhile pundits only consider someone a social conservative if he (or theoritically she, but not too many of those) is an annoying killjoy who thinks that maybe rich people should knock of their bacchanal.
Brendan, the point is that “social conservative” means sexist fan of the patriarchy.
I guess this is just a semantic disagreement, but when I hear social conservatism, I think of a particular means of upholding patriarchy–trying to reinstate the social order roughly as it was at the turn of the last century. Similarly, just because feudalism and capitalism are both means of oppressing the working class doesn’t mean that capitalism is just another form of feudalism.
The only reason I think this distinction is important is that calling all sexist fans of the patriarchy social conservatives obscures the fact that liberals can be fans too, and often are.
Actually, this is pretty typical of the entire “Social Conservative” movement: Morality for thee but not for me. The whole thing is ultimately a carrot and stick defense of a stratified system: If you’re pure, chaste, diligent and hard working, then one day you too will be rich and happy. If you aren’t rich and happy, then you must have done something morally wrong. Ignore the weight of the invisible hand on your back, or any evidence that the rich and godly are sinning away.
Regarding “social conservativism,” I think it probably needs a lot more picking apart. My point about my bowtie students is that they support patriarchal policies with a very different ideological justification than the evangelicals. Largely, the ’special rights’ argument that we’re probably all familiar with. This is, IMHO, a much more insidious approach to the same racist/patriarchal horrorshow. There are lots of ideologically undecided Americans who won’t be too influenced by the evangelical version of ‘family values’ patriarchy, and would be put off by the explicitly biblical justification. But if the same policies could be framed using Liberal philosophy (in the classic Locke/Hume sense, not the contemporary US political sense…), well, that nets a whole lot more political capital. I.e., Rush Limbaugh or John McCain get to appear relatively sane because they don’t advocate replacing the Constitution with the Bible. But with the right discourse, they can argue for the exact same policies in re oppressing women, teh gays, etc. As gawdawful as our Christian right really is, it may be that their peak of influence has come and gone, and we need to concentrate on the secular racist misogynist fascist pigs. Just a thought.
Rush Limbaugh IS pretty much the stool of conservatism.
And a hefty and odiferous stool it is.
.
we need to concentrate on the secular racist misogynist fascist pigs. Just a thought.
This is an excellent point; racists and/or misogynists DO NOT NEED religion to justify their points of view. Evolutionary psychology and sociobiology (to name one belief system) will do very nicely. Even liberals use the ev-psych rationale for misogyny - women are genetically or temperamentally unfit for leadership positions, etc.
I want to second Brendan and Marichiweu. There are important divides within social conservatism that we need to understand to be able to fight.
To put them all up as generic sexist bad people isn’t very helpful or very accurate. Chris Matthews is a sexist bad person, but I’m not sure I would call him a social conservative.
Remember how effectively the right used divides in feminism to kill the ERA, in the pornography debate and so on? These opportunities exist for us as well. Understanding the splits between Limbaugh conservatism, which is sexist, and Huckabee conservatism, which is sexist, is definitely an important goal and we shouldn’t elide those differences.
The biggest connection between Limburgh and his audience, IMO, is racism. His constant sneering at prominent blacks, railing against affirmative action, etc., resounds with white males who are angry at being “lectured” that they can’t treat black people like garbage anymore.
“Having his fun”–now, there’s an expression you don’t hear much anymore, except among the maniacally prudish. It’s a phrase implying that the women, aside from their naughty bits, are uninvolved.I can almost hear Althouse’s querulous inquiry, after some drunk has climaxed in her: Have you had your fun yet?
[Counting blessings]Social conservatives are that because the alternatives are worse, for them. You-all might find single parent life doable. Try it on the wages of a Wal-Mart worker. All of a sudden, keeping Billy Dumbass around for bills, childcare, family connections, and the rest seems to be the logical position.
Another is the perception that liberals are trying to shove their worldview down the throats of folks that really don’t care. Many elderly women “shared house expeses” and nobody raised a fuss. Lots of “confirmed bachelors” also lived under one roof. Now the traditionalists have to see Brokeback Republican and they’re not thrilled. It’s bad enough with Britney 2.0 (Jamie Lynn), why make it worse with all that homo stuff?
“Social conservatives are that because the alternatives are worse, for them. You-all might find single parent life doable. Try it on the wages of a Wal-Mart worker. All of a sudden, keeping Billy Dumbass around for bills, childcare, family connections, and the rest seems to be the logical position.”
…which means what, exactly?
Having some cynical bloviator like Limbaugh spewing his load of horseshit into the ears of the sheep every day on the radio isn’t going to make “Billy Dumbass” a better marriage prospect. Nor is it going to raise the wages at WalMart.
And, need I remind you, a married couple living the ideal “social conservative” married life will STILL only have one person working, and if his job is at WalMart, they’re still screwed…
Many elderly women “shared house expeses” and nobody raised a fuss. Lots of “confirmed bachelors” also lived under one roof. Now the traditionalists have to see Brokeback Republican and they’re not thrilled.
Because they were LYING. That’s why nobody made a fuss. If anyone had known, those sweet little old ladies would have been dead in their bed.
Nobody, traditionalist or otherwise, “has to” pay the slightest bit of attention to anyone else’s personal life. Not hiding one’s relationship is different from forcing someone to watch your home movies.
She didn’t say Limbaugh is a feminist, just that he is not a social conservative, which seems to be correct.
He is though…for everyone but himself.
I think this is spot on. “Social conservatives” are the rubes who Republicans manipulate with their racist, sexist, and homophobic rhetoric; they’re not the manipulators themselves.
Yeah… I don’t think Althouse is “apologizing for Rush” or excuse making to try and make him look better; it strikes me what she’s saying makes him look worse. I actually think her point’s kind of interesting, because Limbaugh essentially doesn’t reflect the values of his audience, which I think is fairly accurate (and explains volumes about his drug problems, the public reax to it in his fanbase, and what’s happened since). Which explains why, while he hates McCain for not being “teur conservative” he also hates Huckabee who’s all the social values without the corresponding hatreds of people who are different. And the thing to keep in mind, I think, is that for some people - nice, principled, I’d say somewhat wrong, people - the values stuff is very genuine. And I think Althouse is onto something - Limbaugh’s entertaining, but on some level, he’s really not in step with his audience. How that plays out, I think, is a real underlying story of this election cycle.
I don’t think she’s being dishonest. As a person who once identified as conservative, I can see how she can be taken in by his spell. Many on the right aren’t socially conservative but Rush’s secularity, which she notes, disarms them. Having also been a longtime fan of Rush, I’ve come to realize how toxic he’s been to the Right. Yes, he directs his fire toward the left. But he’s been instrumental in guiding the Right over the cliff and into the wilderness, which the GOP will inhabit for the next generation. Rush’s has made social conservatives and the religious right feel at home in the GOP. And thus directed the GOP in a direction out of step with the rest of the country. Frankly, their issues are in contradiction to the conservatism of Barry Goldwater. That’s why Barry Goldwater is considered a liberal by today’s conservatives. And also why I no longer identify as conservative.
Yeah… I don’t think Althouse is “apologizing for Rush” or excuse making to try and make him look better; it strikes me what she’s saying makes him look worse. I actually think her point’s kind of interesting, because Limbaugh essentially doesn’t reflect the values of his audience, which I think is fairly accurate (and explains volumes about his drug problems, the public reax to it in his fanbase, and what’s happened since). Which explains why, while he hates McCain for not being “teur conservative” he also hates Huckabee who’s all the social values without the corresponding hatreds of people who are different. And the thing to keep in mind, I think, is that for some people - nice, principled, I’d say somewhat wrong, people - the values stuff is very genuine. And I think Althouse is onto something - Limbaugh’s entertaining, but on some level, he’s really not in step with his audience. How that plays out, I think, is a real underlying story of this election cycle.
Yeah… I don’t think Althouse is “apologizing for Rush” or excuse making to try and make him look better; it strikes me what she’s saying makes him look worse. I actually think her point’s kind of interesting, because Limbaugh essentially doesn’t reflect the values of his audience, which I think is fairly accurate (and explains volumes about his drug problems, the public reax to it in his fanbase, and what’s happened since). Which explains why, while he hates McCain for not being “teur conservative” he also hates Huckabee who’s all the social values without the corresponding hatreds of people who are different. And the thing to keep in mind, I think, is that for some people - nice, principled, I’d say somewhat wrong, people - the values stuff is very genuine. And I think Althouse is onto something - Limbaugh’s entertaining, but on some level, he’s really not in step with his audience. How that plays out, I think, is a real underlying story of this election cycle.
Yeah… I don’t think Althouse is “apologizing for Rush” or excuse making to try and make him look better; it strikes me what she’s saying makes him look worse. I actually think her point’s kind of interesting, because Limbaugh essentially doesn’t reflect the values of his audience, which I think is fairly accurate (and explains volumes about his drug problems, the public reax to it in his fanbase, and what’s happened since). Which explains why, while he hates McCain for not being “teur conservative” he also hates Huckabee who’s all the social values without the corresponding hatreds of people who are different. And the thing to keep in mind, I think, is that for some people - nice, principled, I’d say somewhat wrong, people - the values stuff is very genuine. And I think Althouse is onto something - Limbaugh’s entertaining, but on some level, he’s really not in step with his audience. How that plays out, I think, is a real underlying story of this election cycle.
That’s odd, because according to the tradition under which I was raised, ‘Let’s don’t go ahead with this act’ gets called “thinking twice” or “thinking ahead” tons more often than it gets called “rape”. (”Thinking ahead” is somewhat akin to what conservatives call “gatekeeping”, except that it’s not exclusively the woman’s job.)
But it’s cultural divergence which makes for horse racing, no? Though it’s too bad that so many people show such a propensity to bet on such…nags.
“As a person who once identified as conservative, I can see how she can be taken in by his spell.”
That is one of the most pathetic sentences one can form using the English language…
Limbaugh & Spell - two concepts that do not belong together.
Adolf, Mao, Uncle Joe - THOSE are people who could create a “spell” and suck other people in.
El Rushbo? Sorry. If he has what it takes to put a spell on wingnuts, that says a hell of a lot more about the wingnuts than it does about Limbaugh’s “prowess” as a cult figure…
I think that the theocons are beginning to understand that the aristocons having been using them as footsoldiers with absolutely no intention of actually delivering on their agenda. The thing that terrifies the aristocons is a religious conservative alliance with the social justice left. It’s actually a very reasonable alliance given the stuff Jesus *actually*said*, which is why the GOP tries so damn hard to keep the theocons focused on abortion and homosexuality (ick factor issues for most theocons). If the evangelicals were to focus instead on issues like living wage, health care, clean air and water, Third World poverty and the like - they’d vote very differently. In fact, time was, they did vote very differently, which helped Carter win in ‘76.
Thanks Mike. I’ll not to post anymore.
I think people are missing out on a central aspect of Althouse’s analysis. She has been listening for the past month.
Rush Limbaugh probably has downplayed the social conservatism recently. Many of Rush’s stations are Clear Channel stations. Romney’s capital group is trying to buy Clear Channel. Romney’s former presidential campaign was weak on social issues in the mindset of militant, fundamentalists in the GOP. Limbaugh was steering the rightist nutjob conversation away from a difficult subject for the Romney campaign.
In other words, Limbaugh was sucking up to the guy who apparently will be his new boss.
I’m sure he’ll go back to his regularly scheduled social conservatism soon, if he hasn’t already.
Has Rush specifically endorsed that Tennessee state senator’s views on rape? If not, why are you including that quotation, pretty much implying that Rush believes the same thing?
A shared hatred of feminists does not equal a shared love of rape. It’s similar to how a shared discomfort of black people among some white people does not equal a shared membership in the KKK. Or how a shared discomfort of gay men among some straight men does not equal a shared desire to beat a gay man to death.
Althouse likes Limbaugh because he’s an even more successful hateful attention troll than she is.
There is a difference between social conservatives and other conservatives, because insofar as social conservatives are actually Christian, they have to care about the poor (”least of my brethren”, many other Jesus quotes). Whereas a fiscal conservative just wants to hang on to all his money. You can tell just by looking at Rush that he denies himself none of the pleasures of the flesh, and couldn’t give two ample bowl logs for the poor.
From what I have read on Althouse (I was introduced to her by the boob-pointing fiasco), Althouse will read an article and comment on it. Mornings I read her I don’t even have to read the NY Times opeds.
The idea that Rush Limbaugh, with 20 million listeners, would have to suck up to the head of Clear Channel is hilarious. If anything, the head of Clear Channel would be sucking up to Limbaugh.
Rush has that giant audience because he’s funny, and he says things that resonate with his listeners. And if you think his listeners are all ignorant Christian hicks, well, ignorant Christian hicks don’t buy $1500 Select Comfort beds. Select Comfort likes his Arbitron numbers just fine.
“You can tell just by looking at Rush that he denies himself none of the pleasures of the flesh, and couldn’t give two ample bowl logs for the poor.”
You could apply the same standards to Rob Reiner. Limbaugh, at least, has given tens of millions to charity, and continues to do so.
“Rush has that giant audience because he’s funny, and he says things that resonate with his listeners.”
…none of us ever thought otherwise. The difference is Rush says those things with a wink, knowing how well he will be rewarded, while the Koolaid drinkers (which apparently include yourself) are suckered into thinking he really believes his own bullshit…
“And if you think his listeners are all ignorant Christian hicks, well, ignorant Christian hicks don’t buy $1500 Select Comfort beds. Select Comfort likes his Arbitron numbers just fine.”
Obviously, not all of his listeners are “ignorant Christian hicks”. As long as there’s enough to keep coming back to the trough every day to slurp up the slop he feeds them, keeping his ratings high enough to continue his verbal assault on sense, logic, and human decency.
And BTW, I’m just fascinated by the way his exposure as just another rich junkie seems to have had no effect on his listener’s deranged worship. Quite ironic…