Partisan Punditry

I'm back from Belgium (for those who didn't know, I was out of the country for the last week). During the very long flight back, I had a lot of hours to spend in quiet contemplation, and one of the topics on which I focused my otherwise idle brain was Rush Limbaugh.

In set up, let me say that this began with a discussion my wife, Janet, was having with her father. I am not currently privy to the details of this particular discussion, except that it related to the various Right Wing pundits and the extent to which they could or should be trusted as sources of information.

In particular under discussion was Rush Limbaugh, and my wife mentioned that she didn't particularly consider Mr. Limbaugh to be a liar, per se, but simply heavily partisan, and it was from this statement that my musings (and ultimately this post) came from.

My problem with Rush Limbaugh is not in his partisanship. After all, he's a commentator rather than a newsman. He does not owe anyone even a semblance of balance in his reporting, so long as he remains a commentator and doesn't try to present himself as balanced (something I can't say for Bill O'Reilly, who presents himself as both a newsman and an unbiased centrist, when he is not the second, and therefore not a particularly good example of the first).

However, the place where my respect for Mr. Limbaugh goes right out the window is when his philosophies seem to be tailored to the moment, and to the parties involved. For example, a true conservative is just as annoyed with the current government as a true liberal is, because although the members of that Administration shroud themselves in the cloak of the label "Republican" (and thus by implication, "conservative"), many of their policies are no more conservative than Ralph Nader is. When was the last time a true conservative espoused bigger government, a bigger deficit, or greater governmental control over our lives?

Regardless, Mr. Limbaugh's opinion changes based on the parties involved in a given news item, not based on the FACTS.

Consider Rep. Foley (R-FL), who is currently under some cloud of scandal for some a highly questionable history of behavior with and towards his under-aged Congressional pages. I have my opinions of these acts, and they are informed by the facts. As new facts come to light, my opinion changes, and it is the same opinion I'd have if the Rep. was a Democrat instead of a Republican, or was straight instead of gay.

Contrast that with Limbaugh. If Rep. Foley were a member of the Democratic party, Mr. Limbaugh would be in full bluster, calling for investigations and heralding this as proof of the moral depravity of the Democratic party. We know this because with the exceptions that Ms. Lewinsky was 22 (and thus, not underage), was an intern (not a page) and was female, we have on record Mr. Limbaugh's reaction when a Democratic leader behaved questionably towards one of his young subordinates.

On the other hand, with regard to Rep. Foley (a Republican), Mr. Limbaugh's moral outrage is mysteriously absent, and instead of focusing on the acts themselves, he is pointing his audience towards theories and speculations that the whole story was concocted by Democrats to smear a good Republican. He's not even coming out and asserting those theories, but merely musing over the possibility in such a way as to leave the audience with the clear impression that what he considers to be bad behavior here is that the story leaked out, rather than the fact that it happened in the first place.

It isn't that he supports the philosophies of one party over the other, it's that he has a highly selective moral code, in which actions taken by those he supports are explainable, justifiable, and probably smears by the other side, while virtually identical actions by someone on the other side are touted as reasons why that other side is beneath contempt and should never again be allowed to be in charge of any governmental position higher than dog catcher.

THAT is why Rush Limbaugh has no support from me. I've listened to pundits on both sides of the aisle, and some of them seem to hold true to their beliefs under all circumstances, and those I can respect even when I don't agree with them. When people come by their beliefs honestly, examine them carefully, and hold true to them in most or all situations, I absolutely respect their right to hold their beliefs, even if I disagree with them.

But when someone's morality is so fluid that it shifts based not on the actions but by the person (or class of person) doing the acting, then I find I have little respect at all for that person, for they don't really believe in anything but partisanship.

(I recognize that we're all guilty at times of wanting to believe the best in those we support and wanting to believe the worst in those we don't, I'm not saying that people need to be perfect. But most people, or at least most GOOD people, are a damn sight better at it than Rush Limbaugh.)

Liam.

P.S. For those who still believe that Fox News is "fair and balanced", there's a good example from the O'Reilly Factor a few days ago giving lie to that assertion: The first night of major coverage of the Foley affair, the bottom-of-the-screen text identified him as "Rep. Mark Foley (D-FL)". This is not O'Reilly's fault, he was on screen at the time, so was not likely in charge of what was put up on his screen. But Fox got calls, and so during the repeat showing of the same episode, the text now read "Rep. Mark Foley", all traces of party affiliation removed. It's a small thing and probably initially merely a mistake, but it shows that when a Democrat misbehaves Fox is happy to quickly identify the party, but when the person is Republican they focus on the PERSON, and not their party affiliation.