Out on a Limbaugh

I consider myself a "moderate Republican," in that I agree with most of the Republican party's fiscally conservative issues (taxes, smaller government) while disagreeing with the religiously tainted ones (opposition to gay equality, abstinence-only programs). I suppose the "exception" to this is that I disagree with legalized abortion, though in my case it's for reasons of human rights, not from any religious conviction. (Unfortunately, many of the leaders of my "movement" tend to be pro-life out of fanatical Christian zealotry, not fairness and logic, but I suppose that's a topic for another column.) Either way, it's certainly okay if someone wants to believe in a particular issue for religious reasons, and express their opinions as such, because this is a nation that presumably protects the freedom of speech. After all, I just expressed mine. And, perhaps some people will express alternate points in this website's comments section. But that's also because this is a small independent non-profit opinion page. On a national level, recent events have served to underscore how today's society views certain speech as more "free" than others.

As you may know, Rush Limbaugh has been an ESPN Sunday NFL Countdown commentator for the past month. His first commentary was an impassioned plea for more black coaches in the NFL, pointing out that 71% of NFL players are black but a full 29 of the 32 head coaches are white. The recent rules that require NFL teams to interview black candidates for jobs, without any requirement of even hiring them, Rush argued, is a silly face-saving public relations stunt which only makes pawns out of African American coaches who will be interviewed solely to avoid fines, without having to be seriously considered. It was a good commentary, available here, and was well received by white and black sports fans alike.

This past Sunday, however, the NFL Countdown panel was discussing Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb, who has been a media darling for a few seasons now but recently hasn't performed up to expectations. The following quote from Rush, addressing the panel, caused a firestorm that reached a frenzied peak Wednesday:

"I think the sum total of what you’re all saying is that Don McNabb is regressing; he's going backwards. And my thoughts... I'm sorry to say this, but I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. I think there is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

Limbaugh went on to call McNabb a good investment for the Eagles, and the panel went on to debate McNabb's ability. But no one challenged Rush on the issue of race; certainly, no one thought it was a "racist" statement at the time, and if you view the entire clip yourself, you'd have to try really, really hard to be "offended" by it. In fact, it took two days for anyone to even notice the comment and accuse it of being "racist." When the allegation finally hit, head NFL Countdown analyst Chris Berman defended Rush, insisting "I don't think Rush was malicious in intent or in tone. As cut and dry as it seems in print, I didn't think so when it went by my ears." In fact, former Dallas Cowboys star Michael Irvin, agreed with Rush on the air, stating "Rush has a point. Rush has a point." (Irvin, in case you didn’t know, is black.)

Ah, but once the sensationalist media realized that the story had legs, that they could frame it in a "Rush is racist" sort of way, all of a sudden you had CNN (which still tilts much, much farther to the left than Fox News tilts to the right) devoting an entire day of coverage to the "controversy." At first it was just a complaint that Limbaugh kicked a guy when he was down. But when it became a "racial thing", Democratic presidential candidates Wesley Clark and Howard Dean both gave press conferences demanding Limbaugh be fired. Reverend Al Sharpton took things a step further, and threatened to organize a massive, sustained African American boycott of ESPN until Limbaugh was let go! ESPN initially and vigorously defended Limbaugh, but now began to buckle under the intense backlash. Limbaugh, who recently called the NFL Countdown commentator gig "the fulfillment of a dream," was finally forced to resign under the pressure Wednesday night.

ESPN hired Limbaugh to express opinions. He expressed one. Limbaugh has consistently and vocally agreed that it's unfair there haven't been more black quarterbacks. His comment about McNabb was quite clearly not a racist one, but rather an off the cuff theory as to why the media may have built up expectations for him above and beyond his recent performance level. With black quarterbacks still the exception, not the norm, there was more hope "invested" in McNabb's success. If a black ESPN commentator had made the same point, this never would have been an issue. Hell, if anyone other than a white conservative had made the same point, it never would have been an issue. And, again, no one thought it was a racist statement at the time, including the African American commentators, and this wasn't even a story until days afterwards when Limbaugh's political opponents gleefully thought it could be used as another chance to destroy him.

(Speaking of trying to destroy him, the National Enquirer and the New York Daily News are now oh-so-tastefully hawking front page stories on Limbaugh’s addiction to painkillers after his ear surgeries several years ago. No, it's not particularly "news", but hey, nothing wrong with kicking a guy when he's down, right? Er, wait.)

Naturally, many of the people who demanded Rush's firing from ESPN were the same people who made free speech heroes of the Dixie Chicks for their public anti-Bush statements, and were on television every day outraged at the "denial of free speech" travesties when a handful of Southern radio stations stopped playing the Dixie Chicks for a few weeks. I'm reminded of the issues surrounding ultraconservative Michael Savage's firing from MSNBC a few months ago, for comments far more offensive than anything Rush has ever uttered. More than a few radio stations even banned Savage's unrelated radio show. Yet there's no problem with the Tom Joyner radio show playing ultra-racist "comedy bits", as long as they're laced with "cracker" jokes and "kill whitey." (I don't agree with Savage or Joyner, but I still believe both have the right to be heard, should advertisers wish to fund them and listeners with to hear them.) But it's a bigger issue than simply an occasional television or radio personality enduring inequitable criticisms. Look at two other free speech stories that broke yesterday: a high school student in Detroit has been permitted by a federal judge to wear a Bush: International Terrorist t-shirt, and amazon.com is allowing the sales of NAMBLA books and periodicals, despite the fact that NAMBLA is a pro-child-rape organization which, of course, is defended by the ACLU (who, despite claiming to be a defender of free speech, also naturally campaigned against the free speech of the boy scouts and is unabashedly opposed to the free speech of Christians in general.)

The last year has shown an uptick in this "free speech" hypocrisy. Trent Lott was ousted from his senate leadership role after his comments regarding reformed former segregationist Strom Thurmond, but Bill Clinton, who called ex-senator William Fulbright his "mentor" (and had interned under Fulbright while he was an outspoken segregationalist) never once got challenged by the black caucus or the media. (Nor was ex-KKK grand Kleagle Democratic senator Robert Byrd asked to step down for using the "n-word" on national television because, well, he's a Democrat, and they just can't be racist, right?) Conservative points of view, despite being supported by half the nation are rarely, if ever, afforded "equal time" on the broadcast networks or CNN; Fox News, the only network to prominently give conservatives equal time (and it is equal, by network decree upon its inception, with opposing views timed to a stopwatch), is lambasted as right-wing for doing so. Conservative newspapers are banned from college campuses while even the most extremist of left-wing propaganda is tolerated and student/taxpayer funded. (Hell, even the mildly conservative comic strip "B.C." has also been banned from most college newspapers in recent years, despite no objections to Doonesbury or The Boondocks). High school teachers are forbidden from mentioning anything to do with Christianity or the bible, even in an historical context, but free speech defenders come to the aid of grade school teachers who spout off vehement opposition to president Bush or the war in Iraq, even after young students came home sobbing after being told their fathers, currently serving in the military, were "murderers."

The list goes on. We've all heard stories.

Hey, maybe it's hard to feel sorry for Limbaugh. After all, he's the highest-paid broadcaster of all time -- and no, not just radio (as Matt Drudge once pointed out, he now makes more than the annual salaries for Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw and Barbara Walters combined). And, I'm sure his radio show isn't in danger of being cancelled, for despite fears that his popularity would sag after Clinton's departure, his ratings are higher than ever. (In fact, I'm sure ESPN didn't want to lose him, either, as his contribution to NFL Countdown gave that program its highest ratings of all time). But this was something that meant a lot to Limbaugh, and to his fans, and it's sickening any time someone has to undergo the kind of character assassination we've seen in the past 24 hours. In this country, we continue to have conflicting standards of "free speech" for conservatives rather than liberals, and even with the sometimes right-leaning Fox News channel, stories like this show the big picture just isn't getting any better.

I was thinking about this while watching The West Wing yesterday, a program I immensely enjoy (despite its portrayals of Republicans as two-dimensional sneering villians). Nearly all the characters are white men, and the only prominent African American character is relegated to the job of the President's personal assistant/gopher boy. No one seems bothered by this, of course, because, well, they're Democrats, so they're uniformly good. But do you think that if the show had been about a Republican administration that they could have gotten away with such casting? I suspect every African American group and liberal "free speech" organization in the country would have demanded the show be taken off the air, or boycotted the network, or leaked character-damaging drug use stories of the show's stars, or whatever else was in their arsenal to get their way. It's becoming increasingly clear that "free speech" only applies to those predetermined as worthy, those who are already "correct." Anyone else better walk on eggshells and toe the politically appropriate line, or suffer the consequences.

Personally, I think Limbaugh should have stood up for himself, and made EPSN fire him, for resigning could be construed as an admission of wrongdoing and guilt, which just shouldn't apply here. Perhaps he was just fed up with the whole situation. So am I.