Sixties liberals never thought free speech dangerous until
conservatives wielded it against them. Recall that even as Bill
Clinton commanded the bully pulpit of the presidency, he whined
about Rush Limbaugh’s uncontested “three hours” on the air, and
then suggested that terrorist Timothy McVeigh had fallen under the
influence of right-wing talk show hosts.
Recall also that in the 1990s, after the Republican takeover of
Congress, some liberal college professors, many of whom had
launched their careers as unruly advocates of free speech, began
high-minded “civility” discussions at American universities. Too
much “extremism” — which just meant that conservatives were
finally challenging them — had them knitting their brows over the
abuse of the First Amendment.
This trend continues with Senator Tom Daschle’s oddball attack
on Rush Limbaugh this week. The Democratic leader who rose to power
through cheap-shot critiques of the Reagan years suddenly sounds
like an embattled conservative establishment pol from the 1960s:
“What happens when Rush Limbaugh attacks those of us in public life
is that people aren’t just content to listen. People want to act
because they get emotional…and the threats to those of us in
public life go up dramatically, against us and against our
families, and it’s very disconcerting.”
Borrowing a page from Clinton, Daschle sees a parallel between
the wild fundamentalism abroad and the harsh rhetoric of “Rush
Limbaugh and all the Rush wannabes” at home.
Daschle’s remarks about Limbaugh will prove as credible and
persuasive as his pre-election pouting about George Bush’s supposed
questioning of the Dems’ patriotism. When liberals have been
reduced to complaining about free speech and too much passion in
politics, it is clear they have lost their way.
Now out of power, are Daschle and the Democrats likely to adopt
a civil tone? No, they will return to the rebellious free speech
and emotional demagoguery that Daschle finds so conveniently
worrisome in Limbaugh.
Liberals do not like being beaten at their own game. They can
whip up activists, drive the homeless to the polls, hurl insults at
politicians they deem dangerous, riot outside registrar’s offices,
and play to the emotions shamelessly. But woe to Republicans when
they do the same. The Dems’ windy rhetoric about the value of
robust speech, gadfly protests, and unconventional agitating is
proportionate to their power: when they have got it, they speak
like Voltaire; when they don’t, they think like Mussolini.
How long before the liberals now fretting about incivility start
calling Limbaugh a “big fat idiot” again? If conservatives called
Michael Moore a big fat idiot, liberals would put down their Al
Franken book and champion Moore as an idealist vital to the health
of the Republic.
Yes, Limbaugh is dangerous, but only to the careers of liberal
politicians. Obtusely attacking him will not resuscitate their
careers because Limbaugh is now more mainstream than they are. If
these “populist” pols want to take the pulse of America, they would
do well to tune in, not out. Limbaugh’s success is due not to
demagogic magic or circus acts — fresh from his “Saturday Night
Live” performance, John McCain is calling Limbaugh a “clown” — but
to effective and entertaining truth-telling. Were demagoguery and
charisma enough to corral an enormous audience, the radio shows of
Mario Cuomo and Alan Dershowitz would not have flamed out so
quickly.
Afraid of losing viewers, many members of the media have wised
up about Limbaugh and see no point in marginalizing him. As the
Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz
notes, “Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert had him on their Election
Night coverage,” and in recent years Brian Williams and Ted Koppel
have given him a respectful hearing too.
But liberal politicians who need votes as badly as the media
need viewers remain behind the curve, clumsily swinging at Limbaugh
as a figure of the fringe as they get closer to it.
