Speaking as an unabashedly Pro-Rush self-styled cocktail-party
attending intellectualoid wannabe, or whatever you want to call
it, I’m bewildered at the number of people misunderstanding of
Rush’s role.
Yes, he is an entertainer — you have to be to keep an audience
for 3 hours every day — but he is also a leader in thought. This
may make the more nuanced among the right uncomfortable,
primarily because he doesn’t confer with anyone before making his
thoughts known. He’s unpredictable. It is because Rush
does not confer with others that he is a leader. It is
because Rush is independent that he sets himself apart.
In setting himself apart he also makes fun of those he disagrees
with on radio, while maintaining distance from the process. And
that last is both the cosmetic and the substantive charge against
him. That it’s easy for the man behind the mic to rile people.
Especially when he gets paid a lot of money to do it.
This last bit is a sham. Rush has enough money. He has a
contract. He doesn’t have the insecurity that comes from trying
to elbow your way to the center of attention at all time. Look at
his ratings: They’re always up. A friend remarked, the other day,
that Obama can create his own momentum by giving a speech. The
same is true of Rush — an unlikely, but accurate, comparison.
Beyond that, he also fights when others won’t. It takes a keen
sense of the times to know when to direct your listeners to melt
down the congressional switchboard. It takes a keen sense of the
backbone of political leaders, who are more skittish, not less,
than Rush. He puts his reputation at stake whenever he takes a
position — and he does so gladly, because of ideas. And
if you don’t buy that the man is infatuated with ideas, then
listen to the first 20 minutes of his show every day for a week.
Try it and say the man doesn’t have a philosophy behind his
understanding of the world. Like it or leave it, just don’t be
dismissive.
And he does more than most columnists. Name a person in the media
that’s able to motivate others the way Rush motivates his
listeners. Keith Olbermann? No. Bill O’Reilly? No. How about
columnists? Does Paul Krugman motivate others? MoDo?
Oh but he’s a populist attention grabber, they say. Oh? You mean
because he speaks to more listeners every day than any other
host? Because he has an audience that considers what he says?
When someone has people behind him, who think that for the most
part, he’s right, but understands his shortcomings and sometimes
disagrees (as they do on his show frequently), you know what we
call that person? A leader.
You may not want to designate him as your leader. But it
is the pinnacle of ignorance to think that the most-listened to
radio host in America is not a leader. He does play an important
part in the movement, and denying that is placing him in the
category of a crazy uncle. If we assess leaders by influence,
Rush wins out over Steele any day.
[To take a bit of wind out of my own sails, though, I can
understand what Steele was getting at. I think he was genuinely
being inarticulate. But at the point where Steele’s main
qualification is his ability to fight the war in the press, it
should be concerning to many that he wasn’t prepared for this
familiar trap. Liberals have always tried to make conservatives
apologize for the statements of their brethren. “Does Ann Coulter
represent you?” is the question I always get. Note to Steele:
When someone asks you something like that, respond rhetorically.
Does (INSERT YOUR “CONTROVERSIAL” CONSERVATIVE PERSON HERE) claim
to be my leader? And if so, why are you asking me and not him?]
