Laughing at Limbaugh

Pearl Jam hosted its own radio show on December 9th, playing disc jockey for stations across the country. Before the motley of live and canned music, spoken-word recordings and commentary got under way, Eddie Vedder, the group's front man opened the underground broadcast on a mysteriously political note. "We've noticed that our society here in America is opening up their homes to some folks...with...potentially dangerous attitudes...Blatant untruths [are] treated like the gospel. We're just doing our little bit...to remind a few of you out there that you are not alone in your opposition...you are not in the minority when you vote for change."

As Vedder continued, advocating the protection of women's reproductive rights, it became clear that the change he was talking about was not the one initiated by the recent election. Instead, he appeared to be focusing on the conservative talk-radio phenomenon that has swept the country. Among its voices, Rush Limbaugh speaks the loudest. While Limbaugh is often viewed as a member of the entertainment sphere, a kind of rock star to middle-aged white men, he is a key player in the nineties political landscape. A recent Time cover story entitled, "Is Rush Limbaugh Good for America," fails to answer the question it poses. Although few beside Vedder appear to be taking this question seriously, it is worth exploring.

Following the November election, it seemed that, whatever the causes for political upheaval, Limbaugh had been vindicated. I looked to his nightly television show and his daily radio show in hopes of seeing what the Limbaugh phenomenon was about, and perhaps locating the root causes of the congressional shift to the right. My worst fears were realized as it became obvious that the melange of facts, opinions, exaggerations, and blatant misrepresentation I had seen as a "Republican comedy showcase" saw itself as a credible podium for news. Moreover, it was equally frightening that many Republicans in power accentuated their ties with Limbaugh, crediting his work for their congressional majorities.

I am disturbed by the acceptance of Mr. Limbaugh, not because of his views or his ardent partisanship, or even his framing of facts to suit his agenda. Such is the norm everywhere, from Sunday morning talk shows to the floor of the House. Limbaugh is dangerous is in affirmations of a silent conspiracy to undermine the well-being of America by liberal-elites. These "left-wing counterculturists" are supposedly well-educated professionals who have infiltrated the media, government and academia. Limbaugh has yet to explain the scope of their conspiracy, but in recent weeks he has held them responsible for the deficit, crime and the evils of public television.

Here at Harvard, we appear to be guilty on all counts of conspiratorial involvement. Needless to say, it has yet to be documented. I, for one, have not been let in on it. Regardless, weighing opinions based on the unsubstantiated motives of pundits rather than the merits of their viewpoints is blatantly repugnant. Yet Limbaugh uses the conspiracy theory as a lens through which his arguments are colored. He often introduces the ideas of his "opponents" with a caution that works along the lines of, "Now remember, liberals want to make you poor and unhappy, so they advocate..." Instead of speaking to issues important to the country, he undermines the very debate taking place by falling back on the good guybad guy scenario.

All of this is irrelevant if Limbaugh is, as he often frames himself, merely an entertainer. His demagoguery has no place in political discussion, and consequently many of those who reject his methods convince themselves that he is a peripheral voice, incapable of any real impact. Unfortunately, it has been made only too clear since the election that Mr. Limbaugh's words are not trivial. Incoming first-term Republicans have called themselves the "Dittohead Caucus," in homage to Limbaugh, and as a speaker at their preinaugural conference, he gave not comic relief, but advice to the newly elected class. Many Republicans have credited him with the achievement of majorities in both houses of congress for the first time in forty years. Recently, Chair of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan called Mr. Limbaugh, hoping to persuade him to advocate the Mexican loan guarantee agreement as it faced heavy opposition by Republicans in Congress.

Mr. Limbaugh's factual transgressions, his contempt for intelligent debate and his impact on the congressional power structure are significantly exacerbated by his blurring of the lines between entertainment and news. Currently he floats somewhere between David Letterman and Ted Koppel, Tom Brokaw and Howard Stern. In this gray area, he has set aside journalistic responsibility, cloaking himself in the guise of a pure entertainer.

On his television and radio shows he presents himself as a purveyor of the truth, and whether this is just part of the act or not, his tremendous success demands that we ask whether or not he is indeed taken seriously. Given the 20 million listeners that tune into his radio show each week, his relationship with government leaders, and the weight Chairman Greenspan believes to be carried by his opinion, it seems naive to regard him as a figure on the sidelines of the political game.

By taking Limbaugh for granted, we do nothing to stop the virulent spread of his flawed techniques of argument. His talk of an elite conspiracy has seeped into the political dialogue. It is becoming increasingly fashionable to condemn entire schools of thought without explanation, to speak of groups in sweeping and erroneous generalizations, to condemn any solution that is grounded in something deeper than knee-jerk common sense. In response to these trends, Democrats and Republicans who place the pursuit of truth above their party labels must acknowledge that "liberal academia" is not involved in a secret plot to destroy America. "Elite universities" are not motivated by secret political agendas. Those holding liberal views are as concerned with the future of the country as are conservatives.

Few in academia, government and the press have risen to document and condemn these troubling trends in the current political dialogue. If this responsibility continues to be shirked by those who would be attacked by Limbaugh and his kind, it is hard to imagine who could pick up the slack. Eddie Vedder has a resonant voice, and appeals to a large audience, but Pearl Jam will be touring this year.