I recently read that Rush issued an 'apology'. I didn't hear the apology first hand, nor did I witness the original 'offense'. I am not a regular Rush listener, but I do tune in from time to time. Sometimes, I find myself agreeing with the general position of what he happens to be taking. Most of the time, I find myself disagreeing with him. I am what Rush would call a 'liberal'. Rush's use of this term suggests that he considers it a synonym for 'socialist', 'unAmerican', or 'evil'. I do not appreciate these labels. But if I start calling Rush names in response, will that actually convince anyone that my position has merit? No, of course not.
But based on my experience, it is vintage Rush to boil down some of the issues he discusses on his show down to calling a particular person a name. In the recent case where he called someone a slut, the particular issue at hand was the recent birth control debate. There are many ways to discuss opposition to birth control on merits such as the sanctity of life and the moral dilemma for members of religious instituions. These are very appropriate things to be discussing and are contributing to an important debate in our country. And although, as I said, I did not witness Rush discussing this issue when he devolved into calling this one person a name, I expect that that he did mention those more appropriate discussion points based on my past experience of listening to his show.
I believe that the reason he frequently ends up resorting to name calling is that he wants to be able to paint a one-dimensional label on those who have different views from his. At the end of the day, it is easier to get listeners angry at an opponent by quickly slapping an insulting label on him or her. The label allows Rush to throw away any complexities of an issue and boil it down to a single emotional response. Later, he can pull out that one word: whether it is 'liberal', 'socialist', or 'slut', and he can harness all of that anger he has carefully cultivated in the listener. It is simply emotional manipulation.
And yes, of course, all kinds of people resort to name calling. For example, I heard many liberals insult President Bush during his time in office, but that is not the point. The point is this. When people on the street or callers into the shows do it, that is one thing. But when the host does it, that is quite another. And why is it that this phenomena is so prevalent amongst conservative hosts? For all the liberal bias of the general media, I have never once heard the host of a nationally broadcast or nationally syndicated show openly insult a conservative office holder on ABC, CBS, or even NPR, much less an ordinary citizen. (Perhaps I'm watching the wrong shows.) And in this particular case, Rush chose to attack, not an office holder, but a citizen doing her civic duty of testifying at the government's request. Why? Perhaps Rush and his imitators believe that the conservative position is too weak to withstand open discussion of an opposing point of view. I happen to think that there is more than enough merit on logical and moral grounds for the conservative position to sell it without emotional manipulation. But that is just me I guess. Perhaps there is something about being a conservative show host makes you mean spirited.
What ever the true reason is, I believe that the applying of broad and insulting stereotypes to our own citizens by way of name calling, whether the target is a public official or a person engaging in civic duty, is unbecoming of our nation and of conservative ideals. The presence of conservative view points across country via the various media outlets is vital for our nation, but the name calling is not. The regular engaging of this behavior by hosts suggests that there is an inherent belief in a weakness in their viewpoint that requires emotional manipulation to achieve it's aims. I personally think name calling says much more about the moral weakness of the person do it than it does about the person who is being attacked. I just wish that Rush and his imitators believed in the merits of their positions and beliefs enough to not have to resort to emotional manipulation.
Photo Credits:
No comments:
Post a Comment