One reason the Left hates Rush so much is that he was so effective at skewering their pretensions to moral and intellectual superiority. He made it okay to laugh at them, to judge the failure of their policies without ritually celebrating their alleged good intentions.
Rush did to the Left what they had done to the culture they destroyed in the 60s and 70s. He used humor to destroy their pieties and expose their hypocrisies. More than anyone in the post-Cold War era, he DISRESPECTED them, and he had a blast while doing it.
The Left strongly believes in forcing its subjects to show respect and piety. Your parents might have taught you respect must be earned, but the Left believes the opposite. If you force people to act like they respect you, it doesn't matter if they really do in their hearts.
The Left destroyed the conservative culture of postwar America by relentlessly mocking and disrespecting it, treating its traditions and beliefs like hypocritical garbage that no thinking person REALLY believed in. They mocked the idea that anything was worth conserving.
As we see daily - hourly - these days, the Left is VERY sensitive to anyone using their own tactics against the establishment culture THEY created. And nobody was better at it than Rush Limbaugh. His humor is what they loathed and feared. It's how he converted so many liberals.
The best humor, the sharpest wit, makes people think. "Why am I laughing so hard at this?" Laughter makes you see the world from a different angle, at least for a moment. Truly confident people don't flinch at humor, because they know they can handle being laughed at.
The Left absolutely CANNOT handle being laughed it. It demands reverence for its political leaders and their supposedly noble intentions. Its ideas are gospel and must be viewed from no angle but unquestioning obedience. They demand a monopoly on satire and irreverence.
Rush made fun of people and institutions that had literally never been mocked before. It simply wasn't DONE. Even when someone in media gingerly noted left-wing policies didn't work out as planned, they always paid homage to their soaring good intentions and brilliance.
Rush was an early high-profile target of cancel culture, as we've come to know it today. Those who tried to silence him were pioneers of the tactics that have become common, including pressure campaigns to scare off advertisers. He was among the first targets of "deplatforming."
Every time they tried to deplatform him, every time they really went berserk, it was because he made fun of a lefty plastic saint. He told a joke about some person or group who wasn't supposed to be mocked, perhaps most famously the utterly ridiculous Sandra Fluke.
The rule is that conservatives can be mocked and impugned in the most vicious terms, given absolutely zero credit for good intentions, zero respect for even proven track records of accomplishment, but lefties must be ritually worshiped for their pure and noble intentions.
Rush was funny and perceptive. You aren't supposed to use incisive humor against the moral colossi of the Left. You aren't supposed to doubt they are good and selfless and only want what's best for children, animals, the homeless, minorities, the Earth, etc.
"Selflessness" is really the key. Leftists are collectivists - totalitarians, authoritarians, communists, fascists - every form of their ideology presumes absolute control by Good and Wise Leaders who can redistribute wealth and bring cosmic justice to our wretched nation.
Rush showed us how ridiculous the Left's pretentions to selflessness, wisdom, and pure devotion to the collective good really are. His humor exposed their corruption. You're not supposed to doubt their sincerity the way he did, and you're not supposed to have fun doing it. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Another thing to ponder about Rush Limbaugh's legacy: He wasn't just good at skewering the Left. He was fantastically effective at presenting conservative ideas. He understood how important it was for each generation to rediscover those ideas.
There has long been a tendency among conservative intellectuals to hoard their treasures, keep their ideas hermetically sealed, impatiently point to the great works of the past instead of finding new ways to share their teachings with each new generation.
There's a whiff of snobbishness about it, a sense that well-educated people ought to know all of these time-tested arguments by heart, so it's beneath the highest rank of intellectuals to regurgitate them. Why waste energy finding new ways to teach old lessons?
I never got to speak to Rush Limbaugh, but he always seemed like a friend I heard from every day. He quoted my work on the air a few times, and it was a surreal delight, a joyous thing that could not possibly be happening. He helped us all become friends.
That's the real measure of Rush's impact. He helped so many people realize they were not alone, even as the mainstream media labored to make them feel isolated and hopeless. He understood that totalitarians overwhelm and dominate ordinary people by making them *feel* surrounded.
How often good and decent people felt isolated before Rush! They wondered why nobody could see what was so perfectly obvious to them. The secret of totalitarian success is to make ordinary people fear everyone around them is an informer or enforcer. Rush shattered that illusion.
The liberty and mobility granted to average people by cheap gasoline and home energy is absolutely infuriating to socialist central planners. They need you people to stop moving around so much. You keep scuttling their glorious five-year plans.
Socialism depends on keeping the value of labor down. When the common man's labor becomes too valuable, he starts seeing himself as liberated, a successful participant in capitalism. He becomes unwilling to give his valuable time to the State.
When the average value of labor increases too much, people start thinking social safety nets should be limited and temporary. They grow resistant to demands that every cost should be "socialized," meaning EVERYONE should be dependent on government programs.
Is it possible to fight against totalitarian statists without ever compromising conservative "principles?" Is it better to play "fair," and constantly lose? Can you grapple with monsters without becoming a monster? That's the question at the heart of the schism on the Right.
This schism long predates Trump, but it became much more heated during his 2016 campaign and presidency. It's a question asked in many ways on a variety of subjects. It launches endless accusations of hypocrisy, insincerity, opportunism, foolishness, and weakness.
One of the big problems with academic conservatism is that it acts like the great debate over how to order our society has only just begun, as if we can hold an enlightened conversation between Right and Left over how much freedom we should have and how big the State should be.
Also, we're still feeling the cultural aftershocks of Hitler betraying Stalin and the Left turning against Nazism. The constant message is that only left-wingers are allowed to throw around Nazi analogies willy-nilly because Nazism is supposedly the "opposite" of leftism.
Obviously the people howling for Gina Carano's scalp have no principled objection to comparing modern political trends with Hitler or the Holocaust - THEY do it ALL THE TIME. They are never criticized or censured for going overboard, trivializing the Holocaust, etc.
The real issue is that almost a century later, the Left is still hysterically obsessed with painting Nazism as "right-wing" ideology. They erupt into gibbering neurotic fits when anyone points out that fascism was originally seen as a form of socialism and allied with communism.
Stupidity is extremely useful to statist politicians, not just because stupid people are easily manipulated, but more importantly because they believe the world can be remade to fit their incorrect beliefs if enough force is deployed. This is the basis of most left-wing populism.
Stupidity is aggressive, while ignorance is passive. Stupidity refuses to seek out knowledge, rejects information that does not fit its preconceptions, and destroys what it does not understand. The defining characteristic of stupidity is the refusal to admit ignorance or error.
The refusal to admit error is also a key characteristic of statist politics. The State is never wrong. Its programs never end. It acts with absolute confidence that it can do everything from managing trillion dollar economies to rewriting human nature and controlling the weather.