You know, when mild-mannered film critic Roger Ebert calls for you to get a public horsewhipping, you might just have crossed the line:
January 14, 2010
To: Rush Limbaugh
From: Roger EbertYou should be horse-whipped for the insult you have paid to the highest office of our nation.
Having followed President Obama’s suggestion and donated money to the Red Cross for relief in Haiti, I was offended to hear you suggest the President might be a thief capable of stealing money intended for the earthquake victims.
You can read the rest of it here. I briefly had the television on this morning, although I didn’t listen to any of it because I am getting ready to host family. When I saw George W. Bush and Karen Hughes were guests of David Gregory, I just had to turn the set off for my peace of mind. They are actually worse people than Rush Limbaugh even aspires to be.
Both Bushes have a deplorable record with regards to Haiti which I’m sure others have described at length. And if Rush Limbaugh should be horsewhipped (which he should) then David Brooks needs a spanking for his column the other day. I love how conservatives like to blame the victims of conservative policies.
Brooksie would probably enjoy a spanking. How about standing naked on the Mall in DC with people pointing and laughing?
What is this bulls*** about insulting the “highest office of our nation”? Offices do not deserve and cannot earn respect. Those holding offices either do or do not earn respect. You can’t insult an office, nor are you obligated to show it respect. You CAN insult the holder of an office, and you are not obligated to show him or her respect s/he has not earned.
Rush Limbaugh did not insult the “highest office of our nation”, he insulted the holder of that office. Why can’t people see the difference? But Rush Limbaugh is nothing but a buffoon. What is really tragic is that so many people seem to take him seriously.
Booman Tribune ~ Bad People
When you do what a police officer tells you, you are respecting the office and not the office holder – whom you most likely do not know. Equally when we teach our children to respect teachers it is not an endorsement of the personal qualities of an individual teacher. Indeed teachers who don’t deserve the respect due to their office undermine the “system”.
Offices and institutions set up by democratic mandate in accordance with the rule of law deserve respect – and to be held to account for their mandates. “society” couldn’t function if you said to e.g. a fireman – you have to earn my respect before I will take your advice to leave a dangerous building. In fact institutional authority is precisely a default position of respect – which can be challenged if it has abused that trust – but which we require for a society to function.
Limbaugh’s comments were of course directed at Obama personally – as was his expressed hope hat Obama would fail. His crime is not to disrespect the office, but to use his political agenda to deny Haitians a much needed humanitarian response. In that regard, his comments tell us more about Limbaugh than about Obama.
“When you do what a police officer tells you, you are respecting the office and not the office holder“
You are making a lot of assumptions. I am respecting neither the office nor the office holder in that situation. Respect has nothing whatsoever to do with it. It is all about self-preservation, and not at all about respect. Respect is a completely different matter.
“when we teach our children to respect teachers…“
I don’t teach my children to respect teachers. I teach them to behave courteously toward them, as I teach them to behave courteously toward all their fellow human beings whether they respect them or not, and I teach them to follow instructions from their teachers whether they respect them or not. I also teach them to question and challenge authority, including mine, when they believe it is being misused or applied unfairly, illogically, or inappropriately.
Doing what a fireman advises me to do in a burning building has nothing whatsoever to do with respect either of the “office” of fireman, or of any given fireman as a person.
I also put all my liquids in clearly marked containers in an exactly quart-size plastic bag and take off my shoes to go through “security” in a U.S. airport, despite the fact that I not only have no respect for that institution and its ridiculous rules, or for the people who dream them up and enforce them. If given no other choice I will probably also spend the last hour of every flight feeling uncomfortable, cold, and bored to tears because I am not allowed to have pillows, blankets, or reading materials. That has nothing whatsoever to do with respect. On the contrary, I have pure contempt for the whole absurd political theater of it.
I do not respect institutions. I do not respect authority per se. I respect people and ideas that deserve my respect. Whether or not I follow the advice, instructions, or orders of someone in a particular position has exactly nothing to do with respect.
As for your last paragraph, we are essentially in agreement.
I think we are in danger of arguing over words here. Your use of courteous is v. similar to my use of respect. My use of accountability is close to yours of challenge.
I suppose the different language could imply different default positions – as where an anarchist might challenge authority by default unless it can be shown to be acting reasonably in a particular instance – whereas my language would tend to imply that the burden of proof of reasonableness falls on those who choose to disobey democratically constituted authority in a particular instance.
In the case of the fireman, I did not imply that the building was on fire and thus obviously unsafe even to an inexpert eye, but rather that in his professional opinion the building/situation was unsafe – as in an instance where he might consider he had discovered a structural flaw or presence of a dangerous substance.
The question of authority therefore arises out of the expertise presumed to attach to his “office” – even though he might not have shown his qualifications or demonstrated his competence – and even though it might turn out that he was wrong in a particular instance.
Thus the question of respect for authority can arise out of unequal access to information or expertise or a democratic mandate to make certain decisions our your behalf – we are not all equally entitled to make judgements on the safety of a building – and a fireman is therefore entitled to have his decisions respected by laymen – as a teacher is entitled to have their decisions respect by children “by virtue of their office” and presumed competence.
I can’t image a classroom or a potential dangerous building evacuation will function very smoothly or efficiently if the students/residents all challenge every decision of the fireman/teacher as a matter of default. That does not of course preclude seeking evidence/reasons as to why certain decisions have been made and seeking independent review afterwards if those reasons/evidence appear wrong.
Respect and courtesy are by definition two entirely different things. It is quite common, and at times necessary, to show courtesy toward those toward whom one has no respect, or even feels contempt. It also happens that one can be discourteous from time to time toward someone one respects a great deal. Observing social niceties, and behaving in an effective or expedient manner – that is, doing what is necessary to accomplish a goal – can be and often are completely disconnected from respect.
In addition to mixing up definitions you are making a very weak argument by arguing extreme cases. This is not a matter of anarchy versus democracy or some such, this is a matter of people thinking for themselves, and not blindly accepting something simply because it comes from The Office of the President of the United States, or some other institution we are all supposed to respect.
Yes, I encourage children to question authority, including mine, as a matter of default (I also encourage them to learn to pick their battles, and the time and manner in which they fight them). That is not about anarchy, it is about using one’s own judgment and reasoning ability instead of following someone blindly like a sheep simply because they hold a particular position. Blind acceptance of the authority of an institution, let alone respect for an institution, is, in fact, antithetical to democracy in my view. With democracy comes enormous responsibility to think for oneself and not go along “out of respect for the office”. On the contrary, blind respect for offices and institutions is what monarchies and dictatorships demand.
Offices do not have expertise, people do, and I never assume any level of expertise on the part of anyone simply because they hold a particular position, or are part of a particular institution – to do so is just plain foolish, and can be downright dangerous. No one is entitled to a presumption of competence simply because they hold a particular title. That should be clear based on the obvious and often widespread incompetence we see around us every day, frequently in people holding very high positions.
If I am advised by a fireman to leave a building because he says it is dangerous I am more likely than not to leave it, not because I have any respect for the office of fireman, or make any presumptions about his expertise based on his title, but because it is rational under the circumstances to err in the direction of caution. If he is wrong, then leaving the building will not harm me, and if he is right, not leaving the building might very well result in my injury or death. I DO make a presumption that he is more likely than not to have some reasonable basis for believing that remaining in the building is dangerous, but that does not constitute respect for the office of fireman, it is merely a reasonable assumption based on realistic criteria.
In a democracy no one is automatically entitled to have their decisions respected, or even obeyed “by virtue of their office”. Questioning authority is one of the citizens’ responsibilities in a democracy.
If everybody were to behave as reasonably and as rationally as you appear to do, then I would have no problem. The problems arise because lots of people behave irrationally or stupidly – even when there is no outright criminal or uncivil intent – and societies have evolved mechanisms for dealing with situations where such actions post a risk of harm to others. A prime such mechanism is the concept of authority.
And yes, it is also possible for those in authority to act irrationally and stupidly and criminally which is why accountability mechanisms are also built in by more advanced/democratic societies. But the notion that an advanced, populous, differentiated, society can function without mechanisms for ordering individual behaviour is one that is only held by extreme libertarians, usually of the right, often from very privileged backgrounds, and with an extremely individualistic philosophy which has little time for concepts of the common good, or even of society.
It was Margaret Thatcher who claimed that “there is no such thing as society”, and who proceeded to do everything she could to destroy it. In my view that is also the philosophic underpinning of the private wealth and public squalor so characteristic of US society and why private interests trump the common good every time. I know none of that is your intention, but you have more in common with the estreme libertarian right than you may realise.
PS BTW I didn’t use the term “anarchism” in the usual popular pejorative sense. There is a respectable intellectual underpinning for the philosophy which I respect but do not quiet agree with.
The crux of your argument is that democracy demands blind, unquestioning obedience to government institutions. You’ve got it exactly backward. It is exactly that kind of blind “respect” for authority based on institutions that cultists and dictatorships demand and depend upon. It is, in fact, exactly what makes people like Rush Limbaugh successful.
I’m afraid you have absolutely misunderstood my argument – and much of sociology – if you think that.
You think that for a democracy to function it is necessary for people to have respect for the authority of offices and institutions. This amounts to making blind assumptions that the president, or the governor, or the fireman, or the teacher, or the police officer knows best because they bear those titles. That reminds me, among other things, of one of the most common arguments for not opposing Bush’s aggression against Iraq, namely that surely the President knows tihngs that “we” don’t know. Had fewer people made that assumption of expertise and authority based on title, it is very likely that a million or so Iraqi lives would have been spared, 5-6 million or so internally and externally displaced Iraqis would still be in their homes, thousands of American lives and limbs would have been spared, and hundreds of billions of dollars would have been used for something other than raining death, destruction, torture, and misery on the country of Iraq.
Citizens of a democracy have an absolute responsibility to question authority, to inform themselves, and to use their own reason and judgment. One of the principle causes of the huge problems the United States creates for itself, and causes throughout the world is a compacent citizenry that substitutes “respect for the office” for independent thought.
PS What you are suggesting is a quasi-authoritarian model for democracy of the “because I am the father” sort. This is precisely one of the attitudes that allowed this country to get into so much trouble, and cause such catastrophe in the rest of the world under the Bush regime. It is also the model that has, over the centuries, allowed organized religion to wreak such havoc throughout the world, not to mention holding women down – “because I am the priest/rabbi/preacher/imam and I say God commands it”. This model has contributed to a significant extent to the ascent of militant Islam among certain segments of Muslims, despite the fact that one of the important principals of Islam is constant questioning and inquiry.
What I am suggesting is that institutions, no matter how well-conceived, are not intrinsically entitled to respect. An institution and the decisions made within it are only as effective, ethical, rational – and deserving of respect – as the human beings who inhabit and run it. In a democracy the people have a responsibility not to sit back and accept without question judgements and decisions that come out of government and social institutions. As I said, I encourage children to question my authority and to challenge me if my decisions, instructions, and advice if it does not make sense to them. I have not found that this causes anything like chaos or anarchy. Knowing my thinking might be questioned DOES keep me more honest, though, and forces me to think things through ahead of time.
Before Rush decides to ignore Ebert and his call for a horsewhipping, he should see Ebert’s magnum opus in film, Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, and maybe thanks his lucky stars that Ebert wants only to have him horsewhipped.
There is a scene in A Clockwork Orange in which the antihero is forced to watch a movie….
Roger Ebert, Boo. Roger.
Limbaugh does make it clear that Obama made a mistake in involving the evil clown Bush in anything at all. If Obama thought that was going to mitigate the hate from the right he should now realize he was just dreaming. The only thing that civilizes that crowd is jail time.
thx, fixed.
.
Should be A Letter to Rush Limbaugh
I thought adding W was brilliant move. Makes me remember what that clown W is responsible for most of the mess we have today. Brining W in from Dallas was kinda of “Mission Accomplished” moment for me to remember 8 years of Totalitarian Republican Rule.
Horsewhipping is too good for him.
The problem is not Limbaugh, but the millions who seize on his every word.
They are not mutually exclusive.
I would say the millions on BOTH sides who take that buffoon seriously.
would you have said the same about Hitler?
Isn’t equating Rush Limbaugh with Hitler just a tad hysterical?
Goebbels is perhaps the more accurate historical parallel, but I am more concerned with those interests these characters serve.
And I repeat my question – would you equate those who opposed Hitler/Goebbels with those who supported them on the grounds that Hitler Goebbels should not have been taken seriously? The Nazi concept of ” the master race” and the American exceptionalism practised by the extreme right are in my view similar phenomena and we do not yet know how far the US extreme right will take us down the road to world war.
So you may call my question premature, perhaps, but hardly hysterical.
If no one takes people like that seriously, then they have little or no impact. If people in Germany had not taken Goebbels seriously, what effect would his lies have had? If people in Germany had not taken Hitler seriously, he would never have gained the power he did. If millions of Americans did not take Rush Limbaugh seriously, he would, at best, be reduced to ranting to a small audience of wack jobs on some obscure radio station somewhere. The problem is that millions of people DO take Rush Limbaugh and his ilk seriously. It makes me despair over the mentality of the people of the United States.
Roger Ebert is anything but mild-mannered (of course, writing this will prove that it is sarcasm that I didn’t detect), especially if you follow him on Twitter.
Agreed.
Ebert is opionated, clever and incisive. I like him and have a great deal of sympathy for what he has suffered physically.
This all might benefit the left, in the medium term. When Roosevelt was elected and started providing relief and jobs to rescue society from the Great Depression, the right went so over the top that they continued to alienate their natural base, who had lost complete faith in them.
I can’t help but wonder if reasonable people on the right will start to tune Limbaugh out, finally, because of this behavior.
Or am I dreaming, sigh.
I don’t mean to be mean, but you and Obama seem to share the same fixed idea: that there’s such a thing as “reasonable people on the right”. Those days are long gone, and barely ever existed.
Well without getting into what is reasonable and what is not – where reasonable people can differ – see my comments above – there is the issue of whose interests people like Limbaugh serve. If you accept that Limbaugh is a tool for the wealthy then that works only for so long as poor wingnuts don’t get the picture. He has to keep fooling them to be effective. So unless you are wrinting off 30-40% of the US people as hopeless stupid, irrational and/or brainwashed with no possibility of realising that there best interests lie elsewhere, you have to accept that Lisa’s hopes are not entirely unfounded.
That’s a gimme put…
OK – I concede
As sad as that video was it was also hysterical.