FAYETTEVILLE — Unless you have been engaged in a prolongedsnooze, you are aware that the monologues and dialogues on public affairs have been increasingly marked byunsubstantiated blather, unwarranted accusations, misleading claims and a general tendency to attribute the worst possible motives to opponents - not to mention gross hypocrisy.
In other words, trash talking has become common in the public arena.
It’s certainly true that there have been examples of such behavior throughout much of our history. But incivility has become characteristic of this era, permeating political campaigns and fueling radio and television commentary.
President Obama has been a target of considerable criticism, as any president is bound to be, although the attacks have included some especially malicious, mendacious and bizarre claims.
Asked about this recently, former President George H. W. Bush said that while he thinks some of the criticism of President Obama “crosses the line of civility,” it isn’t any worse than what his son suffered from liberal commentators and critics. “They just hammered him mercilessly - and I think obscenely - a lot of the time.”
The elder Bush has a reputation as one of the more civil of our prominent public figures. Despite that deservedreputation, it is worth recalling that it was the 1988 presidential campaign, Bush vs. the hapless Michael Dukakis, that took attack politics to a new low. Much of this was the handiwork of Bush campaign consultant Lee Atwater, who specialized not just in hardball politics, but in the politics of division. Atwater worked alongside Roger Ailes, who later became the head of Fox News. And although the ‘88 campaign stands out as the epitome of gutter politics, negative and misleading ads and commentary have become embedded in our political culture.
Trash talking became standard fare among some radio and television talking heads and eventually among certain bloggers and cyber communicators.
A foremost practitioner of this art is Rush Limbaugh. He is by no means the only one who engages in verbal assaults. There’s an abundant amount of inanity out there, by no means confined to conservative voices such as Limbaugh or to Fox News, which some officials in the Obama administration have decided not to treat as a legitimate news organization. While there’s no doubt that Fox News, and particularly some of its commentators, have a decided political slant, even some strong Obama supporters question whether shunning Fox is a wise or appropriate move.
Limbaugh regularly trashes those with whom he disagrees, can’t tolerate moderates, and consistently refers to the Democratic Party as the “Democrat Party,” presumably because he doesn’t think it is really democratic.
He has every right to say what he wants. And he has a large and loyal following. However, the talkmeister recently was at the center of a controversy that demonstrated that his comments can have consequences not to his liking.
A longtime NFL fan (though he would call himself an expert rather than just a fan), he had joined with a group seeking to purchase the bedraggled St. Louis Rams franchise. When Limbaugh’s name surfaced as a member of the potential ownership group, he was quickly sacked. Limbaugh faced a blitz from a number of quarters, including some NFL owners, such as Jim Irsay of the Indianapolis Colts, who referred to comments by Limbaugh that are“inappropriate, incendiary, insensitive,” and from Commissioner Roger Goodell, who said polarizing comments by Limbaugh were “divisive” and a negative forthe NFL.
Particularly strong opposition to Limbaugh came from DeMaurice Smith, chief of the NFL Players Association, and some African American players who believe that Limbaugh has regularly demeaned African Americans, including President Obama.
Limbaugh denied the accuracy of some of the quotes that were cited by those opposing him. But there is no doubt that he regularly engages in highly partisan, highly opinionated, highly divisive commentaries and has regularly lambasted those who do not share his views.
In a brief stint on ESPN in 2003, Limbaugh said Philadelphia Eagles stirred controversy when he said quarterback Donovan McNabb was overrated because the media wanted to see a black quarterback do well.
Limbaugh blames his failed ownership effort on criticism “from the likes of Al Sharpton,” also mentioning Jesse Jackson, sports journalist Michael Wilbon, and the NFL players’ union “boss.” He said it was all part of an “ongoing effort by the left in this country to destroy conservatism.”
In Limbaugh’s view, the circumstances that led to his being dropped from the group bidding for the Rams’ franchise constitute “a cancer on our society.” He sees himself as a victim not just of a conspiracy, but of “blind hatred.”
But Limbaugh’s problems derive directly from his daily delivery of overthe-top verbal attacks. They may be popular with his regular listeners and he obviously does well financially. However, many see this episode as Limbaugh reaping what he has sown.
Limbaugh has every right to engage in whatever business operations for which he has the financial resources. Ironically, however, it was the marketplace that did him in, even though current NFL owners tend to the conservative side themselves. They gave much more to Republican candidates for federal office in the 2008 election cycle than to Democrats, according to Congressional Quarterly. But they see it in the best business interests of the NFL to steer clear of the bombastic Limbaugh.
Another ironic aspect of this episode is that the NFL can be considered a successful example of socialism, a concept which Limbaugh views in apocalyptic terms. As Kevin Horrigan of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch wrote, “The NFL is the most successful socialist endeavor in the history of the world. More than half of its revenue comes from television and is apportioned equally among its 32 teams.”
In this country Limbaugh is, of course, free to compete in the marketplace of ideas. And he does so very successfully with a niche audience. But his trashtalking tirades don’t go over so well withthe broader public.
In his angry retort upon learning that he might be asked by St. Louis sports mogul Dave Checketts to withdraw from the ownership bid, Limbaugh modestly said, “This is about the future of the United States of America and what kind of country we’re going to have.”
I hope he’s right.
Hoyt Purvis is a journalism and international relations professor and served as press secretary to U.S. Sen. J. William Fulbright, foreign/defense policy adviser to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd, and as chairman of the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board. His column appears on Sundays.
Opinion, Pages 5 on 10/25/2009