Skip to comments.
Sobran Examines "Limbaugh the Lawbreaker"
Joseph Sobran column ^
| 10-14-03
| Sobran, Joseph
Posted on 10/30/2003 6:45:11 AM PST by Theodore R.
Limbaugh the Lawbreaker
October 14, 2003
Doesnt anyone have mixed feelings about Rush Limbaugh?
His announcement that he has a drug addiction, and will spend a month in rehab, has brought forth two reactions: unalloyed sympathy from those who share his views, and fierce condemnation from those who dont.
The former, the general conservative response to the news, I can at least understand. But the other doesnt make much sense. It generally runs like this: Limbaugh is so judgmental about other people, it serves him right. Maybe this experience will teach him a little tolerance.
Say what? I disagree with Limbaugh about a lot of things, agree with him on others, but how is he intolerant? Hes a combative conservative, of sorts, but that doesnt mean hes intolerant, except in the minds of those ever-so-tolerant liberals who are certain that those who disagree with them must be bigots. He likes the give-and-take of a good argument.
As G.K. Chesterton remarked, A man should read the arguments of his opponents as eagerly as a spy reads the battle plans of the enemy. And as a rule, this is what Limbaugh does.
But its startling how he polarizes the public. It should be possible for people to take slightly more complicated positions about his current woes. For instance, an occasional conservative might say, I usually agree with Rushs positions, but they should throw the book at him for his illegal drug purchases. Or a liberal might say, I cant stand the guy, but his personal drug use is none of the publics, or the governments, business.
Over the years I havent heard Limbaugh say anything that now makes him seem hypocritical. In the last few days Ive read that, years ago, he supported the Federal war on drugs (yeah, were winning that one too), and that, more recently, he has softened his tone, maybe because of his own drug consumption.
But what does it really matter? This is so marginal to his work. He hasnt been a prominent enemy of drug abuse. Hes no different from a comedian who turns out to have a problem with booze. Too bad, but on with the show!
But in one respect, Limbaughs enemies remind me of the single thing that irritates me about the man himself. That is, they conflate things that are essentially unrelated.
This is what Limbaugh sometimes does. During the long buildup for the war on Iraq, which he ardently favored, Rush used a very broad brush against opponents of the war. Time and again he said they were liberal Democrats who had never accepted George W. Bushs legitimacy as the winner of the 2000 presidential election. He reduced a great issue to a mere partisan squabble.
The real question was whether the opponents of the war were right. It had nothing to do with their motives; and, in fact, they had many motives, some of which werent partisan at all. I was one of many who opposed the war, even though Id been hugely relieved when Al Gore lost in 2000 (even if not exactly overjoyed that Bush won).
Limbaugh, all too characteristically, left no room for the principled dissenter on the war. He ignored conservatives and libertarians who opposed it for their own reasons. Hed hardly admit the possibility that a liberal might have good reasons for opposing it. All opponents of the war were conflated with Ted Kennedy and Tom Daschle.
In short, Limbaughs arguments can be as cynical and simplistic as those of the people who are blasting him today. Thats what happens when your only explanation for your opponents views is their sheer villainy. Accusations arent arguments, especially loose and unfocused accusations.
In that sense, I too hope this experience will teach Limbaugh a lesson. But I wish him well. I also like a good argument, and I want him to emerge an even better debater, not a ruined has-been.
In any case, it appears that Limbaugh is a lawbreaker; but if so, he has broken laws that should never have been passed. Still, some people hate him so much that they hope hell be destroyed, even if it takes bad laws to do the job.
Thats the kind of hatred weve learned to expect from those who consider themselves the Forces of Tolerance.
Joseph Sobran
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: bush; chesterton; conservatives; daschle; drugs; emk; gore; iraq; liberals; limbaugh; tolerance; wodlist
To: Theodore R.
I'm deeply saddened.
To: Theodore R.
In short, Limbaughs arguments can be as cynical and simplistic as those of the people who are blasting him today. Thats what happens when your only explanation for your opponents views is their sheer villainy. But sometimes that is the right explanation. Even thieves who somehow think they are doing the right thing are, nevertheless, thieves.
To: Theodore R.
There was NO principled defense of the Saddam Hussein regime. NONE AT ALL!
4
posted on
10/30/2003 7:32:19 AM PST
by
OldFriend
(DEMS INHABIT A PARALLEL UNIVERSE)
To: Theodore R.
I am eager to have Rush back behind his golden microphone, but when he returns he needs to do some things to restore full confidence in his leadership. I doubt that he will face any legal sanctions - users not found by the police in actual posession of illegal drugs or drug paraphenalia almost never do. And he is not accused of dealing drugs on any scale, that such charges would be pursued.
But in my experience with drug users, the major issue in rehabilitation is trust, and their need to reestablish it. I think Rush will need to put himself "on probation" with his audience, and submit to a random drug test program administered by a neutral agency and reported publicly. It would be intrusive, but it would free him from suspicion and innuendo by his enemies, as well as any temptation to regress.
Drug abuse and credibility cannot coexist, and he will need to establish which side of the line between them he is on. I have to say that if he had not taken the action he did, I would have stopped listening to him. Now I hope to hear him back where he belongs, soon.
To: Theodore R.
Maybe this experience will teach him a little tolerance.Recovery is based on humility, not tolerance. Can Rush accept his defeat with humility??????
6
posted on
10/30/2003 8:11:10 AM PST
by
raybbr
To: Theodore R.; jmc813; *Wod_list
In any case, it appears that Limbaugh is a lawbreaker; but if so, he has broken laws that should never have been passed. WOD bump
7
posted on
10/30/2003 8:24:57 AM PST
by
bassmaner
(Let's give the word "Nazi" back to the commies!!)
To: Wolfie; vin-one; WindMinstrel; philman_36; Beach_Babe; jenny65; AUgrad; Xenalyte; Bill D. Berger; ..
WOD Ping
8
posted on
10/30/2003 8:37:39 AM PST
by
jmc813
(Michael Schiavo is a bigger scumbag than Bill Clinton)
To: ModelBreaker
FREE RUSH!
9
posted on
10/30/2003 8:44:23 AM PST
by
PaxMacian
To: bassmaner
I wouldn't have guessed this of Sobran.
http://www.sobran.com/columns/021010.shtml Drugs and the Law
October 10, 2002
Shortly before the 1991 Gulf War, the United States fought another brief undeclared war on Panama. The purpose was to overthrow Manuel Noriega, the menacing Saddam Hussein of his day. He was a truly depraved dictator, we were told, who wore red underwear and smuggled drugs. By removing him from power the United States was going to deal the international drug trade a lethal blow, just as (were now assured) its going to smash international terrorism by deposing Saddam Hussein.
Today Noriega is living in a Florida prison, but the drug trade is still thriving. And the War on Drugs, declared by the first President Bush, continues. Does anyone care to draw lessons?
Sheldon Richman does. Writing in Freedom Daily, the monthly of The Future of Freedom Foundation, Richman points out that the War on Drugs has been an utter failure, doing far more harm than good. Today, he writes, [illegal] drugs are more plentiful, more potent, and cheaper than ever.... The authorities cant even keep drugs out of prisons which fact alone should end all argument. For all we know, Noriega may be enjoying them in his cell right now.
If you doubt that man learns from history, consider the obvious parallel: Prohibition. The attempt to rid America of alcoholic beverages was another moralistic crusade that backfired. It was chiefly a boon to organized crime. When booze was outlawed, only Al Capone and Joe Kennedy could sell booze. They, and men like them, controlled the huge illegal market Prohibition created. And Prohibition was finally repealed. In the War on Alcohol, the government finally had the good sense to admit defeat and surrender.
The government seems determined never to do this again. Taking on impossible tasks and fighting unwinnable wars give it a mandate for limitless power. It sees an illegal market as an opportunity, even if victory is forever elusive.
Arresting one drug dealer doesnt deter others or at least not enough of them. The illegal drug market simply replaces them with hardier entrepreneurs who are attracted by ever-growing profits and are willing to take the risks of operating outside the law.
Richman explains how it works with an incisiveness that can hardly be improved on:
There is one key difference between a legal and an illegal market. In the latter a premium is placed on skill at employing violence. In a black market, normal security and dispute-resolution procedures are unavailable. So justice is procured more directly. This offers an advantage to people proficient in the use of physical force. The drug trade is violent not because of drugs, but because of the war on drugs. If drugs are outlawed, only outlaws will sell drugs. And outlaws tend to be not only skilled but also uninhibited in the use of force.
Richman also points to another difference between Prohibition and the War on Drugs. Advocates of Prohibition realized that the Federal Government had no constitutional power to ban alcohol; so they amended the Constitution, adding the Eighteenth Amendment. But the Federal Government also has no power to ban other drugs. This time, however, nobody has bothered to amend the Constitution. The government has simply gone ahead and assumed that is, usurped the necessary power, in simple contempt of the Constitution. It has done the same with firearms, ignoring the Second Amendment.
Ironically, as Richman notes, the War on Drugs itself has made crimes with firearms a far more serious problem than they ever were before. Conservatives who hate gun control dont make this connection, and they usually support the War on Drugs while trying to resist the pressure for gun control to which it inevitably gives rise.
There is a lingering notion that legalizing drugs would signify official approval of them. This doesnt follow. It would merely mean that every individual would have to take responsibility for his own conduct with drugs, as he does with alcohol. Would this mean an increase in drug use and addiction? Probably, though only a marginal one. No doubt the repeal of Prohibition resulted in a marginal increase in alcoholism.
But just as repealing Prohibition was a blow to organized crime, legalizing drugs would mean a sharp decrease in violent street crime. And also a reduction of tyranny. The War on Drugs itself has aggravated the problem of lawless government.
10
posted on
10/30/2003 8:50:02 AM PST
by
MrLeRoy
(The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. - Jefferson)
To: Born Conservative
ping
11
posted on
10/30/2003 8:51:30 AM PST
by
Pan_Yans Wife
(You may forget the one with whom you have laughed, but never the one with whom you have wept.)
To: MainFrame65
"But in my experience with drug users, the major issue in rehabilitation is trust, and their need to reestablish it. I think Rush will need to put himself "on probation" with his audience, and submit to a random drug test program administered by a neutral agency and reported publicly. It would be intrusive, but it would free him from suspicion and innuendo by his enemies, as well as any temptation to regress."
How do you really expect Rush to do this?
According to his brother David, without the medication, Rush could hardly get out of bed in the morning due to the pain, much less do his show, play golf, and carry on a normal life.
This is not someone who either got hooked on pain killers recreationally, or during a short period of after surgery pain.
If he is not on pain medication of some kind, he may be bedridden.
Is that what you're asking Rush to do?
To: b4its2late; Recovering_Democrat; Alissa; Pan_Yans Wife; LADY J; mathluv; browardchad; cardinal4; ...
13
posted on
10/30/2003 9:20:02 AM PST
by
Born Conservative
("Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names" - John F. Kennedy)
To: chaosagent
"... Is that what you're asking Rush to do? ..."
In a word, no. But he does have some alternatives for pain relief, including newer and better surgery, electrical pain suppression devices (look up TENS) and non-narcotic, non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) in the class of ibuprofen, naproxen, and even aspirin. I think Vioxx is one of the newest of these, and it is far too strong for me to use.
One other option is training and conditioning to raise his tolerance for pain, perhaps combined with any of the therapies mentioned above. This can be surprisingly effective over time.
And finally, if narcotic drugs are the only effective way to bring him back on line, he needs to acknowledge that, and take steps to guarantee that he does not exceed appropriate dosages. My son takes a drug that requires periodic tests to determine that the drug concentration in his blood remains in the therapeutic range. I think that Rush could pay that price for his credibility.
To: MainFrame65
Again, according to his brother David, Rush has tried just about everything available. I mean, why wouldn't he have.
Who but Rush can really determine what the correct "therapeutic range" for him is. Different people have different pain responses.
It seems obvious to me that the dosage that Rush was using was what it took for him to function. The details of his life don't sound like someone going though life high on pain killers. He did his 3 hour radio show 5 days a week, played golf almost every day, and traveled around the country playing in celebrity golf tournaments.
We have no reports of Rush staggering around, zoned out on drugs. Doesn't sound like a man overdosing to me.
Take look at this link for another view on the subject.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1010971/posts Rush's real problem was that doctors in many cases are afraid to prescribe necessary amounts of painkillers due to the fallout of the WOD, with many doctors being persecuted by the government.
To: All
16
posted on
10/30/2003 7:14:06 PM PST
by
Bob J
(www.freerepublic.net www.radiofreerepublic.com...check them out!)
To: chaosagent
I hope it all works out well, I really do. I think we can already sense a little less coherence in conservative America due to his absence, and I think that we still have too much to accomplish to waver.
But Rush admitted to an addiction. He WAS overusing these drugs, evidently in far larger than therapeutic amounts, and obtaining large quantities of them illegally. This has to stop and never happen again. And more, because of his public position, I think he needs to establish his "cure" publicly.
If he has no therapeutic alternative to narcotics, then he needs to keep it under control instead of using ever- increasing amounts. He already knows that he is susceptible to addiction, and that he was unable to break the habit on his own. He needs to take that lesson to heart.
To: OldFriend
No one defended the Saddam regime.
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson