Rush Limbaugh and the Race Hustle
By Jonathan Bean on Oct 20, 2009 in American History, Civil Liberties, Education, Integrity, Media, Personal Liberty, Racism, corruption
In a recent op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, Rush Limbaugh defends his record (“I am not a racist”) and further points out the double standard allowing left-liberals off the hook for statements that are clearly racist.
Limbaugh’s defense highlights several problems for libertarians and conservatives:
First, playing defense 24/7 is no way to move forward. It places libertarians and conservatives in the untenable position of answering “when did you stop being a racist?” Repeated denials inspire the race hustlers to keep asking the same question. To Rush Limbaugh: You wanted to purchase a football team that played both offense and defense. There is a lesson here.
Second, the Left dominance of higher education really does matter. Conservatives and classic liberals are in a state of denial about the insidious influence K-16 education has on the professions that shape public opinion: schools of journalism, education, law, social work are monoliths of the Left. Add the power of left-wing accreditation bodies and you have “the sound of one hand clapping”—the left hand, of course.
Above all, there is the problem of ignorance and miseducation of our youth. Yes, surveys may show that graduates retain some of the values they had prior to entering college. Yet they are not educated well enough to refute left-wing attacks.
Let me give you an example: Since 1995, I have advised College Republicans and Campus Libertarians. The knowledge base of libertarian and conservative students has seriously eroded. If I ask “why are you a libertarian? Why are you a conservative?” The answer is superficial: “because I am not a liberal.”
These students may retain a vague belief in individual freedom, nondiscrimination, limited government and meritocracy but they fail to argue effectively against the Left. Why? Because they have never been exposed to information subverting the smug assumption that Leftists have always have been “the angels of history.” Conservatives and libertarians are (and always have been) the villains, according to this fairy tale.
That brings me to my book Race and Liberty in America: The Essential Reader (2009). This reader debunks the crazy notion that belief in individual freedom, capitalism, and colorblind law = racism. The book highlights how Frederick Douglass, Branch Rickey, Zora Neale Hurston, Clarence Thomas and others consistently championed the bedrock belief that all discrimination is wrong—and they embraced a philosophy of limited government. They experienced first-hand how the State acts as sponsor of discrimination.
Back to the football analogy. Here is the offense: those “angels of history” on the Left—labor unions, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and LBJ—committed some of the worst racist actions in our history. The Left ignores (or “contextualizes”) Wilson’s segregation of the federal government, LBJ’s declaration that an anti-lynching bill was worse than lynching itself, or FDR’s defense of quotas to keep Jews from overwhelming Harvard (where he sat on the Board of Trustees). FDR also wrote that interracial “mingling” (marriage) produced “horrific results.” As president, FDR blocked Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany and interned Japanese Americans during World War II. Not surprising.
It is time for so-called liberals to give up the race hustle and learn their history. In so doing, they may discover some heroes of the classic liberal sort—neither Left nor Right—but committed to racial freedom and equality.
Do you think the object is to keep people ignorant? John Taylor Gatto (and others) have argued this extensively. I personally find very few people, until they meet me anyway, who have ever heard of the modern classical liberal thinkers I most admire like Hayek and Mises and even if they have heard of historical figures like Jefferson and Madison, they’ve rarely read them. If the object is to shape them the way you desire, why would you want them educated in the intellectual history of classical liberal ideas?
To really make you feel bad visit ISI’s site and read the results of their annual civics exams given to Freshmen and Seniors at some of our premiere universities.
RickC | Oct 20, 2009 | Reply
“Do you think the object is to keep people ignorant?”
That is a tangential effect of indoctrination—by nature the presentation and repetition of one viewpoint. The Left is actually quite clear on this point and has written service learning, diversity accomplishments, social justice, socialist “sustainability” into its college requirements—for both students and staff. BTW, you don’t know how often I have heard a really bright student see a book on my shelf and say “oh, that book is supposed to be awful (as in evil), we were told to avoid it.” Case in point: Students are routinely assigned Edward Said but not Bernard Lewis. Marx but not Hayek (or even Smith). Foucault but none of his critics. It is quite deliberate because the Left believes “WE ARE the opposing viewpoint to a bigoted right-wing society.” With that excuse, they forgive all their sins (not that they believe in sin).
Jonathan Bean | Oct 20, 2009 | Reply
Hi Jonathan,
I personally experienced what you descibe above as an undergraduate in anthropology /sociology in the mid-90s. Both these disciplines lean heavily to the left and came off, to me anyway, as lightweight stuff. My senior level theory course required only one reader; a collection of works by a who’s who of leftist theorists from Comte to Marx to Foulcault and many other Po-Mo theorists. Not one alternative voice was included in that book to counter or provide balance to the class, nor were any presented in class. It wasn’t education by any stretch.
I still have the book. I drag it out when someone doubts how one-sided the information their young adults are getting in college every day.
RickC | Oct 20, 2009 | Reply
I’ll have to look that book up.
Tracy
Tracy Saboe | Oct 20, 2009 | Reply
I see what you guys are saying. Its probably atrocious in the Humanities, but I graduated with an engineering degree from a fairly liberal school (Univ at Buffalo) and our curriculum included a course on entrepreneurship, our profs sometimes showcased graduates who had established their own businesses and made money. Besides, being in engineering ,we always encounter lots of technology and innovation and hence are a separate bunch from the supposedly miserable Humanities people. Perhaps thats why I did not notice the above.
Tushar | Oct 21, 2009 | Reply
I wish Rush would shut up. He is a GOP hack. I listen to him to keep an ear to what is going on in GOP nuttyville. He blames democrats and Obama for everything. He likes to pretend that the Bush years were great and never talks about how the prosperity of the past decade for the middle class was a fraud sold to us by repubs and dems. He is a statist and is not helpful in the cause for liberty. The worst are the roobs on the left that think if you oppose Obama then you have to be a Rush fan. There is no room for honest discourse or descent because of people like Rush and Glenn Beck cloud the counter arguments. They don’t care because they have enriched themselves by playing the lead role in an anti-gov’t TEA party movement that is based in fear of Obama and democrats and is not rooted in morality, logic, and justice. There a lot of good reason to oppose the state (from Locke to Rothbard), but “Obama bad” is not one.
Wes Dillard | Oct 22, 2009 | Reply
Hi, Wes,
I think Rush Limbaugh is the greatest communicator of my generation. Do I think he’s right about everything? No. Do I wish he was more anti-war and less reflexively prone to see preemptive war as the way to make the world better? Absolutely.
But, I believe he’s coming around. He is, decidedly, not a GOP hack; in fact, the Neocons who run the Republican Party are trying to write him out of it, as recent comments from ‘moderate’ Republicans have shown.
He is much more open to Libertarian positions than he has ever been. His views can be changed, as mine were, by persuasion, not vilification. I pray that Libertarians could have such a clever and forceful spokesman. We should encourage such talents to see the logic of our side. Much as I like Ron Paul, and many other Libertarians, they don’t have the ability to reach an audience with passion and humor in the way that Rush does.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I would listen to him a lot more before I pronounced him a hopeless Republican shill.
Antonio | Oct 27, 2009 | Reply