Rush Limbaugh (1951–2021)

Gaseous windbag speaks.

I give it 4 stars because it honestly represents Limbaugh at that time. He's 27 years ahead of Donald Trump. So, it kind of reminds me of where I was back then. It's hard for me to believe it now but I was a
full fledged Ditto Head back then. Ditto Head is the modern version of a Trump follower. Rush fans proudly said Ditto to everything is he said and called ourselves dittoheads. Reading this gaseous blowhard now it's hard for me to believe I ever fell for it. He show more basically calls for an end to Medicare (at least he's honest, not like the current Repubs.) And feels the poor should be proud to oppose taxes on their betters. After all they get the crumbs from the rich cooperate folks table. He also opposed healthcare assistance because he paid for his doctors out of his own pocket. Talk about clueless and cold hearted. Rush was a better spoken more well read version of Donald Trump. You might not have agreed with him although I did back then. But, you would never have called him stupid or inarticulate like some call Trump. show less

This book was written during President Clinton's first term. It is propaganda for sheep, for bored "ditto-head" men who want to be told that "liberal" is the only evil on the planet of America. It is hard to find any "message" here other than to despise those he declares to be not "normal". Although, this evil does appear to be everyone except his own self, the all-knowing "Rush!". His enemy list -- women, liberals, animal-lovers and those who enjoy public resources -- is filled with "straw show more man" descriptors. I am a liberal, but I know of no liberal who wants to raise taxes and increase government in the absence of extreme need.

Curiously, the book contains a very helpful and accurate Index. You can look up "trickle down economics" and find out that it is a term used by liberals as part of the class war against the wealthy. [53, 60] In fact, however, there is no evidence of a war against the downtrodden rich. Those of us with memories can recall that the phrase was part of President Reagan's effort to explain why he was cutting tax rates to the most wealthy while at the same time raising tax rates on the middle class. [The assumption is that only the wealthy are the "entrepreneurs" who should be relieved of the burdens of paying taxes 117-119]. The only revenue increase which appeared was due to the heavier burden laid upon the middle class.

I did find one reference to a professional historian, Walter Karp. 75] Limbaugh fails to mention that Karp is a very Progressive liberal who is highly critical of the power of private oligarchs and monopolists who have wreaked havoc on middle class prosperity.

Limbaugh also cites data from a libertarian economist who has since become openly Keynesian, Milton Friedman. Friedman is cited for well-known data: "in 1950, total government spending, federal, state, and local, amounted to less than 30 percent of national income; in 1992, to nearly 45 [percent]." [267] However, Mr. Limbaugh offers no explanation for the fact that most of the expansion of Government before 1992 occurred during Republican administrations. He completely omits the fact that President Reagan's policies dramatically expanded Government while at the same time dramatically expanding its Debt, converting this country from the world's biggest Creditor to the world's biggest Debtor in just 8 years. Yet, here is Limbaugh blaming Clinton, who had just begun an administration, which as we all know, ended with reduced Government growth and a budget surplus used to pay down the Debt. Limbaugh takes this type of fact and announces that "liberals never really get around to fixing problems". [268] The conclusions are disconnected from the facts.

The world, as it always has, faces many challenges. Limbaugh tirelessly recites the dangers we face -- often accurately, such as when he quotes Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan's "illuminating statistics" on the welfare, crime and illegitimacy trends in New York City. Where Limbaugh errs is in failing to offer any solutions -- his only remedy is to somehow expurgate all -- all -- the Democrats. Where Limbaugh errs to the point of criminality is in failing to note that Senator Moynihan had offered serious proposals and programs for addressing the issues, all of which were sabotaged and neutered by the wealthy oligarchs controlling private monopolies of power in New York City. The late Senator Moynihan was a liberal Democrat -- and Limbaugh cannot point to a single great Republican leader who offered a plan to remedy the serious challenges.

The book is not just a slam against the middle class, it is an over the top apology for "the rich -- the latest scapegoats for every evil in our society". [280] In the 1990's there were no rabid communist agitators organizing the masses against imagined capitalist overlords. Not happening. Yet, Limbaugh finds, without a single citation, that wealthy people have been wrongfully accused and are "scapegoats for every evil"? Really. There is no indication that the rich are endangered, or that they alone are blamed for all evil in the world. During the Carter and the Clinton administrations, the wealthy made historically unprecedented profits. Of course, it is true that under Bush II, the inequality of wealth grew wider and large corporations made unprecedented profits while the middle class, and the Government (all levels), was thrust deeper into massive Debt. In light of the massive economic collapse in the summer of 2008 as a result of 8 years of conservative policies, Limbaugh's ideological rant does not hold up.

Limbaugh describes David Brock's "The Real Anita Hill" as "One of the most important books written in 1992" [236]. Since that publication, Mr. Brock has described the book as a political hit piece, admitted it was not based upon facts, and has publicly and repeatedly apologized to Ms. Hills for his role. Brock ultimately showed integrity and prescience when he escaped in the late 90's from the ideology preached by Limbaugh.

The Limbaugh book is pure idolatry. Limbaugh has started a monotheistic religion -- one god, one worshiper, one hymn, one holy script. Each chapter demonizes a straw man opponent that does not really exist anywhere, but he calls it "liberal". Like extremists are wont, Limbaugh then announces the end of discussion; he cuts off all debate -- using identical language drawn from Der Sturm, he refuses to take part in any discussions with anyone. "We are no longer engaged in the Great Debate". He blames his fabricated opponent for the fact that discussion is impossible, although the entire book is devoted to creating that impossibility. [287].

Repeatedly, Limbaugh positions himself on the throne of greatness. The self-promotion would be amusing except that it is never very clever. The self-adulation would almost be understandable except that it is not based upon any actual accomplishment. Mr. Limbaugh goes directly from pompous claims of his own brilliance and sanctity down to the recesses of the sand-box for his one all-purpose tool and tactic indulged in this naked assault on liberalism. He does not rise above his own title -- which reveals his infantilism -- "I told you so!" . You can hear the "Not listening! Nyah! Nyah!" as a subtitle.

The basic tactic is name-calling. This is hardly brilliant. It is not even adult.

At the end of the diatribes, Limbaugh is unable to articulate the effectiveness of true conservativism. Conservative principles are as endangered in his hands as liberalism. Although he is financially supported by a few wealthy oligarchs, it is not clear from this openly fascist diatribe that he has even helped them -- the wealthy "scapegoats of all evil". In making all solutions impossible, he helps no one. show less

I must first admit I'm a ditto-head (Rush fan). But I also believe I can be objective about his work.

"Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims" is a fun read, written primarily for the middle school aged market. I believe that by and large, Rush's language, characters, and scenarios achieve success with this demographic. As a 43 year-old man, there were several historical things I'd either forgotten or never learned, the latter of which is why he wrote the book (and will continue writing Rush show more Revere tales) in the first place.

In the book, we meet Rush Revere, a history teacher who substitute teaches at a school in New Hampshire. He has a magical horse named Liberty who is able to time travel, among other things. Liberty is always hungry and is a pretty cute character--not so much as to be childish, though for middle schoolers. While Rush teaches the whole class about the pilgrims, he takes two kids, Tommy and Freedom, under his wing and they all take several additional trips back to the sailing of the Mayflower, the establishment of Plymouth Plantation, and the first Thanksgiving.

There is little to no politics in this book, just a strong emphasis on how difficult it was for these men and women seeking religious freedom. Something Rush often calls "American exceptionalism." The only real ideological topic covered is Communism, which isn't defined as such in the book. William Bradford's initial idea when establishing that first colony was to have no land ownership--everyone pitched in for the good of the whole. It didn't take long before he realized not everyone shared his enthusiasm and determination. Therefore, with Rush Revere's subtle suggestion, he decides to give each family a plot of land to do with as they chose. Commerce and a real work ethic flourished and prospered.

The first Thanksgiving is also visited by the characters, who see how the pilgrims and Indians came together to share knowledge and ideas and built a valuable friendship.

The book is beautifully put together, with full color historical illustrations as well as new ones featuring Rush and the other characters. There are also several photos of artifacts of the time period, which helps remind readers--especially children--that these people were real and not characters in a book.

Fans of Rush and conservatives would of course be more likely to read this book for themselves and their kids. Those who need it most, of course, would steer far from it, simply because of preconceived notions of who Rush is and what he espouses.

If I have any complaints at all is that I expected a bit more history. I was slightly bored when the characters got back to school and the few scenarios during these sections. But I think it might be better received by those for whom he's writing--which of course is the whole point anyway. show less

I've listened to Rush Limbaugh (usually "Rush" to me) regularly since my dad introduced me to him about twenty years ago, and I've owned copies of both Rush's books since the mid-nineties. (Amusing if typical stories: one outraged high school teacher lectured me--"he makes people feel bad!"--after other students tattled on me for reading one of the books as class ended. Another teacher mocked Rush's choice in ties, probably because he couldn't think of anything else negative to say about show more him. A third teacher who caught me reading one of the books unimaginatively quoted the old Franken chestnut "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot.")

But I'm good at being objective, and I can comment on both what I like and appreciate about him as well as why I no longer pay close attention to him (which has more to do with me than him). I'll try to keep this review centered on his books (specifically this one, insofar as there's not a great difference between this and Rush's other book--See, I Told You So).

The Way Things Ought To Be is interesting and entertaining, but at some point, I observed to myself that it (and the other book) simply translated what he had said on his radio show into book form. Many of those things (e..g, his various nicknames for himself, or various funny parodies) he had said years earlier, repeated frequently, and still says today. The material was nothing new; I believe one of the primary goals of both books was to interest curious people in listening to his radio show. (Which probably succeeded marvelously.) Except for much of their subject matter being contemporary 1990s politics, the books don't say much (if anything) that you couldn't learn today by listening to Rush.

This is part of a broader progression of my interests. I'm as conservative now as then, but by now I'm no longer very interested in following everything every popular conservative commentator says, because I already know what they're going to say, and understand and agree with it. By as the early 2000s, even as I continued to listen to Rush and to read the books or radio and television programs of newer conservatives, I was slowly starting to read much older conservative political philosophy. I read some of Edmund Burke's work, including "Reflections on the Revolution in France" (widely considered the beginning of recognized, organized conservative political thought) in 2002, and have read (or at least bought) various other books with deeper and more interesting observations. Basically, I learned all I could learn from the more popular conservatives and expanded my horizons beyond what they usually have to discuss. show less