Controversy? Depends on the Reporter

Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer, and because of that, often an ideologue.  However, ideology and political philosophy are not always opposed.  That is to say, sometimes ideology, even though it is not truth-seeking as political philosophy is, can be true.  Thus, even though I've always thought Rush is better at poking fun at liberals than "straight" political commentary, sometimes his political commentary transcends simple ideology.  I think a good example is his commentary on Bush's first-day rescission of a Clinton executive order that removed a 1984 executive order restricting US aid to international organizations engaged in abortion.  Regardless of one's stand on abortion, Clinton's executive order overturned law that was established under two previous administrations, yet the media did not find Clinton's action at all controversial, while the Bush action was seen by the LA Times as "something that could shape the direction of his presidency." (The LA Times wishes this were so, but it's not).

I'm one of those good students of American political thought who thinks: 1) reasonable people can disagree on abortion, 2) I am for a woman's right to choose in limited circumstances (but  I do believe partial-birth abortions are a form of infanticide, and infanticide is not within the realm of "choice"), 3) Roe v. Wade is one of the worst constitutional law cases ever decided, because there is no enumerated right of privacy in the US Constitution, but there is a Tenth Amendment.  Abortion, admittedly, isn't a salient issue for me.  But it is a political issue that all too often provokes reactions like this at a blog I visit frequently: "It was in the car, on the way home, that my friend the radio told me about George Motherf*cking Bush's first day in office, how practically the first thing he did was cut off funding to international health groups that offer abortions."  For this person, abortion is apparently THE issue, and Bush's action was radical, whereas Clinton's earlier action was not (or worse, the person was completely ignorant of the earlier action).  This is a form of ideology that is even more crude than Rush Limbaugh's, and is an ongoing problem in this republic, where we all have the right to political opinions, but where there seems to be very little interest in attempting to replace political opinion with political knowledge.

<<<<   MAIN   >>>>