Conservatives lost the war on abortion and contraception (reproductive rights) decades ago, even before Rush Limbaugh gained national prominence. But they keep trying to re-fight it, like the Deep South rednecks who think the Confederate battle flag is still relevant. The current crop of draconian state measures regulating abortion and the firestorm over Obama’s proposal (then compromise) to insure contraception aren’t so much a guerrilla war as they are designed to keep old resentment alive. Conservatives are first and foremost sore losers. Rush has been a capable right-wing ally in this effort all along–until his recent overreach.
It is highly appropriate that his long-time foes, feminists, are the ones to ignite his current troubles by calling him out on his crudity. The reason liberals and feminists won this particular skirmish is that they for once held the symbolic high ground, using the “appearance over substance” tactics of the conservative right against them and their mouthpiece, Rush. As much as it pains me to say it–I would rather see facts and well-reasoned argument win the issue–liberals may need to do more of this.
Not that the left should abandon facts, we just need to realize that their are other ways to communicate that win. The Sandra Fluke episode is a liberal success by accident because she impressed the public as a symbolic everywoman and because liberals, consciously or not, took a few pages from the right-wing playbook. Even so, if Rush hadn’t picked up the bait and verbally attacked her for three days, we would have forgotten about her before our anchor of choice signed off the night of her “testimony.”
Let’s face it: Sandra Fluke was no expert witness. As a female American citizen using contraception, she was qualified to testify to her own experience, nothing more. As a domestic violence activist she may have some level of expertise there. Her testimony about her roommate’s health situation and other facts she is not an expert on wouldn’t even have been allowed by Judge Judy, and Rep. Issa may have had good reasons for rejecting her as a witness apart from his agenda (although probably laxer rules applied for witnesses on his own side). Even so, liberals shamelessly propagandized her rejection and the fact that the morning panel before Issa’s committee was all male (the afternoon panel had two females–not often mentioned). Then they held their own protest hearing for the cameras. Fox News couldn’t have done a better job. Fake experts, the “conspiracy” to cover them up and grandstanding are all conservative trademarks.
Personally, as a fact-based liberal in favor of covering contraception, I would have preferred to see women doctors who prescribe contraceptive pills for other medical purposes testify as to what they are, the female authors of studies on the situation, poor women whose access to contraceptives is actually threatened, etc. I doubt a privileged third-year law student like Ms. Fluke will ever be in a situation where she cannot afford her monthly prescription whether it is covered by insurance or not. So why exactly was she of all American women the centerpiece? Her own personal ambition? Connections? She had a vagina and was nearby?
Whatever, she ended up working on an emotional level in a way an expert wouldn’t, but I don’t think it was the “slut” and “prostitute” language that has set people off. We’ve seen that from Rush continuously. Feminists are quick to scream “misogyny” when certain words are used, but that rings hollow to the public. Only feminists really get what that is, and as an accusation it is overused to silence legitimate disagreement. I get it, but don’t really sympathize with the feminist language police. Many of today’s generation of online feminists are extremely foul mouthed and hypocritically do not acknowledge or understand their own use of misandrist, gendered slurs toward men. Sexism flows both ways, and Women’s Studies majors are just as far from dealing with that as most men.
If Rush had called some older Harvard professor or Hilary Clinton a slut, no one but feminists and liberals would bat an eye. Instead, he picked on an earnest, articulate young student asserting her first amendment rights–a maiden, an Every Daughter, a Ms. Smith gone to Washington, a martyr. And not only did he call her names for three days, he expressed a lewd interest in her sex life that was unseemly. Asking to see her sex videos so he can get his rocks off is over the line of decency, in the league of affairs with interns and hitting on Capitol pages. Puritanism, a part of the American psyche conservatives strongly relate to, is more of a factor doing Rush in than the tired liberal language police accusing him of misogyny. That was Rush’s real contribution–offending conservatives.
The feminist whining about Viagra coverage has also entered into the debate given Rush’s infamous tie to the drug. But it is a false equivalency (another conservative tactic). Viagra is not a contraceptive. Currently the Pill is covered by medical insurance but the form of contraception available to men, condoms, is not. Just who has been “privileged” by gender here? The true analog to other medical uses of hormone-based contraceptives for females is probably testosterone therapy for men (which I believe is covered). Viagra is its own separate issue, but that didn’t stop the fact-free conflation of Viagra coverage. They use it because erections are certainly sexier than hormone imbalances. I’m sure when a Viagra equivalent for women comes out, the tune will change on its medical necessity. Hypocrisy is integral to all self-righteous causes. For now, the false equivalence is doing the job.
Hopefully the use of all these conservative tactics by liberals will pay off, eventually leading to Rush’s long-awaited downfall and permanent consignment to the far fringes of American culture, but he has been resilient in past scandals. Rush should be learning a painful lesson about the free market he claims to love so much, but my guess is he isn’t. He is too arrogant. The advertiser flight and his declining prestige are the fault of everyone else, of course. In his warped mind, he’s entitled to that $50 million a year.
Rush’s fate is perhaps that of all ideologues on their pet issues eventually. Times change, and since their arrogance prohibits them from understanding that, they continue on in the same old patterns. This is not the 1960s or the 1980s, and although the country may be more bought into some conservative messages, we are socially more inclusive and more resentful of the privilege Rush takes for granted.
Hopefully, too, the liberal tacticians are taking note. Sometimes conservative-style shameless grandstanding is more effective than the facts.
Loading tweets...
