KINSLEY: IN THIS LIMBAUGH SITUATION, LIBERALS ARE THE REAL VILLAINS
We're now in the process of moving on to Phase II of Slutgate, in which pundits who aren't right-wing dogmatists will tell us that the hostility being directed at Rush Limbaugh is all just too much. This will ultimately lead us to a mainstream media consensus, which will be: Limbaugh said something awful, but hey, that's his job, and do we expect him not to do his job? Whereas lefties attacking him were just as awful -- or, actually, more awful, because they're supposed to stay in their place and complain ineffectually when they're attacked. For heaven's sake, they're not supposed to hit back! And if they do, they're not supposed to be able to hurt their opponents!
So we get this from Michael Kinsley, writing for Bloomberg and reprinted (appropriately) in the New York Post:
The people who want to drive Rush Limbaugh off the air aren't assuaged or persuaded by his apology over the weekend. They say he wasn't sincere: He only apologized for calling a Georgetown University law student a "slut" and a "prostitute" because of pressure from advertisers.
Well, of course he wasn't sincere....
You can't demand a public recantation and then expect sincerity along with the humble pie....
These umbrage episodes that have become the principal narrative line of our politics are orgies of insincerity. Pols declare that they are distraught, offended, outraged by some stray remark by a political opponent, or judicial nominee, or radio talk-show host. They demand apology, firing, crucifixion.
The target resists for a few days, then steps downs or apologizes. Occasionally they survive, as Limbaugh probably will, but wounded and more careful from now on.
More careful means less interesting. Limbaugh is under no obligation to stop saying offensive things just to keep me entertained. Still, it's a pity....
So everyone's being a big phony, according to Kinsley, but there's a real loss here: the loss of Limbaugh's "interesting" willingness to slander a person who isn't a public figure and all her female fellow students 53 times over the course of several days, in appallingly personal and intimate language. Kinsley implies that there would be no equal loss if "insincere" critics were to just shut up when something like this happens. So, to sum up: Insincerity on both sides cancels out, but Limbaugh is contributing something "interesting" to the discourse that ideally should be preserved in all its flavorful toxicity, while his opponents are just playing games. Advantage Limbaugh!
Kinsley goes on:
Of course, the insincerity is on both sides. The pursuers all pretend to be horrified and "saddened" by this unexpected turn of events. In fact, they're delighted. Why not? Their opponent has committed the cardinal political sin: a gaffe.
Yeah, right: I'm delighted that Sandra Fluke and her classmates have been dragged through the mud. Know what else, Mikey? I hate Rupert Murdoch so much that I was delighted when his people hacked that dead teenage girl's voicemail. I wish they'd hacked the voicemail of more dead teenage girls! I wish they'd caused more parents untold suffering! That's how much I hate Rupert Murdoch.
Give me a freaking break. Nobody with a conscience wants Rush Limbaugh to wallow in the pig-trough of his misogyny on the public airwaves for several days, directing his unbridled hate at a genuinely vulnerable target. (Well, nobody except Michael Kinsley, perhaps, or others who consider this sort of thing "interesting.") Wanting Limbaugh (or Murdoch) to get his comeuppance for beyond-the-pale behavior isn't the same as cheering the fact that that behavior happened in the first place.
Kinsley has set a standard whereby no one can call out an opponent's behavior without being accused of insincerity. If I opposed the Catholic Church on abortion or gay marriage or condom use and then felt it was justifiably disgraced in the priest sex-abuse scandal, was I delighted that boys got raped? Where's the limit? How do I escape Kinsley's la-di-da-everyone's-a-cynic infinite loop?
