Searching for my inner liberal

One of the more interesting things about writing an opinion column is receiving feedback from readers. And one of the more interesting things about receiving that feedback is trying to figure out how people sometimes interpret things that I write in a completely different manner than I intended.

For example, I received some really interesting feedback on my last column, the topic of which was the Rush Limbaugh controversy. The main points I meant to convey with that piece were 1) people seemed to be going way overboard with their reaction to what Rush said, 2) he got into trouble not for what he said but because of whom he said it about, and 3) his behavior has proved to be a boon for his political and philosophical opponents.

But based on the feedback I got, that is not the message some people received. Not at all.

Mr. Chris Bowen of Jeffersonville was given a major chunk of real estate on the Viewpoints page a few days after my column ran and he apparently read and re-read my column until my true intent became apparent to him. He called me out as not only a “fairly liberal individual” but also a “chameleon, quite capable of numerous degrees of subtle camouflage” that “hides behind a façade of independence.”

Apparently I had a hidden agenda with that column that was hidden so well I was not even aware of it. But other feedback I got - privately in my email inbox - tended to be a little more direct and less kind than Mr. Bowen was to me.

I was called a dupe, a liberal hack, and a tool of left-wing extremists. It seems that some people are convinced that I have posters of Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton lining the walls of my bedroom. That’s ridiculous, of course. Neither of those ladies has out a decent poster since the 1970’s. (Kidding!)

Still, I think that if this many people see some kind of liberal undertone in what I write, even if I’m not aware of putting it there, maybe it is something I should think about. Even though I have always favored small, less intrusive government and voted a straight Republican ticket in 2010, it may be possible that my conscious beliefs and behavior really are just a façade. Perhaps somewhere between the lines of my writing the ghost of Ted Kennedy is peeking out at the world, saying things that I’m not even aware of.

Just for fun I decided to take one of those online political philosophy tests to see where I fall on the political spectrum. I endeavored to answer the questions as honestly as I could and let the chips fall where they may.

The results I got were far from shocking. The quiz I took, which consisted of a short series of questions about how I feel about the proper role of government in society, identified me very clearly as a libertarian. Please note that I said “libertarian” and not “liberal”. They are two very different philosophies.

A libertarian favors smaller, less intrusive government in all areas, which differentiates me from both the left wing (which sees government as a force for righting many of the wrongs in society, especially in economic matters) and the right (which tends to favor small government in economic matters but doesn’t mind using the state’s power to keep society’s moral compass pointed in the direction they think it ought to point in.)

So if I am a really a liberal, as some of my readers seem convinced, it is something that is buried so deeply in my psyche that my conscious self cannot seem to ferret it out. Hopefully alert readers of this publication continue to keep a close watch on what I write and let me know when my inner Jimmy Carter peeks out again and gives them a sly wink.

Have they shot Rush yet?

As I write this column, Rush Limbaugh is still a free man. It certainly seems possible, though, that he could be jailed, executed, or at least tarred and feathered by the time this is published. He seems to be the most reviled man in America right now, judging by the great lengths people seem to be going to condemn his bizarre and pointless attack on a 30 year-old woman who testified before Congress in support of contraception coverage for college age women.

His comments weren’t really out of character. The man is not known for his gentlemanly demeanor and - let’s face it - one doesn’t become a star on talk radio by being a nice person. I think this time he just chose a really bad target. It’s one thing to hurl invectives at a public figure like President Obama or even females like Hilary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi. It’s quite another to use language like he used in reference to this private citizen who was merely expressing her views at a public hearing.

He deserves to be condemned. He has been condemned. He probably deserves to lose some sponsors and some radio stations, and that has happened to. I wouldn’t be surprised if he loses some listeners too, though I have a feeling that his most ardent fans will forgive him for this outburst.

But does he deserve to be fired, or least put on suspension for some period of time? Obviously that decision is up to his employer, and I expect the decision will be mostly about money. As long as Limbaugh remains profitable, he will remain employed. People will still listen to him, and somebody somewhere will give him a microphone. Even if they do let him go, I expect he won’t be out of work long.

It is interesting to note that our society seems to punish “hateful speech” in widely different measures depending on who is doing the talking and who they are talking about. Conservative commentators have been quick to point out that the same media outlets who have had a conniption over Limbaugh’s misogyny have given a free pass to liberals like Bill Maher.

Maher has said things about Sarah Palin that are so vile and vulgar that I can’t even hint at the language he used in a family newspaper, but the media seems to respect his “free speech rights” without a hint of condemnation. Nor has President Obama returned the $1 million Maher gave to his super PAC despite his rather colorful descriptions of the former governor of Alaska.

The world is not a fair place and it is full of double standards. No one has ever lost their job in the entertainment industry using disparaging language about white males, Republicans, or evangelical Christians. That’s why a guy like Rick Santorum is has such a big target on him. The poor guy just has to take it too, because no one likes a bad sport.

The thing that makes me really sad is that we have become so distracted by an issue (contraception) that very few people even consider worth talking about. Aside from Rick Santorum, the Pope, and possibly Mel Gibson, there aren’t many who have a problem with the idea that medical insurance should cover contraceptive services for women.

It’s a losing issue for the Republican Party, and it is one that no one who wants to see President Obama limited to a single term should be running their mouths about. Rush is not doing the eventual Republican nominee or the conservative cause any favors by making a target out of a private citizen testifying in support of contraception coverage.

I don’t think he deserves to be yanked off the airwaves because of what he said, but I think if he really cared about his party doing well this year he’d take a voluntary leave of absence all on his own. Please Rush – take a long vacation and give us a chance to miss you.