My book, which was
titled simply "Anti-Rush", was written in the mid-'90s, when he'd been
at the height of his power and influence. It was never published and, in fact,
never finished but I spent a few years on it and it was a pretty big
one. Unfortunately, I lost most of it (and a lot of other things) in a
computer crash. I still have part of it, material that survived on some
old quarter-inch floppies. They're gone now too, along with some of their content, which was lost in subsequent years. I posted some material
from my Limbaugh project on my News Reviews blog on what must have been
a slow day back in 2015 and over the years, I've posted bits and pieces
of it, including what I'm about to put up here, in other places around
the internet. Eventually, I'll probably put up everything from the book
that survives in any sort of readable form. Why not, right?
Some general notes: In the text, "TWTOTB" refers to
Limbaugh's ghost-writer's first
book, "The Way Things Ought To Be" and "SITYS" to his second, "See, I
Told You So." When this was written, Limbaugh had moved into late-night
television, a show that ran for four years and probably ended right
around the same time as work on my own book (I don't exactly remember). In some instances, I've straightened out some bad sentence structure--left unattended, it
calls to me in the night--but I've mostly resisted the urge to clean up the text, which is the unfinished work of a much younger writer. There are,
footnotes--the cleaned-up, completed version is lost forever--but
at least most of the time-and-place data for the Limbaugh comments, which would have ended up in the footnotes,
are cited in the text. I apologize in advance for the way this can bog
down the text with multiple "on his radio show", "on his television
Rush Limbaugh is an enthusiast for war. Loves it. Promotes it. Hates
anyone who opposes it, even makes them out to be traitors. There's one sort
of war to which he's very opposed though, or so he says. When it
comes to "class warfare," the Rotund One professes to be a strict peacenik. He, in fact, denies there even is any such "war," which is another example of his rhetoric falling woefully short of his own reality. His show is, in fact, a daily, relentless pursuit of class warfare. The basic axioms that guide him:
1) The rich = good, and
2) The less-than-rich = bad (or, at least, less than good)
These are, of course, entirely self-serving--Rush Limbaugh is a very wealthy man from a well-off background. Possessed of a strong authoritarian streak, he holds that a public needs a strong government to herd it around,
keep it in line, be its "moral teacher." When he employs "anti-government"
rhetoric, it's almost always aimed at government "interference" by
progressive reform efforts with the prerogatives of the wealthy and the
powerful, who apparently don’t need that strong authoritarian hand.
This brand of naked elitism isn't the sort of thing that generally draws
a great deal of admiration from most people, much less a mass audience
for a media personality, so Limbaugh adopts a populist pose to woo listeners. Being a mere
pose though, it has no substance. He's just making it up as he goes and because his populist-style rhetoric doesn't emerge from any genuine conviction, it becomes very inconsistent, often hilariously so. He can't keep his made-up story straight. Monitoring
his program for any extended period reveals a commentator who is forever
becoming entangled in positions he's taken that are a complete contradiction
to those he'd taken earlier. Usually, he just plows right on ahead anyway,
and if many of his listeners seem to notice, they certainly aren't allowed
to point it out on his tightly controlled show.
That isn't to say he's entirely lacking in consistency. He gets snagged
by contradiction whenever he's trying to play the populist. He is, however,
rigorously consistent when it comes to those guiding axioms. When he armors up to wage class warfare, he's unyielding. That's when he's speaking from the heart. That's the story he can keep straight.
Limbaugh perpetually sings the praises of the wealthy and the powerful,
referring to them as the "successful," the "achievers," the "producers,"
those who work harder than anyone. He'll have no part of any suggestion
that these individuals are anything less than the most virtuous citizens
in the country, representing the best in society, those who should be studied,
emulated, all-but-worshiped. America should be "holding up successful people as role models..." (SITYS). At the same time, there is, in his commentary,
an ugly undercurrent of the inverse--that the poor, the unemployed, the
minority, the powerless are lazy, shiftless, amoral parasites on the successful,
the personification of all that is bad.
In TWTOTB, he can write that he would be "just as opposed to rich people
getting subsidies from the government as poor people." It was an easy,
populist-appealing thing to write at the time; no one was making much noise
in opposition to government subsidies for the wealthy. But in Nov. 1994,
when Clinton's Labor Secretary Robert Reich suggested cutting back on corporate
welfare, Limbaugh, who has been quite enthusiastic about any opportunity
to cut off aid to the needy, became absolutely enraged--ranted about it
for three days. On his tv show he said "Secretary Reich, how dare
you, sir" equate giveaways to corporations "to having welfare moms having
to now play by the rules" and compare corporate welfare to "a free lunch."
On his radio program, he was positively indignant that Reich would dare
"equate giveaway payments to people who are not productive," which he called
"real welfare payments" (emphasis his) with corporate welfare. "To
call that welfare is, I think, real arrogance and condescension and ought
to show you exactly what these people think."
In fact, Limbaugh has actually insisted that the wealthy should receive
more government services than those less well-off. On his radio program
(April 4, 1995), Limbaugh said "the people paying a greater percentage
of what they earn, if they earn a lot, then they ought to have more access
to services... Now, I know that's going to aggravate a lot of you people
but deal with it, because it's true." On his radio show (April 3, 1995),
he decided the ideal tax "would be where each citizen pays the same amount.
Pick a number, everybody pays the same number is the fairest of all. The
fairest of all is the same dollar amount." Such a scheme would find a significant
number of Americans at the lower end of the scale owing their entire annual
income to the government--a telling remark about his notion of "fairness."
Three years earlier, in April 1992, he'd offered a long monologue with
this as its theme:
"It's time to get serious about raising taxes on the poor... Tax them.
Let's balance the budget on the backs of the poor."
He wasn't serious, of course, but he wasn't entirely kidding either.
Referring to that particular show in TWTOTB, Limbaugh said this was merely
an example of his "demonstrating absurdity by being absurd" but that "I
meant everything I said, save for the bit about actually taxing the poor.
Other than that, I was dead serious and honest." With this in mind, some
of the other things he said in that monologue are illuminating. A few examples:
"The poor and the lower classes of this country have gotten a free ride
since the Great Depression when it became noble to be poor."
"The poor in this country are the biggest piglets at the mother pig
and her nipples... They're the ones who get all the benefits in this country."
"...do the poor pay anything back? Do they pay any taxes? No. They don't
pay a thing. They contribute nothing to this country. They do nothing but
take from it."
Quite a contrast with his adoring comments about the wealthy.
Limbaugh hates the idea of a mandated basic wage for those employed at the bottom
of the income scale. The minimum wage is one of his long-running targets
and he has argued forcefully and at length for getting rid of it entirely
("I think it ought to be abolished." radio 1/24/96). When, however, congress was considering a proposal that would have limited to $1 million/year the amount
corporations can write off as compensation for their executives, Limbaugh
exploded: "They [the government] have no right to determine what's enough.
It's none of their business what a company... pays an individual. They shouldn't
set limits on it of any kind. It's none of their damn business what people
earn, and we're headed down a dangerous road if we're going to let a bunch
of people in Washington define 'enough'... That is unacceptable to me, totally
Limbaugh despises the graduated income tax and forcefully rejects the
notion of taxing proportionately more from those who are able to more easily
absorb the burden in order to tax less from those who can't afford it.
"Why punish achievement? Why punish people who work hard?" (Limbaugh on
Donahue) On his radio show (April 1992), he decided "we can't continue
to rob the rich. We have been punitive against the rich in this country."
The U.S. should, he's argued, "scrap the capital gains tax" (SITYS) but capital gains are already taxed at a much lower rate than wages and are the source of half the income of the wealthiest Americans. From whence is government revenue to come, then? When various regressive
tax "reform" schemes--the "flat tax," the national sales tax, etc.--became
all the rage among Republicans, Limbaugh became an enthusiast of them.
The common element of these schemes is that they sought to shift the tax
burden further away--and in a radical way--from those who can afford it
and on to those who can't. Limbaugh became enamored of them all. When a caller pointed out to him that this would mean a big tax cut for the wealthy
and a big tax hike for everyone else, he argued that such considerations
are inappropriate, because it's no one's business what anyone else earns!
The punchline to all of this is that Limbaugh, while offering this running
commentary dictated, root-and-branch, by elite class interests, poses as
the staunchest opponent of "class warfare." On his radio program (1995),
he offered up a typical rant against liberals, who, he said, are
class hatred. They are encouraging class resentment. They are dividing
a wedge between income groups in this country... It does not promote a nation
of unity in spirit, togetherness--however you want to call it. It promotes
a nation of resentment and class hatred. On purpose!" (emphasis
This is probably the single subject about which he speaks more than
any other, how liberals and lefties divide up the nation by class, how they attempt
to turn everyone against the rich, how this is such a damnable practice.
"Liberals need to stop preaching class hatred," he tells us in SITYS. Nothing--and
that "nothing" should be heavily stressed--nothing elicits more vituperative
invective from Limbaugh than "redistributionists", "socialists," those
who "engage in class warfare." While he wages class warfare every day. Rush Limbaugh is a very wealthy man. He rarely seems to have the best interests of his country in mind when he purports to speak for them. He looks out for his own interests quite well though.
 It isn't true "anti-government" rhetoric, as would come from an
anarchist; it's rhetoric aimed at government by liberal democrats, and
 His close attachment to the Republican party is an extension of
this and he's remarkably consistent in pimping for what he sees as the
interests of it and of his pet candidates, those whom he feels will more
closely approximate the policies he favors.
 By the proposal Limbaugh was discussing, companies could still pay their
executives whatever they wanted--they just wouldn't have been able to write
off over $1 million a year.
 The "punishment" meted out
to the wealthy in the U.S. has resulted in income inequality and a concentration
of wealth that are both approaching record levels.