Rush Limbaugh’s Socratic Irony
Oct 31st, 2007 by Micah Tillman | 31 Comments |
Socrates and Limbaugh are both about equally difficult to get. (”Hey, there’s some guy who thinks Rush Limbaugh is Socrates.”) Give me a minute to explain what I mean:
1. Socratic Irony
Time and again, Socrates meets someone in Plato’s dialogs who claims to know something, acts pleased to discover that he’s in for a lesson, then proceeds to show the person how said person is wrong.
This used to drive me absolutely nuts. It’s so condescending and disingenuous.
Since then, Fr. Kurt Pritzl has convinced me that Socrates’ irony is triple, not double. He doesn’t just say one thing and mean another. He says one thing, means another, but hopes beyond hope for the first.
He says he’s happy to get the chance to learn something from his interlocutor, really thinks that the interlocutor knows nothing (after all, Socrates was the wisest person in Greece because he was the only one who knew he knew nothing) but is still excited that he just might possibly learn something.
Socrates confused and annoyed people with this triplicity so much that they executed him. I get the feeling that a lot of people would like to see Limbaugh drink some hemlock too. And I think the reason is, in a way, exactly the same.
2. Limbaughic Irony
Limbaugh frequently berates the Left (Democrat politicians specifically) for the “arrogant condescension” (run a search for that phrase here) that marks the way they look at normal Americans. I’d say this was his primary critique of his political rivals. (And one I find compelling, actually.)
Yet he says says that he is “America’s Anchorman,” “Doing what he was born to do.” “[He] was born to host, and [we] were born to listen,” as he “meet[s] and surpass[es] audience expectations on a daily basis.”
There’s even one song in his bumper rotation which contains the words, “You’re amazin’.” Every time it is played, he answers, “I know.” And whenever a caller thanks him for how he’s saving America (or something similar) his response is inevitably similar (except when it’s a service member, or family member of a service member, who is thanking him. In these cases he is always self-effacing).
He apparently finds his arrogant responses hilarious. He always follows them with a chuckle. He seems to want his listeners to know they’re in on the joke with him. He’s just playing the “I think I’m the best” thing. Or else he wants his listeners to think he’s letting them in on the joke.
But combine his loathing of Leftist “arrogant condescension” with his explanation of his “talent on loan from God” slogan, and things get even more twisted. The slogan means not that he has God’s talent, he says, but that the talent he has is not his own. It comes from God. The ambiguity, and the overly-dramatic tone with which he says it must be said, make it work on multiple levels.
3. Conclusion?
So Limbaugh is saying one thing (”I’m the best”) but in a way that makes his audience think he’s just joking, while really meaning what he says? That would be inverted Socratic Irony (Socratic Irony being: “I want to learn from you because I know nothing,” while meaning: “I think you know nothing,” while thinking: “I really hope you might know something after all.”).
Does the (anti-)parallel with Socrates mean you should be more charitable to Limbaugh? Or that you’re vindicated in your feelings about him? I don’t know. But I enjoy the guy’s show, so please don’t make him drink hemlock.
| Stumble It! 
| Digg This!
| Add to del.icio.us! 
| Reddit? 
|
I think the biggest thing to remember, regardless of your feelings about Rush, or any talk show host, is that if you are on the radio in anything but a straight up news format, your job is first as an entertainer.
Radio personalities who lose sight of that fact don’t last long in radio.
Indeed.
Indeed.
I think that deep down, Mr. Limbaugh is an extemely humble person. I think his little chuckle is sincere and that he knows that many of his callers are smarter than he is and just as successful in their lines of work as he is in his. I think he is genuinely letting people in on the joke. And the biggest joke of all is how his feigned arrogance infuriates the Left. The second biggest joke is how his callers unashamedly feed into the “starstruck listeners who are duped by Rush” stereotype, although most of them are totally independent thinkers.
Scott is right that Rush is primarily an entertainer. He has done what the left has not figured out how to do in the talk radio sphere–give the audience what they want. Pander to them, play with them, state for them what they deeply believe but cannot always articulate.
I haven’t been one of Rush’s adoring fans, although I tend to agree with his views. His bombast and irreverence and plain silliness turn me off sometimes. However, I thought his recent stunt with the letter from Harry Reid and others was sheer brilliance. I observed that he let callers advise him during that process, which indicates the humility I mentioned above.
By the way, I have read Plato and understand what you wrote in your post.
Sounds good to me. I do think the conceitedness is calculated/part of the show. :-)
Mr. Limbaugh is an extemely humble person????? oh yeah and so is Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter. They are all saints!!!
They are all so full of arrogance that I cannot comprehend the “humble” statement maybe sincere in their beliefs(though dead wrong) but humble?? Nah I’m not buying it.
There are definitely appearance/reality questions to ask when it comes to an entertainer like Limbaugh.
One difference between Hannity and Limbaugh is that Hannity doesn’t play the conceited role like Limbaugh does. But if you remember what I’ve said about Hannity in the past, I still like Rush’s show a lot better.
I find it ironic when Coulter annoys people because that’s exactly what she’s trying to do.
I would agree that Limbaugh is a great entertainer and radio announcer(being a former one myself) and thats about it.
I would not want him running our country but seeing who is running it now almost anybody would be better though.
Hannity not conceited??? Come on Micah.
Ann Coulter gets paid big to annoy people and that annoys me LOL. Her Jewish comment is up there with Hitler I must say.
Hannity wraps himself up in the American flag and the Religious Right.
I don’t think that Hannity either presents himself as or thinks he’s better than he is at what he does (at least, no more than your average news personality).
If we’re meaning by “conceited” that he thinks he’s right about what he believes, then he’s as conceited as they come. But I’ll have to ponder whether thinking you’re right is conceit, seeing as we all think we’re right. You and I evidently think we’re right, anyway.
I believe you’re referring to Coulter saying something about wishing Jews were Christians? I must have missed something, because from what I heard it sounded like she was saying that she thought Christianity was the best religion. Which is what many people a lot better than Hitler believe.
But maybe I just didn’t hear everything she said.
Rich, yes. If you listen and watch Limbaugh carefully there is a subtle but detectable insecurity. I mean he’s not a genius and he knows it. He just knows how to work an audience. I think that’s probably the one thing that he feels confident about and proud of.
I’m not talking about he outward persona but about the real person.
Speaking of the persona/person distinction, I wonder how Rush Limbaugh’s show-front and Stephen Colbert’s (or Sacha Baron Cohen’s) should be related (whether by historical development or mere comparison).
Limbaugh, Hannity, and Coulter don’t hold a candle to this Tillman guy I read regularly. I call his style ‘Quadruplicity of Irony’ and/or ‘Quintessence of Semantic Sophistry.’
Someone writes, “I already knew that.”
Tillman responds, “I knew that you already knew that.”
The first retorts, “I knew that you knew that I already knew that.”
Tillman rebuts, “I knew that you knew that I knew that you already knew that.”
The first…, “You, er, I knew… er, you didn’t, er… ummm, we, er… I guess I didn’t know!”
Tillman, “I knew that you didn’t know.”
First, “Hemlock for Tillman, Hemlock for Tillman!”
Persona or person… you be the judge.
*laughs*
In Tillman’s case, I don’t have to speculate. That’s definitely who he is.
Though I’m not sure I ever thought of giving him hemlock, despite numerous opportunities to do so.
No hemlock for Tillman! No, just say no Micah!
Y’all are clearly making me laugh too much. :-D
renaissanceguy:He has done what the left has not figured out how to do in the talk radio sphere–give the audience what they want. Pander to them, play with them, state for them what they deeply believe but cannot always articulate.
I disagree. Stewart, Colbert and Al Franken are exactly what the left want. They love the hilarious Right-Wing Skewers.
Mr. Salk, I’ll give you those three, although Franken’s not in the same class as the other two, in my opinion. And Franken’s venue, Air America, has not been a financial success, has it?
Are Stewart and Colbert on the radio? I didn’t know. Part of their appeal is that they are on TV and work that medium very well. I would include Bill Maher with them. Those guys definitely know their own audience.
My point is that obviously America as a whole is somehat rightist. Think of the plethora of rightwing radio hosts: Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Medved, Prager, Ingraham, Bennett, Prager, Colson, Hewitt, Liddy, Boortz. The list goes on and on, and they attract enough sponsors to suceed. That’s because they know what real Americans believe and want.
“Real americans”? Are you a Beck disciple?
I don’t think we can conclude the nation’s political leanings based on their entertainment choices. These personalties draw listeners across party lines. I’m embarrassed to admit I listened to local shock-jock radio during my long commute, yet I firmly deny being juvenile and misogynistic.
Very insightful post. I think I’ve thought about something like this subconsciously while listening to his show, but certainly didn’t compare it to Socrates.
Thanks Joel!
I will forgoe the hemlock for Tillman, if he answers his e-mail….
He’s been trying to remember to . . .
[...] in the comments on my post about Rush Limbaugh’s triple(?)-irony, our resident Lutheran Seminarian Rich gave me an [...]
Mr. Salk, if there were a really good leftwing alternative, do you think most liberals would listen to Limbaugh, et al.?
Scott, I’ve hardly ever listened to Beck. By “real Americans” I refer to actual people as opposed to the ficitious people that liberals assure us are out there–you now, the so-called majority who favor pulling out of Iraq, unlimited abortion ‘rights,” universal health care, etc.
If by good you mean entertaining, then no (If they were in the same time slot). I can’t let politics cloud my humorous judgment; it’s like saying Seinfeld isn’t funny, because I don’t like Jews.
It’s the conservatives who are creating fictitious populaces. They semantically reconstruct every issue to make it nearly impossible to logically reject.
Support the Troops!
Pro-Life!
But there’s also “progressive” (who’s opposed to progress?) or the “peace movement” (who’s against peace?) or “environmentalism” (does anyone favor trashing the environment?). All of these ignore the actual debate. Do the things the left favor actually constitute progress? Is disarmament really the best way to ensure peace? Where is the appropriate balance we should strike between the environment and material progress? (After all, human mass suicide may be the best thing for the environment.) This is hardly unique to the right. Or take some of their group names like “Planned Parenthood” (the last thing these people are planning is parenthood, with their zero population growth ideology) or “Center for Science in the Public Interest” (which spends almost all of its time fighting science they disapprove of).
I’m not taking sides here, but it should be crystal clear to everybody that both sides engage in propaganda.
[...] strongly about the subject. But I liked what I said so much, I wanted to post it here too (that sounds so Rush Limbaugh of me.) Margins are the space in which books become [...]
[...] no, I’m not engaging in either normal or Limbaughic Irony. I actually do think “the product” is pretty [...]