Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

When I posed the subject of Limbaugh's drug addiction this same individual who sopped up negative Clinton accusations like a sponge appeared far less informed about American current events than had been the case a few years earlier when a Democratic president was standing accused of wrongdoings.

"I never heard about that!" he hastily replied, this same inveterate Clinton basher who had always assured me that his motive was never political and that his only concern was to see that justice and truth prevailed.  

When I explained that the Limbaugh case had been featured on the NBC Nightly News one evening earlier and had been prominently mentioned throughout all branches of the media, I received a blank stare and no verbal response from someone known for loquaciousness and a generally opinionated manner.

At the point that this individual ventured an opinion on Limbaugh's drug problem his comment shattered any pretext of credibility.  "I take the same medication that Limbaugh does," he explained, adding wearily, "I guess that makes me a drug addict."

Clinton's harsh and boisterous accuser suddenly took on a highly tentative note, along with an illogical presentation.  If this man had not heard anything about Limbaugh's drug problems, then how did he manage to know which drug he took?  I let that pass and instead explained that his comment ignored vast differences in degree.  

"Two people can drink wine," I explained.  "A person who has some wine with a meal cannot be equated with someone who drinks it to excess.  On the same token, someone who takes oxycontin in prescribed limits by a doctor cannot be equated with another individual who uses it as a recreational drug and consumes it in excessive quantities."

At that point the Limbaugh supporter who did not want to concede his actual viewpoint then said his goodbyes and moved on.  The incident resembled another that occurred recently at a market as one shopper mentioned a subject of frequent major media discussion, the factual basis for which was beyond reasonable dispute.  

The woman who did not want to acknowledge the news, which was unflattering to the Bush Administration, replied, "That's Democratic Party propaganda!" and stalked away.  

It was not accident that Rush Limbaugh christened the term "dittoheads" in connection with his loyal listeners.  They constitute the same zombie audience types that faithfully assent to the steady propaganda diet served up at Fox News by Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Neil Cavuto.  

Limbaugh put his listeners in a nervous bind recently when he was compelled to concede that he had a serious drug consumption problem and sought understanding and compassion from his faithful flock.  In order to shed the obligatory crocodile tears on behalf of their hero it was necessary to shut out the entire tough, no nonsense preaching delivered by Limbaugh previously on the subject of drug addiction.

Limbaugh's popularity with the seriously discontented on the right stemmed from his ferocious "take no prisoners" ideological stance.  On the subject of drugs Limbaugh made no distinctions pertaining to background or medical dependence.  His approach to dealing with drug addicts led to these harsh recommendations submitted at various points:

1. Permanent incarceration without exception.  In short, there was no excuse for drug addiction and no sympathy should be displayed.  If an individual has an addiction problem the answer is to put that person away for good.  

2. Banishment rather than incarceration.  Instead of placing drug addicts in prison they should be banished permanently from America with no questions asked.  They constitute a plague and should be sent away for the good of society.

The no nonsense attitude of "law and order" Limbaugh did not extend to himself.  An affluent individual that held significant advantages over the typical drug addict, the wealthy talk show host was able to hire high-priced Miami criminal lawyer Roy Black, who cut him a deal for probation and community service for his own wrongdoings.

The questions that therefore need to be asked of Limbaugh are these:  

Rush, you said no exceptions, remember?  Addicts should be banished either to permanent existence in jail cells or transported out of the land post haste.  This was what you said, Rush.  

Are you now making yourself available for this type of banishment through one harsh means or the other?  Rush, could it be that you didn't really mean what you were telling us?  

Another question also surfaces, Rush.  Were you under the influence yourself when you were delivering these harsh pronouncements to your faithful radio flock of dittoheads?  If so, was this any example to set?  Dittoheads, don't do as I do, do as I say!

Considering the foregoing it is easy to see why dittoheads prefer not to discuss Rush Limbaugh's drug addiction.  To argue compassion is to beg that potent rejoinder of, "If these harsh measures that Limbaugh endorsed should apply to others, why is the endorser  exempted?"