Rush Limbaugh’s problem with pain pills has been plastered on the front pages of news magazines and run as lead stories on the nightly news. On the one hand, the prominence of the story makes perfect sense.
Big Man, Big Sin, Big News
Rush Limbaugh's show is reputed to have 20 million listeners a day. He has been a major voice for populist conservatism, especially of the political kind. It stands to reason that such big news about him would get big coverage.
At the same time, much of the news is cast in a “gotcha” tone. The Great Conservative has been unmasked as the Great Hypocrite, so the story goes. By abusing and allegedly illegally obtaining prescription painkillers, we are told, Rush Limbaugh has sinned a great sin. What is worse, he has presented himself as the Flawless One, standing in judgment on everyone else in America, all the while being guilty of flaws. This is hypocrisy, plain and simple.
Well, perhaps so. Still, the biblical maxim of “Let the man who is without sin cast the first stone” comes into play here. Most of us are hypocrites to some extent, pretending to be better than we are. Even many of those on the political left now criticizing Limbaugh as a hypocrite implicitly do so while touting themselves as moral victors in the battle against right-wing smugness and superiority. They may say, “We're glad to see Limbaugh having to admit he's down in the mud with the rest of us.” But what they seem really to mean is, “We're more virtuous because we're not hypocrites like Limbaugh.” Really?
The French writer La Rochefoucauld said that hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue. But hypocrisy comes in at least two varieties. There is the crass hypocrisy of a man who says he is one thing when he is really something else without the slightest intention of being what he pretends to be. The con man masquerading as the pious preacher is the crass hypocrite. His vice “compliments” his merely apparent virtue only to the extent he finds it profitable to do so.
We All Like to Look Good
Then there is the self-deceiving hypocrite, which is the category into which probably most of us fit at one time or another. We really do believe it's better to be truthful than dishonest, or be faithful than adulterous, or respectful of others' property than to steal, and so on. But we don't always choose to live up to the standard we know, in our heart of hearts, is the right one. And — here's where hypocrisy comes in — we like to appear as if we do live up to the standard.
The problem with this form of hypocrisy is not the standard or that we fall short of it. The problem is that we can con ourselves into thinking that merely appearing to live up to the standard is good enough. To give the philosopher Berkeley's words a different spin, we live by the maxim: “Esse est percipi” — “to be is to be perceived.”. We can fail to be honest with ourselves, fail to acknowledge that, in fact, we have fallen short of what we appear or strive to be. We can think acting the part is the same as being what we pretend to be.
Has that happened to Rush Limbaugh? Perhaps. He has stood for law and order against crime and law-breaking. His actions of acquiring prescription painkillers illegally, if that is what happened, runs contrary to the stance he has taken. In that sense, he has certainly failed to live up to the standard he has espoused. Whether this is hypocrisy or not, it is wrong. For that, he needs to repent, if he has not done so already.
Limbaugh's celebrity is insufficient to account for the “gotcha” tone of the media. That tone, no doubt, is a function of the fact that many people, including many in the media, who feel threatened or challenged by Limbaugh or by what they perceive Limbaugh to represent, think they can legitimately take delight in his fall. A hypocrite of the right has been exposed. Perhaps more to the point, if Limbaugh is “taken out,” they suppose, the ethic of Judeo-Christian values that he allegedly espouses has been shown up. Their uneasy consciences can be put at ease because those who profess to live by a higher standard have, once again, been shown to be frauds and therefore, they think, the standard itself has been discredited.
Sin is No Surprise to Christians
Beyond that, it is hard to say why Rush Limbaugh should be cast in the role of standard-bearer for Judeo-Christian values. He has always been more a champion of things politically conservative than things Christian or even Judeo-Christian, notwithstanding a certain lip-service he has paid to religion. Maybe the mass media and Hollywood equate political conservatism with Judeo-Christian values but the two things are not synonymous. To the extent that Rush Limbaugh has defended Judeo-Christian values, he has done so as part of an (inconsistent) affirmation of traditional values in general, not a thoroughgoing commitment to a vigorous and orthodox Christianity. At best, he might be described as a somewhat diffident cultural fellow traveler of orthodox Christianity, even by those who share his political views. This is something that honest, longtime Christian listeners of his program would have to admit, even if they count themselves “ditto-heads.”
Furthermore, even within the sphere of conservative politics, Rush Limbaugh is really more a thoughtful and provocative entertainer than an entertaining conservative political thinker. He is no Russell Kirk for the masses. He isn't even an everyman's Bill Buckley. He is much closer to the talk radio equivalent of a cross between a politically conservative Will Rogers and a partisan P.T. Barnum. Much of what he does is showmanship and schtick, albeit in relation to things he seems really to believe in. His tone is at times pompous, but no more so than that of hundreds of other radio talk show personalities, whether of the political right or the political left. The difference is, he has been vastly more successful at what he does than the others, and has become proportionately more influential.
Even supposing, though, that Limbaugh were a sophisticated voice for traditional Judeo-Christian values, or even a professed Christian of a specific ecclesiastical affiliation, of course it would not follow that Limbaugh's failure to live up to Christian values invalidates them. Christianity says, “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” In other words, Christianity espouses the doctrines of human sinfulness and the need for repentance. It can hardly be evidence against Christianity that people repeatedly demonstrate by their wicked actions the soundness of its tenets.
Christianity also espouses redemption in Jesus Christ. Rush Limbaugh has asked for prayers to overcome his addiction. Christians should pray for that, but we should also pray that, having already acknowledged his sin, Rush Limbaugh finds redemption in the midst of his suffering through a full, conscious, and active commitment of faith in Jesus Christ, in whom there is forgiveness of sins and triumph despite suffering. Indeed, in Christ suffering can be transformative and sanctifying. Perhaps a repentant, redeemed, and converted Rush Limbaugh would do more for the cause of the true and the good than the fellow travelling, pseudo-iconic prelapsarian Rush ever did.
Mark Brumley is President of Ignatius Press and Vice President of Campion College of San Francisco. He lectures widely on apologetics and other theological subjects. He is author of How Not to Share Your Faith (Catholic Answers). His website is 3mil.net .
