If my estimate is right, you will be reading this column just about the time when Rush Limbaugh returns to the airwaves from his stay in a rehabilitation clinic for an addiction to the prescription drug oxycontin.
By now, Rush must know what a piñata feels like. His critics have been whacking away at him all the time he was away. Much of the criticism has been cruel and taunting, with little sympathy for his plight.
But fair is fair. Supporters and fans of Rush can’t be too critical of those who are having a good time with his problems. There are times when turnabout is within bounds. Rush is a satirist. Much of his humor comes from mocking and belittling his political opponents. I don’t know if anything that is being said about him these days is worse than his years of needling Teddy Kennedy for his drinking habits or what happened at Chappaquiddick.
Over the years, Rush has poked fun at politicians and celebrities rumored to have a drug problem by sniffing into the microphone to simulate the sound of a person snorting cocaine. He has been tough on those who fail to take personal responsibility for their behavior and blame it on circumstances beyond their control. In 1995, he said, “Too many whites are getting away with drug use. The answer is to find [them], convict them, and send them up the river.”
That said, this is not the time to join those who are piling it on. Let’s not forget who Rush is. His enemies are using this moment to discredit his reputation for their political ends. If they succeed it will be a great loss for traditionalists. There are millions of middle class, middle-brow Americans — intelligent people too wrapped up in their career and family responsibilities to plow through the scholarly journals and the writings of men like Russell Kirk and Milton Friedman — who have a grasp on the central themes of the conservative movement, and who know how to articulate a defense of traditional values, because of listening to Rush.
They would not have learned these things on their own. I would go so far as to say that Rush played the same role for the average American that William F. Buckley played for more scholarly individuals back in the 1960s and 1970s. Buckley offered “bookish” types an alternative to the leftwing intellectuals who dominated the ideological debates of the time; he opened their eyes to the inconsistencies of the liberal consensus; gave them intellectual credibility. Rush did the same thing over the last two decades for what some call the “silent majority,” the millions of Americans who intuit that there is something pernicious about the views of the liberal media and academic establishments, but are not always able to put their objections into words.
No hyperbole: Rush turned the tide. He hasn’t been perfect. At times, he can sound like a Republican Party hack. But he has labored long and hard to defend our side in the political wars. He deserves our support in his time of trial. But not just because we may share his viewpoint. There is a difference between his addiction and that of some movie star who might have been in the room next to him at the rehabilitation center because of an addiction to cocaine. There is. Objectively, there is.
Before going any farther, let me admit that I have no personal understanding of what it feels like to be addicted to anything. I am not patting myself on the back for that fact. I drank more beer than I should have in my college days. I smoked cigarettes here and there at about the same time. I know the enjoyment that comes from both alcohol and tobacco. But I never experienced anything like the powerful yearning for a drink or a cigarette that those addicted to them speak about. I never woke up after a night on the town, yearning for a Budweiser or a Camel. Again, I don’t attribute this lack of a yearning to anything in my moral makeup. I can only conclude that it is something physiological. The stuff never got a hold on me, even though some friends and family members who drank and smoked about as much as I did ended up with serious problems.
These individuals went through great hardships trying to deal with their addiction. Some ended their smoking and drinking habits cold turkey. Others did not. They died as a consequence of that failure. Literally: of cirrhosis of the liver and cancer. Maybe if they had gone to a rehabilitation center such as the one that treated Rush, they could have saved their lives. Who knows? The point is that they ruined their lives because they could not stop smoking or drinking. The power of the alcohol and nicotine was that great. From all reports, oxycontin is a drug at least as powerful in its addictive properties. An individual can fall to its lures after only a few weeks of use.
But shouldn’t Rush have practiced some self-discipline when he first began to experience the pull of the drug? After all, that is what he preaches to those who tell us they are drawn to heroin and cocaine. He should have. But we must keep in mind that it was not Rush’s idea to ingest these drugs. He was not taking them for recreational purposes. He was not out looking for a high. He was taking them because of a doctor’s prescription for pain that followed upon back surgery some years ago. That is how the drugs got into his system. That is how the addiction began. He was not out snorting cocaine for kicks with the Hollywood crowd. This makes a difference.
Then shouldn’t he have sought professional help immediately when he found himself caught up in the lure of the drug? Why did he wait? Come on. We know why. We all know that we would try to break a drug habit such as this on our own, before seeking medical help. We would tell ourselves that we have the capacity to break the habit through the strength of our will — tomorrow, next week, somewhere down the road. My guess is that Rush was in that frame of mind when this scandal forced his hand.
Would it have been next month that he went for help if the scandal had not hit the newsstands? Next year? I don’t know. But it is unfair to assume that he was not wrestling with the question. Rush did not try to deny his problem when it became public knowledge. There has been no cover-up. He admitted his mistake. Catholics know about forgiveness and redemption. Rush deserves a second chance from his fans and listeners as he returns to the “golden microphone” at the “Excellence in Broadcasting Network.”
Welcome back, El Rushbo!
James Fitzpatrick's new novel, The Dead Sea Conspiracy: Teilhard de Chardin and the New American Church, is available from our online store. You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at fitzpatrijames@sbcglobal.net.
(This article originally appeared in The Wanderer and is reprinted with permission. To subscribe call 651-224-5733.)
