History as Handi-Wipe: Rush Limbaugh is Not Muhammad Ali
Tuesday morning on National Public Radio, Rush Limbaugh's biographer Zev Chafets equated the object of his affection to boxing's own Muhammad Ali. This is not a joke.
As Chafets said, "In the book I compare him to Muhammad Ali. Muhammad Ali was, in public, a very bombastic guy. And in private people say he was very soft-spoken and that his public persona was just a ramping up of his real personality, and that he did the public persona to gather a crowd. And I think that's very true of Limbaugh also."
The historical and ethical problems with Chafets's comparison abound. Yes, both Limbaugh and Ali belong in a Talkers Hall of Fame and both used a larger-than-life public persona to "gather a crowd." But Limbaugh used this skill to become richer than Croesus by exploiting fears based upon race, religion, gender, and sexuality. He's the great exemplar for all conservative media celebrity: revel in bigotry; become unbelievably wealthy; blame liberal media as your quotes are circulated; rinse, repeat.
Ali in contrast sacrificed. He sacrificed millions of dollars, national heroism, and in the end, his very motor functions, because he was a militant opponent of racism and the war in Vietnam. The only thing Ali and Limbaugh have in common is that they both did what they had to do to avoid military service in Nam. The slight difference of course, being that Ali risked five years in Leavenworth while Limbaugh claimed he couldn't wear the uniform because "pilonidal cysts" (anal abscesses from ingrown hairs") prevented him from service. To say that they have a lot in common because they are both "big personalities' is like saying I have a lot in common with Lebron James because we both play hoops.
Here are some other people with "outsized personalities" who Chafets could also have used to compare to Limbaugh; Hulk Hogan, Harvey Fierstein, Benito Mussolini... the choices are really endless. So why choose Ali? I fear that Chafets chose Ali for the same reason that Tom Horne, Superintendent of Arizona schools, said he was moved to abolish the Tucson ethnic studies program because "Martin Luther King gave his famous speech in which he said we should be judged by the quality of our character, rather than the color of our skin."
This is one of the right's favorite strategies: defend the indefensible by cloaking arguments with the martyrs of the black freedom struggle. This might be effective rhetorically, but it requires debasing history for political expediency. I wouldn't expect much more from Horne or the Texas School Board or any of the know-nothings who wear their ignorance like badges of honor in the culture wars. But I'd expect more from Chafets, who wrote a terrific expose of the Baseball Hall of Fame last year called "Cooperstown Confidential."
I emailed Chafets to ask him if he could understand why some might find comparing Limbaugh to Ali a tad off the beam, historically. He replied,
"Sure. But I wasn't comparing them as anti-war figures or good guys. And I want to remind you that Ali was, at that time, a Black Muslim who fervently believed (and often proclaimed) that white men are literally the devil. He changed his views later. But Limbaugh, the putative racist, has never gone anywhere near anything like that. He believes and says that all people should be judged on the content of their character, regardless of race. He and I got into it over my view that this is a misguided and overly simple--and possibly disingenuous--formula in today's racial environment. But I don't consider Rush is a racist. He is a racial conservative, (i.e. a liberal circa 1965) and a candid racial talker in the discussion Eric Holder has called for."
It's worth punching a few holes in this response. Liberals in 1965 were actually a far more principled breed than their 21st century counter-parts, let alone Limbaugh. They believed in the concept of a Great Society and that government had an obligation to take sides on questions of racial and economic justice. It was liberals, circa 1965, who were getting beaten, arrested, and even killed in the struggle for civil rights. It was liberals who turned against Lyndon Johnson when, as Dr. King put it, "The Great Society was shot down on the battlefield in Vietnam." To say that Limbaugh, who has called President Obama, "the little black man-child" and reveled in playing "Barack the Magic Negro" on his show, is just "a candid racial talker" strains belief.
As for Ali's embrace of the Nation of Islam, this was driven by the very racism and violence that was poisoning the United States. The fact that Ali, as a privileged sports celebrity, took these stands, only speaks to what he was willing to risk. For all of Ali's faults - and there were many - this part of his character is precious and worth defending. He had mettle. He had guts. Limbaugh revels in the isolation of his studio where opposing views never risk entry. Even Ali's harshest critics cite his courage. And even Limbaugh's fondest admirers, like Chafets, would do well to acknowledge his cowardice. There is really no comparison. It's Ali in a first round knockout.
[Dave Zirin is the author of the forthcoming “Bad Sports: How Owners are Ruining the Games we Love” (Scribner) Receive his column every week by emailing dave@edgeofsports.com. Contact him at edgeofsports@gmail.com.]
15 Reader Comments | Add a comment
White people kill me when they bring up the Nation of Islam as if it is equal and without context. When Wallace did an expose in the 50's about the Nation the title was The Hate that Hate Produced. And what reasonable person can't see why white people were hated and seen as the devil. We hate the Taliban for far less than what was done to Black people.
Oh i dunno, Ali's politics are closer to the fat addict's politics than they are to Zirin. They both heartily endorsed Ronald Reagan in 1984 and George H.W. Bush in 1988.
You're not one to talk about using Ali.
How much money have you made off of Ali's name and image? Do you cough up any royalties at all to the man?
I don't believe money is the biggest worry for Muhammad Ali. But tarnishing his personal image might be & comparing him to the cowardly bloviator is tarnishing at its peak.
...for doing all that you do.
The bottom line is that Muhammad Ali was on the right side of history. The Viet Cong won,and the USA lost. A lot of Americans and more Vietnamese lost their lives tragically. What I find troubling is DZ's take on the Nation of Islam. I don't know if Ali actually believed the tenets of the NOI. I do applaud the Rev. Louis Farrakhan for injecting a spirit into the black downtrodden. I sense the NOI gave respect and earned for their members. Unfortunately this is overshadowed by the White Man is a devil ideology. Muhammad Ali had issues for DZ it certainly would be Ronald Reagan. I would the NOI but that's just me.
PS: Ali's joining the NOI has parallels with the liberal and socialists joining the the communist party in the 20's and 30's. Their ideology blinded them to the mass killings of Uncle Joe Stalin. He even killed some of the founding members of the communist party,
The behavior of white men isn't the issue the response by the Nation of Islam is.
Ali's association with NOI probably deserves further consideration, since he did join it while Malcolm X was still alive, and I do not know how close he has been to it ever since. Overall, it looks like the organization abandoned Ali in his time of need during his career exile.
That said, Farrakhan's "White devil" was not just a quote out of context. Nor has it been the most troubling thing he has ever said or done. He has also forged alliances with Achmed, nee Albrecht, Huber, the Swiss banker and white supremacist.
WO,
Would you prefer to be socialist (extreme liberal) and blinded to the mass killings of Stalin, or neocon (extreme republican) and cheerleading the mass killings by George W. Bush in Iraq? The choice comes down to manslaughter or first degree murder.
Your choice is a false one. Uncle Joe and lovable George were both wrong. Ideologues want to reduce life questions into either/or answers, and, of course, the ideologue is always on the right side. Your final sentence of manslaughter for Uncle Joe reveals your bias. Accuse Bush and Stalin of murder or manslaughter but don"t give either one a pass. Life is too messy for that.
... over time; kabillions of wave function collapses and the tolerance that familiarity with their return brings.
That's pretty much all it takes for your crazy uncle to achieve family legend. Show up at enough family events with the latest squidlet under arm, three sheets to the wind, and family still finds some way to make room for him to continue in his a**hole ways. When he dies, family will either decline to attend his funeral or go just to defecate on the coffin.
It works great on cable TV: Patrick Buchanan acts in a manner that's indistinguishable from a loudmouth nativist bigot, but he's "Uncle Pat" on MSNBC. I suspect he owes an awful lot to his agent's ability to market him as "mostly harmless".
The Great White Bigot Wail has hired a stand-in Johnson to perform similar magic.
And if Great White can be so marketed, presumably also the entire related branch of Lesser White Wails, like Ody Beck?
They'll not go away until they're dead, and only with their burials will they be acclaimed to their proper taxonomy: a**holes.
... over time; kabillions of wave function collapses and the tolerance that familiarity with their return brings.
That's pretty much all it takes for your crazy uncle to achieve family legend. Show up at enough family events with the latest squidlet under arm, three sheets to the wind, and family still finds some way to make room for him to continue in his a**hole ways. When he dies, family will either decline to attend his funeral or go just to defecate on the coffin.
It works great on cable TV: Patrick Buchanan acts in a manner that's indistinguishable from a loudmouth nativist bigot, but he's "Uncle Pat" on MSNBC. I suspect he owes an awful lot to his agent's ability to market him as "mostly harmless".
The Great White Bigot Wail has hired a stand-in Johnson to perform similar magic.
And if Great White can be so marketed, presumably also the entire related branch of Lesser White Wails, like Ody Beck?
They'll not go away until they're dead, and only with their burials will they be acclaimed to their proper taxonomy: a**holes.
US - about 55,000 dead
Vietnam - several Million dead, economy destroyed, land polluted etc. etc.
Exactly how did the U.S. lose? They wanted to prevent socialism from taking root and they succeeded.
Rab questions that the US lost the war and asks how.
1 -- It was forced to accept Peace Terms that it didn't want.
2 -- It could not stop the unification of the two countries (remember that Vietnam was actually two different countries then)
3 -- It had to accept a socialist Vietnam -- that wasn't prevented by any war!
4 -- It had to content with a revitalized left that was partly spawned of this war and continues today
5 -- It saw the most significant ideological shift in the last half of the century: the move from complacency and complete trust in the government to a relentless questioning of the government and suspicion as to its motives. That's a really heavy change in political culture.
I agree with Rab that the impact on Vietnam was horrid and unimaginably destructive but I think the Vietnamese' huge sacrifices beat the US and we're still feeling the repercussions of that.
Rab questions that the US lost the war and asks how.
1 -- It was forced to accept Peace Terms that it didn't want.
2 -- It could not stop the unification of the two countries (remember that Vietnam was actually two different countries then)
3 -- It had to accept a socialist Vietnam -- that wasn't prevented by any war!
4 -- It had to content with a revitalized left that was partly spawned of this war and continues today
5 -- It saw the most significant ideological shift in the last half of the century: the move from complacency and complete trust in the government to a relentless questioning of the government and suspicion as to its motives. That's a really heavy change in political culture.
I agree with Rab that the impact on Vietnam was horrid and unimaginably destructive but I think the Vietnamese' huge sacrifices beat the US and we're still feeling the repercussions of that.
Rab questions that the US lost the war and asks how.
1 -- It was forced to accept Peace Terms that it didn't want.
2 -- It could not stop the unification of the two countries (remember that Vietnam was actually two different countries then)
3 -- It had to accept a socialist Vietnam -- that wasn't prevented by any war!
4 -- It had to content with a revitalized left that was partly spawned of this war and continues today
5 -- It saw the most significant ideological shift in the last half of the century: the move from complacency and complete trust in the government to a relentless questioning of the government and suspicion as to its motives. That's a really heavy change in political culture.
I agree with Rab that the impact on Vietnam was horrid and unimaginably destructive but I think the Vietnamese' huge sacrifices beat the US and we're still feeling the repercussions of that.
15 Reader Comments | Add a comment
PLEASE NOTE: This forum is for dialog between Edge of Sports readers. Discuss!
Submit your comment below:
Dave Zirin is the author of the book: "Welcome to the Terrordome: The Pain, Politics and Promise of Sports" (Haymarket). You can receive his column Edge of Sports, every week by going to dave@edgeofsports.com.
Become an Edge of Sports Sustainer (Click Here)
Contact him at edgeofsports@gmail.com
Support the Work
Please consider making a donation to keep this site going.
Become an Edge of Sports Sustainer (Click Here)
