Points of Praxis

My Blog Reflects on Visual Rhetorical Theory and Disability Rhetoric and their Connections to Classical and Contemporary Rhetorical Theory

I've been interested lately in the recent controvery over a political ad made by Michael J. Fox's that began airing Saturday night during Game 1 of the World Series and the criticisms raised by Rush Limbaugh on his radio show, which is also broadcast live via the Internet on his Dittocam.  And, I've been pleasantly surprised by the criticisms Limbaugh has faced in regard to his (insenstive and abhorrant) comments on the rhetoric and imagry used throughout Fox's political ad.   Subsequently, Limbaugh's follow-up statements have been, even more inflamatory, in my opinion, than the original statements he made on Tuesday and it's these statements that I want to address in this posting.

Specifically, Limbaugh states on his radio show that Fox "either didn't take his medication or he's acting, one of the two."  As if to correct his statements, Limbaugh released a statement to Katie Couric in response to her interview with Fox, stating that Democrats "have a long history of using victims of various things as political spokespeople because they believe they are untouchable, infallible. They are immune from criticism."

Fox responded as I would, calling Limbaugh out on his rhetoric of identifing those with diseases and disabilities as pitiless victims.  As Fox states:  "Well, first thing, he used the word victim, and in another occasion, I heard him use the word 'pitiable.' And I don't understand, nobody in this position wants pity."

I have to comment on Limbaugh's adamant claims that he did not "make fun of Michael J. Fox" ("Correcting the Record").  Because, if one watches the broadcast of Limbaugh's show, he mimicks Fox's tremors as shown in the ad.  Limbaugh appears to flail and jerk around the microphone as he believes Fox did in the ad.  And, Limbaugh acknowledges that he understands how one could argue that Limbaugh did appear to be making fun of Fox by mimicking his tics.  But, I have to wonder how mimicking Fox's disabilty is not making fun of him?  Would it have been any less appropriate for Limbaugh to fall on the floor and begin convulsing like an epileptic might?  Or, if Limbaugh were to flap his hands or bang his head like an autistic person sometimes does, would this have been any more insensitive?  Limbaugh imitates Fox's disability to prove his point; however, the point Limbaugh actually makes is that Limbaugh's completely insensitive to issues surrounding disability.

The tendency to mock or mimic the disabled is something that perplexes me.  I was standing in line at Blockbuster last Saturday night when a woman in her 40's asked her husband if he was "retarded" while she slapped her hand to her chest and contorted her face.  This kind of mocking seems cruel and it's hard to understand why someone, like this woman, or Limbaugh--a person in a (waning) position of authority in this country would think it was appropriate to mock the disabled. 

posted by: rgregory at 16:31 | link | comments (5) |

Comments:

#1  28 October 2006 - 02:13

 

I wonder if Limbaugh thinks that by breaking taboo that he'll create more ethos for himself and use Fox's a priori pathos against him. If he smears Fox as a person who will shamelessly exploit his disability for pathetic appeal, then Limbaugh will respond just as outrageously by putting a big set of Republican balls on himself: "I'm not afraid to be politically incorrect! See? Watch this!"

Enter: Limbaugh's offensive comment.

Limbaugh knows he is bereft of a pathetic appeal unless he does something this outrageous. He is not disabled and cannot garner public sympathy; on the contrary, he's a lard-ass, and it doesn't do the same thing for him as it does for Michael Moore (with Moore, I kinda think it's endearing). The only avenue available to Limbaugh to construct pathos is to, as he sees it, deconstruct Fox's by breaking the P.C. barrier for epideictic purposes in censuring Fox. Thus, with the conservative crowd, Limbaugh gains more ethical backing, and Fox's ethos is called into question and his pathos exposed for a rhetorical sham.

Of course, I think Limbaugh's a jerk. If nothing else, he's really trying to win on the grounds of ethos--who has the most balls, Limbaugh for hazarding almost certain public censure or Fox for showing his lack of bodily control?--because he has no pathos of his own, which is might be Fox's strongest rhetorical asset, intentional or not.

No doubt, Fox's ethos is incredibly strong as well. Really, I guess they're both joined together when we see him making his appeals. The visual nature of his appeal is compelling because we feel for him and because we trust him implicitly. I guess this is why Limbaugh can't win. He doesn't have Fox's looks, nor does he enjoy the national affection and trust Fox has since 1985. Limbaugh has to discredit Fox visually ... he has no other choice.

To me, this just means that if you've taken the side against Fox and his appeal, you're just gonna turn out to be an asshole by default.

I hope that all made sense. I might need to clarify, even to myself. But I'll just post this.

Mo'nonymous

#2  28 October 2006 - 05:19

 

Yes, your comment made complete since. And, for the record, excellent observations--lovin' the ethos/pathos comparisions. And, you even threw in an epideictic reference for good measure. Impressive. ;)

And, I was thinking about the incident earlier, and I think it's interesting that the Republican party has been playing the "duelism" game for some time now. They're the "moral majority." Which means, esssentially, that anyone who isn't a Republican is the "immoral minority."

Now, Democrats are starting to get a little steam and have turned this either/or scenario back at them. If you support the Democratic party, you're for curing diseases. If you're against the Democratic party, you're against curing diseases. And, like you said, then you're just the asshole by default.

Which makes me wonder, if Rush Limbaugh were hit by a bus tomorrow while walking his dog, would you feel more sorry for the dog?

rdg

Mo'nonymous

#3  29 October 2006 - 04:28

 

This only goes to show once again that Rush Limbaugh is a douchebag. (And I apologize for the offense to douchebags worldwide.)

I was watching television earlier today (and that's a rare occurrence lately), and caught a VH1 commentator saying that this whole thing is just further proof that Limbaugh is back on his drugs.

Oh, and quit showing off, Brandon! ;)

-- CA

Mo'nonymous

#4  29 October 2006 - 04:32

 

(Cm, only, of course, if that was actually BB... If not, please disregard the final sentence of my previous comment. It's late, I've been grading papers, and my brain has probably shriveled to half its size from reading them.)

-- CA

Mo'nonymous

#5  29 October 2006 - 15:24

 

Of course, it's Brandon. His posts read just like his blogs--long... ;)

Limbaugh back on drugs? I could see it. I'm on a disability listserv and it's been awkwardly quite on this entire controversy, which I'm a little disappointed for. The rhetorical implications, not to mention the claims that Limbaugh is making in regard to the "fakeness" of disabilities and diseases in society is distrubing. I love how the Republican party is imploding on itself. (Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like the Democrats are doing enough to use this to their advantage. Democrats really need to get their messages to the public more effectively--but that's an entirely different blog.)

It makes one wonder just how insensitive "general society" can be to those with a disability or disease.

And, for me, "jerkoff" kept coming to mind.

Mo'nonymous

Comments: