Michael Medved, whatever one may think of him, can claim rather more intellectual attainment than Limbaugh.
The reason Rush is so successful is because he is one of the few people who is not afraid to say things, on the air, which most Americans say across their dining room tables.
I'd change that "most" to "many". It it were indeed "most", the Limbaughs would have much more power and influence than they do. But not to quibble: your point is mine. Do we really need "leaders" who can do no better than parrot what they hear on the street? I don't think so. You know as well as I do that the American public is woefully ignorant. More than half the nation hasn't got a grip on when the Civil War took place, and they're pretty fuzzy about Vietnam as well. Certainly politicians need to listen to people's accounts of their problems, but they need also to KNOW things and have an understanding of what might be workable solutions. Venting may be fun, but in the long run it isn't constructive.
How can you relate to the average American when you grew up in Cambridge, went to Wellesly, and live in San Francisco or New York.
How would you define the "average American"? Apparently this person defines him/herself as "middle class", but apart from that we're far too diverse a country for "average" to be a useful category. Wellesley and other Ivy and Seven Sisters schools are quite insistent on a good geographic mix of students, and offer generous scholarships to those unable to afford the bills. Yes, the people accepted are expected to meet high academic standards. This doesn't seem to me a bad thing. I still remember the Nixon administration defending the nomination of Carwell to the Supreme Court on the grounds that mediocrity needed a voice on the bench. Sorry.
And if you work for a New York or San Francisco newspaper, of course that's where you live. No choice in the matter. |
