Liberal guy: Limbaugh not as bad as Hutus' genocide radio

At the Huffpo, Jeffrey Feldman compares Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos"--and his "dream" of riots in Denver--to Radio Rwanda's broadcasts calling for genocide against the Tutsi in 1994, in the runniest pile of moral equivalence you'll see this month:

For weeks, now, Rush Limbaugh has been trying to incite political violence by giving on-air military-sounding orders, effectively 'commanding' his listeners to wage war against the U.S. electoral system.

But at least Feldman's fair, quickly coming to the conclusion that Rush isn't quite as bad as Radio Rwanda, which:

directly engaged [in] using false reports as propaganda, the goal of which was to encourage listeners to commit acts of violence. The effort worked, and subsequent investigations linked the violent language to the actual deaths, thereby including the broadcasts within the framework of the genocidal action both legally and morally.

In stark contrast, Limbaugh's broadcasts were removed from encouraging direct acts of violence, focusing instead on creating the conditions for violence--what Limbaugh described as 'chaos.'

In stark contrast. Never listened to Limbaugh much (though somehow I was the day he made the riots-in-Denver comments, and believe I was the first blogger to post on them--send me money) but even I know the goals of "Operation Chaos," and "creating the conditions for violence" ain't among them. No matter, Feldman gets a column out of it. His conclusion (Conclusion: Limbaugh Broadcasts Violence) is utterly clue- and humor-free:

When a prominent radio figure begins systematically calling for his listeners to engage in acts that intended [sic] to bring about political violence, citizens have a responsibility to examine the implications of such a development.

Feldman's own no-doubt-unintended implication: Democrats are so lacking in self-control they're liable to fall upon each other in murderous frenzies (are there any other kind?) at the DNC because of a stunt by a drug-addicted shock-jock.

In Limbaugh's case, the comparison to Rwandan hate radio shows the right-wing pundit's differences and similarities to past uses of broadcast media to incite violence [sounds like the conclusion of a 7th-grader's essay]. Limbaugh does not call for direct violent action, but he defines the American Left in ways that suggest violent action against them may be warranted.

Dem will cut down Dem, and Nazis will wade in to kill the wounded.

Moreover, Limbaugh specifically claims that calling for citizens to create chaos leading to violence is a healthy part of the Democratic process, but that holding Liberal political views is a threat to democracy's survival--thereby leading his listeners to see the political opposition as a civil enemy.

Should Limbaugh be free to continue these broadcasts? Of course. But that freedom does not release journalists from analyzing Limbaugh's violent-rhetoric [sic] in a broader context and discussing the implications it holds for Americans.

Gee, isn't he broad-minded: "Of course." Oddly, not once in the piece does Feldman mention the only folks who've even hinted (and more than hinted) that they'd actually commit violence during the DNC: Recreat!e68.

(via Hawkins)