The Indian guru of alternative therapies and writer of the book The Third Jesus
gives his own opinion about Rush Limbaugh in the Huffington Post, where Chopra writes a column. Before the election Chopra had a lot to say about Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska and former Vice Presidential candidate with John McCain during the campaign for the Presidency. This time his concerns about Limbaugh are clear.
He considers Limbaugh the representative of what’s wrong in America and how he symbolizes the worst in the culture.
Chopra backs up his claims about Limbaugh as setting the stage for immorality by pointing out that prior to the radio jock becoming an icon, there were only a handful of right-wing programs. Now there are over a thousand, he declares. He believes Limbaugh set the tone for Bush’s administration’s rhetoric and much of the angry talk that goes on around the country, despite people’s protestations that they don’t listen to Limbaugh.
This is what Chopra says: “
The Limbaugh effect fueled the anti-morality of the Bush years. Under ordinary morality, the wretched plight of illegal immigrants, for example, must be considered along with the fact that they are breaking the law. Being poor, illiterate, and desperate, their human condition makes them more sympathetic than ruthless lawbreakers would be. But under anti-morality, if you hate immigrants because they are foreigners who don't look American enough, the argument is over. Your anger strips away tolerance, sympathy, and regard for "the other." Hence the almost imperial bearing of Limbaugh, the bland certainty that because he never stops being angry, he never stops being right.”
There is much to respond to, one might say, about Chopra’s observations; and he is willing to declare his beliefs straight out, unlike Michael Steele,
the Republican Committee Chairman, who criticized Limbaugh, only to apologize for doing it later.
Limbaugh’s comments have been high profile enough to warrant additional comments by other people, mostly because they have reflected the mood of the disaffected, folks say.
Furthermore, in 1993 the effect of “right wing yakkers” was enough of a concern for the New York Times
to discuss it.
Some people may think Limbaugh isn’t worth discussing and is just an aberration many people disregard. Some also think that writing or calling attention to him simply fuels his popularity, but the articles summarized here observe differently. The writers maintain that Limbaugh achieved his status by cultivating negative feelings and ideas and that not enough people exposed this to reveal the problems that might develop as a consequence. Chopra is concerned about the consequences that have occurred as a result of Limbaugh’s beliefs that are perpetuated and repeated by others. Perhaps that is why he has taken the time to write about a subject some might think overdone but others believe wasn't done enough, especially in enlightening folks about the risks of Rush.