Don't miss Part 2
As much as the phrase “don’t speak ill of the dead” has permeated all levels of mankind throughout the centuries to one degree or another, given the topic, I don’t think Rush Limbaugh would mind. I say this with confidence because he has stood by these pillars as his moral core—the “35 Undeniable Truths”—throughout his life until the very end. The first edition of this was published in 1988 and updated in 1994, show that these beliefs were well-baked into the pie. So then why go here? In essence, I’m hoping that some of these ideologies will die out with him. Having numerous family members from every branch on the tree believing that the word of Rush Limbaugh is gospel, they truly believe he’s “accurate 99.8% of the time,” I wanted to do a deep dive into this revolutionary piece of his history, and look at the facts that do not support most of what he supported.
Whether you loved him, hated him, or would love to bring a little reality check to your family members, please read and share.
Written By: Anton Sawyer
In an attempt to maintain complete transparency, all research and statistical fact-checking for this article, and all articles, can be found at our site's bibliography linked here.
Consider supporting our mission on Patreon
This analysis is going to be broken up into two parts. Part 1 will look at the “truths” that fall under the categories of “His Attempts At Humor/Blatant Hyperbole/Agreement.” Also included within are what I call “Not Enough Context/Murky At Best/Conceptual Misdirection.”
Part 2, we will have the finale. This will contain all of his beliefs that are considered “Outright Lies/Are You Serious?/An Utter Disdain For American History.” In his own words “All equally truthful: number 1 is not more or less important than 35,” so let us commence …
His Attempts At Humor/Blatant Hyperbole/Agreement:
“My first 35 Undeniable Truths are still undeniably true.” Since a majority of the “truths” he espoused in the original text were about Cold War Russia, a lot of it has aged like milk. I’ve included a link that includes both the original and the updated versions so you can see for yourself.
“I am not arrogant.” In his favor, the talent he had from God was only “on loan.”
“The vast majority of the rich in this country did not inherit their wealth; they earned it. They are the country's achievers, producers, and job creators.” This is actually correct. According to a 2019 report by Newsweek, when researching the amount of American millionaires that were self-made, most were found to be just that. 67.7% were self-made, while 23.7% had a combination of inherited and self-created wealth. Only 8.5% of global high-net-worth individuals were categorized as having completely inherited their wealth.
“The most beautiful thing about a tree is what you do with it after you cut it down,” “Women should not be allowed on juries where the accused is a stud,” and “Feminism was established as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.” His brand of funny.
“There is a God.” To some, this is true, to others not so much. It’s philosophical but filled with some hyperbole. This hinges a lot on personal perspective.
“The way to improve our schools is not more money, but the reintroduction of moral and spiritual values, as well as the four ‘R's’: Reading, 'Riting, 'Rithmatic, and Rush.” I had a hard time deciding whether to put this under this first category, or the next one simply because he would often bask in absurdity as a psychological defense mechanism for his followers. It was the mere inclusion of himself that tipped the scales (some triggered conservative is going to project a fat joke here that doesn’t exist).
“Words mean things,” “Too many Americans can't laugh at themselves anymore,” and “Follow the money. When somebody says, "It's not the money," it's always the money.” It’s rare that I agree with the man, but on these, he’s not wrong.
“Not Enough Context/Murky At Best/Conceptual Misdirection.”:
“Evidence refutes liberalism,” and “There is no such thing as a New Democrat.” This is beyond vague. I tried to gain more context to this, but the best I could find is that he meant all of liberalism. All of it. Ever. This means that throughout the history of mankind, there has never been a time when any type of liberal policy has worked. This has been written before more in-depth on this site, but ignoring all of that, this means that for literal centuries they have failed at every turn. To quote the American Author and Photographer James E. Cornette, “Even a blind squirrel will find a nut every now and then.” And I couldn’t find anything to even really speculate on what a “New Democrat” meant exactly.
“Abstinence prevents sexually transmitted disease and pregnancy, every time it's tried,” and “Condoms only work during the school year.” The first statement is technically true but falls in the same ballpark as the condom statement as lacking serious context. I know these quotes are ones that have been held up in the conservative community as being air-tight arguments, but as it is with so many other ideals held up by the GOP, the science shows the statistics (reality) don’t exactly pan out. A 2017 article by the Journal of Adolescent Health (JAH) shows that abstinence-only sex education has backfired immensely. Between 2002 and 2014, the percentage of schools in the US that require students to learn about human sexuality fell from 67% to 48%, and requirements for HIV prevention declined from 64% to 41%. While proponents for “Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage” programs suggest that sexual activity outside of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects, we find no evidence that consensual sex between adolescents is psychologically harmful. The risks associated with adolescent sexual activity are influenced by the policy context. In countries where adolescents have access to contraceptive education and counseling and medical care, adolescent pregnancy rates are much lower than in the United States. In direct response to Limbaugh’s assertion suggesting that abstinence from sexual intercourse is “the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems,” The JAH report flew into its face by saying it “is a misleading and potentially harmful message, as it conflates theoretical effectiveness of intentions to remain abstinent and the actual practice of abstinence. In practice, abstinence intentions often fail to prevent pregnancy and STIs.”
“There's a simple way to solve the crime problem: obey the law; punish those who do not,” “If you commit a crime, you are guilty,” and “Poverty is not the root cause of crime.” Sure, when the world exists in only absolutes and nuance is more of a hindrance than anything, it’s easy to see where this thought process could bloom. As anyone who has read this site before, it isn’t nearly as easy as this. For a full analysis please check out “Blue Lives Will Matter More if Blue Lives Stop Sexually Assaulting People,” “How Racism Changed My View of the Political Landscape Part 1: Abuses of Power,” “Pardon Me, Mr. President,” or “The Republican Legislation Which Could Legalize Murder During A Riot,” to show how the systemic issues exist in such a way as to not only use racism as it’s standard of enforcement but also how the laws themselves are geared to allow the exploitation of much of the poorer population in America (no matter the color for triggered GOP members).
“There is something wrong when critics say the problem with America is too much religion.” “Morality is not defined by individual choice,” and “Character matters; leadership descends from character.” These again are philosophical and so are somewhat defendable but don’t paint the entire picture. As written before, in “The Separation Of Church And State Does Not Exist In America,” the United States may posture this Constitutional Cornerstone, but the reality is that in many places here, the laws are geared to favor churches. I don’t have a problem with that, as long as churches are treated like businesses, such as being taxed. This also plays into morals and our political leaders. And yes, morality isn’t ENTIRELY defined by an individual’s choices, but they are a big part of it. Philosophically speaking, if you want to look from the viewpoint after a choice is made, how the self responds to whatever adversity may accompany that choice and its repercussions. Then yes, how someone responds is incredibly key. But to say that the initial choice has no say in the matter is arm-chair philosophy at best.
“Liberals attempt through judicial activism what they cannot win at the ballot box.” If I have to do an entire article about how the GOP held off allowing Obama to announce another Supreme Court justice seat being filled with the Merrick Garland nomination, and then turning around and doing the exact opposite when it came to the Trump nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, I won’t. It is beyond absurd and if you think it’s OK for whatever reason you can manufacture, then you are part of the problem.
“The culture war is between the winners and those who think they're losers who want to become winners. The losers think the only way they can become winners is by banding together all the losers and then empowering a leader of the losers to make things right for them,” and “You could afford your house without your government - if it weren't for your government.” Word salad that was memorized by his followers to try and make the round-about point that “Liberals are losers.”
For the rest of his “nuggets of wisdom” be sure to check out Part 2 which has the most statistical evidence as we break down his statements which will be proven to be outright lies.
Follow us on Twitter