Research: The Rhetoric of Rush: Misogyny and Ad Hominem Attacks (PCA/ACA 2013 Presentation)

Below are my presentation notes for a paper given at the 2013 PCA/ACA Conference in Washington, DC.  The full paper contains more coverage of theory and more details on the cases.  The full paper also includes coverage of the more widely known Fluke case.  The presentation only included coverage of Patrick and McMillan cases.
---

The Rhetoric of Rush: Misogyny and Ad Hominem Attacks


William Hart, Ph.D.
Department of Mass Communications and Journalism
Norfolk State University
Norfolk, VA 23504

wbhart@nsu.edu

A paper presented at the PCA/ACA National Conference,
March 2013, Washington, DC


Introduction

“Name-calling becomes a substitute for meaningful debate of the issues and it works quite well in the political arena. That is unfortunate, because the name-calling, while it may have a chilling effect on the genuine discussion of issues, does nothing to satisfy the millions of people who share the views of those who are the targets of those insults.”*

The author of the above quote?

Who regularly uses the following terms to describe women that he disagrees with: NAGs, woman drivers, sluts, Feminazis, babes, over-educated women, authorettes, and reporterettes?




Got answer to the questions?






The answer to both questions is, ironically, Rush Limbaugh.
There is a long history of this language for Limbaugh.

"Rush Limbaugh - Feminazi Trading Cards (1992)"



The purpose of this essay is to identify, analyze and evaluate the ad hominem (name-calling) arguments used by Rush Limbaugh against women during the recent contraception controversy.

Given the frequency by which ad hominem argument is used within U.S. political discourse and given the impact this form of argument can have (e.g., national news attention), close analysis is warranted.

It is important to understand how ad hominem argument is used in political discourse in general and more specifically in political talk radio.






Framework for Analysis and Evaluation

• Walton: Recent developments in argumentation theory can be applied to arguments found the media (political speeches, debates, commercials, etc.) Philosopher and logician Walton calls this media argumentation.  
  
  

• According to Walton, media arguments happen in a five stage feedback cycle.
• First, a proponent presents an argument in the media, often a presumptive, informal argument.
• Second, the proponent receives feedback “in the form of polling, observing how sales go up or not, and by various other indirect means of communicating with the audience” (Walton, p. 352).
• Third, the proponent gathers further information which may indicate a need to change their argument.
• The argument may then be modified ...
• ...and then presented again in the media.

• When analyzing and evaluating media arguments, Walton proposes answering the following critical questions.
• CQ1: Is the premise true (or well supported) that a is a bad person?
• CQ2: Is the issue of character relevant in the type of dialogue in which the argument was used and is the allegation that a is a bad person relevant to judging a’s argument α?
• CQ3: Is the conclusion of the argument that α should be (absolutely) rejected even if other evidence to support a has been presented, or is the conclusion merely (the relative claim) that α should be assigned a reduced weight of credibility, relative to the total body of evidence available?” (Walton, 1998, p. 250).

• Ad Hominem Argument
• One of the most common media arguments in mediated political discourse is ad hominem argument.
• Abusive (or Direct) Ad Hominem Argument
• “a is of bad character.
• Therefore a’s argument α should not be accepted” (p. 249).

Background

• Limbaugh Literature
• There is much popular, book-length, criticism of Limbaugh's arguments (e.g. Franken's book).
• Some scholarly analysis, but mostly social science, media effects studies
• Need rhetorical criticism of Limbaugh and other media pundits.
• Limbaugh and Misogyny
• Only brief mentions in books and articles.
• More detailed, careful study is needed.
• The Limbaugh-Fluke Controversy/Argument
• Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University law student went before a special House Democratic committee to argue that religious institutions like her university, Georgetown University, should provide contraception coverage. Limbaugh, on the other hand, argued against a mandate.
• Late February to early March 2012 Limbaugh used ad hominem attacks on Fluke and two other women in the news.
• A Time-Line

Classifying and Analyzing the Cases

• Case 1: Danica Patrick

"...Rush Limbaugh Talk About Danica Patrick February 27, 2012"

Note: The video is not the greatest, but it is the audio that is more important.

• In an interview, NASCAR driver, Patrick says she supports contraceptive insurance coverage.
• Limbaugh disagrees and says "what would you expect from a woman driver?"
• See paper for further details

• Case 2: Sandra Fluke, “slut”
• See paper for detailed analysis of the Fluke case. 

• Case 3: Tracie McMillan

"Fluke Isn't the Only Woman Being Attacked By Limbaugh This Week"

• Author, Traci McMillan, argues in her book that the U.S. government should do more to get better food to lower-income citizens.
• Limbaugh disagrees and calls McMillan and "authorette" and "over-educated".
• See paper for further details.

Evaluating the Cases

[Now that you have some of the background on the cases and Walton's theoretical perspective how would you evaluate Limbaugh's arguments.  How would you answer the following questions?]

• CQ1: Is the premise true (or well supported) that a is a bad person?
• For the Patrick case?
• For the McMillan case?
• CQ2: Is the issue of character relevant in the type of dialogue in which the argument was used and is the allegation that a is a bad person relevant to judging a’s argument α?
• For the Patrick case?
• For the McMillan case?
• CQ3: Is the conclusion of the argument that α should be (absolutely) rejected even if other evidence to support a has been presented, or is the conclusion merely (the relative claim) that α should be assigned a reduced weight of credibility, relative to the total body of evidence available?” (Walton, 1998, p. 250).
• Is this relevant for the above cases?

Conclusion

This essay finds that Limbaugh’s ad hominem arguments are, in some cases, not examples of fallacious reasoning. In some interpretations, the conclusions may follow from the premises. However, for Limbaugh, for Limbaugh's arguments to be valid, the premises need to be true. For example, in the Fluke case, because Limbaugh misunderstood contraceptives, his premise the Fluke being a “slut” did not hold true.

Along with these findings, this essay also raises some interesting and important questions. The present essay is a case study of three cases in a two week period in the long history of The Rush Limbaugh Show.

• Are the findings here indicative of a common pattern for Limbaugh? 
• How often does he use ad hominem attacks? 
• Does Limbaugh only use the abusive ad hominem argument or does he use other forms?  
• Does he have a common signature, that is, does he use certain forms of informal logic and not others? 
• Does he have a common strategy for responding to media feedback on his arguments? 

See the full paper for other key questions that should guide future criticism of the rhetoric of Rush Limbaugh.


* Limbaugh, 1992, p. 185-186.

Share this post with others. See the Twitter, Facebook and other buttons below.
Please follow, add, friend or subscribe to help support this blog.
See more about me at my web site WilliamHartPhD.com.