“You can use the Redskins issue to argue anything,” I wrote Monday morning. That was prophetic, as it turns out. Because Monday afternoon, Rush Limbaugh chimed in on the issue.
This happened after Limbaugh began discussing the federal government’s potential involvement in student-loan rates, and the creeping loss of freedom he believes this could cause.
“Now, there’s another example of this kind of change,” Limbaugh said. “The pressure on the Washington Redskins — talking about the NFL — the pressure on the Washington Redskins to change the name from Redskins to something else. And of course the modernists among us — well, you can’t continue to call them Redskins. I mean, you wouldn’t run around in real life calling, ‘Hey, lookit, you’re a Redskin!’ you wouldn’t say that to somebody’s face, and so a team shouldn’t be named that.
“And then the people who oppose it might posit an argument, ‘Well, you know, if you do that, where are you gonna stop? Are you gonna start saying you can’t name teams after animals next? Where is it gonna stop?’
“And then the change advocates say — see, see, you just construct this straw man, where you manufacture disaster as a result of change. That’s not the point. In the case of the Redskins name, who is everybody advocating change looking to to make it happen? The federal government. And this is the problem. Lookit, change is unavoidable. Change is constant. And it does need to be embraced. But I’ll tell you, all of the change being advocated now — at least [from] the change advocates, the people who think they’re hip and modern — all they’re actually doing is advocating the government take more control of things.
“Okay, so the Redskins may not be a popular name with some people. Let the NFL figure it out. Why does the government have to get involved? Why does Obama or Congress or anything need to get involved? We don’t need McCain and the boys involved in this. Why should they be? But the advocates, those people who are now just fit to be tied over the name Redskins, what they really want is to empower the federal government some more. They’re willing to turn over all kinds of powers to the federal government in order to bring about what they want.
“So these change advocates are nothing but a bunch of liberals who are, in truth, seeking to empower the federal government with more power over everybody. And it’s incremental, and sometimes it’s tiny, and sometimes it’s considered insignificant. C’mon Rush, what harm could there be getting rid of the name Redskins, it offends some people. Fine. But why do you want the iron fist of the federal government involved in this? It’s an NFL thing; let them deal with it.
“The NFL and the owners deal with the Redskins. And the fans, if it were really that upsetting to the fans, nobody would be going to FedEx Stadium. And FedEx Stadium is sold out every week. It obviously isn’t upsetting too many people. And yet you want the federal government to come in here with their jack-booted thugs, or iron-fist people, and do what?
“Now look, I’m not one of these people that is routinely, uniformly, formulaically against change, because you can’t stop it. But the change advocates are a bunch of leftists who simply want to empower the federal government to impose what they believe under the name of change. What they want you to believe is [that this is] simply societal change. In the case of the Redskins name, what they want you to believe is that our country and our society is maturing and is understanding that it’s just reprehensible and unfair and mean to have a team named Redskins.
“Well, the fact of the matter is, our society is NOT that offended by it, and DOESN’T think that it’s that big a deal, as evidenced by Redskins sell-outs and high TV ratings. So the advocates, the people who don’t like the Redskins names are just a bunch of PC jerks. They’re politically correct liberals who want the federal government to come in – wah wah wah wah, we don’t like Redskins, and we don’t want to have to see it.
“And there ISN’T a groundswell to change it, so they want the federal government [to]. Well, it’s the same thing here with the student-loan program, or it’s the same thing in so many other areas of life. Change, must have change. You want the federal government to do it, you’re not talking about change, you’re talking about imposition. You’re talking about imposing things that liberals want. And you’re also talking about the incremental loss of freedom — a little bit here, a little bit there — that adds up someday to be big.”