RUSH: Now, I am assuming that my statement on conflict might have some of you, if not confused, disagreeing with me. It was exactly one hour ago, and in trying to make an overall larger point, I said, talking about the fact that our country was founded by people who knew and expected there to be constant conflict. And my statement that politics and compromise is not how we solve problems, politics is the vehicle but victory in politics is how we solve problems, not compromise. Even in compromise, even if you want to say that there was a compromise, somebody lost in the compromise, somebody won. It's always the case.
You might hear, "You know, in compromise nobody gets everything they want." Well, somebody got more than the other guy did, always and without doubt. And then I said, it may well be that the problem in our country with our politics right now is not that there's too much conflict, but too little. And I was speaking within the context of our politics in Washington, and I assume that you knew that that's what I was referring to. If you didn't and might have thought that I meant just in general, I could see where you would think I'm wrong, or you might be curious, disagree, want to ask me further about it.
So rather than wait for a call to ask me with a specific situation, let me give you one to just show you I know what some many of you probably did in reacting. And let's use this Ole Miss situation as an example, because there is a situation where the conflict is unnecessary. This has been totally manufactured. It is an artificial conflict. Everybody was chugging along, everything was fine, and one day somebody decided the name of the school is racist and slave rooted, and therefore it has to go. Just like Redskins has to go.
Now somebody's trying to get a movement going in Cleveland to get rid of the Indians on the same basis, and after that they'll go to Atlanta for the Braves, and then after that they'll resume their efforts on the Tomahawk chop. But let's stick with this situation in Mississippi and Ole Miss. This Ole Miss thing, and in a lot of other places where supposed politically incorrect names are involved, in this instance we have a conflict I don't want more of. And thus I was not talking about this kind of conflict. But nevertheless the conflict has been brought to us. And once again, this situation's gonna be resolved by somebody losing and somebody winning.
But I think the real point in a circumstance like what's going on in Ole Miss, the vast majority of the people in Mississippi and in the rest of the country are not offended in the least by the name Ole Miss. In fact, many people from there have a favorable historical root to it. They don't think it's harmful, they don't think it's insulting, and they don't intend it to be. It's just the name of the school, it's the alma mater, big whoop. And they're not offended by it. But the left comes along and presumes to assert the rights of people who they want to be offended but who really aren't.
The same thing is happening with the Redskins. There are a lot of people who are not bothered by it at all. But if you listen to the sports media and all the others in the "we gotta get rid of the name" camp, they act like everybody's offended. They presume to make the case as though everybody's offended, and the only people that aren't offended are the owners of the team and the people that work at the team, and therefore that's a minority and we gotta get rid of the name.
I think the same thing's happening in this Ole Miss mess. They are presuming -- and it's a tactic, by the way, this presumption is a strategic political tactic to act, to presume as though, "Oh, my God, yeah, people have been offended by this for years, they just haven't said anything about it." And in this way they assert the rights of people in Mississippi who they want to be offended but who really aren't. And then they presume to speak for them, when they really aren't. And then they create the illusion that a whole lot of people are offended by it, who really aren't. And then this creates a conflict which is artificial, because the whole thing is a lie.
The presumption that everybody's offended by Ole Miss, the presumption that everybody's bothered and offended by the Redskins name is what animates the whole movement to change the name, because it lives on an assumption, which is false, that everybody's offended by it. And this, in fact, is one of the things that really bugs me is these damn leftists presuming to speak for everybody. These damn liberals assuming everybody agrees with them or, even if they don't, trying to make it look like everybody does. And if you don't, you're an oddball, kook, extremist right winger or what have you.
In other words, this movement to get rid of the Redskins and the movement to get rid of the name Ole Miss at Mississippi now are deliberately and gratuitously interjecting conflict in our society for the express purpose of dividing us so that they can get what they want because they know that ultimately they're gonna get their way by people giving up, who don't want the conflict, who don't want to have to argue about it anymore.
And they're figuring that's what's gonna happen with the Redskins. Peter King the other day, he was at Redskins camp, and he saw all these people wearing Redskins gear, and he was depressed, 'cause he figured since he hates the name that everybody hates the name, or they should. And when he saw all the Redskins jerseys and caps, he said, "Aw, jeez," and he said, "You know, it's gonna take a little longer." Meaning, they're just gonna have to keep pounding until finally you give up opposing them, because you don't want to fight about it anymore.
And that, folks, is how they do it. They just keep coming. They just keep oppressing; they keep pushing; they keep accusing; they keep presuming; they keep attacking, and they just make people give up, because they're tired of it. Eventually people say, "Not that big a deal, screw it, okay, then call it the University of Mississippi, I don't care. I'm tired of the argument." And that's how they win. But, believe me, there is no compromise involved. There's one side usually giving up in a circumstance like this, and that's how the other side wins.
I predict to you that that's exactly what's gonna happen here in this Ole Miss thing. You can see it. It's exactly what's going on with the Redskins. The left and whoever it is that decides they don't like the name, I think this is an exercise in power as much as it is anything. I'll go a little further. I think half the people offended by the name really aren't, because they should have been offended by it their whole life, but all of a sudden people are and they fall on this, "Well, you know, Rush, the world is a changing place and the country is a changing place, and I've heard the argument given that, you know, words change over time, too, Rush, you know, words evolve. And so 60 years ago, 50 years ago, 'Redskins' could have been fine, and as society evolves, it becomes less and less fine and here."
That's tripe. If people today are profoundly insulted by the name, why weren't they last year? Why weren't they 10 years ago? The fact that they weren't and that they are now means something had to happen to make 'em offended. What did it? And I think there are many answers, but one of the answers, particularly on the part of the media, is this continuing desire they have to demonstrate their power.
I think this Redskins thing, more than anything, is a bunch of leftists demonstrating they have the ability to categorize some owner as an absolute scumbag, and the name of his team is a rabid insult, and they're gonna show everybody they've got the power to change that name. And the way they're gonna do it is presume, when they talk about it, that everybody finds it offensive. But at every Redskins game this year, FedEx Field's gonna be sold out and people are gonna be wearing Redskins gear left and right and you're not gonna see the evidence that everybody's offended by it.
The only place you're gonna hear everybody's offended by it is in the media, and the media is going to presume -- hey, it's happening with Ray Rice. All of these people that think everybody thinks that two-game suspension isn't enough, the presumption is that everybody's mad at Goodell and that everybody thinks Goodell should have suspended Ray Rice for even more. And yet Ray Rice gets a standing O at the first preseason game in Baltimore last night. The media looks at it, "Aw, damn it, we might not win this one."
He got a standing O at training camp the first day he showed up. There were women wearing pink Ray Rice jerseys after he was suspended. Media not happy. He gets a standing O big applause last night in Baltimore, M&T Bank, whatever the name of the stadium is, he shows up, media, supposedly surprised, I don't know. But this is how this all works.
So in this case, folks, we have an artificial conflict, and this kind of conflict we don't need more of. That's not the kind of conflict I was referring to. The kind of conflict I'm talking about that we don't have enough of is people standing up to this crap and trying to stop it. The artificial conflict is Ole Miss, time-honored name, nobody gave a rat's rear end about it until one day, and nobody really knows where it started, and nobody really knows who started it, it's just that one day Ole Miss is unacceptable, and the presumption is that everybody in the country's offended by it, and therefore it's gotta be changed.
So an artificial conflict has begun, and people, "Come on, we gotta solve it. Oh, jeez, I don't want to fight it anymore. Okay, change it, I'm tired, I'm not a racist, okay?" And they get rid of the name. "I'm not a racist, okay, okay, don't call it Redskins anymore, okay. Okay, I'm not a racist! I voted for Obama, okay? I'm not a racist! I'll vote for Obama, okay?" That's how it happens. And it ticks me off. There's not enough standing up to this crap, this artificial, presumptuous, never ending assault by people on the left that everybody must conform to the convoluted, oftentimes depraved way they think.
And that's what happens on this program every day. That's what we stand up to and say "stop." Every day I get up and I look at people and things and traditions and institutions that I believe in and hold dear under assault. I don't get up and plan attacks on people. I don't have time. We're all too busy defending ourselves against all these baseless charges: mean-spirited, cold-hearted, heartless, racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe.
That's what we are called every day, and it's done on purpose. It's designed to put people on defensive and to get them to do things to try to prove they're none that have. And the things that you do to prove you're none of that help liberalism advance its agenda. And I don't. The whole thing just makes me livid, and I just think if everybody or just a few more people could see this for what it is and how it operates, that a lot more people would end up standing to it.
RUSH: Folks, there are a lot of things going on with the left and their never ending assault on the traditions and institutions that are harmless. In fact, they're great. And they go to the identification of either the country or a great tradition of the country, or what have you. Now, if there's one thing that I could try to get you to focus on here in recognizing this, it is this presumption behind every argument that everybody agrees with the left on this.
So in the case of the Redskins, the presumption is that everybody finds the name offensive. The media's very attitude when they talk about it on television or they write about it on the Web or in their publications, the attitude behind every story is that everybody agrees. They never write about it from the perspective that they gotta start small and persuade a lot of people, it's gonna be a big job. They start presuming that that's already happened. They start from the standpoint that they've already won the argument, that there isn't any argument, that all there is left to do is get rid of the name.
This is a very key psychological ploy, a very key psychological element that is part of every effort the left makes in its assault on things, is this presumption that the argument's over and that a vast majority already agree. And that's what probably depresses a lot of you, thinking you're in the minority, thinking, "Oh, my God, I don't relate to my country anymore." That's what it is that makes you think everybody accepts and agrees with all this leftist claptrap. It's the psychological presumption present in the way all of these things are covered. That's what you have to actively fight and understand that that is a trick, it is a technique that is designed.
Obama uses it all the time (imitating Obama), "As a majority of economists on both the left and the right have already said, my economic plan is great." Or, "As I'm sure the leaders of those African countries would agree, they have no business getting this serum." Or, "As every hospital and doctor that I've spoken to has agreed, Obamacare is the only way we --" This is a technique, and it's how they do it. It's how they make you think that you're in the very small minority, that the country's left you behind, that you're an aging dinosaur and what you believe is long gone, when it's not true. These presumptions are always BS.