Sublime Bloviations: Grading PolitiFact: Limbaugh and the Hyperbole Police

The Truth-O-Meter Says:

"You can't read a speech by George Washington . . . without hearing him reference God, the Almighty."

Rush Limbaugh on Wednesday, April 8th, 2009 in a radio broadcast

When I first offered my general critique of PolitiFact, the fact-checking operation run by The St. Petersburg Times with Congressional Quarterly, I lambasted them along non-partisan lines for rating Barack Obama (not president at the time) "False" regarding a fairly obvious case of hyperbole.

PolitiFact has resumed its role as the Hyperbole Police by attacking a recent statement by Rush Limbaugh as "False."

Here's what Limbaugh said:

Now, you've got people who want to conform and not cause any ripples, "Oh, yeah, yeah, we're not a Christian nation, Judeo-Christian ethic, we are a lot of different religions here. We're bound by our common values." You can't read a speech by George Washington, you can't read his inaugural address, you cannot read them without hearing him reference God, the Almighty, and how this nation owes its existence to God and our thanks to God for the vision in founding this nation with people treated as he made them, the yearning spirit to be free and so forth. There has been a constant attack since to disabuse people of the notion that this nation has a religious founding and from that religion springs morality and our basic understanding of where freedom comes from. It's got religious roots and people are threatened by religious roots because they're threatened by religious people.

Now let's look at the Hyperbole Police Report:

To see whether you indeed "can't read a speech by George Washington" without seeing a reference to God, we checked Washington's most noteworthy speeches, starting with his two inaugural addresses, since Limbaugh mentioned those specifically.

This is simply unworthy of being called fact-checking.

First, Limbaugh's statement was obvious hyperbole. Second, he did not limit his statement to references to God. Third, Washington's second inaugural address was only "noteworthy" for its extreme brevity (check the afterword at the end of this post). Fourth, Limbaugh did not mention a plurality of inaugural addresses. In the latter case, charitable reading suggests that the more relevant inaugural address be taken as the speaker's subject.

So clearly Limbaugh was wrong that you can't read a Washington speech without seeing a reference to God.

Right, just like Barack Obama was "wrong" that law enforcement against employers who hire illegals was less likely than a lightning strike. Sheesh.

This piece by Alexander Lane (edited by Bill Adair) continues the PolitiFact tradition of flip-flopping the emphasis on a statement's wooden-literal meaning as opposed to its intended meaning in context. Fact-checking worthy of the name takes the author's intent to heart as well as the message the audience is likely to receive.

Lane did not stop with grading hyperbole false, however. He blathered on to the point of finding another straw man to topple:

It's also worth noting, given Limbaugh's larger point that Washington's religious views support the idea that the U.S. is a Christian nation, that Washington was hardly a devout Christian.

Don't let the above fool you. Lane isn't interested in Limbaugh's underlying argument, which dealt with the relationship between religion and indvidual rights. Whether Washington was devout or not doesn't touch Limbaugh's real point. Lane takes PolitiFact readers for a ride, trying to sell the notion that Washington was a Deist. As one of his key evidences, Lane quotes retired professor John Ferling on the founding fathers:

"They thought in terms of there being a Supreme Creator who created life and the universe but then didn't intrude in things from that point on."

Ferling's words hint at a blind spot in his knowledge of religion, or at least logic. The statements of the supposedly deistic founding fathers, including those of Washington, often appeal to the Creator for continued protection. Does that make any sense to ask of a hands-off deity? Ferling appears to be one of those who project a modern flavor of deism back on the founding fathers. Yes, they emphasized morality, and they often sustained doubts about the divinity of Christ. But the point, from Limbaugh's point of view, was on the agreed basis for the individual rights: the hand of the Creator.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
(Declaration of Independence)

Instead of seeing Limbaugh's point about the role of government in protecting individual rights on the basis of religious presuppositions, Lane takes the moon-gravity leap to the idea that Limbaugh was claiming that Washington was quite the Christian. No kidding.

So Washington wasn't nearly the devout Christian that Limbaugh suggested he was and he did not refer to God in all his speeches as the talk show host claimed. We find Limbaugh's claim is False.

What a blinkin' waste of time. Limbaugh did not at all sugggest that Washington was a devout Christian.

Lane's grade: F
Adair's grade: F

Afterword:

Better late than never with the afterword.

Was Washington's second inaugural speech "noteworthy"? Was it significant that he neglected to mention God or related issues in that speech? As noted in the preceding reply to PolitiFact, the speech was notable primarily for shortness. And that is easy to prove by simply including the entire speech in the afterword:

FELLOW-CITIZENS: I am again called upon by the voice of my country to execute the functions of its Chief Magistrate. When the occasion proper for it shall arrive, I shall endeavor to express the high sense I entertain of this distinguished honor, and of the confidence which has been reposed in me by the people of united America.
Previous to the execution of any official act of the President the Constitution requires an oath of office. This oath I am now about to take, and in your presence: That if it shall be found during my administration of the Government I have in any instance violated willingly or knowingly the injunctions thereof, I may (beside incurring constitutional punishment) be subject to the upbraidings of all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony.
(History.org)

Beyond simply proving that the speech was spectacularly short, I wanted to emphasize the apparent reason why Washington kept it brief. In his own words, from the above:

When the occasion proper for it shall arrive, I shall endeavor to express the high sense I entertain of this distinguished honor, and of the confidence which has been reposed in me by the people of united America.

Washington had apparently decided that his inauguration was not the right time for a self-indulgent speech. I would hazard a guess that Washington's words here prefigure his farewell address, as it is well known that he served with reluctance while also realizing that he was the right man for the job.

It is worth noting that the farewell address contains much of the material that Rush Limbaugh suggested was commonplace in Washington's speeches.

April 21, 2009: Updated with complete title and afterword
April 22, 2009: Supplied a previously omitted "the"