The advice “Deep Throat” offered to Bernstein and Woodward in that underground garage way back then has been quoted often – “Follow the money.”  It set them on the way to discovery that eventually brought a president down.  Those young reporters were looking for a story and hoping to find truths to guide them in its telling.

I think the phrase we should be asking today to set ourselves on that way to discovery is “Who does it help?”

When talking heads on Sunday morning venues make fun of a president for failing to secure an Olympics event that would have provided thousands of jobs in America, who does that help?

When a radio talk show host admits in a very animated rant to being gleeful that President Barack Obama failed in his efforts to bring those Olympics to Chicago, who does that help?

Apparently with some, it’s not “America first,” or rooting for the home team.  Yes, we all know of those who proclaimed their wishes for Obama’s failure, and if nothing else, they’ve been consistent in that vitriolic wish.

Nonetheless and truly, though,  who does it help to be gleeful that Chicago lost out to Rio in the Olympics bid?  Unemployment data released on Friday, the day of that glee, showed the number to be 9.8% nationally.  We now know the thousands of jobs that could have been will not be because Chicago was not selected.  Why be happy about that?

But it doesn’t stop there.  In the instance of Limbaugh the Entertainer and his Friday rant, it was “Barack Hussein Obama,” not President Obama, or President Barack Obama,  whom he mocked and ridiculed, acting downright giddy about the selection of Rio di Janeiro as the site for Olympics events in 2016.

There can be no disagreement that Chicago was not served well by the IOC selection.  Neither can there be any disagreement that losing out on thousands of jobs is bad for America at this time.

Who is helped, though, by chanting “Barack Hussein Obama” on the radio Friday afternoon?  And, why was it necessary to speak his full name, without title, in that way?

It’s no secret, quite clear in fact, that Limbaugh does not like the president.  But, who, exactly, is served by that degree of ridicule or the use of his middle name, if not the hate element in our country, if not the racists in our country, if not the extreme fringe of our society like those who carry loaded weapons to public events or enter Washington museums to shoot up the place?

And, never mind the second amendment to the constitution, and the fact it’s legal, please.  It’s also legal to wear Daisy Mae shorts, a tank top without a bra, and flip flops to church on Sundays, but how many do?  Or a Speedo bathing suit, mesh shirt and Crocs?  Don’t like the church analogy? Well, substitute your 4th grader’s class assembly, then, and the same outfits, and the point is still made.

In my youth, every day included the Pledge of Allegiance, and raising our milk glass in a toast to the President of the United States.  It was either a part of one’s school day, or it was with the host of a local kid’s television show in Boston.  No one ever considered it “indoctrination” into the “evil” agenda of President Eisenhower, as I recall.

We dressed appropriately and respectfully as we attended our own childrens’ school concerts and sports games, and when we went to church services on Sundays. I don’t recall anyone bringing a loaded handgun or rifle to any of these public gatherings, even though the second amendment was certainly “alive” way back then, too.

The hate and the anger behind the words of Limbaugh the Entertainer are not new to American politics, though.  Our history is replete with instances of incitement and pandering, and wars have been fought over them, people killed.  As we wrote on these pages last week, the amplification systems are more powerful today, and people are more inclined to use them instead of the “whispers” of the past.

With the greater ability to be heard and for one’s words to influence the baser elements of our society, though, should come a greater responsibility to exercise restraint.  If the only people served by one’s very public and loud words are those who dwell in darkness and the shadow of hatred and violence, then doesn’t the speaker have a greater duty to exercise care?  And, with unemployment just a hair below 10%, don’t we all have a responsibility to support efforts to create new jobs, to find ways for everyone to be lifted out of this recession?

Who does it help?  Who is truly served by glee taken in another’s failure?  Sure, politics is a contact sport, and neither verity nor virtue have much of a place in it.  Bloody the incumbent badly enough and you improve the chances of his defeat next time around. Making one’s point by tearing another’s down is the lowest form of debate, especially in the absence of substantive alternatives offered.

That really is the point of the rants, though, isn’t it?  To bring out the worst in one’s listeners, as ignoble a goal as can be imagined.  There can be no other purpose.  Remind people he’s “exotic,” last year’s buzz word for African-American; remind people his name “sounds” Muslim; compare him to Hitler and call him a Nazi.

For so many at the time, the 60s convinced us that politics was a noble profession, and government service almost a duty in one form or another.  We became involved locally, we ran for public office out of a sense of community, and we wanted to make the world a better place.

But the unartful discourse taking place today, no better exemplified by the awfulness of Limbaugh, serves only the darkness in people.  There is neither nobility or virtue in that, and it shames us as a people.