As a liberal against the censorship of games, I am not surprised by Rush's stance. I agree that the issue is bipartisan and depends more upon one's understanding of games than anything else. There is one thing with which I take issue, however...
RUSH: Your video game is your video game and you don't think the government should have any role whatsoever in applying any artistic sanction to it or any stamp of approval -- you can say that but you can't say that -- because that's not permitted. The market should determine this, correct?
CALLER: Yes.
RUSH: If you want to buy something raunchy in a video game, you should be allowed to, and if it's too raunchy the market won't support it? Fine, it dies. If the market likes it, then we got a cultural problem to deal with, but the government ought to have nothing to do with it. Right? You agree?
I am also not surprised that this is his rationale, but I think it's a bit more complex than another "free market vs. the government" issue. I think a great number of people against the government regulation of video games (if not the majority) believe it is the responsibility of the
individual parents to decide what content is and isn't appropriate for their children, and for
individual adults to decide what is and isn't appropriate for themselves. Yes, these people ARE "the market," but I see it less as the collective market deciding what is and isn't "too raunchy" on the whole as opposed to each individual having a sort of "appropriateness threshold" that generally advances with age, but at different rates for everyone. That is, some 13-year-olds are more emotionally mature and can handle more than some 18-year-olds. It seems to me like Rush is still advocating the idea that some works are appropriate or inappropriate for EVERYONE of a given age, but he just believes that this opinion should be socially enforced rather than legally enforced.
...am I splitting hairs here?
This is not to say that I refuse to accept Rush's support for our cause just because I disagree with him about pretty much everything besides this issue. I'm just saying that different people with the same opinion can have different reasons for holding that opinion. Yeah, that kinda seems like a lame reason to post such a long analysis, but I think it's important, because if you* aren't careful, you can submit yourself to an ideology with which you would otherwise disagree simply because it is used to support a cause that you also support. For instance, soon after Rush backs up his point, he says "welcome to conservatism," probably under the assumption that the caller identified themselves as a liberal. Note how Rush frames his point in the form of several questions, to make sure that the caller agreed with what he was saying, and thus demonstrate that the caller was, in fact, conservative (whether the caller realized it or not) because the logical path he outlines makes use of conservative values. Had the caller said "no" to one of them, I bet Rush would've assumed the caller was in favor of the California law, because this is the only path Rush sees to his particular viewpoint. Of course, this is all conjecture, and there's no way of knowing for sure.
People often make the inverse fallacy, too (though I haven't seen any applied to this conversation): assuming they have disproved a theory/political view because they refute a single reason for holding that view... okay now I'm just rambling.
TL;DR: I usually disagree with Rush's political views, and here I disagree with his reasoning, but in the end we're on the same side (as far as what should actually be
done), and I'm glad this is so. Just don't categorize people ideologically based on what side they're on in this or any debate; you need to know WHY they believe what they do.
