Why liberals should pay attention to Bill O’Reilly.
By Jesse Singal, University of Michigan
Friday November 3, 2006
Bill O’Reilly is the King of the Pundits; he enjoys better ratings than his contemporaries and has a great deal of cachet among many Americans. And liberals would be well-advised to start reading and watching him as soon as possible—there’s no way to understand the current political culture without first understanding the man Stephen Colbert dubbed “Papa Bear.” Reading O’Reilly’s new book, Culture Warrior, is a good place to start.
According to O’Reilly, O’Reilly is nonpartisan. He’s not engaging in the culture war for ideological reasons, at least not in terms of the usual, conservative-vs.-liberal divide. Liberalism, he repeats early and often, is not what he’s seeking to dismantle; his real beef is with the “secular-progressive,” or S-P, movement. And who are S-Ps? Early on, he explains the terms of the battle: “On the one side of the battlefield are the armies of the traditionalists like me, people who believe the United States was well founded and has done enormous good for the world. On the other side are the committed forces of the secular-progressive movement that want to change America dramatically: mold it in the image of Western Europe.” There you have it—S-Ps want to bring Brussels to Baltimore.
O’Reilly defines the S-P movement so vaguely and inconsistently—and caricatures it so hilariously (he is convinced that there’s a secret plot afoot to cap personal wealth at $15 million)—that things very quickly become ill-defined, sloppy, and somewhat incoherent. He spends pages droning on about different celebrities and news personalities, labeling some as S-Ps and others as “enablers.” It all has the feel of a middle school cheerleader circulating a list of who is not cool enough to hang out with her. And O’Reilly does a terrible job of hiding the fact that it’s liberalism, after all, that bothers him: he helpfully informs us that Katie Couric’s “sympathies lie on the left,” (44) and that “[f]or years, NBC News stopped just short of declaring itself a fellow traveler of the left.” (45) Things get really transparent when he discusses Bill Moyers: “Talk about confirmed liberals—this guy is the poster boy for the secular-progressive movement in the media.” (51) Bill, if being an S-P is different from being a liberal, which is Moyers?
It’s easy to criticize O’Reilly on the small-bore stuff—yes, he makes things up; yes, he’s a bully; and yes, he says some galling things. If you doubt any of this, the folks at Media Matters—“loathsome” S-P hacks, according to O’Reilly—have assembled a helpful dossier. But what matters more is the larger movement O’Reilly represents—one that has in recent years been nurtured by the dominant position that radio and TV punditry have enjoyed, and which has done tremendous damage to the tone of America’s political discourse.
O’Reilly is a standard bearer of the “secret liberal cabal” school of thought. Its adherents view liberalism not as a competing ideology to conservatism, but as a darker, more secretive and underhanded movement. O’Reilly’s conception of liberalism has two fundamental tenets: The liberal movement in the U.S., unlike its conservative counterpart, is controlled by furtive radicals; and liberals, unlike conservatives, will resort to non-electoral tactics to spread their views (the courts, Hollywood, etc.).
Listen to Hannity, Coulter, or Limbaugh—they all follow this same schema. O’Reilly has simply developed ways to be more tactful in his rhetoric, than, say, Michael “liberalism is a mental disorder” Savage. Nothing’s ever about partisanship in “The No Spin Zone”—no, Bill could never have that. He’s above it. He’s about tradition, family, and values—the fact that his opinions on these matters can 95 percent of the time be most accurately described as “conservative” is merely a coincidence.
The “secret liberal cabal” meme has spread like wildfire and is responsible for a huge amount of misunderstanding about the goals and intentions of liberal and progressive political movements. Millions of Americans, spurred into an echo-chamber frenzy by talk radio and “Fox News,” have adopted O’Reilly’s view of liberalism.
It’s a hugely convenient one for Republicans. After all, if liberals will resort to anything to promote their agenda, then it doesn’t matter who’s in power—liberals are always the biggest threat, and Hollywood’s denizens always a more dire foe than anyone in D.C. And if American liberals are controlled by radicals, most substantive policy discussions are moot: regardless of how poor a job the GOP does of ruling, the alternative will always be worse—it will always be the work of radicals rather than commonsense Americans.
This explains how members of the GOP, including President Bush and Karl Rove, can repeatedly parrot the idiotic line that, if liberals had their way, they would simply wait for the next terrorist attack, rather than take pro-active measures like invading Middle Eastern countries at random;many Americans genuinely believe that, at its core, the left represents genuine anti-Americanism. It also explains the bizarre conservative fixation with people like Barbra Streisand and Michael Moore—people who are powerful cultural figures, but completely ineffectual when it comes to actual influence on U.S. policy.
With the “secret liberal cabal” view in place, liberals and progressives have already lost half the battle. So, unfortunately, one of the best ways to understand the recent political failures of American liberalism is to read Culture Warrior and watch “The O’Reilly Factor.” Those who disagree with O’Reilly need to do more than ceaselessly point out his mendacity: They must understand how rhetoric like O’Reilly’s fits into the larger narratives and archetypes that shape right-wing populist political identities. Until the proud S-P’s do that, they cannot permanently reverse the backwards course O’Reilly and his minions have set us on.
Jesse Singal is an editorial intern at The Washington Monthly.
--------
Comments
Interesting; but somehow it seems only to point out (we had seen it already) and rant about (done that too) rather than have even a beginning of what to do about it . . .
— Richard Burrows - Nov 4, 11:46 PM - #Any hint of paranoid personality disorder in the “culture warrior” mentality?
— Robert New - Nov 9, 05:59 PM - #It’s good to start the discussion about O’Reilly… But I don’t see how taking any of his viewpoints serious enough to watch him or listen to him, is going to be helpful at anything accept rightfully pissing people off. And being indignant isn’t going to do anything to help start meaningful dialogue about real problems in America.
— elise - Nov 9, 06:08 PM - #It is enormously valuable to listen to O’Reilly and Fox. The night after the election, O’Reilly’s top story was about the Rumsfeld resignation. It reveals completely how the Republican spin & echo machine wants to shape the news.
— Don S - Nov 9, 06:13 PM - #Hold your friends close, and your enemies closer – Watch the Fox
Now that the election is over, it is time to start watching the Fox “News” Channel again for the simple reason that this is where the Administration leaks its info and talking points. Once the actual governing starts, and Dems are sending bills to the President, issuing subpoenas, and getting the government moving it will be Fox sending out the counter-message which will contain the pre-approved excuses/reasons that the Democrats are out to ruin the country and destroy Bush. Let the Spin Begin.
— Ryan Kube - Nov 9, 07:13 PM - #I don’t know how dangerous Bill O’Reilly is, now that the Republicans are most definitely NOT in ascendancy. Liberals (of whom I am a proud member) must assume their fair share of blame in the popularity of such arrant conservatives – the very liberal core of diverse opinions means that frequently, average middle of the roaders don’t know where we truly stand on issues, and assume we are negative and unpatriotic. I think a lot of liberals are like me – flag-waving, voting, pro-labor, pro-environment, civil libertarians that are appalled by the curtailment of our liberties and the destruction of thousands of our young people by a war that would be ridiculous if it weren’t so tragic. Bill O’Reilly and his ilk can’t survive, once the middle class has completely collapsed, and finally gets the message that pro-corporate welfare policies have deeply damaged this country and the welfare of its people.
— JP McGrail - Nov 9, 08:20 PM - #Between Al Franken and Media Matters for America I get my fill of Bill O’Reilly’s unfair and unbalanced message. Any more would be too much.
— Larry McGahey - Nov 9, 08:33 PM - #As a progressive I am curious about what the larger narrative is that is being referred to in this piece, and what suggestions the author has about how to influence it; especially when the right continues to co-opt the language of freedom and democracy, only being transparent about its meaning amongst their own members.
— monica - Nov 10, 08:13 AM - #What a lot of BS.
Bill O is just another “us and them” mouth. He is lacking in real thought, accuracy and thought provoking content.
Why should I listen to a man that can’t even understand the sanctity of truth?
— Scott Robeson - Nov 10, 01:22 PM - #It seems to me that this view of liberals as anti-American is based on some warped ideas of what it means to be a patriot.
Firstly, patriotism is equated to jingoism, and you are considered anti-American if you don’t believe that America is the greatest country ever and that we have absolutely nothing to learn from other nations or cultures.
Secondly, patriotism is equated to militarism, and any reluctance to assert hegemony in any of its many forms is tantamount to being a cheese-eating surrender monkey, and the world should be grateful when we send in our military to set things right. This is always done for purely moral and altruistic reasons of course.
Thirdly, patriotism is taken to mean blind obedience to the government, and never to question its actions or its motives, especially in time of war. The fact that the government can unilaterally decide when it is the time to be at war is not taken into consideration.
In contrast, liberals believe that the act of eternal vigilance against the threat of tyranny is the greatest form of patriotism of all, and that unthinking capitulation to the will of the leaders is an abdication of ones highest responsibilities.
— Julio - Nov 10, 02:14 PM - #Bill. Bush and company are atoning for the fact that they hid out during Vietnam,so they are showing their true colors they think,by being super pro America,anti progressive, want it the way it was for them “Good Old Days“types. They felt their sacred blood was too precious to be risked in actual combat but goshdarnit they’re more than willing to show how tough they are by spilling the blood of the “other classes” while they wrap themselves in the flag and stuff cash in their bank accounts.
— Monroe Cotter - Nov 12, 12:26 PM - #Monroe Cotter – Nov 12, 12:26 PM You hit the nail on the head.
Question: How does one go about dismantling the S-P construct?
— Meo - Nov 29, 10:58 AM - #I think that you libs and SP’s just don’t get it…grow a little older and wiser…oops, I forgot there are older fools like Ted Kennedy et al who never grew up and don’t stand for individual responsibility…soak the rich and give to the poor…how noble…and misguided.
— bob lee - Dec 11, 02:58 PM - #