Junto Boys

THE NEW YORKER ON BILL O'REILLY

Part of the pleasure of “The O’Reilly Factor” is knowing that O’Reilly is a guy with a temper, and he might lose it. He reddens, sits up, and presses the guest, who may begin to stammer helplessly (in which case O’Reilly usually pulls back), or to backpedal and make excuses, in the manner of Richard Rosenbaum (in which case O’Reilly keeps boring in), or to insult O’Reilly (in which case O’Reilly may begin yelling—the big payoff). He’s the beat cop for the American neighborhood, who may have been a little excessive at times, may occasionally have run afoul of Internal Affairs, but law-abiding folks trust him because they know he’s on their side. His liberal guests are like suspects he’s pulled over: in the end, he’s probably just going to frisk them and let them go with a genial warning, but if they try anything, well, he carries a nightstick for a reason.

That's a great piece of writing. It captures the show pretty well. Remember how Angry O'Reilly got at that little Bunny Rabbit Phil Donahue last year. Phil was blathering on about whether Bill would send his own kids to fight in Iraq and Bill said he would fight in Iraq himself. Donahue kept on with the Left's favorite hobby horse about how we're sending mere children to Iraq to fight. It's a great liberal slight-of-hand to make the argument about sending kids, becuase the defender either has to pipe in immediately that we're not sending kids, but well-trained adults, otherwise the liberal wins everytime regardless of what's said from then on.

O'Reilly took a different track. He has a relative of some sort, a nephew I think, fighting in Iraq. He somehow took Donahue's comment as a stain upon the service of that nephew and he threatened to run Donahue off the show. The whole thing seemed bizarre to me. Why do you invite Donahue on the show only to threaten to run him off like an umpire when he's just simply being the same Donahue we all know, rich and guilty as hell about it? I can't imagine Donahue intentionally insulting anyone, but here is O'Reilly all indignant. He even ran the segment the next night like a dog prancing around the chipmunk that he killed and brought home. I'm sure he thought he was standing up for his nephew and servicemen in general, but I just couldn't make the leap with him.

To me Bill O'Reilly is the essence of the enemy of my enemy is my friend, sort of. I started watching the Factor sometime in 1999, I think. I enjoyed it most leading up to the 2000 election. I think I watched it nearly every night for a year. I even read THE NO SPIN ZONE soon after it was published. I loved the way O'Reilly stood up to nonsense.

But after that election, I realized that O'Reilly just has too many axes to grind. He constantly plays the underdog, trying to be my defender. He has a policy solution for everything if we'd only listen, and thus he's the anti-Libertarian. People can't simply live their lives without government intervention, because O'Reilly has to many injustices to right.

After I had already tired of his shtick, he published WHO'S LOOKING OUT FOR YOU?, a rhetorical question I assumed with O'Reilly as the hero. I can imagine that book is list after list of populist pining for things that the big boys are denying the poor working class slob. And I'm supposed to tune in as that working class slob so O'Reilly can explain the legislation that will cure me.

I think I would have totally forgotten about O'Reilly except that his ratings have grown and the Left totally hates him, I assume, because people watch and he's to the Right of Tom Brokaw. That alone makes me tune in from time to time, but only if I'm on the computer and I want background noise.

When Rush Limbaugh started taking the country by storm in the early 1990s, many people thought he was just a fad and his listeners and bunch of dupes. But Rush has remained interesting and unique despite the many rightwing hybrids that followed. Rush can inspire people to be proud of their freedom and their country and he can captivate an audience talking about almost anything..

When I listen to Rush, I tire of the callers that either want to kiss his ass or make personal attacks. It's much more interesting just to hear him read news stories and comment. Once in a while a caller will make good retorts to Rush and Rush can get flummoxed and it's interesting to watch the match play out. In January I was going to the bank and an articulate caller that sounded black was getting the Left's talking points out rather well. Republicans were in the bosom of corporations and the war was for oil and what not. He wasn't going to sway any conservatives with his talk, but he got it out in a way that was impressive just the same. Instead of dismissing him, Rush treated him respectfully as he will usually do with anyone that doesn't just start attacking him personally. He asked the caller questions about what else was wrong with America and then the caller stepped into a bear trap.

The caller said, "I think it's harmful when religion plays too big a place in politics."

Rush said, "See folks, this is why I'm the host. I'm sure many of you would have been done with this caller already, but I knew if we waited long enough, we'd hit the jackpot. I totally agree. I think Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton play way too significant of a role in American politics and it harms people."

At that point the smart and articulate caller was done for. He couldn't make his point about Bush, because he had to explain why Jackson and Sharpton were different. Where O'Reilly would have yelled and called him a bigot, Rush simply pointed out how Christianity is a danger and scourge of the secular mainstream unless it originates from race pimps. A total Judo move that other Right-of-Center hosts couldn't make so gracefully. I don't see O'Reilly doing pulling that off.

Long ago, Rush appeared on the CNBC show Donahue/Posner. Posner being this Russian communist "journalist" propagandist that existed simply for the state to run messages through. Donahue loved the guy and treated him as some sort of objective thinker. Rush made a flippant comment on the show about how there were more communists working in American journalism than Republicans. Posner said name one and Rush named Posner. Phil got a big kick out of it and Rush came back to the show several times. The last time Rush appeared the topic was a typical class warfare message about how the rich got richer in the 1980s. Rush reminded Phil and the audience that Phil was quite wealthy himself and much of it came in the 1980s defending the little guy. Why not give that money back to the little guy, asked Rush. Point made. Phil wasn't happy about the observation and Rush was never invited back. O'Reilly should have been watching.

It's great to see O'Reilly make the Left mad and it's not like he doesn't take on issues that are important or even noble, but he lacks the grace and humor to make his points stick. Everything is doom and gloom and I better tune in every night so he can save me by strong-arming some politician to do the right thing. We're not the Czechs in 1938 or the Polish in 1939. We don't need another Dick Morris convinced that every human foible is cured by a roll call vote. Have fun with these self-important liberals that want to save humanity from itself instead of becoming a right-0f center version of the same.

Now maybe the discord is only in my own ear as I grow more libertarian, but I find that both politicians and commentators are so convinced that we'll choke on our own spit save for them. It doesn't make good government nor good television. And yet, I'll still tune in from time to time anyway, because O'Reilly is still an American original and as an oppositional figure quite compelling at times even if not altogether satisfying.

Maybe it's like the Yankee fans that were too tough on Mantle for not being DiMaggio. O'Reilly isn't Rush, regardless of how many long balls he hits. Rush's tongue races the field timing the fly ball just right and making it look easy, while O'Reilly can be seen having it out with the umpire at the plate, probably right, but indignant enough that you watch for the confrontation rather than to win the game.