“You’re running, Moore,” I vamped to the camera. “You’re not man enough to face me.”
Moore is no fool about publicity and knew this was lead-story material for every Fox news program in the country. So he agreed almost at once to come on The Factor that night! It was great.
But, unfortunately, the interview wasn’t great, at least not for me. Moore didn’t debate, he filibustered. He repeated the same anti–Iraq war mantra over and over: “Would you send your son to Fallujah?” It was boring.
Dissenting from the Iraq war was not the problem. Millions, perhaps most, Americans have come to believe that the Iraq fight might not have been worth it. But on this occasion, I had a ton of questions about how Moore had handled his 9/11 film, and he simply didn’t want to have a conversation. He wanted to vent against Bush. For me it was headache-inducing, although many viewers wrote saying they loved the shoot-out.
As I stated, I truly believe Michael Moore is no longer a factor (again, my apologies) in the culture war. Unwittingly, he has staked out Ralph Nader–like territory. As it stands now, he is not powerful enough to make a difference in American culture, not rational and persuasive enough to change minds. He’ll talk his trash, make his money, and keep the baseball cap business in the black. But he’s become a sideshow to the main event. George Soros wouldn’t touch him.
Susan Sarandon: The actress and her common-law husband, Tim Robbins, epitomize the secular-progressive showbiz crowd. They are always on the S-P side, always touting the antitraditionalist vision. But I have some respect for Ms. Sarandon, because she does put her money where her mouth is: She donates major dollars to help the poor.
As I explain in more detail in my book The No Spin Zone, the one appearance on The Factor by this fine actress came in the wake of a police shooting in New York City. An unarmed African immigrant, Amadou Diallo, was slain after some cops who were hunting for a rapist panicked after the lead officer fell down while attempting to question Mr. Diallo in a darkened hallway. This was an awful situation, but after all the evidence was presented, a twelve-person jury, including four African Americans, acquitted the police officers of any wrongdoing.
Now, it is Ms. Sarandon’s view of America that minorities consistently have their rights violated by a system that is overly suspicious of them and callous in regard to their needs. She believes the United States is not “nurturing” the poor and disadvantaged; by this reasoning, high ghetto crime rates are basically society’s fault. This is classic S-P thinking, of course, straight down the party line.
I once interviewed Susan Sarandon pre-Factor in the 1970s: Who has better hair?
Remember, the Yoda of the S-P movement, George Lakoff, lists the lack of “broad prosperity” among the nation’s poor as one of the major secular-progressive issues. By the term “broad prosperity,” Lakoff means that the federal government should be obliged to provide poor Americans with just about everything middle-class Americans have. His word “provide” means giving money and material things to citizens. Thus, Lakoff’s “broad prosperity” theory is really socialism. No other word for it. And S-P enthusiasts like Susan Sarandon buy into it.
Immediately after the Diallo shooting (that is, before any facts were established), Ms. Sarandon and other committed S-P foot soldiers organized antipolice rallies. That rankled me. I believe in giving the police the benefit of the doubt; in addition to the grandfather I mentioned earlier, I have friends who are cops. I know firsthand that most American law-enforcement officials are good people doing a tough job for relatively low pay. Most traditionalists, including me, give the cops the presumption of innocence. Susan Sarandon does not.
Surprisingly, on September 25, 2000, Ms. Sarandon agreed to come on The Factor to discuss the Diallo case. It was her first and last appearance. White-hot angry that the young man had been killed, she chalked the tragedy up to institutional racism and unabashedly despised my opposing point of view.
For example, when I pointed out that aggressive police work had caused a historic drop in black crime rates, especially in the inner city, she huffed and snapped back: “At what cost?”
Actually, the cost-benefit ratio is pretty obvious, if you take into account the drastic drop in the murder rate in many poor neighborhoods across the country. But we are obviously not talking rationality here. I mean, what I don’t get about Susan Sarandon and her fellow S-P travelers is the constant anger. I actually found her opinions on the Diallo matter interesting, if wrongheaded. I wasn’t upset that she disagreed with me—that’s what I want on The Factor.
But she detested all of my rebuttals. After the interview in the greenroom (where Factor guests wait before going on the show), she blurted out: “What’s his problem?”
I think it’s safe to say that I will not be vacationing in the south of France with Susan and Tim anytime soon. It is a fact of life in the culture war that the S-P side is usually furious with the traditional opposition. And that fury hurts the S-P forces, as it clouds judgment and thinking. You lose the debate if you get mad without cause.
However, it is true that honest anger, when properly aimed at a legitimate target, can be a useful tool in the culture war. For example, the last time I appeared on Jon Stewart’s program he asked me why I was (in his opinion) “constantly teed off.” I replied that I have to deal with a massive amount of social injustice and chicanery on a daily basis and it takes a healthy amount of agita to deal with it all efficiently and effectively. Trying to right wrongs in this country will wear you down, but anger can keep you going when everybody else is exhausted. So, it’s a tough situation for the traditional culture warrior: You need to keep the fires of indignation lighted but avoid the backdrafts.
I do understand—and it is absolutely true, by the way—that some traditionalists are captive to the same degree of irrational anger that many in the S-P crew are; you can hear that traditional rage daily on talk radio. But, for the most part, if you compare the S-P Web sites with the traditional ones, there is no doubt: S-P anger is far more intense and personal. Check it out, at the risk of your own mental well-being.
Alec Baldwin: And while we’re on the subject of angry S-P guys, Mr. Baldwin stands front and center. Once again, the actor is primarily interested in politics, but there is always that progressive crossover: because he is a liberal Democrat, the S-P forces support his philosophy.
Like Susan Sarandon, Alec Baldwin is a first-rate actor who can convincingly bring to life a variety of characters. Check out his performance in Glengarry Glen Ross. It’s brilliant. Yet Baldwin has not achieved the leading-man fame that was once predicted for him, and some believe his strident politics (calling Dick Cheney a madman, generally overreacting to conservative thought) have damaged him in the marketplace because some right-leaning Americans abhor his politics.
And it might be true. Alec Baldwin is a wounded S-P warrior, and I believe he knows it. After years of my trying to get an interview with him, Baldwin finally entered the No Spin Zone on August 9, 2004.
O’Reilly: “You haven’t been as outspoken the past three years as you were before. Is there a reason for that?”
Baldwin: “Most Americans are choosing to get their predigested news information and opinion from folks like you and other commentators on this network [Fox Newschannel] and on other cable networks, and so forth, less so than on the networks. And I realized that the celebrity-activist thing was kind of a waste of time.”
O’Reilly: “I’ve followed your career closely and I think your past activism hurt your career. Would I be wrong?”
Baldwin: “I would imagine that there are people who wouldn’t hire me because they’d rather…Let’s put it this way—the most successful people in my business are people that you know nothing about [politically].”
O’Reilly: “Tom Cruise?”
Baldwin: “You know nothing about them.”
Ironically, Alec Baldwin and I were raised within miles of each other on Long Island. We are both Irish and our families w
ere working class. So how could he and I “evolve” into such different culture warriors? I put that question to him.
“I would prefer to say I developed into one type of traditionalist,” he said, “and you developed into another type of traditionalist.”
“Would you rather I call you a progressive?” I shot back.
“I think the only word that can describe me is Democrat. I mean, I’m an outright partisan Democrat.”
Okay, fine. But you don’t feel the political burn the way Baldwin does just by being a member of a political party. No, he’s an ardent S-P player who gets emotional about the state of the Union.
Personally, I like Baldwin, and think he’s a well-intentioned guy despite the over-the-top outbursts, which could be a sign of immaturity or frustration. Off his crusade, Baldwin is smart and funny and not a bad softball player. But sometimes his anger causes him to lose it on the battlefield. A lesson learned for all culture warriors.
Jimmy Breslin: Another Irish secular-progressive who has lost it entirely. Again, the anger got him. In his day, Jimmy Breslin was one of the finest newspaper columnists New York City has ever seen. Only Pete Hamill, another talented Irish rogue, rivaled him for street smarts, empathy for the underdog, and storytelling ability. But, over the years, Breslin has degenerated into a remorseless smear merchant, primarily interested in damaging those who do not share his secular-progressive view on life. Although he is not an important figure on the national scene, my interaction with him is instructive in regard to S-P media types.
I’ve run into Breslin a number of times over the years and had always found him to be entertaining. That is, until he began writing for Newsday, the newspaper of Long Island. That financially troubled operation, which has been steadily losing circulation for years, allows its columnists to consistently hit below the belt. Breslin embraced that tactic and wildly attacked perceived villains, most of them traditional thinkers. His anti-Catholic columns, for example, were off-the-chart hateful. Some observers believe the Tribune Company, which owns Newsday, forced him to retire in order to air out the newsroom.
It should come as no surprise, then, that Jimmy Breslin dislikes me, a traditional culture warrior, with a vengeance. Over the years, I ignored his personal attacks directed my way, but when he tried to damage my book The O’Reilly Factor for Kids, I decided to drop him a little note.
In that short missive, I wrote in part: “You have tried to hurt a project that could help many children. Hope you feel good about that.”
Not surprisingly, I never heard back from Breslin, who usually avoids direct confrontation. He’s more comfortable with “drive-by” guttersniping than with actual debate.
One footnote: Breslin also had a book out at the time Factor for Kids was released. It was a brutal assault on the Roman Catholic Church and those who are loyal to it. Perhaps God took notice. Breslin’s book sold fewer than 10,000 copies, while The O’Reilly Factor for Kids has sold more than 500,000 and is still selling. Chalk one up for the traditionalists.
Nancy Pelosi: Although I’ve never met the congresswoman from San Francisco (and, of course, the House minority leader), I have encountered her persona frequently through the media, so I guess you could say we have a “virtual” rapport.
Watching her over the years, I have seen few elected politicians whose S-P fever is as high as Ms. Pelosi’s. I mean, this woman is on fire for the secular-progressive cause.
My most memorable Pelosi encounter was sparked by my criticism of a ballot measure that banned all military recruiting in the schools of San Francisco, including college campuses. In November 2005, San Francisco voters disrespected the U.S. military, currently fighting a vicious war on terror, by voting 60 percent to 40 percent to restrict recruiting. The vote was purely symbolic—in other words, a cheap shot—because if the city actually did ban military recruiting in the schools, it stood to lose federal funding. And with all the progressive programs the City by the Bay embraces, that would be Armageddon.
Anyway, on The Radio Factor, I did a riff that said okay, fine, if San Francisco didn’t want the U.S. military around, they should form their own militia. I then painted a scenario that blew the lid off the left-wing smear Web sites that monitor The Radio Factor every day. My exact comments were these:
“And if al-Qaeda comes in and blows you up, we’re not going to do anything about it. We’re going to say, ‘Look, every other place in America is off-limits to you except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower, go ahead.’ ”
Well, you would have thought I suggested blowing up the Coit Tower! Wait a minute, isn’t that what I did? Uh-oh.
Actually, this is standard talk-radio stuff, intentionally using hyperbole to make a point. In its initial reporting on the incident, even the far-left San Francisco Chronicle reasonably pointed that out. Surely, we all know that people listen to talk radio to be entertained as well as informed. Otherwise, why would any sane person listen? Come on! The vote in question clearly demonstrated that San Franciscans did not want the military around, so I took that fact to an absurd level. (Some of you overstudious types may remember the debating technique called reductio ad absurdum.) The point I was trying to make was that in this very intense time for our national security, we all owe allegiance to the military whether we support the way the terror war is being fought or not. My delivery was purposely over-the-top, and my cohost, E. D. Hill, wryly chastised me during the entire riff. No rational person could have taken the al-Qaeda part of the monologue seriously.
Except one.
Quick as a cat with a train bearing down on it, Nancy Pelosi leaped into the fray and cried out her outrage:
Bill O’Reilly’s comments about San Francisco are simply outside the circle of civilized discussion. There is no place in responsible journalism to call for a terrorist attack [italics mine] against any American city, let alone the beautiful and dynamic city of San Francisco, which has contributed so much to America’s military, civic, and cultural history. Mr. O’Reilly’s comments are not a joke; they are not acceptable. He should apologize.
Congresswoman Pelosi then summed up with a threat: “And Fox goes ahead on this at its own peril.”
Yikes! And that wasn’t the end of the matter. After Pelosi’s comments, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved a resolution urging Fox News to fire me. I’m not kidding. On the public’s dime, the loopy supervisors passed resolution number 818-5, which stated in part: “Whereas, Mr. O’Reilly’s remarks constitute a flagrant disregard for the safety and welfare of San Franciscans and inciting acts of terrorism; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors hereby urges Fox News Corporation and Westwood One to terminate the employment of news show host Bill O’Reilly for speech condoning acts of terrorism.”
Maybe I shouldn’t buy a condo in the Haight after all.
Of course, we immediately invited Nancy Pelosi on The Factor to hash things out—predictably she declined, as did Mayor Gavin Newsome, who signed the nutty resolution.
Much to my dismay because the publicity was great, the whole thing blew over in two days, even though the Chronicle tried to fan the flames. Our radio affiliate in San Francisco, KNEW, played my monologue a number of times so everybody could hear it, and their hosts had a great time mocking City Hall.
But over on the dark side, the S-P army thought they had something big, and some smear Web sites even tried to organize a sponsor boycott of The Radio Factor. Oh, the outrage!
In the end, though, fanaticism and hypocrisy once again did in the S-Ps. Anyone who has ever listened to the secular-progressive propaganda mill Air America knows that I am a piker when it comes to on-air “satire.” Those AA people make me look about as dangerous as Paula Abdul.
As for Nancy Pelosi, what you see is what the secular-progressive movement gets. She is a top S-P standard-bearer who lives in a virtual Land of Oz. And to her I have only one thing to say: You better knock it off, lady, or I’ll throw water on you and take your shoes
.
Of course, I’ve had many more S-P close encounters, but to tell you the truth, writing about them exhausts me. There is no reasoning with most of these people, no way to debate them with energy and then, afterward, have a beer with them. They are committed, determined, and live in a permanent “no traditionalist zone.” You will not persuade, convince, or mollify them. If you are on the traditional side, the S-Ps will reject you and perhaps try to inflict pain upon your person. Of that there is no question.
Finally, if you don’t believe what I’ve just told you, just watch what happens after this book hits the marketplace. First, the advance S-P guard in the press will deny a culture war exists (even as I write, a columnist in the showbiz newspaper Variety has done just that), the same tactic they used in the Christmas controversy.
“O’Reilly is making the whole thing up to sell books,” they’ll write. “There’s no culture war in this country. It’s a cynical fabrication designed to sell books”—that will replace “designed to get ratings” from the 9/11 and Christmas controversies.
The denial strategy will be for public consumption. But behind the scenes, the S-P power brokers will be seething, and I guarantee they will command their forces to attack me in every way possible. As in the past, personal smears will rule the day and I will be defamed from all secular directions. Sadly, I’m used to that kind of vitriol. The flaming arrows in the S-P war plan keep coming; the more effective a traditionalist is, the more arrows will be launched into the air. In a weird way, I guess I should be flattered. But it does get very old.
No question, the S-P leadership, as well as their sympathizers in the media, will not at all like the exposition you are reading. Laying bare the secular-progressive agenda and their strategy of imposing it on America leaves the S-Ps exposed. That, of course, will anger them. The smear campaign will likely begin on the Net, quickly spread to left-wing newspaper columnists, and then go on to the Fox-hating MSNBC network. Of course, there will be a counterattack by me and other traditional forces, because hatred must be answered with resolve and facts. It’s going to be nasty. Just wait and see.