Let’s get this out of the way up front: Bill O’Reilly is not a republican. He is not a conservative. To use his term, he is a traditionalist, which means he has conservative leanings, but this is not a guy that does a whole-sale espousal of conservative ideology. At his core, he is, as he likes to say, a pragmatist and a solutions guy. If you drop your pre-conceived notions, get past his arrogance and bluster and listen to the content of what he’s saying, you’ll see that this is true on many, many issues. That’s really why I feel like I need to defend the guy; people have an extreme, visceral reaction to what they perceive to be an uncompromising pompous blowhard, but their anger is just a little misplaced. See the guy that follows O’Reilly….one Mr. Sean Hannity….THAT is an extremist. He is a pure ideologue and a partisan; if an idea is not “conservative” it couldn’t be right. Ann Coulter is an ideologue and a partisan. Reverend Al Sharpton is an ideologue and a partisan. Lawrence O’Donnell is an ideologue and a partisan. I’m just trying to establish the fact that I know a partisan when I see one, and….O’Reilly ain’t it. Not by a longshot. People confuse his being egoistic with him being an extremist, probably because he talks loud and is, in his mind, ALWAYS right (which actually, if you watch his show nowadays, is not even true; he’s mellowed out a lot). That’s fine; that’s certainly not a characteristic you want in someone if you’re looking for perfectly fair discourse. But I’m not saying he’s the fairest guy out there. I’m simply saying he’s not a partisan, and his positions on a lot of issues are actually pretty sense-based, which is why I like the show. He’s got both bases covered: I agree with a lot of his stances (of course I get pissed when I disagree with him, but it’s the same thing with Jon Stewart), and his pompous “I know everything” attitude makes for great television. Like I said, I’m a popcorn political junkie; I need my news to be a mix of news and reality tv. Stewart and O’Reilly do this perfectly because they make great points in a really entertaining way. And between them they cover both sides: Stewart is left-of-center, O’Reilly is right-of-center.
So a good example of O’Reilly being sense-based: Iraq. Any purebred conservative is a hawk when it comes to foreign policy. If you aren’t for America asserting its dominance around the world, you’re weak and unpatriotic. That’s conservative gospel. Guess what, O’Reilly hated the Iraq war. I mean for pretty obvious reasons. If a handful of people fly planes through a building, the most efficient way to deal with that problem is NOT by invading a country. Has the Iraq war ultimately helped reduce acts of terrorism around the globe (on a net-net basis)? I don’t know; I don’t get intelligence briefings from the whitehouse. There have been 2 wars going on, probably CIA efforts in the middle east and probably other countries running their own operations, so who knows what the hell is really going on. What I DO know is that when you have groups of terror cells spread throughout the entire world, hellbent on wreaking havoc….the most effective way to combat them is not by invading a country, destroying it, and then spending trillions of dollars trying to “rebuild” it. If the Iraq war has not helped at all in reducing terrorism (or worse, if it has exacerbated it), then obviously it was a god-awful idea. But even if it has ultimately helped, it’s just simply an inefficient way to tackle the problem. Invade a country, get bogged down in a counter-insurgency, spend trillions and get a ton of americans & iraqis killed and maimed? Doesn’t make sense. That’s why I like O’Reilly; he understands this. You’re not going to hear a lot of dovish language coming from him, but his bottom line is that invading Iraq as a solution to terrorism makes no sense.
In general I like his stances on a lot of things. Liberal “welfare” mentality? Doesn’t make sense. The whole concept of money is based on society compensating you for how productive you are. If you don’t have any, you probably aren’t doing shit. Now obviously that’s an over-simplification; traders make millions even though they’re not “producing” anything and many people who may have good skill-sets are legitimately unemployed. But the foundation of the mentality should be “do work; don’t look for a handout”, and further logistics can be discussed from there. Immigration? We have immigration laws. If you don’t comply with them, well….you broke the law. You should be deported. But of course even there reality comes into play; there are millions of illegal immigrants here, and many of them have families. And, as Stephen Colbert points out, a lot of them pick our crops and mow our lawns. One southern state enacted tough immigration laws and the farmers said that they were hurting, because as much as americans love to complain about “illegals stealing their jobs”….they just don’t want to pick crops. So realistically, you can’t just do a cold uproot of all these people. I mean not just because of the crop-picking but because of the family situation also. But again, the discussion needs to start with “illegal immigration is….illegal” (what a great truism; that it even needs to be said to brain-dead liberals is infuriating); once that fundamental axiom is agreed on, discussions of logistics can begin. O’Reilly understands all this.
And one other thing: he is VERY charitable to Obama and the administration. I get the sense that he has a lot of respect for Obama as an individual, and it feels like his respect for the guy went up after each of his two interviews with him. They’re able to sit down and have good, substantive discussions where they both make points in their own style, and I think O’Reilly respects the fact that Obama is quick and willing to engage on points where there’s a difference of opinion. It’s just solid, open dialogue; you gotta respect it. Of course the Huffington Post or some other left-wing outfit was outraged by how many times O’Reilly “interrupted” Obama; they actually did a tally of the interruptions. OH MY GOD. I wanted to slap those schmoes; Obama himself wasn’t the least bit perturbed but you got your panties in a twist? Why do you think he went on the second time??? Was O’Reilly’s personality a shock to him?? No, he went on because he likes engaging in the back-and-forth with O’Reilly; there’s nothing vitriolic about it. But the left-wing can’t stand a colorful discussion because Obama’s the president, even though Obama himself doesn’t care. Bleeding idiots. For the record, O’Reilly has gotten progressively tougher on the guy (probably with good reason); lately he calls him a liberal and an ideologue. But he still gives him kudos on his foreign policy, and in general I get the sense that the fact that he has to cater to a fox news audience restricts him from admitting how much respect he has for Obama. Well that and probably his ego too.
Of course there are times when he leaves me scratching my head. Like his obsession with “the war on christmas”. Yes, it’s annoying; the politically correct culture we have is VERY annoying. But why does he keep raising this friggin “war on christmas”? I understand the point; you made it, now move on. If you want to do general commentary on how annoying political correctness is, can’t you find new ways to do it?? Also his ego is kind of bizarre; I remember in some random segment with some random guest, he ends by saying “Why can’t you see that everyone is wrong and I’m always right??” or something to that effect. He said it half-jokingly, but it’s kind of telling; this guy seems to LITERALLY think he knows everything. Me personally, I like saying that kind of stuff as schtick; it’s a fun way to piss people off. But I know it’s not true. O’Reilly apparently thinks it is in his case. Very strange. Also he seems to think that his show is the police of america. He talks about keeping judges, politicians etc. in line; he makes grandiose statements about how their show changes outcomes simply by covering issues. And he calls non-journalists/non-pundits “civilians”. What a strange thing to say; apparently this guy literally thinks he’s engaged in some kind of war with….basically anyone that disagrees with him. But none of that really bothers me. Those are his own weird issues. My bottom line is that he is (generally) rational, he has sense-based stances, he’s always looking for the best solution and not a solution that fits some rigid ideology, and his ego makes for great television.
1/18/2012 – Christ
Read related articles:
January 23rd, 2012 at 11:53 pm
Would you be able to expand more on this topic? I bookmarked your site and thanks.
January 24th, 2012 at 2:30 am
Which part in particular did you want to hear more about? I pretty much said my piece on O’Reilly….solid guy in my view. If you mean the “pro-non-ideological” stance….that’s sort of a running theme with me, I cannot STAND ideologues. The world would be such a sensible place without them. Not just political ideologues; I mean if you think about it, even terrorists are ideologues, albeit the most extreme form possible. Anyways, put up a “conservative vs. liberal” post that kind of speaks to this.
February 2nd, 2012 at 10:11 pm
I was just making the point with my nephew (who is a OWS supporter) it is like the chicken and egg, but with OWS it is which came first the bribe or the politician with his hand out? I think OWS is attacking the problem by the tail and should be targeting the snake at the head (which lays in DC). I like your post!cheap diablo 3 gold