O’Reilly’s tortuous distinction between “good” and “bad” restrictionism

Bill O’Reilly’s position is not as close to mine as seemed to be suggested in a blog entry yesterday. His position turns out to be more nuanced—or, rather, more tortured and contradictory—than was reported. (Or maybe it is not tortured. See my further comments below.) Charles T. writes:

I heard one of O’Reilly’s radio comments this week on the matter at hand. He started by explaining his understanding of the extreme positions on this issue. First, he stated that there is a small group of Americans on the fringe who do not like Latinos. He described this in terms of racial animus.

The second group on the other extreme consists of leftists who do not like the fact that the country is run by white, Christian males. The leftists do not like this arrangement and want to change it by massive immigration from non-European cultures.

Both groups and positions are extreme and are to be avoided.

However, he then proceeded to explain why 40 million Mexican immigrants coming to the USA over the next 10-20 years is not a good thing. He stated that immigration in these numbers would completely change our culture and country. So, he criticizes those who do not like Mexican culture and do not want to have the USA changed into Mexican culture, and then he proceeds to tell us why large numbers of Mexican immigrants will destroy our culture. He is walking a fine line. [LA adds: It sounds like no line at all.] I am glad he sees that this immigration bill will destroy our country. But I remain disappointed that he strongly criticizes those who do not care for Mexican culture and he frequently criticizes those who want the 12 million illegals already here deported.

Finally, I wonder if he has considered that the country of Mexico and its citizens do not like us either. The most hideous racial animus is being directed at Americans by Mexicans. I hope O’Reilly wakes up and realizes this.

LA replies:

As I re-read O’Reilly’s impossibly contradictory-sounding position, it seems to me maybe it’s s not contradictory after all. My most hopeful reading of him is as follows. O’Reilly is saying that it is ok to oppose the Mexican invasion and conquest of America, the effect of which will be to destroy America’s white majority Anglo culture, so long as you don’t hate Mexicans racially. Hey, I have no problem with that. I don’t hate Mexicans racially. I just don’t want them taking over this country. Mexico for the Mexicans. And that seems to be O’Reilly’s “real” position too.

O’Reilly appears to have progressed well beyond his statement a week ago that he’s in favor of amnesty so long as it’s done in the “right” way. But who knows? He’s still too immersed in liberal assumptions for his new position to be other than an unprincipled exception to his underlying liberalism. But it is possible that he is moving toward a fully articulated non-liberal position.

- end of initial entry -

Alex K. writes:

The main thing to know about O’Reilly is that he is obsessed with being “independent,” as in “I’m not a conservative [said angrily and with the implication that it is a slander], I’m an independent.” Of course, “independent” isn’t a political position, it just means non-affiliation to a party. Sometimes he calls himself a “traditionalist” but he means that to be something less to the right than a conservative, I guess as it sounds like a softer term.

So because it is so important to him that he distinguish himself from conservatives he frequently finds small ways in which he can put himself to their left and then makes a huge deal out of it and then has hair-splitting arguments with conservative guests.

When the bill first came down he declared there were many things wrong with it but that he supported it “reluctantly” because border security is key and this is the best we’re going to get. He then had on an illegal alien activist and someone from CIS whose name escapes me (not Krikorian), and proceeded to demonstrate his independence by ripping both of them, and contradicting himself frequently. The contradiction seems to be an inevitable by-product of his being largely opposed to the open borders side but having to make excuses for his parting with the restriction side.

Another example is with Malkin the other night, talking about the racism that he says is a motivation on the restriction side. There are of course no public figures or groups in any position of prominence in the debate that make anti-Hispanic animosity an issue. He just wanted to seem independent of those extremists on the right, so he elevated anonymous internet commenters (this was the only source of racism he cited) into a significant part of the restrictionist cause.

Meanwhile, Noonan has a column up on Opinion Journal today (June (1) in which she says that conservatives have not broken with Bush, rather Bush has broken with them. In reality, it is as you say: Bush was always this way, it was there for people willing to look, he has not betrayed conservatives in this regard. It is just only now that conservatives are finally rebelling as they should have before this guy was even nominated. They are breaking with him.

Later, she says: “Bush the younger came forward, presented himself as a conservative…” Wrong. Even apart from his celebration of multiculturalism and unassimilated immigration, Bush let it be known that when someone hurts, the government has to move. He was clearly indifferent and disdainful of anti-government conservatism. People forget that before it came down to him vs. the campaign-finance-regulating McCain, Bush was the moderate alternative to Pat Buchanan.

Still, Noonan’s column does have this:

“Leading Democrats often think their base is slightly mad but at least their heart is in the right place. This White House thinks its base is stupid and that its heart is in the wrong place.”

Sounds about right.

LA replies:

My impression of O’Reilly is that he is generally incapable of intellectual coherence. Alex’s very interesting comment helps explain why. O’Reilly doesn’t reason about an issue by trying to find a position that is (a) true to reality and (b) internally non-contradictory. Rather, he reasons about an issue by trying to find a position that (a) “feels” right to himself and (b) cannot be pigeonholed as “conservative.” So he’s not someone you can count on to have solid ideas. Nevertheless, the things he’s been saying about immigration and the threat to our culture are ground-breaking in the American mainstream. Something is happening.

Charles T. writes:

This morning I caught only a small segment of O’Reilly on the immigration issue.

In all fairness to O’Reilly, I did not get to hear the whole segment and the conversation was so heated between him and the caller that I may have missed something.

A caller took him to task about O’Reilly’s earlier comments about unchecked immigration being a leftist tool to change the white, Christian, male power structure of this country. I cannot remember the exact words, but the caller essentially accused O’Reilly of being uncomfortable with a changing of the guard. The caller was attempting to characterize O’Reilly as racist—although I do not think that word was used. O’Reilly forcefully stated that such is not the case and that he is trying to communicate that he wants the American people to decide this issue versus the government ramming it through Congress. He tried to explain that he is not taking a cultural/racial side to this. He tried to explain that he does not have a problem that Barak Obama is from a minority group but that he would have an issue with his political positions. Fair enough. I think that is a legitimate position on Obama. However, Obama is a citizen of the country. I hope that O’Reilly realizes that whatever position he takes—unless it is in agreement with the utopian immigration bill—he will be called a racist.

Race and cultural differences—however, one chooses to define the debate—are an issue. And the racial animus is coming from the Marxist left. The tactics they are using is straight from their playbook: Practice virulent racism against the adversary while simultaneously accusing the adversary of racism. Unfortunately, this tactic works. It does not take much thought to hiss “racist” at your adversary. Just do it over and over and it will stick.

I wish O’Reilly would have said something like this, “You know you are right, our culture has built a great nation—it is unique in the history of the world. It is an Anglo-Saxon country; many people like this, are justifiably proud of their country and culture, and want to keep our institutions uniquely American. Many American citizens are uncomfortable about being displaced by unchecked immigration. I do not feel obligated to change the culture of my country just because you do not like productive, white males. I do not feel obligated to change the culture of my country based on the whims of corporate America. I do not feel obligated to change the culture of my country based on the whims of our utopians in the U.S. Congress. Mexico retains the right to remain Mexico. We should have the right to choose to remain American. By the way, you are aware of the poverty, crime and the extreme levels of corruption in Mexico are you not? You are aware that Mexico does not have a middle class? You are aware that the government of Mexico does not take care of their citizens? Is that what you want in this country? You are aware that Mexico is a country with a different culture? Do you want a power structure that encourages this?”

Alas, O’Reilly did not do this. He did not defend his culture.

But he could have. Due to his public position, he is financially and professionally able to do so. I understand how infuriating it is to argue with someone who thinks that playing the race card is a supreme act of intelligent understanding. However, I will not be soft on O’Reilly because he brags daily about how independent he is and how he is standing up for the American citizen. I also will not be soft on him because he brags about how influential his book “Culture Warrior” has been.

The American people have already spoken. They want their culture preserved. O’Reilly needs to step up to the plate on immigration and actually become the culture warrior he professes to be.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 01, 2007 12:23 AM | Send