The mind of O’Reilly, cont.

Alex K. writes:

Michelle Malkin was on Bill O’Reilly’s program tonight (here’s the clip), and it was a perfect example of O’Reilly’s ridiculous attempt to be centrist or independent or whatever. Despite covering this issue for years he still insists on acting as though mass roundups and the like are the only alternative suggested by the anti-amnesty side (or for that matter that they even are being suggested by anyone remotely significant on the political scene!). He is willfully obtuse to the attrition idea. He also shifts from making Malkin disown the idea of “dragging women and children” etc to insisting to her that “the far right” are pushing for just that (then why didn’t he ask “the far right” instead of Malkin?), and finally cites unnamed callers and talk radio voices as the “far right” in question.

For once, Malkin calls him on it, rather sharply and amusingly. She has to work with him, so she can’t let loose on him like he deserves. But you can tell how annoyed she is to deal with someone who painstakingly ignores any deep consideration of this subject in order to preserve his sense of not being a crazy right-winger, and in so doing necessarily makes her the designated crazy right-winger.

Also, I haven’t yet watched his interview with Sen. Cornyn but notice how he blames “the far left” for sinking the bill due to some sort of craziness. Leave it to Bill (and a professional Republican like Cornyn) to come up with such a confusing interpretation.

LA replies:

As I think I said the other day, this shows how O’Reilly doesn’t care about truth. Truth is not his guide, but maintaining his centrist position as better than all other positions.

O’Reilly-type centrism is a parody of truth. The centrist thinks, “There are all these views out there, battling each other. Since each of these views says that it is true and that the other views are false, none of these truth-claims can be true. The truth must lie apart from any such mutually cancelling truth-claims, somewhere in a realm between and above them. Centrism is therefore the real truth.” The centrist gives up any attempt to find truth. He simply defines the truth as that which is between the “extremes.” And, ironically, even though his own position is merely reactive to others’ positions, he sees his own position as being on a superior plane to theirs.

This type of centrism is a form of liberalism. Liberalism rejects all substantive truths as extreme and as dangerous to social peace. It says that only neutral, universally applicable procedures are valid and can avoid social conflict. In O’Reilly’s case, the neutral, universally applicable procedure is to situate oneself between the two “extreme” positions on any given issue, and claim to be superior to both.

It would be interesting to see how O’Reilly would react if a guest came on his show and pointed out that, notwithstanding O’Reilly’s image of himself as tough-minded and realistic, in reality his centrist posture is a cowardly escape from the hard intellectual work, incumbent on all of us, of figuring out what is the truth on any given issue.

- end of initial entry -

Charles T. writes:

I heard a brief segment of O’Reilly this week about this very subject. He was stating that our government cannot just go around kicking in doors, dragging people out of their homes and deporting them from the country. He argues that such action would tarnish our image in the eyes of the rest of the world.

The main objection I have with O’Reilly’s continued description of deportation in these terms is that he will not—cannot?—conceive of any different scenarios concerning deportation. On the deportation issue he is a one trick intellectual pony; those favoring deportation are Nazis, he of course, is the independent, compassionate thinker. Illegal aliens have to be physically accosted in some manner if they are to be removed from the country. However, it does not have to a Nazi scenario as he frequently seems to describe such actions.

What O’Reilly fails to mention is that other countries presently do practice dragging people out of their homes, cars, trucks, etc. for deportation and/or punishment. Yet, he currently ascribes such overly aggressive actions to the US pro-deportation side of the immigration issue…..and such things have not even happened as he portrays it. It is quite unfair. The film “Children of Men” uses the same tactic by portraying the government of Britain as the aggressor against immigration. Of course, the current situation in Britain is that the immigrants, both illegal and legal, are the aggressors against British culture.

O’Reilly is an interesting case. He professes to be independent and claims to study all sides of an issue. However, his mis-characterization of those favoring deportation seems to be evidence of deep seated prejudice against those who choose to differ with him politically. He continues to oppose massive immigration from Latin America because it will change our country forever, but continues to oppose deportation in very strong terms. What a tortured position.

LA replies:

That is just outrageous. It’s bad enough when the amnesty supporters traffic in this lie. But when people who supposedly believe in stopping illegal immigration tell the same lie, that is even worse. The only solution is that the moment O’Reilly says that, people must not just say he’s wrong, they have to jump down his throat and to tell him he’s totally out of line and that he is telling a lie and that he must stop! It can’t be rational, polite argument. It must be firm: “O’Reilly, what you just said is an out and out lie, and anyone who tells that lie has no right to be discussing the immigration issue.”

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 09, 2007 01:10 PM | Send