Free Advice for O'Reilly

Agitprop featured a brief juxtaposition the other day, in "When Wingnuts Attack," of Bill O'Reilly and Pat Robertson. The former had suggested that when San Francisco is attacked by terrorists, the rest of the country should let it happen. From Agitprop:

On November 8th, Bill O'Reilly, criticizing the passage of a ballot measure by San Francisco voters that encourages schools and colleges to prohibit on-campus military recruiting, said: "And if Al Qaeda comes in here 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."

For his part, Pat Robertson merely insinuated that the town of Dover, PA, for having voted out of office several proponents of Intelligent Design, should not expect God's grace. Sez Robertson:

“If there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city. And don’t wonder why He hasn’t helped you when problems begin..."

Thanks to blogenfreude for making the connection--the two positions are indeed uncannily alike. And there's a great picture of O'Reilly, looking like he can barely control his anger.

Though I don't think O'Reilly would agree, I'm pretty sure Pat Robertson--though I suspect he's much more technically insane--has a great deal more influence than O'Reilly. Robertson reaches a big, creepy audience who believes he has contact with God. This may or may not actually change anything in Dover, of course. O'Reilly? He's loads of fun for his audience, some of whom probably mutter angrily from the couch. But I doubt O'Reilly, despite his incredible energy, influences--even a little bit--the actual political scene when he says things like this. What, people who watch O'Reilly don't already think San Francisco deserves what it gets? His rage entertains, but his indignance amounts to nothing.

I think this is kind of sad. I want to have a little respect for the guy, mostly because he's appeared a time or two on "The Daily Show." Even there, he struggles at being an asshole. But being an asshole doesn't mean he can't contribute something meaningful to political discussion. O'Reilly--it was pointed out to me this morning by the person who helps me to think about things before I rashly start typing--is part of a generation that saw the draft, a generation that thought about military service in ways that my generation has had the luxury of avoiding, by and large. Put aside for now the question of whether or not he served; let's just say he's ideologically predisposed to this idea that is not itself unreasonable: that service to one's country is both necessary and good (let's also forget, for the moment, that there are plenty of non-military ways to serve). Sure it's going to be upsetting to see San Francisco taking a stand that appears to suggest that some students are unreasonably pressed into such service. But can't O'Reilly see the divide between his perspective and that of people who don't think recruiters should be allowed in high schools? I'm sure he can. I'd listen. He's just not interested in making a reasoned, calm argument. More importantly, as is typical of a lot of such commentary, O'Reilly waited until it was too late, then jumped obnoxiously into the discussion. Way too late. If he really wants to help--if he really wanted things to be the way he claims he wants them to be--I think he'd be trying a lot harder to persuade a bigger audience that the one he currently has.

But really--Cokie Robert's opinion on The Colbert Report notwithstanding--it has always been this way in American political discourse. Lots of crowing and strutting, little attempt to do the hardest kind of work: talking sensibly and credibly to people who disagree with you. Should we expect this of O'Reilly? Probably not. We shall probably have to settle for his mediocrity.

Here's Franklin, again, from The Autobiography:

Now, many of our printers make no scruple of gratifying the malice of individuals by false accusations of the fairest characters among ourselves, augmenting animosity even to the producing of duels; and are, moreover, so indiscreet as to print scurrilous reflections on the government of neighboring states, and even on the conduct of our best national allies, which may be attended with the most pernicious consequences. These things I mention as a caution to young printers, and that they may be encouraged not to pollute their presses and disgrace their profession by such infamous practices, but refuse steadily, as they may see by my example that such a course of conduct will not, on the whole, be injurious to their interests.

In other words: you don't need this kind of crap to sell the news. Anyway, at least we're no longer dueling. With guns, I mean.