Culture Warrior (20 page)

         

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 were 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.

Some things are inevitable, and at this point in the culture war, trying to
damage
the opposition, rather than discredit its ideas with fact-based logical argument, has become the primary game plan of the S-P movement. To be fair, some traditional forces use smear tactics as well, but again, not nearly on the level that the S-Ps use them.

And so we march on. This book will intensify the fight and, I hope, might also convince some Americans not fully engaged in the culture war to step up and support the good guys: us.

If that happens, the S-Ps are doomed, because the vast majority of Americans, according to the polls, believe the United States is a good country and that Judeo-Christian values continue to provide a foundation for justice and prosperity. Most Americans, therefore, don't want a drastic restructuring of the country and are firmly in the traditional camp. But, I'll submit, many potential culture warriors on the traditional side don't have a clue as to what is going on. They are a great untapped resource.

The question then becomes: Why are so many traditionalists disengaged? On paper, it doesn't make much sense.

Consider that, overwhelmingly, Americans oppose gay marriage, partial-birth abortion, legalized drugs, the banishment of spirituality in the public square, and most other core S-P issues. Did you know that 87 percent of counties in the United States do not have one physician who will perform an abortion? Why is that? Could it be that most doctors and Americans in general are uncomfortable with this anti-life procedure?

Doing the math once again, we see that it all adds up to a decidedly traditional country, does it not? At this point, the prevailing wisdom among both the Republican and Democratic Party operatives is that 15 percent of Americans are hard-core liberal, 35 percent conservative, and the rest moderate or apolitical. Those numbers come from internal polling done by both parties.