Before I pick up where we left off before the Christmas break, let me first recap my last post. I asked why conservative commentator Bill O'Reilly does not think President Obama is a socialist but self-described socialist and MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell does.
Seems backwards, doesn't it?
O'Donnell even said that O'Reilly "lies" about what socialism is, adding that there isn't a capitalist country left in existence, and cited Newseek's infamous "We're all socialists now" cover to show how much in the mainstream that ideology really is.
I'm not sure what lies O'Donnell is referring to, as O'Reilly has gone out of his way to paint Obama as a Left-centrist--much to the chagrin of his conservative audience.
O'Reilly wrote that "as long as he isn't nationalizing industry or purloining private property, I don't think the socialist label is accurate."
Some might say that he is.
But what does Obama think about the label?
The New York Times asked him point blank if he's a socialist after the first six weeks of his presidency.
"The answer would be no," the president said.
The reporter pushed, asking if there's anything wrong with saying yes. Obama responded with a 400-word response in which no answer was provided. The reporter tried again.
"Is there a one-word name for your philosophy? If you're not a socialist, are you a liberal? Are you a progressive? One word?"
"No," Obama said. "I'm not going to engage in that."
After the interview, a miffed Obama felt the need to call the New York Times reporter back to clarify his ideology.
"It was hard for me to believe that you were entirely serious about that socialist question," he said, adding that he's been "operating in a way that has been entirely consistent with free-market principles."
He better tell O'Donnell and Maher, because they think he's one of them.
Why is there so much confusion over this man's political views? Almost every other heavy hitter in politics is easily identifiable. Nobody disagrees that O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, Palin, and Gingrich are conservatives and capitalists. Why, then, is the opposite label murky and controversial?
As a result of this country's history as the first small-government laissez-faire capitalist nation--the astounding success of which engenders a large amount of pride in its populace--conservativism and capitalism are our embedded, default values. Most Americans find the opposite view--socialism--to be unpalatable.
Consequently, in order to be politically successful, socialists need to mask their true identities.
"I know this about my country. Liberals are 20 percent of the electorate," O'Donnell said minutes after his famous socialism admission. "Conservatives are 41 percent of the electorate. So I don't pretend that my views, which would ban all guns in America, make Medicare available to all in America, have any chance of happening in the federal government."
He went on to say that the only reason a Chairman Barney Frank exists is because of Blue Dog Democrats, and blamed those who ran to the left of them for their heavy losses this November 2nd.
In short, he warned the Left not to outrun its cover. O'Donnell and Maher can freely admit their socialism and keep their jobs because they can stay on air by appealing to that far-Left niche. Obama, who needs 51 percent of the vote, has to be craftier.
And that, my friends, is why O'Reilly and O'Donnell aren't on the same page about Obama. It's why the one-dimensional political spectrum is flawed.
Simply put, the element of time is undefined.
A person can be a hard-core socialist while being realistic enough to see--like O'Donnell sees--that the country won't take it all in one sitting. To avoid a backlash, it must be fed to them slowly over time in small spoonfuls, mixed with some capitalism to make it go down smoother.
O'Reilly is focusing on the small spoonfuls, and--not seeing pure socialism--calls Obama center-Left. O'Donnell, the advocate of the incrementalist strategy, sees the spoonfuls as merely a tactic of Obama's to achieve the grand strategy of socialism in America.
In the end, they may not disagree after all--they may merely be seeing to aspects of the same thing.
How liberal is Barack Obama? Pundits identify him as anything from a center-left pragmatist to a far-Left Marxist. This one-dimensional Left-Right paradigm is useful only in determining that he's not a conservative; it doesn't tell us how far to the left he is.
Opinions are all over the map, sometimes in surprising ways. Earlier this year, Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly opined:
Radio
guy Rush Limbaugh recently mocked me because I do not call President Obama a
socialist. Although I asked Mr. Obama to explain his "socialistic
tenets" in my last interview with him, I have not branded him with the
"S" word because the label does not exactly apply to his governance
thus far.
However, MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell--who proudly wears the "S" label-- agreed with Limbaugh that Obama is a socialist.
"Two weeks ago on Bill Maher's show," O'Donnell said, "Bill and I both admitted to being socialists and we threw Barack Obama in with us."
The progressive website Media Matters complained that Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes "smeared" Obama when he said that he "had to be told by the French and Germans that his socialism was too far to the left for them to deal with."
Is it a smear when the far-Left O'Donnell says the same thing?
O'Donnell also said that O'Reilly "lies" about what socialism is, adding that there isn't a capitalist country left in existence, and cited Newseek's infamous "We're all socialists now" cover to show how much in the mainstream that ideology really is.
I'm not sure what lies O'Donnell is referring to, as O'Reilly has gone out of his way to paint Obama as a Left-centrist--much to the chagrin of his conservative audience.
O'Reilly wrote that "as long as he isn't nationalizing industry or purloining private property, I don't think the socialist label is accurate."
O'Reilly doesn't think Obama is a socialist but O'Donnell (along with Limbaugh and Maher) do? What is going on here?
I think I have the answer, and it will be in my next post.
Just when you thought MSNBC couldn't get any more ridiculous...
After getting trounced in the ratings by Fox News on Election Night, having their coverage panned as biased, and losing their top-rated (for them) anchor to suspension, one of MSNBC's most visible hosts announced he's a socialist.
"I am not a progressive, " Lawrence O'Donnell said on MSNBC's Morning Joe program. "I am not a liberal who is so afraid of the word that I had to change my name to progressive. Liberals amuse me. I am a socialist." [continue reading]
Last night I watched the returns rolling and posted updates on my Facebook and Twitter accounts. I took upon myself the unenviable task of watching MSNBC's coverage of the election.
Keep in mind that this is the MSNBC that is constantly belittling Fox for being biased for Republicans.
Reputable cable news outfits generally have at least one bona fide objective journalist covering the returns. For example, Fox News doesn't have Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity hosting the hard-news coverage.
MSNBC on the other hand? Well, I posted these updates last night:
Fox News has one hard news journalists, one conservative, and two liberals on their panel. MSNBC has 5 bombthrowers (including Matthews, Maddow, Olbermann, and O'Donnel) and zero conservatives.
and
The 5 liberal msnbc hosts interviewed bachmann, called her "moronic", then ridiculed the notion that msnbc is in the tank for the Democrats
So while Fox News didn't stack the deck with conservative commentators, MSNBC asked their entire stable of far-left talking-heads digest the news for their viewers--with no representation from the other side.
Ironically, the five liberals scoffed at the notion that MSNBC was in the tank for Democrats. Republicans might have objected--if any were included on the panel.
It should come as little surprise then that Mediate reported that Fox's coverage was fairer than MSNBC.
MSNBC's
election coverage was led by a panel comprised mostly of its opinionated
prime-time hosts (Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow and Lawrence
O'Donnell, along with frequent contributor Eugene Robinson), with nary a
conservative voice in the mix. In contrast, Fox News's was provided by two
anchors from its straight-news dayside, Megyn Kelly and Bret Baier, along with
a panel that included conservatives like Karl Rove as well as liberals like
Juan Williams.
Fox
News offered a far more balanced set of analysts for the election coverage than
did MSNBC.
Credit where due, Fox also had a more, well, balanced panel much of the night than its competitor MSNBC. Holding forth from left of center for Fox were the recently-high-profile Juan Williams and Democratic political guru Joe Trippi. MSNBC's main lineup, on the other hand, was basically its center-to-left lineup of nightly hosts: Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell.
This evidence seems to say that Fox News might not be as biased as the Left says it is--and that it's the Left who needs a lesson in fairness.
Eric Ingemunson's commentary has been featured on Hannity, CNN, NBC, Inside Edition, and KFI's The John and Ken Show.
Eric was born and raised in Ventura County and currently resides in Moorpark. He earned a master's degree in Public Policy and Administration from California Lutheran University. As a conservative, Eric supports smaller government, less taxation, more individual freedom, the rule of law, and a strict adherence to the Constitution.
Comment (2)
Print