The Culture war by Bill O’Reilly shines a light on an alleged battle
between Traditionalist and Secular-Progressives in America today.
O’Reilly structures his debate around the modes and mechanisms in which
the Secular-Progressives use to carry out their agenda – via the
mainstream print and electronic media along with the support of wealthy
and influential enablers.
Prior to reading this book, my initial
outlook on O’Reilly was one which painted him as a right-winged
conservative, but not an extremist. One can argue that it is difficult
to define his political stance as he has defended, on occasion, many
liberals, and criticized some actions in the conservative arena, such
as George W. Bush’s stance on border control. My one objection to this
book is the way that he argues some points; that is, it seems that some
facts are distorted or missing in his logic flow in the process of him
trying to persuade the reader to agree with his point. However, to his
defense, many books at the opposite end of the spectrum use the same
debating techniques. O’Reilly is one of the only conservative
cable/radio shows that I can watch/listen to for a prolonged amount of
time. I have to admit that I get nauseous in the car if I were to
listen to some of the right-winged talk show hosts debate about issues
in Iraq or abortion as it seems that their stance is based on mostly
emotions and not a structured, logical, causally mechanical debate
The
first chapter of the book is titled “Armies of the Night”, implying
that the supposed SP army operates obliviously to the common folk. His
argument begins by attacking one of the pillars of his self-labeled SP
movement, the ACLU. I concede that the ACLU may support issues that
seem radically to the left (financially and by swaying public opinion),
but not all of their involvement is of such consequence. After a brief
process of due-diligence on my part, I discovered that the ACLU did not
support NAMBLA in ideology, but only supported their 1st amendment
right of the freedom of speech
(http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11289prs20000831.html). There
is a big difference (barring exceptions and extremes) between saying
and doing. ACLU in this case defended NAMBLA’s right to free-speech,
and emphasized the fact that they do not advocate what NAMBLA stands
for. However, Bill O’Reilly used a persuasion technique to draw a
conclusion that there is a hidden enemy amongst us and that we must
unite to purge the evil that is plaguing America.
Although I may
have disproved one of his arguments (at least to my satisfaction), this
alone does not provide the sufficient and necessary conditions to
debunk that. Logics 101 has taught me better! Taken as a whole, whether
you agree or disagree with O’Reilly, his watchdog style of journalism
provokes thoughts, initiates debates, and solidifies understanding of
the events that are occurring implicitly in America. A personal
paradigm-shift may be occurring with respect on how I view the media.
The common American (of all ages) may not realize that respectable
organizations such as the New York Times, MSNBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, and CNN
employ and thus express liberal ideology through their agenda setting.
This has a profound effect on the minds of Americans who each have the
power to change the history of future America by playing their role in
the republic.
Plato and George Orwell, to name a few have
emphasized the power the media holds in the ability to sustain a
totalitarian state. O’Reilly knows this, as he references the words
“brave new world” as the goal of the SP movement. By implicitly
acknowledging Aldous Huxley’s most famous novel “Brave New World”, he
places the SP’s coup d'État goal as the formation of a [Traditionalist]
dystopia, and the formation of an SP utopia based in country free of
religion and cultural diversity, combined with abundant drug use.
O’Reilly continues by saying that his patriotism and his set of values
will prevent this from ever occur. I commend him for this. Based on my
personal experiences, I have found that, loosely, the most patriotic
Americans base themselves on conservative beliefs, and the apathetic or
“America is messed-up” mentality place themselves as independent.

I
find it difficult to place myself into solely one ideology, however as
I do not agree 100% with either party. I am like O’Reilly at times, as
I will always fight for what I think is right. Reason above loyalty. In
the world of bipartisan politics where, for instance, in Congress,
party pressure and arm-twisting prevents one to vote rationally at
times – as to put it bluntly “if you don’t help us this time, we won’t
help you next time”. That all said, if I had to pick a party, it would
be the Democratic Party, and if I were to be labeled, label me a
moderate liberal. Thus one can see where I stand politically, and the
way I view O’Reilly and his viewpoints. For instance, in abortion, I
believe that whether you are FOR or AGAINST it, the government should
not dictate what a woman should do with her own body. If one would
analyze the constitution in its historical context, it would be found
that not all of the founding framers were for the strong central
government controlling the lives of all Americans. So why should the
issue of abortion be any different? Since the opposition to abortion
stems mainly from religious circles, and America is the land where
‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion’,
whose religion are we using to state that abortion is wrong? Bottom
line, keep the government away from dictating what a woman should or
should not do with her own body and let her personal beliefs decide the
outcome (albeit with certain extreme restrictions).
O’Reilly spends
a good portion of his 209 page book discussing the Christmas
controversy. I see where he is coming from and if he wants to afford
the opportunity cost in pursuing that issue, so be it. His life, his
money, his time. I personally would spend that time exploring and
revealing injustice, corruption, risk to safety, problems in education,
and suffering in America.
O’Reilly states that he supports the
issuance of school vouchers. School vouchers are used for
under-privileged individuals who wish to attend private institutions at
the cost of tax-payers expense. I oppose school-vouchers; however, if I
did support it, it would be merit-based, and not need-based. True,
public inner-city schools are not equal to public schools centered in
wealthy neighborhoods. If my tax dollars were to go to fund this
project, the money should not be arbitrarily distributed to anyone that
falls into a certain income bracket. Along the same lines, O’Reilly
strongly opposes income redistribution. I do as well, as the wealthy
should not be penalized for, on the most part, working harder and more
diligently. But I also consider the fact that the crime rate will
increase if the individuals suffering from abject poverty are no longer
supported by welfare. On a final note, I agree with O’Reilly that drugs
should never be legalized. If you thought MADD was mad before, just
imagine what could happen if marijuana was legalized. Hell hath no fury…
To conclude, I enjoyed reading the Culture Warrior as it did further my
understanding on the power of the media towards the common American and
how dominated the Press actually is by liberals. I highly recommended
this book to fans and critics alike.