Ann Althouse writes that Bill O’Reilly “spouts right-wing economic theories.”
What does that mean?
I’ve heard Bill O’Reilly rant against free trade, complain about “fat cats,” whine about “obscene” profits from oil companies, price gougers, etc., but in that, he seems to be more attuned to Democrats than “right wingers.” Say what you want about O’Reilly, but he’s no “right winger” (at least if, by that, one means a classical liberal who believes in free markets). He’s a populist, who is just “looking out for the folks” (at least to hear him tell it–never mind the actual effects of his anti-market nostrums). Just another example of the meaninglessness (and uselessness) of the labels (e.g., “neocon,” “conservative,” “fascist”) that get pointlessly thrown around the arena.
“Ann Althouse writes that Bill O’Reilly “sputs right-wing economic theories.”
What does that mean?”
A “sput”, I believe, is the little brother to a ‘spurt’.
O’Reilly is a tool. It’s not that he’s an anti-semite. He just hates Jews.
Oh, wait, that’s Buchanon. Bill’s just a tool.
There are some people who just annoy me so much that I can’t stand to listen to them. John Kerry was one example, but Bill O’Reilly is IMO worse. I’d almost prefer being strapped in a chair and forces to listen to hours of John Kerry speeches than having to listen to O’Reilly for 10 minutes. Both are pompus asshats, but O’Reilly takes it to new levels of asshatry.
O’Reilly is more a populist than a classical liberal, but what he mainly is is ignorant, intellectually undisciplined and unprepared. What he does, consistently and brilliantly, is focus on whatever topic will bring the most traffic to his show. Thus he is shocked, shocked by high-school students engaging in public sexual behavior, and will show you examples of it to get you to watch. And he tries to embarrass judges and other public figures who take unpopular positions. And he will allow himself be used by politicians like Obama, who are smart enough to realize that they will benefit more by cooperating with O’Reilly than by ignoring him. Some of O’Reilly’s crusades are populist in style, but he is really more a publicity parasite than a populist.
Hmmmmm.
It’s my opinion that terrorist detainees at Gitmo should be forced to watch O’Reilly 24×7.
They’ll crack like a nut in next to no time.
Either that or it’ll be condemned as a Crime Against Humanity. Which is a win-win either way.
No, just another proof that Althouse, like most professors, is an idiot.
“……”right winger” (at least if, by that, one means a classical liberal who believes in free markets)”
And who would mean that? By right-wing, I mean conservative, or even reactionary. And yes, conservatives are not liberal. Is this surprising?
Many conservatives consider other things besides economics to be important. In fact, we consider them to be far more important than economics. And hence we are not particularly liberal on economics.
Many conservatives consider other things besides economics to be important. In fact, we consider them to be far more important than economics. And hence we are not particularly liberal on economics.
I think that you’d find many “conservatives” over at (e.g.) National Review who would strongly dispute that. Depending, of course, on what you mean by “liberal” on economics. But if you believe all the things that I just ascribed to Bill O’Reilly, you’re no conservative on economics. You’re a Democrat.
“I think that you’d find many “conservatives” over at (e.g.) National Review who would strongly dispute that. Depending, of course, on what you mean by “liberal” on economics. But if you believe all the things that I just ascribed to Bill O’Reilly, you’re no conservative on economics. You’re a Democrat.”
“Conservatives” at National Review is right. Many conservatives don’t find NR to be especially conservative anymore. I don’t like Bill O’Reilly or the Democratic party (and I certainly am not a Democrat).
However, it is possible to not like socialism, and also not like the current economic orthodoxy of free-trade at any cost. Conservatism is an old political tradition – it’s even more than that – it’s an instinct. And it does not necessarily define itself in purely economic terms. That many people think it does, is only the result of libertarians and neo-conservatives having hijacked it.