The Ugly Un-American: How to Be a Political Pundit
Posted by Ray Church on 07.07.2006
This week, the Ugly Un-American takes a look at the tactics and techniques used by Political Pundits to convince you that liberals, left wingers and foreigners are going to eat your children. Plus, Ray Church reveals his nerdy roots with a look at comic books and Dungeon's and Dragons. And one long overdue Shut the Hell Up Award...
Before we start, an apology that my columns have become less regular. It is currently July, which, where I live, means the long, humid summer and holidays. For the past week my mother has been over from New Zealand, so time has been at a premium.
A while back, 411Mania Politics was accused of being a liberal website, perhaps with some justification. We certainly have some unabashed liberals on board, but that doesn't explain Josh White, who could possibly be described as a libertarian, or Joe Rivett who describes himself as an individualist which, if Mr. Rivett hadn't already snagged the title, is how I think most of the 411mania politics staff would describe themselves.
We have, however, no one who could be described as an out and out conservative, so if any of our readers would like the chance to be a conservative pundit, I offer this column as a "how to" manual for conservative punditry, or perhaps, I should say a "how not to" manual.
How would I describe myself? Somewhere between pragmatist, rationalist and pluralist, with a healthy does of theist thrown in for good measure, but I see a place for conservative values in the dialogue. Concepts like "family values", "fiscal responsibility" and "less intrusive government" have merit, even if they have been enacted in a less than satisfactory manner.
What conservatives don't need is another vitriolic hate-spewing hack moaning about how the world is out to destroy conservatives and dance about on their graves singing hallelujah.
It's a Dirty Job
Every so often, a journalist has to get his (or her) hands dirty to get the story. We have to pull on out gumboots (Wellingtons / galoshes), and go wading through raw sewage in search of mutant alligators.
So, here I am, waist deep in the excrement of the worst political punditry has to offer, to bring you, the reader, the scoop on right wing punditry. As I said before, you can read this as a "how not to" manual, or perhaps just a good piece of satire, but whatever you do please don't forget that the left are just as culpable as the right for these errors, they just happen to be easier targets, and I'm feeling a bit lazy at the moment.
Those who write columns for the Internet can be found on the opinion page of Yahoo, while clips from those who have TV shows can be found on their appropriate websites (Fox News, MSNBC).
So, with out further ado, let's introduce the players.
Michelle Malkin
Shortly after my last article, one of the other writers at 411 wrote to suggest that Malkin was worse than Coulter, and, although I agreed at the time, I'm at a loss for how you would measure that. After reading and watching a bit of Malkin this week, I have to say if you were offended by Coulter, you will be offended by Malkin.
The funniest thing about her is her stance on immigration when she is the daughter of Filipino immigrants, considering she supported the internment of the Japanese during World War II, then complains about the racism she faced growing up in South Jersey. As Bart Simpson would say, the ironing is delicious.
For your reading list, I offer "Laura vs. Unhinged Librarians", "American Troops in Shackles", "It's the Jihad, Stupid" and "The Truth about Haditha"
Sean Hannity
The star of Hannity and Colmes from the Fox News network, Hannity is supposed to be the voice of conservative politics to counter the left wing lunatic views of Colmes. In reality, Colmes is a rather harmless, if occasionally accurate and rational puppy dog while Hannity is a rabid Doberman pincher who you know will have to be put down by the animal authority the next time he bites one of the neighbourhood children. Let's hope he doesn't bite your child.
For your viewing list, "Sweet Revenge" can be found on the Fox News website.
Bill O'Reilly
Regularly voted Keith Oberman's "Worst Person in the World", O'Reilly is probably the most famous pundit on TV, but notice I said famous and not popular. O'Reilly claims to call it straight down the middle. In reality, "straight down the middle" would be the phrase as used by a drunk driver to describe their driving skills to the local police. His list of recent controversies include threatening callers with Fox security when they mention Keith Oberman on air and claiming that turning Iraq into a Saddam Hussein style police state is probably best for the country. And Mussolini made the trains run on time.
In this column I will be referring to some of his more famous ramblings from the last two Christmases.
Anne Coulter
Yes, I know its overkill, but Coulter is the archetype for the rabid right wing political pundit. I promise I won't mention her attacks on 9/11 widows and stick to how she channels and expresses her vitriol.
For your Reading List I Offer "Party of the Rapist Proud to be Godless", "Godless Causes Liberals to Pray" and "Hey You Browsing ‘Godless' – Buy the Book or Get Out"
L. Brent Bozell III
Wrestling fans will know Mr. Bozell as the guy Mick Foley devotes an entire chapter of his book "Foley is Good" talking about. He differs from the other pundits here because he focuses almost exclusively on the media. He is the man behind the Parent's Television Council and Media Research Center. He's the guy who called Smackdown the most morally corrupt show on television. (Smackdown? Did the guy never watch Raw?)
Anyway, for your reading pleasure I submit "Whining About the ‘Web Mob", "No Time for Heroism and Victories" and "Dan Rather in History".
Pat Buchanan
Oh, Pat. A bad political hack makes a worse political pundit. Pat is certainly not the most extreme of political pundits, especially these days when he does not blindly support the Republican Party, but he can be just as thoughtless and crass. I almost didn't include him as he can sometimes put forward a well reasoned argument, but by and large he just hacks his way through it all.
For your reading pleasure I present "Is Catholicism Now Unaccaeptable?"
As a cheap prop, I also offer "Condi and the Isolationists". I couldn't agree with him more.
Sir Not-Appearing-In-This-Column
Honourable mentions, but ones I did not use in this column, include Michael Smirconish (last weeks "Shut the Hell Up" Award recipient), John Gibson (another Award recipient), Joe Scarborough, Rush Limbaugh, David Limbaugh and the forever omnipresent Tucker Carlson.
Notice these are taken almost exclusively from MSNBC and Fox News.
Worst. Episode. Ever.
Exaggeration is the hallmark of any bad pundit. Anne Coulter claims, for example, that two facts, liberals are godless and Hillary's husband is a rapist, "are now universally accepted". Go look up the word universally. Go ahead, I'll wait. It means not just everyone in the conservative party, not just everyone in America, not even just everybody in the world, but everyone in the universe accepts these facts.
So who the hell am I?
Our special word for this section is the word hyperbole. Hyperbole means an exaggeration of the grossest kind, not to be confused with hyperbola which means two curves that approach each other and then move away.
If I were writing about Michelle Malkin's curves here I don't think I would be half so disgusted.
(Anyone who wishes to correct my definition of hyperbola can email me at whogives@damn.com.)
Back to the point, producing the most extreme interpretation of events seems to be part of political punditry. As Anne Coulter says "liberals don't care about women", or Pat Buchanan stating that where "homosexuality (has been prevalent) – in the late Roman Empire, Weimar Germany, San Francisco – it has been regarded as a mark and a metaphor for moral decadence and societal decline". Notice the inclusion of San Francisco in that trinity. Aside from an earthquake some one hundred years ago, I didn't realize San Francisco had collapsed yet. He also mentions Germany circa 1933, but no mention of the corresponding decadence that followed 10 years later by a man who was determined to kill all homosexuals.
So the only real example of moral decadence and the downfall of society that Buchanan is really able to identify is Rome. Funny he doesn't look at England (that really lost it's foothold in the ultra conservative Victorian era), Napoleonic France (which lost its empire through repeated wars), Mongolia (which lost its empire through nepotistic in fighting) or any number of given Chinese dynasties (that fell apart because they were just too big).
To utilize hyperbole in any form you have to ignore all evidence to the contrary. You have to ignore alternative histories, alternative interpretations and alternative evidence. It's a nice and easy package for the world. A nice and easy narrative for how the world works.
And because the world is infinitely complex it is also completely bogus and wrong.
Rinse. Lather. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.
OK, no special word here, just repetition. Repetition. Repetition.
no special word just repetition repetition is the special word no special just the word repetition here the word repetition no repetition word here special repetition here…
OK, my homage to Gertrude Stein over and done with. (If you got the joke, consider yourself incredibly anal retentive).
You may have already heard of talking points, in fact Bill O'Reilly calls an entire segment of his show on it (and in a perfect example of blackwhite calls another segment the "no spin zone").
If you read more than a couple of columns, you'll begin to notice the same topics repeat themselves. Abortion, Bill Clinton, the vote to invade Iraq, American righteousness, the death of Zarqawi, the word liberal, the liberal media, "cut and run", cowards and flip flopping seem to pop at the most unlikely times.
Read Coulter talk about "Juanita Broderick's charge that Bill Clinton raped her" when trying to convince us that the Main Stream Media is dying, or Hannity when his old lecturer is talking about fair elections asking (repeatedly) "is America a force for good?" or Malkin labeling Murtha "cut and run Murtha" when talking about Haditha. In other words, when in doubt, bring up a totally unrelated topic and repeat it. Again. And again. And again.
It's a very easy way to dodge a topic that you don't want to admit the validity of, as Hannity does, or to remind us of who the bad guys are, as Coulter and Malkin do. It's also an absolute waste of time and space.
The Straw man
New word, Metonymy. Metonymy means to represent the whole by using a smaller part.
You've done this before. It's not the American film industry; it's Hollywood. It's not a car; it's a set of wheels. When invited to a meal in New Zealand, you may be asked to bring a plate. Please put food on it before you leave home.
For pundits, the more obscure and outside the mainstream the person is, the more they represent the entire party. The debating term for this is the Straw Man argument, a weak and extreme argument that you can beat up, representing it as the entire argument of your opponent.
Coulter, once more, talks about the liberals who "propose teaching children how to masturbate" or Malkin talking about the Canadian terrorists who were arrested as proof that the entire Muslim community should be put on notice. Travel back in time and witness Bill O'Reilly pull out the most obscure story to justify that there is a war on Christmas. Plano School District, Saginaw Township, Dodgeville Wisconsin. Ever heard of them? I mean before Bill O'Reilly mentioned them? No.
Well, every single story was false. One was retracted under threat of a lawsuit.
Both sides have their people on the fringe.
In "Laura vs. Unhinged Librarians", Malkin trots out "the chief book-stacker and archivist for the "Reference Center for Marxist Studies" in New York" as a symbol of librarians all around the country. Yes sir, a true representation of all librarians. "Book-smart, reality-stupid, Bush-deranged bigots". I've heard of a lot of librarians get angry at people talking too loud, I haven't seen too many planning to launch a Marxist revolution. Maybe I hang out in the wrong libraries.
A Pinch of Paranoia, A Cup of Conspiracy, A Hint of Hysteria… Add as Required
I'm telling you, they're shooting at me from everywhere. Everybody's against me.
John McCain, during the lead up to the 2000 elections.
If there's one thing that conservative pundits can agree on, it's that there is a vast liberal media conspiracy out to get conservatives and training America to be God hating, baby killing, minority lovers. And it must be true because they repeat it again and again and again.
So lets start with Mr. Bozell.
While the Bush administration focuses on the elimination of the terrorist threat in Iraq, the Saddam-was-no-threat left has remained obsessed with the pre-war months, not only harping on the failures of Western intelligence, but more importantly, advancing a hardened historical narrative. They would have the world believe the Bush administration was not only wrong about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but also lied intentionally and went to war for some unstated cynical reason -- oil, enriching war profiteers, avenging Daddy Bush.
Notice the use of nouns in this. It starts with the ambiguous "Sadam-was-no-threat left". Why are the people on the right who believed that Saddam Hussein was not a threat (and there were many) not considered in this passage? They came to pretty much the same conclusions as those on the left, but they are apparently not historical revisionists.
From there, this entire group is referred to as "they". Not one singe person is named at this point. Later we find that Fox News treated it as a major story, while ABC, NBC, CNN, CBS and MSNBC treated it either as a non-story or ridiculed he story. For the record, Alan Colmes from Hannity and Colmes fame is actually on record, on air challenging and debunking Santorum in the flesh, so really, they all ridiculed it.
The narrative Bozell is using, of course, is that the mainstream media is a vehicle for liberal story telling. MSNBC, for instance, is repeatedly held up as a sign of liberal bias, but of their commentators, only Keith Oberman can be categorized as a liberal. Tucker Carlson, Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough and Rita Crosby all identify themselves as conservatives. Tim Russert and Chris Mathews are both identified as politically neutral, although nay-sayers have placed these two in either camp.
In fact, Russert is a prime example. When responding to Russert's handling of the death of Zarqawi, Bozell cries "How can media stars like Russert not understand how partisan they sound at a moment like this?" The irony is that while the Right view Russert as a sign of the liberal media, the unabashed liberal media see Russert as a sounding board for conservative talking points, as can be evidenced by the Huffington Post's blog "Russert Watch". How can he be both a conservative and a liberal pundit? He isn't, he just isn't very good.
"They" are out to get you, though. The liberals, apparently, will twist the truth and report everything with bias and venom.
They've deployed the whole lineup of yesterday's power brokers against me
Anne Coulter
They are opportunistic, hindsighted hypocrites who endanger us all.
Michelle Malkin (referring to the New York Times)
The same media now can't stand the idea of giving them a piddling fraction of the time they spent on outrageous dog handlers and naked-pyramid-builders, who were the emblematic American soldiers in Iraq, if you believe our partisan national press.
L. Brent Bozell III
When in doubt, it is a liberal media that biases the news. Both Malkin and Coulter, for example, call the Times treasonous for releasing information about FBI wiretapping and bank tracing programs, but defend Libby and Rove releasing Valerie Plame's name to the press. Malkin spends an entire column complaining that they show pictures of US troops in chains as if they are already guilty, complaining that this is evidence of liberal bias.
If you read my last column you can probably already guess my response to this argument. American's have a duty to haul in any American even suspected of a crime in Iraq, and they must do so publicly and loudly. America's reputation is in pieces on the World Stage, and unless it is redeemed publicly there is no hope.
When in doubt, however, the pundit blames media bias, and in one of my favourite pieces of television, (April 28, 2006) Bill O'Reilly laid out the whole conspiracy.
You have a very powerful far-left cabal, far-left cabal, George Soros. He's funding most of these smear sites on the left. And these guys have made inroads, inroads, particularly at NBC News. ABC and CBS kind of stay away from the smear merchants. But a few people at NBC are really right in there. They've been bought by them. And that's troubling. That's troubling.
Yep, smear sites on the left funded by George Soros. I wouldn't be surprised if we were supposedly one of them. If so, George, I'm waiting for my paycheck…
A Little Defence
I know some people will be reading this and asking why I didn't give any liberals in this column and look at them, so a quick point of defence. I have read a lot of Al Franken, Michael Moore and Bill Maher, and there are a few critical differences between liberal pundits like them and the conservative pundits I have mentioned here.
Firstly, all three of the above describe themselves as humourists as much as political pundits. Their books are as often in the satire section as the politics section.
Secondly, particular Michael Moore, they are often self-deprecating. They put forward the liberal viewpoint, but they will eviscerate the left and themselves as well as their opposition.
Thirdly, they use facts to make their argument. In all the articles mentioned above, the only two columnists who would use facts to support their points were Bozell and Buchanan. The others would make statements about facts but not provide evidence to back it up.
The Right deserves a better political commentator than the ones they have. Isn't there anyone who can represent this viewpoint better?
I Got Mail
For the first time in a long time, I got mail from someone other than the other members of the 411 staff. I'm with holding the name so I don't embarrass anyone, but a correction from a Dungeons and Dragons fan.
just to let you know...Hydras have 5 heads not 7, and being a person who has spent his youth playing Dungeons and Dragons....Hydras are NOT dragons
This is how desperate my ego is, I'm posting the one piece of email I got and it has nothing to do with politics at all. "Brain the size of a planet and they ask me to pick up a piece of paper, oh God I'm so depressed".
Records about hydras differ, listing between 5 and 100 heads. (Typhon, a literal relative of the hydra, had 100 heads for example). Additionally, dragons in most European traditions were mindless beasts as well (see the dragon killed by St George and the dragon put to sleep by Jason), and the wise and all knowing dragon was basically an invention of J. R. R. Tolkien. This is not the same as dragons in the East, which were divine in nature.
There is a big difference between cultural mythology and the mythology of modern fantasy, but for the record (and to show what a nerd I truly am) the third edition of the D&D Monster Manual lists hydras between 5 and 12 heads, but yes, you are correct, they are mindless beasts.
Now, can someone challenge me about politics?
Short Shot: A Defense of Comics
One of the more interesting reads while I was preparing this column was L. Brent Bozell's column "Are Comic Books No Longer for Kids?", and it got me reflecting on my childhood.
It helped me understand exactly how out of touch Bozell actually is. His premise was that comic books, these days, are not for kids anymore. He reflected back to when Superman was the most American of heroes, fighting for truth, justice and the American way, bemoaning that comics today were no longer just comics but graphic novels. This was his first misunderstanding, as graphic novels are a different art-form in the same way that comic books are different from comic strips. The mistake he is making is as big as the difference between 4 box Garfield strips and the first issue of detective comics.
But there is a more fundamental difference. The comics Bozell describes come from a time referred to as the golden age of comics, when you could "head for the corner drugstore for an issue of "Superman" for 12 cents, a quarter for a book with three -- three! – stories". The golden age, as you may already know, is estimated to have ended sometime in the late 1940's. In other words he's complaining that the world is not like it was 65 years ago.
So what does he complain about? Homosexual characters in comic books. To be honest I think he has nothing to fear, as the testosterone charged teenagers I knew who used to read comic books were stridently homophobic, so comics with homosexual characters will probably find their own niche market, but I have to agree that the sex and violence that inhabits some of these comic books is beyond children, and some of it I find pretty repulsive, but his response is to mourn the passing of the Comic Code Authority. Where this whole thing falls down is that the CCA was blind to the artistic nature of comics. A Spiderman comic dealing with the danger of drugs, for example, but not able to show the violent effects of them would undermine its own theme, which is exactly what Marvel Comics argued when it created just such a comic for the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
But back to the point, comics have not been "just for children" for the better part of 40 years. I recommend Mr. Bozell read "The Watchmen" by Alan Moore, ,"The Sandman" by Neil Gaimen, or X-Men's"God Loves, Man Kills", or DC's "Kingdom Come", where the themes and ideas truly rise above his mantel of "Just for Children" and into the realm of art.
Either that or he can start a campaign to cover the breasts of the Venus De Milo and put paints on the Statue of David.
"Shut the Hell" Up Award
Boy, Mr. Easley was right, it is a slow news week, so I had to dig to find this one. I was expecting to find some defense of Ken Lay. Nothing. Some defense of George Bush. Not much. I almost picked up on the Net Neutrality debate, and the Senator Ted Stevens who decide he would explain to us morons who have never used the Internet how the ‘Net is a series of tubes through which you put your message in a wait for. Apparently it took him 5 days to get a single email, which leads me to ask just what they put in that email that took 5 days to receive.
Anyway, I was going to nominate Ted Stevens this week, but then I remembered that our favourite group of activist judges, the Supreme Court, decided to deliver the smackdown on George W. Bush. (As a side note, I misspelled George just then and my spell check suggested ogre as an appropriate substitute).
So who should I find but our faithfully annoying, Bill O'Reilly.
The Left believes the current administration is the enemy and doesn't trust it to wage a legal war. The Right believes the Bush Administration's policies have prevented attacks on US soil and are prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt.
He then goes on to state that the majority trust Bush more than any Democrat defend America.
Firstly, this is a perfect chance to apply your learning from today's column. Remember hyperbole? The Left do not believe that Bush is the enemy, they believe he is incompetent and that is why they don't trust him to handle the war on terror.
Secondly, polling is fluctuating on who American's trust to run the war on terror, and as recently as two months ago, Democrats had a 5% advantage over Republicans in handling the war on terror.
OK, so the tally of awards so far.
Michael Smiconish --- 1
Jack Burkman --- 1
Anne Coulter --- 1
George Bush --- 1
Chris Mathews --- 1
Arianna Huffington --- 1
John Stossel --- 1
Tom Tancredo --- 1
Focus on the Family --- 1
And Bill O'Reilly --- 1
No one is taking the lead at the moment. Feel free if you find something you feel deserves the "Shut the Hell Up" Award.
A Pimp in Time
Well, two weeks worth of stuff to pimp again. I would pimp Crow's take on China, but there are just too many columns there to mention. Almost managed to catch up with him in Hong Kong, but I know better than to get between a man and his wife's shopping excursion.
Josh White has hit a couple of good columns in a row, but I have to disagree with him on smoking. Anyway, go check out defining heroism and his take on Cindy Sheehan.
Love the pick-up games of fact or fiction that are happening. There must be one of you conservatives willing to step up and take an entire column.
Also loved Joe Rivett's column here. I think he missed one reason Fox is tanking. I mean, who wants to turn on the TV and think that somewhere, somehow, Dick Cheney is watching the same show as you…
And Jason Easley takes on patriotism in this column. As a firmly committed traitor and slanderer, I couldn't agree with him more.
STAY CURRENT