Op-Ed
Every Which Way But Right
Email: 
Share: 
If You Can Keep It
March 1, 2007 - 12:28amIn the first piece I ever wrote for The Sun, I made one thing (OK, maybe two things) very clear: “This column … does not back down from giving both liberals and conservatives hell when they deserve it and praise when they’ve earned it. That’s called a Texan’s prerogative, as is entreating that no one shy away from aiming either or both right back at me at any time and on any subject.”
One reader — after inspecting my recent assessment of Congressman Maurice Hinchey and the Fairness Doctrine he hopes to reinstate — more than delivered on his end of the bargain with a post intended for yours truly on The Sun’s webpage.
“It seems to me,” he began, “that you are masking yourself as a moderate, much like Fox News does.”
Interesting. Prithee, do go on, I thought — for if my moderation is a mask, then what horrors must lie beneath?
“Based on your Facebook page, however,” he continued, “you seem to be a right-winger and Fox News supporter (you have just posted a Fox News clip of Bill O’Reilly saying he makes a very good point).”
Ah, Facebook, old buddy, old pal.
Could it have been true? Had the most addictive website since Homestar Runner really sold me out?
Et tu, Mark Zuckerberg?
Yep. No getting around it. I did indeed commend Mr. William James O’Reilly, Jr., and I used Mr. Zuckerberg’s platform to do it.
And you know what? While I’m at it, let me incriminate myself even more: that, Dear Reader, was not the only time I’ve ever applauded everyone’s favorite Irish-American provocateur. There has been, in fact, more than one evening as of late when I have found myself nodding along to the now infamous Talking Points Memo on the show that — and let me clear my throat — “dominates cable news.”
Does that mean that I approve of it?
No. And that’s where my online friend got it wrong. Why? To begin with, let’s take a look at the clip that started it all.
After discussing Friends of God, a new documentary from Nancy Pelosi’s daughter, Alexandra, and then describing the very similar film Jesus Camp — both of which, he pointed out, feature “militant Christians” — Bill had this to say on the Jan. 26 episode of his show: “With all due respect to the filmmakers, anybody can do that and it proves nothing. […] There will always be people on the fringe, folks who take things too far.
The truth is that most American Christians are sincere people trying to lead good lives. They’re not a threat. They’re not trying to impose their beliefs on anyone.”
Meanwhile, this newspaperman (who, by then, had already forced himself to sit through a presentation of Jesus Camp from start to finish) could not help but agree with O’Reilly’s sentiments.
This newspaperman, you see, is also an Evangelical Christian who grew up in two Evangelical Baptist churches — and not much of what I witnessed in a movie claiming to be about Evangelicals resonated at all with, well, this Evangelical.
Jesus Camp focuses not on the broader Evangelical community, but on very pronounced sub-groups within it. Which is not to say that the producers felt any need to make a note of this to their audience — a moviemaker’s sin for which Bill called them out.
There is, the self-described master of the ‘no-spin zone’ said, “A huge difference between mainstream Christians and the militants.”
Now. For my online friend, it is likely that none of this proves a problem.
In fact, he probably agrees with everything thus far. Any fair-minded human being would. The problem for him, rather, is that Bill O’Reilly said it.
Because Bill O’Reilly is, in his mind, a “right-winger,” to agree with him on something — that is, to say that “he makes a very good point” — ipso facto makes the person doing the agreeing a “right-winger” as well.
It is, in short, precisely this line of thinking with which I take great umbrage (and that also threatens the very future of constructive political discourse in the United States).
First things first.
To hurl the term “right-winger” or “left-winger” at someone in politics and intend it as an epithet is, well, offensive — offensive not because the person being addressed may indeed lean to the right or lean to the left, but because the person using the word has indicated that they believe doing as such is a bad thing in and of itself.
The world is full of so-called “conservative” ideas and “liberal” ideas.
Besides the fact that these two terms have definitions that are ever-shifting, what makes a bad idea bad should not be that it is widely regarded as conservative or liberal — it should be simply that it is a bad idea.
We need to start paying less attention to the packaging and more attention to the package.
Am I a big Bill O’Reilly fan? Not particularly — but it’s not because of his politics. It’s because of the fact that he is often just as bad as my electronic amigo is about pigeonholing people or ideas because of the label that comes with them.
Both those on the left and those on the right must come to terms with the fact that agreeing with someone on the other side of the aisle on this thing or that thing does not necessarily put them on the same ideological page — and that, even if it does indeed do as such, that is most certainly no crime.
The left can be right, the right can be wrong, and vice versa for both.
Right?
Mark Coombs is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at mpc39@cornell.edu. If You Can Keep It appears every Thursday.
I'm honored
Let me elaborate on my comment. You seem to be a fox news supporter and your article was about whether the press should have some sort of objectivity constraints. It is particularly irresponsible to claim to be unbiased while writing and article about fair press at a time when fox news has openly admitted to attempting to sway public opinion and preliminary studies seem to indicate that it works. I view this as an impairment of independence on your part. So, whether you are a "right-winger" or not, my original concern still holds. Further, you apparently thought it was important enough to write an entire new article about, so I'm not sure what to make of that. Finally, you say labeling is dangerous and yet you label yourself a "blue dog democrat." Sounds like the same phenomenon to me. It's equally as difficult to figure out what that means. The point is, you're evangelical and you seem to like fox news. It might not be right-wing but it's something worth mentioning when you talk about what's fair and what's not related to fox news.