Pinheads and Patriots

by Bill O'Reilly

  But winning the ObamaCare battle is not a full victory. The President has to hope he hasn’t lost the war. There is no question that the new law will do some good and may improve some lives, but it is still at the expense of other tax-paying Americans. It is also a fact that to get national health care passed, Barack Obama badly damaged his well-honed image as a new-style politician. The Democratic Party is now associated with Western European–style top-down governance. In traditional America, that is a precarious place to be.

  DEAL OR NO DEAL

  For the record, and as part of our Pinhead-or-Patriot assessment, let’s take a look at the “back-room deal” factor. In order to get support for his controversial bill, the President had to okay the following:

  a special deal that exempts 800,000 Floridians from any Medicare Advantage cuts;

  a $300 million increase in spending for the state of Louisiana alone;

  a $100 million guarantee for hospital construction in Connecticut;

  a $2 billion increase in Medicare spending for Nevada, Wyoming, Montana, and Utah;

  a $600 million Medicare spending boost for Vermont, plus almost the same amount for Massachusetts (a state that already has universal health care requirements); and

  an extra $850 billion in Medicaid funds for Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts (again), Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont (again), Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.

  That’s just a partial list of the deals struck behind the scenes to ensure passage of ObamaCare. Remember, the President campaigned on “change we can believe in.” But these quid pro quo deals have been around since the Continental Congress. Call me a Pinhead, but I’m not seeing much change in the legislative process. If ObamaCare is really so good, the folks would have lined up behind it.

  They did not.

  And here’s the kicker. The President says that the massive ObamaCare expense, estimated to reach close to $1 trillion, will be paid for largely by cuts in Medicare spending. But not only is there speculation that costs will come in way higher than that, check out the chart on the previous page of special deals again, and you will clearly see significant increases in Medicare spending. The whole deal is a recipe for cynicism pie.

  There is no question that the President and most Democrats believe that the ends justify the means in health care reform. On the other side, the conservative opposition is pulling out all the anti-Obama stops. In fact, even I, your humble correspondent, got hammered in that wordstorm….

  RUSHING TO CONCLUSIONS

  Perhaps the most vociferous anti-Obama guy in the country is radio commentator Rush Limbaugh. To say that Mr. Limbaugh and the President see things differently is like saying Michael Moore needs a personal trainer. There is no doubt.

  A few weeks before ObamaCare passed the House, we had a series of debates on the Factor about whether or not the President is a closet socialist. I said he was not because he wasn’t actively trying to control private property, which is what socialists do. I did say, however, that Mr. Obama believes in some socialist tenets, such as income redistribution and the imposition of social justice through legislation or even through the use of executive orders. By the way, I said that to the President’s face during my interview with him, which you can read at the end of this book.

  Anyway, Rush Limbaugh took exception to my analysis of President Obama’s belief system and brought my name up while talking to a caller on his radio show. Here’s what he had to say (with some of my thoughts interjected throughout in the gray-shaded boxes):

  Rush Limbaugh: Let’s pretend that you’re talking to Bill O’Reilly.

  Caller: Okay.

  Rush: What do you think of me? Where have I gone wrong today?

  Caller: You’re asking me what I think of Bill O’Reilly?

  Rush: No, I am Bill O’Reilly. What do you think of me? Tell me where I’ve gone wrong today.

  Caller: He does say that a lot.

  * * *

  At this point, El Rushbo has set me up as a target of derision. He didn’t say to his listeners flat out, “Hey, I’m going to mock O’Reilly.” Instead he is pretending to be me in a satiric riff. He continues.

  * * *

  Rush: Look, all I’m telling you is that you’ve gotta give socialism a fair shake for the folks. I’m not gonna sit here and condemn it like these right-wingers are. We’ve got to give socialism a fair shake, and we here at the Factor are going to give socialism, even communism, a fair shake. We’ll do an in-depth investigation and we’ll report back because we’re not knee-jerking and we are looking out for the folks…we just don’t like all this Obama-bashing here at the Factor, that’s for these extreme right-wingers. This Obama-bashing is not productive, the Bush-bashing wasn’t productive. We’re going to give socialism and the destruction of the country a fair examination, and if we determine that Obama’s destroying the country, we’ll report it fairly.

  * * *

  That is the heart of Limbaugh’s annoyance, that I have criticized some conservatives for overdoing the socialistic stuff. Apparently, Rush does not agree with me.

  * * *

  Caller: Bill O’Reilly, sir, I think Obama is the most arrogant, egotistical man I have ever known.

  Rush: I don’t care about that. What do you think of me? Am I arrogant, too? If Obama’s arrogant, nobody can be more arrogant than I am. What do you think of me, where have I gone wrong here?

  * * *

  The “arrogant” charge is interesting. I’m not confirming or denying my arrogance or anyone else’s. I will say this, however. If you state an opinion with authority in this country, you will be branded as arrogant, that’s just the way we are. I believe Rush Limbaugh may have experienced that himself. Or am I wrong, Rush?

  * * *

  So here’s the question: Was Limbaugh being a Pinhead during that routine? Or does he have me down pat? You make the call.

  I’ve met Rush Limbaugh a couple of times, but we’ve never had an actual conversation. Whenever the left-wing press attacks me, saying that I am some kind of conservative zealot, I smile and think of old Rush. He would certainly disagree.

  Mr. Limbaugh analyzes current events from a conservative perspective and is totally up-front about it. So are Sean Hannity and most other right-wing commentators. They tell you exactly who they are, and from there the game is on. If you are on the Left, you’ll get mocked for sure. If you are someone like me, a traditional-minded independent, you will not be trusted. It’s all about orthodoxy. The rules of radio talk are rigid and time-honored. Speaking to the choir can be extremely profitable, and there’s nothing wrong with doing that. The choir needs entertainment, too!

  By contrast, my analysis of Barack Obama and everything else in the public arena is fact-based, not ideological. The President, as I’ve suggested, cannot be accurately branded a “socialist” until he starts messing around with private property. You can rightly call some of his policies “socialistic”—and I have—but saying Obama is the El Norte version of Hugo Chávez is absurd.

  Still, I kind of enjoyed being called “arrogant” by Rush Limbaugh. Not too many folks reach that plateau in life. My eighth-grade teacher agreed with Rush, so maybe he’s on to something. And here’s an interesting point. There is an important difference between being attacked by a guy like Limbaugh on the Right and, say, the Media Matters outfit on the Left: Limbaugh seeks to mock me, while the Matters fanatics want to harm me. The intent of the scrutiny is very interesting. It is sticks and stones versus take him out. So I react accordingly.

  CHAPTER 4

  Your Place in a Changing America

  THE FIRST DECADE of the twenty-first century was brutal for many of us. The terror attack on 9/11 dramatically changed the country, and then the vicious recession that began in the fall of 2008 altered it yet again. The working American was assaulted by attacks from Muslim jihadists overseas, then suffered because greedy corporate investors right here at home ransacked America’s financial
system. Both of these assaults damaged our security in very personal ways.

  Unfortunately, meaningful security requires money (although the harsh truth is that you can never be fully protected). Since your humble correspondent has been both poor and rich in his life (and has been the man in the middle along the way, too), I’ve learned firsthand how difficult all positions can be. But let’s focus on the two extremes first.

  RICH MAN, POOR MAN

  The impoverished person is simply worn down by how few options are available to him or her, while the wealthy person is worn down by having to be on guard all the time. If you have money, chances are someone else wants to take it from you. The more assets you have, the more security you need. The fewer assets you have, the less security you’re able to buy. Poor people are at the mercy of many things they cannot control. Rich people are at the mercy of bad people who target them.

  Perhaps the ultimate Pinhead in the world of wealth is the swindler Bernie Madoff, whose Ponzi scheme caused at least $65 billion to go up in flames and many people to get burned in the process. Here’s a guy who betrayed his family, friends, and business associates without remorse. If you examine the Madoff file, you will see an example of true evil. Some folks I know can’t understand evil; they don’t even think it exists.

  Swindler Bernie Madoff, who faced a prison sentence of up to 150 years, arrives at federal court in New York, where he pleaded guilty to charges that he engineered one of the largest investment scams in U.S. history.

  Associated Press/AP

  Photographed by Mary Altaffer

  But exist it does, and Madoff is one of the dark side’s most devious poster boys. He fleeced wealthy clients and friends, completely ruining many of them. One day they were in control of their lives; the next day whatever financial security they thought they had was completely gone. And nobody could bring it back.

  Think about that for a moment. You work hard all your life to provide stability and prosperity for yourself and your loved ones, then a country club criminal, a lowlife punk in a three-thousand-dollar suit, steals it. And there is absolutely nothing you can do. Nothing.

  The message here is that evil chases all of us. Most of the time it comes in small doses, not supersize Madoff-type doses, so the world around us doesn’t always notice as much. Right now, some Americans feel that the federal government is evil, too, and that society, in general, is going to hell. So let’s take a look at both of those points of view.

  TO HELL IN A HANDBASKET?

  There is no question that American society is changing. Polls show that atheism is on the rise and organized religion is in decline. On the secular front, we’ve seen the legalization of soft drugs and of gay marriage in some places, and because many teachers are committed liberals, our children are being educated in a system that skews left big-time. Do such things bode well for us?

  As I’ve written in previous books, I have always believed there is great strength in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and while I know that I am a sinner, I try my best to embrace principles like self-reliance, loyalty, and fairness. I also do not judge the personal conduct of others, leaving that to a deity whom I believe not only exists but is active in the world.

  Evaluating public policy, not private behavior, is my primary job, although if the two converge in a way that’s harmful to you, then I could be vocal about it, as I will be below on the subject of celebrity scandals invading our lives. And if I’m truly and deeply concerned about it, I could swing into action, as I have over the vicious attack the Westboro Baptist Church launched on Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder’s family, which warrants its own discussion in chapter 6.

  Let’s begin with the example of Tiger Woods. This is a case where a celebrity’s indiscretions didn’t necessarily hurt the public—they simply provided titillation. But it was actually the mass marketing of the scandal that I believe hurt everyone—not just Tiger, his wife, and the sport of golf, but you and me and even the kids who were exposed to the all-pervasive coverage.

  The embarrassing exposition had to be reported as a matter of public record, but the Factor stayed away from reveling in the man’s misery, primarily because only Pinheads enjoy watching others experience pain.

  Is Woods a Pinhead? In the scandal area, certainly. He hurt his family and others who admired him. And if you enjoyed that story, you are a Pinhead as well. It is simply not noble to derive satisfaction from the suffering of others, even if they deserve it. I did not feel the golfer’s pain, but I did empathize with the collapse of a fellow human being and the suffering of those around him. Like his wife. Like his mother. I did not enjoy reading about that case, especially when accusers and their lawyers greedily scurried out from under their rocks.

  So it is true that all of us Americans are experiencing cultural changes on many different levels. Some are legislated, some are not. Some of these changes are compounded and even magnified by repeated images in the media. This kind of attention not only turns private hurt into public shame but also runs the risk of desensitizing us as a culture, too.

  But let’s shift the focus now from the superstar to the average Joe.

  THE MAN IN THE MIDDLE

  The individual American appears to be rapidly losing power. Wages have been pretty much stagnant for more than a decade. Working people are getting by but not moving up. It is damned difficult to pay your bills and taxes and also save a few bucks, is it not?

  President Obama and his team want to pass laws that put even more power and money in the hands of the federal government; that, very simply, is my primary beef with them. The more shots are called from Washington, the fewer options we the people have in our own lives. Rugged individualism made this country great, not entitlement programs rigged to provide “income redistribution.”

  The health care mess is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. The problems in the health system might have been solved without a massive government intrusion in the following ways: a combination of strict federal oversight on insurance, drug, and medical concerns along with increased health insurance competition across state lines, as well as tort reform so that corrupt lawyers cannot bankrupt medical people. All of these together would have brought health care costs down significantly. We’ll provide more details on this later.

  But a marketplace solution is not what progressive Americans really want. Misleading political rhetoric aside, their vision is for the feds to control health care and pretty much every other industry. In that way, Washington could impose the big liberal tenet of “economic justice” on the country. I delve deeply into this strategy in my book Culture Warrior. Briefly put, for the committed Left, an economy controlled by the government combined with punitive taxation of the rich is “change you can believe in.” In the 2008 presidential campaign, John McCain failed to make voters understand what Barack Obama really had in mind. Senator McCain simply did not spell out the freedom issue: Do you want to control your life, or do you want the Obama administration to do it for you?

  That’s why the Tea Party people are so angry. They don’t want the government running their lives and spending so much money that the United States becomes insolvent. But the freedom message that many Tea Party protesters promote is being lost because a dishonest national press is portraying the movement as fringe Far Right hysteria. This is another huge change in America: a partisan press using its power to demonize those who do not adhere to a left-wing view of life. Once the Tea Party folks showed up wearing sweatshirts and baseball caps, they became targets for the elite snobs who dominate the mainstream media. Yes, most of them are Pinheads; they just can’t help it. If an everyday American is in view, many media people feel the need to sigh. Don’t you just love that?

  SOME HONEY WITH THAT TEA?

  Unfortunately, some Tea Party people play into the bogus Far Right stereotype by demonizing President Obama in crude ways. If instead they were to concentrate on freedom and avoid personal attacks, they might prosper more in the future. Most Ameri
cans respond to the freedom issue and do not yet realize that their own options in life are being substantially eroded in the age of Obama.

  That being said, I don’t despise President Obama because he’s a big-government liberal. I just think his philosophy will weaken the country in both the long and short run. I could be wrong, and the President could be right. We’ll see. As I have said before, I admire what the President has accomplished in his life (please don’t tell Rush Limbaugh) and how he overcame a childhood that could have ruined him. There is much good in Mr. Obama’s story, but his overall philosophy remains questionable, as many Americans are beginning to understand.

  By the way, on the Factor, I have urged the President to hire me as his top adviser. If he would do that one thing, all would turn out okay. My first move would be to bring some Tea Party people to the White House. I wouldn’t serve up a pot of Earl Grey, but maybe some beer and soda. Kinda like that Massachusetts cop and professor deal. Détente is good. It’s Patriotic.