Conor rages on Middle America | Jen Kuznicki

What does Conor Friedersdorf know about the conservative movement?  Absolutely nothing.

His attempt at spelling out the ‘non-cohesive’ message of the conservative movement ignores a major fact that Bill O’Reilly regularly mentions.  That Bill is not only not a conservative, but that he has no ideology whatsoever.

Conor is confused by this because he does not know what a conservative is.  Had he known, he could not have put Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly on the same level in the first place.

The thrust of Conor’s post in the Atlantic, is that Bill O’Reilly backed down from criticizing Limbaugh on his tv show as he had on his radio show, because Roger Ailes told him not to.  So what.  But then, Conor assumes that Limbaugh and O’Reilly should somehow be equals since he considers them both, ‘right-wing’ media titans.

He inadvertently I’m sure, called Mark Levin a media titan as well.  Gosh, praise from a nobody neo-lib might rank if he was intellectually honest, but alas, Conor is neither intellectual nor honest.  One time I’d like to hear him try to refute Mark Levin on anything that matters, but he can’t so he usually does an annoying limp-wristed unfocused poke that I have described as flipping pebbles at Levin’s iron tank.

What has happened since 2008, has been Bill O’Reilly trying, unsuccessfully, to unseat Rush Limbaugh as the lead conservative radio host.  But O’Reilly failed, and hasn’t a radio show anymore.  The reason O’Reilly failed is because he’s not a conservative.  Don’t look at me, he says it constantly himself.  So, it isn’t truly a fight between O’Reilly and Limbaugh, but a real examination of what a conservative is, how the movement reflects the nation’s common sense, and its focus on the greatness of the individual, and core anti-controlling principles.

So where Conor fails is in his entire premise.

The problem with someone like O’Reilly, is that he continuously says he’s a non-ideologue.  What does that mean?  Well, it means that given any issue, he is free to find out what others think, and then jump on those thoughts as his own.  He does it all the time, and it exposes what small-minded, I-me-my groupthink gets you.

A core principle is based in centuries of human existence, and Rush Limbaugh’s principles as espoused daily on his radio show are based in that fertile soil.  In the end, that means that those who tell you they are ‘looking out for you’ are truly not that different than those looking to control you.

Conservatism is often described as rugged individualism, and I have yet to figure out how a channel dedicated to, ‘we report, you decide’ can feature a parade-jumping guy who thinks he’s your personal warrior.

Clearly, Conor favors O’Reilly over Rush, and he wants to be able to be the guy who helps pull some listeners from Rush aside, and tell them they are following the wrong fella.

But O’Reilly can’t do that and neither can Conor, because the Rush radio audience is more intelligent than both of them.

Clearly, Conor has not studied philosophy and American heritage and history enough to understand that there really isn’t such a thing as a non-ideologic person.  There are plenty of people that don’t think all that much about politics or worldly issues, but when they are pressed to, they always come down with a discernible ideology.  How Bill O’Reilly can call himself ‘non-ideologic’ is by playing to both sides and coming up with whatever is winning at the moment.  That way, he can seemingly be the guy who called it, and claim he’s ‘looking out for the folks.’  A glaring example of this blatant positioning has him at odds with his own viewers who believed him to be a culture warrior, and his highly offensive ‘thumping the Bible’ remarks.

More Americans consider themselves conservative than liberal, regardless of party affiliation.  That makes conservatism the mainstream ideology of the American people.  So, it doesn’t make Rush Limbaugh a ‘right-winger’ it makes him mainstream center.  So, if Conor wanted to pull people away from him, he would have to go to the right or the left.

Conor always darts left.   In fact, I can think of no issue that Conor is mainstream on.  But beyond that, the staunch, solid conservatives that make this nation great, aren’t for turning, as Margaret Thatcher would say.

So, another wishful-thinking tantrum from Conor Friedersdorf is like another sunrise, and his post reeks of his usual impotent rage at the very core of our nation, Middle America.


4 Responses to Conor rages on Middle America

  1. PKorman says:

    ORielly and Limbaugh are both certainly opinionated. Limbaugh, for the last 25 years that I have been listening, is fairly consistent and his opinions and analysis are grounded on principles. OReilly, on the other hand, seems more opinionated than principled. Rush doesn't do interviews, and rarely are callers as well prepared as he or his producers. OReilly has TV, and does interviews, but rarely is he as informed as he claims to be, or needs to be to ask the "hard hitting" questions that would make his show worthwhile. In comparing the two, Conor belies inexperience (and ignorance) with both men and their formats.

  2. OldmanRick says:

    Actually, O'Reilly is nothing more than a flimflamming, pontificating, bloviating, pompous ass.

  3. gjsmith says:

    he is free to find out what others think, and then jump on those thoughts as his own.

    O Reilly is a populist, plain and simple. For some reason or another has railed against, airlines, pharma corp and the Exxons of the US.

  4. task says:

    OK who or what is O'Reilly supposed to be? O'Reilly is a non-ideologue. He is neither far right nor far left. He is an independent. This is how he defines himself. I suspect he really is a "what cha may call it" because to me it appears that he does not wish to offend anyone who is so important that they are worth having on his show so as to increase his ratings.

    Limbaugh's ratings are great because he is an ideologue… a conservative one. He stands for something and he does so proudly and without hesitation.

    O' Reilly gets it now and then but sometimes he is so off the mark he makes people like Alan Colmes or Juan Williams look smart and that is very hard to do.

    BTW the constant referral to the extremes on both sides still has me puzzled. What is a right wing extremist like? Who are these people? Would they be Tea Party folks? Are they Constitutionally minded? Or are they some para military group living in a remote part of Idaho's Saw Tooth mountains where they so shun people that it is more probably that you would report a Big Foot sighting than a sighting of one of them. I mean I really don't know and for all the hullaballoo that O'Reilly confers on these people it might be a good idea if he would define them so that the "folks" may know what he is talking about.

    What is more confusing is how O'Reilly defines a left wing extremist. Or, should I say, how he does not? I don't think, at this point, that anyone, and that means all the folks as well, is confused about what a left wing extremist is. That would be the President and his Administration along with his confidant Valerie Jarrett and his many Czar appointments. Only O'Reilly does not seem to get it and he frustrates the hell out of his viewers because they experience the big leftist government controlling and intrusive experience as part of their daily existence And it keeps getting worse. Has he heard of ObamaCare? I suggest that if O'Reilly remains confused, other than deliberately so, that he should get out of his "no spin zone" now and then and join the rest of us in the "spin zone" that this Administration has inflicted upon the rest of us.

Leave a Reply