|
CounterPunch
January
22, 2003
How
Alec Baldwin Outted the Fox Blowhard
Bill O'Reilly's
Fascism
By TOM GORMAN
Last year on a special broadcast, "O'Reilly
versus Hollywood" (Fox News Special, 6/7/02), Bill O'Reilly
purported to "take-on" the "phoniness" of
entertainers who are politically active. Of particular pique
to O'Reilly was a comment from actor Alec Baldwin on a March
episode of the now-defunct Politically Incorrect. Responding
to the idea that a President Gore would have been less steadfast
in his response to terrorism than President Bush, Baldwin said:
"If you watched Fox [News] and all those other fascists
over there, that's exactly what they would have had you believe."
O'Reilly complained to entertainment journalist Jeanne Wolf (The
O'Reilly Factor, 6/7/02) that "if you're going to point
fingers at people, and call them names like Alec Baldwin said
the Fox News Channel are fascists, . . . you've got to back it
up."
Two years ago, O'Reilly first offered
his definition of "fascism." "Clinton angered
a lot of people out West with these executive orders that took
away a lot of land that people wanted to develop . . . and put
it under the federal system. Now, to me, that strikes-that's
a little fascist, because . . . here is a big monolith from Washington
coming in, told the local folks. . . . You can't go on this property
and use it for any kind of concern, because we're going to take
it" (The O'Reilly Factor, 1/22/01).
Earlier this month, O'Reilly gave an
example of a "fascist" organization--the American Civil
Liberties Union. Interesting here are not his accusations off
the ACLU defending unpopular clients; this is an oft-repeated
charge. Being that the ACLU's mission is to defend principles
regardless of the group whose rights are being violated, O'Reilly's
accusation is hardly original. What does stand out is his further
definition of "fascism": "In Newton County, Georgia,
the ACLU threatened a school board with litigation if it didn't
remove the words 'Christmas holiday' from the school calendar.
The county caved and removed the words because it couldn't afford
to defend the lawsuit. This, ladies and gentlemen, is fascism,
that is, using the threat of terror, which a lawsuit is, to promote
policy" (The O'Reilly Factor, 1/2/03). If lawsuits, then,
are terror, and "using the threat of terror" is fascism,
then, by O'Reilly's logic, the use of lawsuits is fascism.
The Seventh Amendment to the United States
Constitution ensures that, "In suits at common law, where
the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right
of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury,
shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States,
than according to the rules of the common law." "Suits
at common law" are otherwise known as "lawsuits."
This is more colloquially referred to as one's "right to
his or her day in court." This bedrock of American contract
law--the ability to seek redress in the judiciary for injury--is
also one of the foundations of capitalism. If individuals did
not have the opportunity to settle their grievances through the
rule of law, the only option left would be violent force. Arguably,
"might makes right" comes closer to most people's definition
of fascism. Thus, we can deduce from O'Reilly's "logic"
that "fascism" encompasses both the rule of law and
the rule of force, a Hobson's choice between two kinds of terrorism
in Bill O'Reilly's estimation
If the federal government administering
federal lands can be considered "a little fascist,"
or the ACLU enforcing First Amendment protections against state-sponsored
religion is "fascism" and the "use of terror,"
then O'Reilly's comments after the September 11 attacks surely
must qualify for this rubric as well: "We should not target
civilians. But if [the Afghans] don't rise up against this criminal
government [the Taliban], they starve, period," and, "What
we can do is . . . say to those people, 'Look, we don't want
to do this. But either you get rid of this guy yourself, or you're
just going to have to starve to death because we're not going
to let anybody in there'" (The O'Reilly Factor, 9/17/01).
The 1948 Genocide Convention (specifically,
Article II(c): "Deliberately inflicting on [a national]
group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical
destruction in whole or in part," and Article III(c): "Direct
and public incitement to commit genocide") was enacted in
response to the unambiguously fascist crimes of the Nazis. (Read
the full text of the Convention at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm.
Note that there is no exception to this law; even if you do not
like the government in a certain country, or if you believe that
the country "harbors terrorists," genocide is still
strictly forbidden.) Considering the United States is a signatory
to the Genocide Convention, and that Article VI of the US Constitution
makes all treaties entered into by the United States the "supreme
law of the land," O'Reilly's call for starving the people
of Afghanistan certainly seems to be a "direct and public
incitement to commit genocide."
Thus it would appear that Alec Baldwin's
characterization seems quite accurate, if not for all of Fox
News, then certainly for Bill O'Reilly.
Tom Gorman
is a writer and activist living in Glendale, California. He welcomes
comments at tgorman222@hotmail.com.
Yesterday's
Features
John Stanton
Bush's
Ugly America
Annie C. Higgins
Swept Clean
Ron Jacobs
Itching for a Fight
Phil Gasper
Will War Free the Kurds?
Tom Crumpacker
Democracy
for Cubans and Americans
Ralph Nader
The Pentagon Connection
Bruce Jackson
Bush, Blacks and Jews
Rich Procter
Democratic Yelling Points
Keep CounterPunch Alive:
Make
a Tax--Deductible Donation Today Online!
CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- CounterPunch Special:
The Persecution of Gershon Legman by Susan Davis: Smut, the Post Office, Commies
and the FBI;
- Reeling Democrats: Is Pelosi the Answer?
- Gandhi v. Hitler: the Secret Race for the Nobel
Prize;
- Sullying Mario Savio's
Memory;
- Lynching Then and Now;
- Earn While You Learn: Chris Whittle and Child Labor;
The Case of the Pompous
Professor;
- The Class Struggle in
Boston: All that
Effort, But What Did They Get?
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|
January 11
/ 12, 2003
Omar al-Qattan
How
Muhammad Migrated to America
Saul Landau
"The Coup Lacked Professionalism"
David Bloom & Bill Weinberg
Palestinian Solidarity Activists
Subcomandante
Marcos
Zapatistas to Invade Spain!
Gary Leupp
Gallic Nukes
Carl Estabrook
Democracy or Corporations?
Annie Higgins
Life Story of the Olives
Lenni Brenner
CIA as Art Patron
Kevin Summers
Australia Will Be There!
Brad Carlton
NPR: Spinners of Venezuelan Fairy Tales
Carol Norris
Bush's Un-Mandate
Jackie Corr
Ferdinand Pecora:
an American Hero
Philip Farruggio
My Flag Held Hostage
Lee Sustar
Gangs of New York:
Whitewash of Epic Proportions
Sydney Smith
/ Shahid Alam
Poets' Basement
Read
Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
|