O'Reilly's 'Soros' Smear of Obama
One of the violent frames pushed by right-wing pundits describes the dire consequences for the American public should Democrat be elected president. Once in office, according to this right-wing rhetoric, the new Democratic president will rework U.S. foreign policy in such a way that Americans will no longer be protected from enemy attacks. A vote for a Democratic President, in other words, is a vote to help the enemies who seek to destroy America.
This week, Bill O'Reilly invoked this violent logic to suggest that a Barack Obama presidency could have dire consequences for American citizens.
O'Reilly's 'Soros' Smear
To see the violent rhetoric in O'Reilly's latest column about Obama, it is helpful to read it in larger context of O'Reilly's megabestseller Culture Warrior.
In that book, O'Reilly lays out the violent argument that secular liberals are waging a cultural 'war' against the American people. O'Reilly describes the leadership of this supposed liberal war using language lifted from militant Islam--claiming that certain wealthy and influential liberal leaders are in fact 'armies of the night' waging 'Jihad' against American culture.
Chief amongst these so-called liberal 'Jihadis' is George Soros, whom O'Reilly refers to as a 'dangerous guy,' but then describes at length. In this quote from Cultural Warrior (p. 37-38), note how O'Reilly paints a picture of George Soros as a man with a secret agenda to undermine American efforts to protect citizens from terrorist violence:
Up until the attacks on 9/11, Soros was just another ideologue screaming for legalized drugs...euthanasia, and "progressive" taxation. But after the Al Qaeda attack, Soros became even more radicalized and more motivated. Through his Open Society Institute, which operates in at least fifty countries, he began funneling millions to groups opposed to America's war on terror and especially to those who criticized President Bush. According to the Center for Public Integrity, Soros spent $24 million trying to defeat Bush in 2004.
Note how O'Reilly uses language commonly associated with covert terrorism to describe George Soros--who has had absolutely no connection with and nothing in common with any terrorist group ever. In particular, O'Reilly claims Soros was 'funneling money' money to groups that opposed American foreign policy efforts to disrupt terrorist networks-- 'funneling money' being a phrase used almost always in descriptions of terrorism. In other words, O'Reilly does not describe Soros in Culture Warrior, so much as he frames him in terms that are eerily consistent with the logic and phrasings used to describe Al Qaeda itself.
The description continues:
But most disturbing are his statements about the terror war and his support for a convicted terrorist enabler, New York attorney Lynne Stewart, who is currently in prison...Soros write the following words in the Atlantic Monthly: "Hijacking fully fueled airliners and using them as suicide bombers was an audacious idea, and its execution could not have been more spectacular."
Yeah, so what? The billionaire followed up that observation by taking out an ad in the Wall Street Journal that stated: "The war on terror as we have aged it since 9/11 has done more harm than good."
To whom? Whom exactly is Soros pulling for? It isn't the United States."
(Culture Warrior, pp. 36-37)
Here we get to the meat of O'Reilly's matter. Soros is not just a critic, he is an 'enabler' of America's enemies, which is what makes him dangerous. He undermines American efforts and funds groups that support America's enemies, according to O'Reilly, by virtue of the fact that they speak out against American policy. (Never mind that protecting the right of political dissent is the sine qua non of American democracy.)
If we follow the actual language, in other words, we get a snapshot of how O'Reilly frames liberalism: as if it were a violent threat to American--not equal to Al Qaeda, but certainly consistent with and in support of Al Qaeda, and opposed to efforts to protect Americans from violence.
O'Reilly Links Obama to "Soros"
Having trudged through O'Reilly's Culture Warrior and his violent framing of George Soros, we can now turn to O'Reilly's most recent syndicated column, titled simply: "Fighting For America" (link).
At first glance, it appears as if the column is a tongue-in-cheek complaint against Phil Donahue's promotional work for his new documentary about the war and occupation of Iraq:
It was interesting to see my old pal Phil Donahue making the rounds this week promoting his new anti-war documentary. Shining eyes opened incredibly wide, Donahue fulminated against the Iraq war and brooked no dissent: The war is evil and that's that.
On second glance, however, we see that the real focus of O'Reilly's column is Barack Obama, and in particular, the so-called relationship between the kind of critique of U.S. foreign policy offered by Donahue and those anti-American 'armies of the night' O'Reilly describes in Culture Warrior. Keep O'Reilly's description of Soros in mind while reading this quote about Obama from O'Reilly's column:
I believe the reason Senator Obama avoids criticizing the far-left is because he needs it. Phil Donahue's strongest ally in denouncing the U.S. action in Afghanistan was MoveOn the organization that is now helping Barack Obama raise records amounts of campaign money.
MoveOn, of course, has received millions from far-left billionaire George Soros, who is a huge supporter of a "one world" foreign policy that demands the USA seek world approval before any aggressive action against another country.
It would be unfair to link Barack Obama's foreign policy vision to that of Donahue and Soros because we simply don't know what the Senator's overall world view is. His rhetoric on Iraq and other trouble spots remains rooted in the past, and he has not yet clearly defined his future strategy.
But there is a chance that, like Soros and Donahue, Senator Obama has some "one world" sympathies. If so, it would be great if the American people could know that before they go to the polls.
With Iran, al-Qaeda and other dangerous groups causing major trouble for America, it is vital to know exactly how Barack Obama sees this troubled world.
Isn't it?
A cursory reading might lead us to conclude merely that O'Reilly is trying to trip up Obama into apologizing for some comments made by a radio personality at a campaign event. But that is not the case. In fact, O'Reilly is using this column to frame Obama in the same violent logic that he used to frame George Soros in Culture Warrior. The link seems tenuous at first. Obama does not criticize war critics, O'Reilly claims, because Obama secretly shares the same vision as the "far-left." As evidence, O'Reilly points to the fundraising of MoveOn.org on behalf of the Obama campaign. And MoveOn is a problem--according to O'Reilly--because this is one of the organizations, critical of Bush's policies, that has been on the receiving end of money funneled by--you guessed it--George Soros.
So much is left unsaid in this post, but the millions of O'Reilly readers who have read his book and who constantly listen to his show will know exactly what he is saying--they will understand the violent argument O'Reilly has used to frame Obama.
In fact, the question as to whether or not Obama really supports Soros' foreign policy vision is intentionally misleading on O'Reilly's part. In the logic of his own writings in Culture Warrior, O'Reilly's column establishes already that Obama shares the same vision as Soros--or at least the Soros of O'Reilly's imagination. Why else would Obama so readily accept the support of MoveOn.org, which O'Reilly casts as little more than a shell organization for Soros' attempt to undermine American efforts to protect American citizens from Iran and Al Qaeda?
Thus, O'Reilly reframes Obama by linking him to the violent framing he used in Culture Warrior, the violent logic used to paint a false and misleading picture of Soros. As a willing beneficiary of 'funneled' Soros money, Obama shares the same vision as the 'dangerous man,' the leader of the 'Armies of the night.' What is that vision? To undermine American efforts in the war on terror by critiquing the Bush Administration.
A vote for Obama, in other words, is a vote for Soros, for an Al Qaeda enabler, for somehow whose puts his agenda to undermine 'conservative American values,' above the need of protecting American citizens from violence.
Push Back
Because this kind of violent framing of Democrats by right-wing pundits has become so common, it is tempting to ridicule them and dismiss them as insignificant, but they are a very big problem.
The more right-wing pundits use violent framing to undermine the debate, the less we are able to build the productive political discussion we need to achieve the pragmatic goals we face.
Follow Jeffrey Feldman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffreyFeldman
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
BillO is morally bankrupt. And more...he'
HuffPost's Pick
If I were in Bills position I'd be scared too. Obama loves falafels and has indicated that if elected the falafel will designated the nation's snack.
Excellent!
Bill O. - He's like Ann Coulter Lite- still a hate monger, but makes it more entertaining by injecting fear.
The billionaire Scaife, Coors, Olin and Bradley families have been pumping money into right-wing think tanks and media for some 40 years now. We get ONE billionaire that supports liberal causes and it's the end of the world according to O'Reilly. Scaife money good, Soros money bad. Got it.
Somebody needs to lead O'Reilley to the article that shows how much money Soros gave McCain's Reform Institute (over $50K)
Mr Oboma is not who he appears to be. he sat in Rev Wright’s church for 20 years and doesn’t seem to remember what this racist bigot said, he hangs around with scam artist like Resko, and terrorist like Ayer, he got a dopy wife who hates America -Mr Oboma you are either a liar or and idiot either way you will never get my vote. America wise up or we will all lose.
You really shouldn't be up that early and off your meds.
We really do need to do something about homeschooling in this country.
llbaisi - didn't you get the memo from the RNC? They're not doing the "20 years" talking point anymore.
"Obama is an elitist" is this week's talking point. Please try to keep up.
It appears the neo-con attack machine is in high gear and the general election hasn't even started yet. First, Kristol tries to convince us of Obama's Marxist tendencies, then the National Review goes after Obama's wife and now O'Reilly tries to tie Obama to terrorism. Not surprisingly, the Murdoch media empire is aiding and abetting all this. I hope the American people see this for the sordid spectacle it is.
Their are non so blind as those who will not see - That would be you Madam
So who will chicken hawks like you vote for Ilbaisi?
O'Reilly and his ilk draw their inspiration from Goebbels. He is no difference than Prothero, the Voice of London.
If I had the Money Soros has, I would buy faux news; and introduce these sorry excuses for humans...t
It just gets the republicans and O'Reilly's goat that Soros supports democrats and his assets eclispe Murdoch's and Scaife's.
What's with O'Reilly's obsession with taking down Sen. Obama's candidacy?
George Soros, whom he has incessantly linked with Obama, has also been rather buddy-buddy with Bill and Hillary Clinton, including making generous donations to Bill's two Presidential candidacies, as well as Hillary's run for the Senate, and her current run for the Presidency, yet this bit of information has convienently slipped past O'Reilly's steel-trap mind. When George Soros associates with Obama, that's "bad", but if Soros associates himself with Bill and Hillary, that's somehow "good", according to O'Reilly's twisted sense of logic.
It makes me wonder if O'Reilly is actively sanctioning the idea of a "dynastic Presidency" (which is what we'll have should Hillary win the general election); an idea which would have made our Founders shudder with horror and fill them with righteous indignation. But, I expect nothing less from a "news" network which has devoted itself to incessantly listing the alleged "international organized criminal ties" of Sen. Obama (and offering no proof to back up their claims), while ignoring or glossing over the "international organized criminal ties" of one Hillary Clinton.
I have a challenge for you. Seriously. Spend one full week, Monday through Friday watching the O'Reilly factor every night. Pay special attention to his coverage of this election. I kid you not he truly is fair and balanced. You, of course, will not agree with him but he takes EVERYONE to task including Bush and McCain. If Hillary is being underhanded he calls her out. Same with Obama.
Really, keep an open mind and you won't be disapointed. If you are then I stand corrected and you can go on belittling him and his tens of millions of weekly viewers.
FOX NEWS is more fair and balanced than MSNBC, I had to quit watching them because they are so in the tank for Obama.
LarryBurns94 suggests that we watch Bill O'Reilly for a week and judge for ourselves. I really would prefer not to do that, but I would not judge Bill O'Reilly until I had watched him, at least once or twice. What is bothering me about the first response, is that the suggestion to actually investigate what is being discussed is simply passed over and ignored. How can we judge anything accurately if we haven't experienced it ourselves? I watched MSNBC and did notice that one of the two hosts stated that she was for Hilary and that the other one stated that he was for Obama. Is that an unbiased representation of American politics?
Your assertion that O'Reilly is fair and balanced, seriously.
Unfortunately Mr. Burns, watching that disgusting spectacle would make me ill. Oh, I've seen him tell a senator that he doesn't admire him and I've seen him cut off a student who wanted to make a point by reading from Bill's book, I've seen him attempt to destroy people's reputations but I have yet to see him do or say anything, yes anything of value! What a poor excuse for a talk show host or commentator of any kind for that matter. Creepy is more his description. I can't imagine why someone with your obvious abilities would even consider listening to that hate speech every day.
Hey Larry, I think you nailed it. I watch The Factor and believe that O'Reilly has a big ego and it would kill him to put false info out with his name behind it. I give credit to him and his staff. Both sides of the story are represented. Funny how clinton and obama won't go on his show which has the most viewers of all cable networks combined.
Billo puts out false information nightly only he never admits it. If someone corners him with his remarks, he completely denys saying it, although his remarks are on tape. You can check his nutty statements out at Media Matters. That is why O'Reilly hates Media Matters.
Clinton and Obama will not go on his show because O'Reilly smears any Democrats with untruths and limts them to one-word answers.
I've seen Blowreally several times; after 4-5 fallacies (that I knew for a fact were fallacises) I have turned him off. He has seldom lasted more than 1-2 minutes and then, only when he had a guest. I don't have any good reason to listen/watch O'lielly.
It's difficult to counter the semantics of people who do propaganda for a living. It may be that pointing it out, as Jeff Feldman has done here, is the only practical response. On the other hand, there is always the option of fighting back with characterizations matching our own perceptions, such as consistently describing the actions of the Cheney White House in terms appropriate to organized crime. Since BushCo truly IS a criminal enterprise, it is only within that context that most of their actions make sense.
So while Billo would like to present falsehoods by portraying liberals / progressives as somehow in league with (his twisted vision of) radical Islamic jihadists, that's way off base and his hogwash is revealed as such under close scrutiny. The description of Cheney, Bush, et al. as a criminal enterprise, however, is an accurate characterization which becomes more solid and more obviously TRUE as one looks more closely at their actions, and as disturbing tidbits about spying, torture, profiteering, etc. continue to come to light.
O'Reilly has shown a tape of Rev. Wright every day for the last several weeks. The O'Reilly show is just steeped in negativity and hatred for others.
So showing the hatred of others is also hatred?Get a clue realpolitic.
Why do you think O'Reilly plays Rev. Wright's remarks every night? Are you too simplistic to understand? You must be so easliy manipulated and an advertiser's dream.
The Factor and Hannity & Colmes cover the Wright "story" every night in their transparent attempt to discredit Obama. What is truly scary is that there are some people who get their "news" exclusively from FOX and actually believe the crap they put on the air.
I watch O'Reilly and H & C along with Countdown, Hardball, The Newshour, etc. because I do believe in getting a diversity of opinions before reaching a conclusion. But it is becoming harder and harder as time goes by. I am less concerned with O'Reilly, whose apparent obsession with sex stores (along with accompanying video no less) is becoming comical. But the more I see the red-faced Sean Hannity spewing lies about Obama and Rev. Wright and the ineffectual Colmes meekly presenting his "counter-a
I tried to watch H & C and could not with all the yelling and accusations. I felt depressed afterward. I used to watch O'Reilly, but the show has become entirely too negative. Now I content myself with his idiotic Talking Points Memo.
Listen, Keith Olbermann does come from the left. It is one of the few that do and he does not lie and obfuscate as do O'Reilly and Fox News.
If, at this point, this garbage can still work its magic, then we deserve whatever we get - especially if it's McCain. Or, maybe, just maybe, those folks who've been quaking under their haystacks for the last eight years, awaiting an imminent terrorist attack will, at last, poke out their heads and realize they've been had.
O'Reilly is an excellent propagandist. He says Soros supports some shadowy "one-world" government. First of all, who knows that he does and what are the chances of his bringing it about, anyway? Not one in a billion. O'Reilly frames his arguments in such loose generalizations that they lose all meaning except to give an impression that all dissent equates with some far-left radical element that means the country no good.
O'Reilly says Soros is a drug legalizer. However, many libertarians, including Milton Freidman, advocate the legalization of many drugs and putting our money in treatment programs instead of into building prisons. Holding such a position does not make one evil. O'Reilly demonizing all who do not kowtow to the Bush warmongering, tax cutting line. Another favorite tool he uses is guilt by association where one is guilty for knowing or even once meeting with another. Some day I would like to see these same tools turned on O'Reilly.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
