Culture Warrior Read online

  69% [of those polled] said they prefer “Merry Christmas” over “happy holidays,” which garnered 29%.

  Compared with the 2004 Christmas [or do I mean holiday?] season, the number of people who said they use “happy holidays” had dropped 12%, from 41% to 29%.

  That’s bound to be good news for some Christian conservatives who’ve been pushing for advertisers and stores to wish patrons “Merry Christmas” rather than the more secular and less specific “happy holidays.”

  On the political front, although the campaign for “Merry Christmas” appears to be waged largely by conservative Americans, many Democrats and liberals were also affected, according to the poll.

  The majority of liberals and a majority of Democrats said they preferred “happy holidays” last year. But this year, a majority of liberals and a majority of Democrats said their preference was “Merry Christmas.”

  You best believe Santa Claus was happy with that poll, but the media was not. In addition, the poll affords us a perfect opportunity to analyze the secular bias CNN puts out there every day (and that USA Today is buying into).

  First, CNN’s assertion that “Christian conservatives” were behind the movement to respect Christmas is deceptive. While a few mainly Protestant groups did, indeed, make it a cause, the real pressure was put on by millions of independent Americans who simply like, respect, and enjoy the Christmas tradition.

  I know CNN will be shocked, but Americans of all faiths and political persuasions are angry about the denigration of Christmas. As the poll numbers prove, this is a mass annoyance.

  Then there is CNN’s phrasing: “the more secular and inclusive ‘happy holidays.’ ” They got the secular part right (they’re experts in that field), but to say that “happy holidays” is more “inclusive” is fallacious in the extreme. Polls show that 95 percent of Americans celebrate Christmas and 84 percent describe themselves as Christians, according to a study by U.S. News & World Report. So anything that is specific to that enormous group, like the words “Merry Christmas,” would certainly be “inclusive,” would it not?

  If CNN had a clue, it might be dangerous.

  Even as the secular press was gnashing its collective teeth over the poll on the nonexistent controversy, the House of Representatives was ramping up and weighing in on the bogus issue. Again, for a “fabricated” situation, this Christmas deal was getting an awful lot of attention.

  In December 2005, House Resolution 579 was introduced on the floor of the 109th Congress. It stated:

  Resolution: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the symbols and traditions of Christmas should be protected.

  Whereas Christmas is a national holiday celebrated on December 25; and Whereas the Framers intended that the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States would prohibit the establishment of religion, not prohibit any mention of religion or reference to God in civic dialog: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

  1) Recognizes the importance of the symbols and traditions of Christmas;

  2) Strongly disapproves of attempts to ban references to Christmas; and

  3) Expresses support for the use of these symbols and traditions.

  The vote to approve the Resolution to Protect Christmas Symbols and Traditions was 401 to 22, with 5 voting simply “present.” All the dissenters are Democrats: Gary Ackerman (NY), Earl Blumenauer (OR), Lois Capps (CA), Emanuel Cleaver (MO), Diana DeGette (CO), Jane Harman (CA), Alcee Hastings (FL), Michael Honda (CA), Barbara Lee (CA), John Lewis (GA), Jim McDermott (WA), George Miller (CA), Gwen Moore (WI), James Moran (VA), Donald Payne (NJ), Bobby Rush (IL), Janice Schakowsky (IL), Bobby Scott (VA), Fortney Stark (CA), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL), Robert Wexler (FL), and Lynn Woolsey (CA).

  Most of those congresspeople cited “separation of church and state” as the reason for their nay vote. But now you know who the most secular members of the House really are.

  In the end, Christmas won a big victory in Congress, in the department stores, in the polls, and in the court of public opinion. The jaded, secular press got its butt kicked, which, of course, is a good thing. Still, I’m going to give the last word on the Christmas controversy to the ultraliberal Baltimore Sun, which on December 2, 2005, ran this headline:

  ACLU Says No War on Christmas!

  Well, that certainly settles it once and for all. My special thanks to the Baltimore Sun for its fair and balanced coverage.

  Ironically, four months after the House voted to uphold the traditions of Christmas, a secretary working for the St. Paul, Minnesota, city council was told to take down some decorations she had put up in her workspace: Easter eggs, the Easter bunny, and a sign that said “Happy Easter.” The woman did as she was told. The powers that be in St. Paul told the media that any symbol of Easter might be offensive around the Easter season, even though no one complained.

  I immediately asked a startled St. Paul city councilman on the air if St. Paul was also going to change its name. After all, the city takes its name from a saint. That would be Paul. Maybe a non-Christian would be offended by the city’s name. I suggested that St. Paul, Minnesota, should be renamed “Paul’s a Good Guy, Minnesota.”

  In the wake of that interview, a few hundred miles down the Mississippi River, St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist John Sonderegger, a big S-P guy, chose to revisit the Christmas controversy during Easter. Don’t ask me why. Anyway, Sonderegger wrote, “Yes, you can make [Christmas] into a very religious occasion…. That’s fine for some. But for the rest of us in America, Christmas is our annual Feel-Good Holiday.”

  “Feel-Good Holiday”? “[F]or the rest of us in America”? Somebody inform Sonderegger and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that eight out of ten “of us” are Christian and celebrate Christmas as a “religious occasion.”

  But in the interest of inclusion I suggest that we allow the S-P movement to celebrate their version of Christmas. Let’s call it “Feel Good Day.” And a Happy Feel Good Day to you!

  To wrap up this chapter on the victorious battle for Christmas (sorry, Easter), let’s turn to President Calvin Coolidge. Ol’ Cal did not stand silent (historical reference) on the merits of Christmas. On December 25, 1927, he sent this message:

  To the American People: Christmas is not a time or a season, but a state of mind. To cherish peace and good will, to be plenteous in mercy, is to have the real spirit of Christmas. If we think on these things, there will be born in us a Savior and over us will shine a star sending its gleam of hope to the world.

  Calvin Coolidge, how could you?

  A Christmas message from President Coolidge.

  It ain’t over ’til you’re stupid.

  —THE ART OF CULTURE WAR, O’REILLY TZU

  Not all culture battles go as well as the Christmas controversy. Sometimes I lose. Not often, but sometimes, and it galls me.

  Here’s a sad example. In the late summer of 2003, I traveled to Los Angeles for the annual Book Expo, which is kind of a booksellers’ convention where various authors give bookstore owners a heads-up on their upcoming works. My new book back then—Who’s Looking Out for You?—was to be released in October, and I had agreed to speak on a panel with Molly Ivins and Al Franken, who also had books coming out. Some people thought I was nuts to do this, since both writers are far left. But I have no problem with Ms. Ivins. She’s a dedicated progressive but not an unpleasant individual. As for Franken, I had tangled with him before and, although I did not respect him, I felt no need to avoid him. He was just another rabid show business liberal with a mean streak.

  What I didn’t know was that Franken had written a book that featured me on the cover with the word “liar” beneath my name. I found this out literally minutes before the panel discussion was to begin; a much larger-than-life reproduction of the cover was set up in the lobby as a promotional come-on. And the picture the publisher used of me was doctored to make me look hideous! In hindsight, I should have excused myself and left the
dais, because this was a pure blindside play. Nobody had informed me about the nature of Franken’s book, although the moderator, former congresswoman Patricia Schroeder, certainly knew about it, as did the panel’s organizers.

  But I did not leave the dais. I decided to confront the situation, although unarmed and unarmored because I had no idea what was in Franken’s book. How dumb was that? The huge lurid cover did not suggest that Franken was looking out for me, and as everybody knows, the guy is an accomplished smear merchant. I was off-the-charts dumb to put myself in that position. Remember this: Stupidity in the culture war can get you hurt.

  Anyway, I gave my presentation first, which just added to the setup, and simply said that my book did not attack anyone or call them names. Who’s Looking Out for You?—which wound up selling more than a million copies—is an honest attempt to help everyday Americans prosper; there is no ideological theme to the book.

  Then Al Franken rose to begin his diatribe, and I took his measure. He had failed on television with a sitcom called Lateline. He had bombed in the movies with a film based on his Saturday Night Live character “Stuart Smalley.” But he had finally found a prosperous niche as a far-left pundit whose main weapon was character assassination. His modus operandi was calling people with whom he disagreed, like Rush Limbaugh, sophomoric names. And when critics called him out for such immature vitriol, Franken would fall back on the defense that his work was intended to be “satire.” Jonathan Swift would be made physically ill by the assertion.

  Franken had (and continues to have) access to the mainstream media, especially to the print press, CNN, NPR, and the late-night talk shows. He had made good money with his Limbaugh attack book, but then had bombed with a book touting himself for president. Now he was back on smear row.

  As Franken began speaking, I simply couldn’t believe it. The guy told the audience that I was a pathological liar and had even lied about where I grew up. His presentation was based on a passage in his book:

  See, O’Reilly always likes to crow about his hardscrabble childhood in working class Levittown, Long Island…Trouble is, an inside source [O’Reilly’s mother] tells a different story. Mrs. O’Reilly proudly told the Washington Post that the family regularly took vacations in Florida, and that little Billy attended private school, private college, and that their home was in the affluent suburb of Westbury, not blue-collar Levittown.

  On the opposite page is the mortgage deed to the house my parents bought more than fifty years ago, the house in which I was raised. You’ll notice the deed says “Levittown.”

  But far worse than Franken’s deliberate lie about my upbringing was his reference to my mother. She has, tragically, been suffering from dementia for years and for that reason has round-the-clock supervision. Al Franken never talked with my mother or to anyone else who knows my background. He simply put forth absolute falsehoods in his book without the decency to check the record. I can say this with absolute certainty: The man is truly a loathsome individual. Anyone who believes anything out of his mouth is a fool.

  For the record, both my late father and I worked brutally hard so I could attend a Catholic high school and Marist College, which was not an expensive school back then. My dad worked a tedious, dead-end office job; I painted houses. My family did go to Florida once…on a Greyhound bus. My face peeled on the long ride home.

  Here is the deed to the modest house in which I grew up in Levittown—repeat: Levittown.

  Unfortunately, back at the “literary” panel, I had to sit there and listen to Franken lying about my life. Of course, my Irish temper flared (that’s its job) and, when he was finished, I attempted to issue a rebuttal, but he interrupted me. With that provocation, I told him, in no uncertain terms, to shut up. Truthfully, I wanted to beat the you-know-what out of him. Now, whenever you get to that point in a confrontation, you are probably going to lose. The proof follows….

  And here I am as a kid with my father alongside that house.

  C-SPAN taped this whole sorry spectacle and Franken ran with it, parlaying the confrontation into massive publicity that made his vile book into a bestseller. The media, naturally, greeted Franken’s assertions with glee, and I was put completely on the defensive. When Fox News filed against him in court for trademark infringement, Franken got even more publicity and media backslaps.

  To borrow National Review columnist Mona Charen’s description, Al Franken is a “useful idiot.” The secular-progressive leadership loves him. He, along with New York Times columnist Frank Rich, is their chief character assassin. Franken is a man without scruples, a far-left fanatic whose brand of unbridled hatred is sound-bite ready and media friendly. If the S-Ps were ever to succeed in America, Al Franken and people like him would actually be even more prominent. How frightening is that?

  I firmly believe that karma will take care of Franken. His 2004 follow-up book fell far below expectations (his publisher Dutton got what it deserved), and his radio operation, Air America, is a commercial disaster. There is justice in the universe and it will visit this guy. Wait and see.

  I didn’t even want to sully this book with Franken’s name, but he did teach me something: In the culture war, there is no Geneva Convention. No rules are honored on the secular-progressive side (and, to be fair, there are traditionalists who do sink into the mud as well). The S-Ps are capable of doing just about anything. And if traditionalists don’t understand that, they will eventually lose the fight. Al Franken won a round against this culture warrior by using blatant dishonesty and a crafty media strategy. It won’t happen again.

  As part of the war plan, it should be understood and emphasized that any mistake, misstatement, or miscalculation will hurt the traditional culture warrior, and these are largely self-inflicted wounds. In my case, I do three hours of commentary every weekday (one on TV, two on the radio), and mistakes are going to happen. And when they do, the S-P smear Web sites, which obsessively tape every word I say, gleefully spit out the errors to the public. Again, I’m not whining, just reporting. This is the terrain of the culture war. The truth is, I shouldn’t make factual errors or misspeak ever. But it happens—and when it does, we try to correct the record quickly.

  There are other types of errors, however, and these are harder to excuse. I’ve lost a few culture battles because of my demeanor, and that is simply not acceptable in a war as intense as this one.

  The best example of my demeanor foolishness was an episode with Terry Gross, who hosts a radio program on NPR called Fresh Air. Ms. Gross is a smart, liberal woman who seems overly sympathetic to the secular-progressive cause. Nevertheless, I accepted an invitation to appear on her program to promote Who’s Looking Out for You? This was another dopey move by me in an autumn full of them.

  Ms. Gross called me at my radio studio, and we spoke briefly and cordially before the interview began. But once the tape was rolling, she shifted gears with a vengeance. Instead of asking about my book and ideas, Ms. Gross used the interview to promote Al Franken’s gibberish by questioning me about his accusations (and others made in Harper’s magazine). For about fifty minutes I answered Gross’s queries about my “lying,” but finally, when she began quoting other people who were bad-mouthing me from within the S-P ranks, I terminated the interview by saying this on the air:

  “We’ve spent fifty minutes, all right, of me defending defamation against me in every possible way, while you gave Al Franken a complete pass on his defamatory book. And if you think that’s fair, Terry, then you need to get in another business. I’ll tell you right now and I’ll tell your listeners, if you have the courage to put this on the air, this is basically an unfair interview, designed to try to trap me into saying something Harper’s [magazine] can use. And you know it. You should be ashamed of yourself. And that is the end of this interview.”

  Because we had taped the chat at the studio I use for The Radio Factor, I could play the entire interview on the radio and TV without Ms. Gross or her producers editing it. I also posted it o
n my Web site, BillOreilly.com. More than 1 million people listened to the conversations on the Web site alone.

  A few days later Jeffrey Dvorkin, the ombudsman in charge of addressing controversies at the National Public Radio network, issued this stinging rebuke to Terry Gross:

  “I believe the listeners were not well served by this interview. It may have illustrated the ‘cultural wars’ that seem to be flaring in this country. Unfortunately, the interview only served to confirm the belief, held by some, in NPR’s liberal bias. It left the impression that there was something not quite right about the reasons behind this program…”

  Terry Gross sandbagged me on her NPR show Fresh Air.

  So another win for the good guys, right? S-P sympathizer Terry Gross was dressed down by her own ombudsman, who exposed her for the left-wing ideologue she is. But if you read on, you will see, unfortunately, how the great culture warrior O’Reilly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

  About a year after my first confrontation with Ms. Gross, she brought her own book to market. Titled All I Did Was Ask, it chronicled her interviews with famous people…like me. I invited Ms. Gross on The Factor, knowing in advance that she would be in a bad place if she did agree to appear because she did not even mention the ombudsman’s scolding in her book!

  Truthfully, I was surprised when Terry Gross agreed to come on The Factor. How could she defend such a blatant omission? All I had to do was ask my questions without rancor. I do that, she’s toast. Terry Gross would be exposed on national TV as either a woman trying to hide something or a first-rate weaselette.