Glenn Beck recently had Bill O’Reilly as a guest on GBTV. Among other topics, they discussed which presidential candidates would be best for our country.
This is where the philosophical differences between Beck and O’Reilly really showed. And this difference also manifests itself in the difference between moderate (aka “Rhino) Republicans and truly conservative Republicans.
Start at around the 3:20 mark.
Bill took issue with several of the candidates being “ideologues.” Glenn took issue with Bill taking issue. Glenn, being more of an ideologue than Bill, supports candidates who happen to be such.
What is an ideologue? From Merriam Webster’s on-line dictionary…
1: an impractical idealist : theorist
2: an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology
Given these definitions, an ideologue does appear to be a difficult person to get along with. These definitions suggest an ideologue is one who has a firm and impossible position without having the facts – a stubborn, strong-willed, half-cocked advocate.
It appears to me that the definitions Bill and Glenn were assuming, without specifying their definitions, were different, and crossed in the night.
Bill, I suppose, was using definition #1: an impractical idealist, and the first part of #2: an often blindly partisan advocate.
Glenn’s definition is more akin to the 2nd part of definition #2: an adherent of a particular ideology.
It is too bad Webster mixed the two somewhat different meanings into one definition #2.
The opposite of “ideologue” is much worse than being merely a pragmatist. More accurate antonyms would be “compromiser”, “uncommitted”, “easily swayed”, or “waffler.”
The “Free On-line Dictionary” has a single, clearer definition of ideologue:
An advocate of a particular ideology, especially an official exponent of that ideology.
Given this definition, Bill O’Reilly is a mealy-mouthed wimp with few really strong convictions. By being an anti-ideologue, he would be opposed to strongly defending a particular ideology and would not support those who do.
This is one reason why I think the FOX News motto "fair and balanced" is so stupid. O'Reilly has that little shtick down pretty well. He will implement "fair and balanced" by having a jihad-inspired, Sharia-loving Islamist debating a “moderate” Islamist like Zudhi Jasser and call that "fair and balanced" - we report, you decide. Absolute BS. That is like having Satan debate Pontius Pilate.
If O’Reilly ran for office, he would run as a Rhino. He would be one who would go along to get along. He would let the nut cakes who have the most time on their hands run the country because while he would “report”, they would “decide” the loudest and longest.
This is also called “poor leadership”, leadership being one of the qualities sorely lacking in Washington.
Who are the presidential candidates Bill would call the ideologues? Probably Michelle Bachman, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, and maybe Newt Gingrich. In other words, those who have the strongest convictions about their principles. All the rest would go along to get along.
O’Reilly would tend to support the deal makers, the compromisers. And really, isn’t that what “politics” is all about? And I will add, isn’t that why many of us believe politics IS SO ROTTEN TO THE CORE!
Many Christian denominations and churches have become compromising, go along to get along anti-ideologues. After all, we shouldn’t be too firm in our faith – we might offend someone. Our ideology is something we should just keep to ourselves.
I will vote for the strongest “ideologue” I can find who doesn’t merely share our nation’s founding principles, but who will be the strongest, most steadfast and effective advocate for them.
Our next four years would be wasted if we had a conservative who is an uncommitted compromiser who waffles and is easily swayed. Those like Bill O’Reilly who pretend to be principled but in fact are anti-ideologues make me sick.