Bill O'Reilly exposes the flimsiness of his own worldview

Of all the commentary on the FNC dust-up between George Will and Bill O'Reilly, I resonate most with that of Scott Johnson and Paul Mirengoff at Power Line:

Johnson provides some blow-by-blow perspective:

O’Reilly begins with Will’s failure to call O’Reilly before publishing his “provocative column.”Michael Clemente said Will would call O’Reilly. Will had an obligation to call him before signing off on such a critical column. Will never did. Are you calling Clemente a liar? This is O’Reilly’s lead. Pathetic.

Our own Steve Hayward failed to call O’Reilly before signing off on the critical Washington Post column about O’Reilly’s book that he wrote with Reagan scholars Craig Shirley, Kiron Skinner and Paul Kengor. Will is in good company.

Will points out that O’Reilly has never seen the memo that is at the heart of O’Reilly’s revelations. The rest of O’Reilly’s rant proves this assertion by Will to be true.

Will states that the author of the memo repudiated it after meeting with Reagan. O’Reilly asserts that he repudiated the memo “under heavy pressure” and reads a quote from Michael Deaver in support of his point. I don’t understand how the quote supports O’Reilly’s point.

O’Reilly declares to Will: “You are lying.” 

O’Reilly then cites Edmund (“Edwin,” if I heard right) Morris in support of this part of O’Reilly’s book. O’Reilly describes him as “the guy who wrote the bio.” 

Many of us recall that Morris is the guy who wrote “the bio” in which Morris inserted himself as a fictional character. Will doesn’t bother to point that out, or to point out that there are a few other authors of Reagan histories beside Morris. Our own Steve Hayward, for example.

Will observes that O’Reilly failed to interview administration witnesses with first-hand knowledge of the issue. Will cites Ed Meese, George Shultz, and Jim Baker.

O’Reilly explains why: “They have skin in the game…emotion in the game…spin in the game.” Surely you recall the first law of historical research: Don’t talk to participants. The interview is going Monty Python on us.

Will says they have knowledge in the game.

O’Reilly says: “We don’t talk to anyone who is derogatory or laudatory.” That rules out a lot of people. Who’s left? O’Reilly doesn’t say.

It devolves to the point where O'Reilly calls Will, a pundit I don't always agree with by any means but whose erudition I respect greatly, a "hack."

Mirengoff weighs in with important perspective:

His excuse for not talking to Ed Meese, George Schultz, and Jim Baker — they have “skin in the game” — is one of the silliest things I’ve ever heard. These people have skin in the game because they were players and, as such, have a perspective on what happened. A real historian will always want to talk to and/or read the views of as many such people as possible. 

O’Reilly has equated having skin in the game with having a perspective that doesn’t support his contrived “killing” theme. If you disagree with O’Reilly, he doesn’t want to hear it. 

As far as the interview with Will goes, it’s O’Reilly who has skin in the game. He’s battling to save his credibility as a writer about history. His performance reeks of desperation. But you should still watch it.

I think what happened was that O'Reilly saw the success of, and critical acclaim for, the first book or two that he titled "Killing . . ." and got caught up in a brand mentality. He scouted around for some more historical figures to fit his basic thrust that their deaths needed fresh treatments and went decidedly overboard with it.

O'Reilly has always been my least favorite FNC host by far. His mannerisms unnerve me for one thing. The looking off to the side and sniffing whenever he's collecting his thoughts. His assumptions about the points his guests are making. His terminology ("the folks," "tattoo guys"). More importantly, he his worldview is wildly inconsistent. He'll talk in general terms about the efficacy of the free market, and then defend the minimum wage, or claim that gasoline price spikes are due to gouging by oil companies. He acknowledges the Most Equal Comrade's radicalism ("He's a far left guy") and then calls him a patriot.

When he is juxtaposed on the split screen with undeniably towering intellects like Will or Krauthammer, he looks small.

And, of course, he has a hothead streak, which got him in trouble last night.