|
July 09, 2003
The real Michael Savage?
I was fascinated to read this post from Clayton Cramer (a conservative supporter of sodomy laws) which raised even more questions about Michael Savage. Cramer disdains the fact that Savage's anti-homosexual remarks got more play than his blatant racism (which Cramer attributes to "the relative acceptability of racism vs. "homophobia" to the mainstream media"), but the following remark really got my attention (please remember, this is a moral conservative talking): I can't say that I ever listened to him for more than about ten minutes, because I found him too irritating. He was to conservatism what Michael Moore is to intelligent leftist analysis. Then I received an email from a man in the talk radio business (whose name I will omit because I don't think I should use source names without permission -- although I will say it's NOT from G. Gordon Liddy), expressing a similar view: Today, I'm a talk host on a station that carries Savage. He is tremendously popular and, I believe, he's tremendously dangerous to conservatism, in part because it's clear he's not being honest. He doesn't mean the stuff he says, he's just playing the part of the "bigot next door," saying "what people are thinking," as his promos claim...if those people are members of the KKK. What the hell is going on with this man, and why haven't these questions been asked by any of the responsible voices in the mainstream media? Another email to me stated: "Liddy wasn't taken off the air for any more nefarious reason than that his numbers weren't high enough and Michael Savage's obviously were."The writer's assumption -- though sorely mistaken -- reminded me of a very troubling fact: G. Gordon Liddy had an established national audience and a local audience in San Francisco, while J. Paul Emerson and Michael Savage were new, and virtually unknown -- yet deliberately, strangely, promoted by Disney. The last time I looked, Disney was no champion of conservative causes -- certainly not far right, John Birch society ones. I have distrusted Savage and the people involved in his career from its beginning. I think he is bad for the cause he claims to represent as well as bad for the country. Now, the possibility does exist that Savage has done so much damage to the cause of anti-gay bigotry that I should just shut up and gloat. So why am I complaining? Because I cannot stand such dishonest media manipulation. It's one of the reasons I took up blogging. I believe that the only way to keep these people honest is for ordinary people to take the medium into their own hands. Outfits like Disney, ABC, or MSNBC should not be allowed to get away with fraud. There is something utterly creepy about a fake media "homophobe." (Frankly, the concept is a lot creepier than a real homophobe, honestly stating what he really believes.) Once again, I cannot prove my suspicions, but I think it is almost foolish not to examine the possibility of Savage being a secret poseur, deliberately undermining and discrediting the people who imagine he is on their side. Then again, he might just be an ordinary demagogue without any principles whatsoever. But all these coincidences bother me. Police detectives usually begin any investigation with the question, "Who benefits?" posted by Eric on 07.09.03 at 04:27 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Cui bono? Who benefits from Michael Savage? Clayton Craymer benefits. Enormously. I've long observed that the "extremists" on any side always serve a most vital function. The "moderates" really love them even while being (or pretending to be) embarrassed by them -- because they make the "moderates" look like such reasonable, nice people by comparison. Craymer can point to Savage and say: "See? I'm not like that. I don't want to kill gay man and lesbians. I just want to put them in jail." Revs. Robertson and Falwell can point to Rev. "God Hates Fags" Fred Phelps and say: "See? We're not like that. We don't hate fags. We hate the sin but love [as in Ministry of Love] the sinner. We don't want to kill gay men and lesbians, just put them in jail and cure them of their deviant desires." When groups like Concerned [Frigid] Women for America attack the Federal [anti-homosexual] Marriage Amendment for not going far enough, its advocates can point to them and say: "See? We're reasonable." -- and, in turn, force their opponents like Andrew Sullivan into the position of defending Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act. Overt racists and anti-semites serve the same function for the anti-homosexuals, make them look so "inclusive", a "rainbow coalition" to persecute deviants.