The real Michael Savage?



The real Michael Savage? More questions abound…

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.

Savage dripped insincerity. He struck me as someone who, 20 years ago, would probably have been one of the obnoxious insulting leftist talk show hosts that were all the rage at the time. I don't ever sense that Savage believed terribly deeply in anything he said--he was just saying it to get a rise out of his audience, and it worked.


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





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/239






Comments

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.

Steven Malcolm Anderson   ·  September 6, 2003 05:33 PM


March 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits