That Time I Was (Willingly) on Fox News
On a slow news day in March of 2002, I was the token socialist for a roundtable segment on the “O’Reilly Factor.” I think they destroyed the tape, because I haven’t been able to find it on any transcription service. When Fox News still handled this stuff themselves, they claimed there was 12 hours of missing footage from the day – conveniently including the live show and its late-night re-run.
Anyway, with some help I was able to dig up this transcript. What’s interesting is how much has – and hasn’t – changed. What hasn’t changed is that Bill O’Reilly has always been a full-of-shit asshole. Even when we went to commercial, he continued to be a sanctimonious prick.
What has changed is that nobody could get away with denying the very existence of poverty in America today. And it would be hard to dismissively say “there aren’t a lot of you” socialists.
By the way, one of the funnier things that the transcript misses is my response to the writer from Parade magazine (who was also serving as Treasurer of the Democratic National Committee at the time) encouraging me to join the Dems. I laughed and said something like, “I can’t believe you just invited the socialist to join the Democratic party live on Fox News. The internet is going to go nuts tomorrow.”
Anyway, this was much better than the time that Tucker Carlson libeled me on “Fox and Friends.”
Unresolved Problem
Interview With Andrew Tobias and Shaun Richman
Fox News Network THE O’REILLY FACTOR (20:37)
March 1, 2002 Friday
O’REILLY: Thank you for staying with us. I’m Bill O’Reilly.
In the “Unresolved Problem” segment tonight, the money we earn. “Parade” magazine is out Sunday with its annual money edition, listing the salaries of hundreds of Americans. The average American worker makes $31,000 a year.
But some of us make a lot more than that. 20-year-old Britney Spears, for example, made close to $40 million last year. Shaquille O’Neill is in for $24 million. Regis Philbin, $35 million. Question is, is the income gap unfair?
With us now is Andrew Tobias, who wrote the article for Parade magazine and Shaun Richman, the executive director of the American Socialist Foundation. So you say in your essay, after the article, that it is unfair, that the salaries in America aren’t fair?
ANDREW TOBIAS, PARADE MAG PERSONAL FINANCE EDITOR: Well, life is unfair. But I don’t have a problem with celebrities. You know, no one forces you to buy a CD or go to a movie or watch “Friends” or whatever. And Jennifer Aniston made $15 million, you don’t have to watch her on “Friends.” And you don’t have to buy the products. It’s free to watch NBC. And you don’t have to buy the products that are advertised.
O’REILLY: But what about these CEO weasles?
TOBIAS: But that’s — exactly, that’s the distinction I draw. Because in the celebrities, it’s the free market. In 1980, the average CEO of a very top company made 42 times as much as the average worker. In 2000, it was 531 times as much as the average worker. And if that’s what you have to pay in a free market to get really good talent…
O’REILLY: I don’t think so.
TOBIAS: But here’s the thing. And I quoted Fortune, so I didn’t put it on me because some people think I’m not far enough to the right. Fortune had a cover story called “The Great CEO Pay Heist.” And they said it’s highway robbery and everybody…
O’REILLY: It is.
TOBIAS: And what it is — and the reason it’s not a free market. I mean, some of course, many executives are worth exactly what they’re paid. And good for them. But at a lot of these huge pay packages are done, there’s this kind of club between I’m a director and you’re a company, you’re a director on my compensation committee. The consultants are all in it together. And if “Fortune” is screaming about it, and saying that it’s highway robbery…
O’REILLY: Yes, I mean look, a guy like Ken Lay making what, $50 million a year or whatever he’s making, he doesn’t know what’s going on? I mean, come on.
Now Mr. Richman, you’re a socialist, right?
SHAUN RICHMAN, AMERICAN SOCIALIST FOUNDATION: Yes.
O’REILLY: OK, and there aren’t too many of you in this country. We’re a capitalistic country, but what is the basic unfairness of somebody like Shaquille O’Neill making $25 million, if he’s worth that kind of money for the free enterprise that he works for?
RICHMAN: I’m not sure — well, I think that it’s certainly fair. If there’s going to be that much money in the system, labor’s entitled to what it produces. So I actually think in the current system, Shaquille O’Neill deserves that money a lot more than whoever owns the team and the people in the back office.
The problem is, again, with the income gap. The top fifth of people in this country, top fifth income earners, own four-fifths of the wealth. And it’s just not a sustainable system. And poverty is actually much worse than you described.
You konw, the average income is $30,000. The median income is much lower. You know, 20 percent of the kids in this country are living in poverty. 60 percent of all people will live in poverty for one year of their life.
O’REILLY: Not in the United States.
RICHMAN: In the United States.
O’REILLY: No, that’s bogus. I mean, that’s a socialist stat. You can believe it if you want to, but it’s not true.
RICHMAN: It comes from Cornell University.
O’REILLY: Well, what more do I have to say? It comes from Cornell University. But what I’m saying to you is, look, in the socialist system, you want to redistribute income. You want to take income from the big companies and give it to people, right?
RICHMAN: Yes.
O’REILLY: But you can’t give stuff to people. I mean, that never works or the Soviet Union would be still here. Wouldn’t it?
RICHMAN: It works in many countries in Europe.
O’REILLY: Like where?
RICHMAN: Like France, for example.
O’REILLY: France doesn’t take it from you. They basically say we’ll give you cradle to grave entitlementments. They don’t send you a check.
RICHMAN: They do, in fact, have family allowances.
O’REILLY: For certain welfare families, but we have that here as well.
RICHMAN: It’s actually, these are universal systems. I’m not as familiar with the various different…
O’REILLY: All right, so you believe…
RICHMAN: These are universal programs.
O’REILLY: …you should give people money, just because they’re in your country? Give them money?
RICHMAN: I think you give people money for having families.
O’REILLY: For having kids?
RICHMAN: For having kids.
O’REILLY: Just give them money for having kids?
RICHMAN: Yes…
O’REILLY: Mr. Tobias, you don’t agree with that, do you?
RICHMAN: We’re certainly not talking $35 million.
TOBIAS: I would like to see, Shaun, whose opinions I respect, I’d like to see him join the Democratic party, where we really do care about the little guy in a more practical way, because this stuff is not likely to happen.
O’REILLY: No, it’s never going to happen.
TOBIAS: But the earned income credit, that the Democrats are for, and the minimum wage and all kinds of the things that our friends in the other party are for, that’s, I think, a very practical way to get at some of this. I’m for the progressive income tax.
O’REILLY: OK, I’m not for that.
TOBIAS: I know.
O’REILLY: But look, I’m paid 50 cents on the dollar. And I make a lot of money, OK?
TOBIAS: Right.
O’REILLY: But I don’t make what it’s printed in the papers. That’s not even close. Are you sure that these salaries are right, that your Parade magazine?
TOBIAS: We low-balled yours.
O’REILLY: What?
TOBIAS: We low-balled yours.
O’REILLY: I’m not even in there. But are you sure they’re right?
TOBIAS: No, I mean, I didn’t do the salaries. But most of them are right. And some of them, for the really high dollar people, it’s hard to figure out what to include.
O’REILLY: OK, but here’s the deal. And you ought to know this, too, Shaun, is that for many years, I didn’t make any money. OK? And I lived in my younger time in a very frugal environment. OK? So I don’t believe that the government has the right, now that I’m successful, due to hard work and some luck, to come into my house and take my money and give it to other people, and they don’t even know what these people are going to do with it. That’s wrong, morally wrong.
TOBIAS: Well, but you know, it’s a balance, isn’t it? I’m sure you wouldn’t know. Or you would correct me if I’m wrong, that everybody should just pay a flat $3,000 a year. You and the poorest people and everybody, you would say, even with a flat tax, obviously…
O’REILLY: You pay more. I don’t mind paying what I pay, 50 percent, if it weren’t wasted. It is.
TOBIAS: Well, wait a second. So you’re saying that you — the progressive income tax is OK, as long as it’s spent well? All right.
O’REILLY: As long — that’s right, as long as it’s responsible, because at war, you wouldn’t need that much money. You could have a fair progressive tax that wouldn’t take as much as it does. But I’m not moaning about it. I just see the corruption in the system.
But you, you want to take my money. You want to come into my house, all right, after I worked hard all these years and did a lot more than you’ll ever do, in the sense that I got shot at, I had to move around. I mean, I went through a lot of abuse.
And so do these athletes. OK? They train themselves, they make a big score, but they blow out their bodies and all that. You want to take our money and give it to somebody who you don’t even know. Doesn’t that bother you?
RICHMAN: Are you living in poverty as a result of this 50 percent?
O’REILLY: Am I living in poverty? No, but what right do you or anybody else have, even in France, to take other peoples’ money and give it to somebody you don’t know? What right do you have, morally?
RICHMAN: It’s a basic system of fairness. Now when you weren’t making that money…
O’REILLY: Yes.
RICHMAN: When you were living in dire straits, wouldn’t it have been nicer to have a system where…
O’REILLY: No, I wouldn’t have taken a dime.
RICHMAN: You wouldn’t have taken a dime?
O’REILLY: No. Absolutely not.
RICHMAN: You would have died of tuberculosis?
O’REILLY: That’s right. And I wouldn’t have kids unless I could support them. That’s right, because I don’t believe in taking other peoples’ stuff and giving it to me. I won’t even take Social Security when I’m older. I’ll give it back or I’ll give it to charity. You see? That’s where you guys are wrong. You’re taking stuff, you’re making value judgments. You’re giving it to other people and you don’t know what those other people are going to do. That’s wrong. Am I wrong?
TOBIAS: No, I — if I dreamed of being on your show, I wouldn’t have expected to be in this nice position. I happen to think that while Shaun’s instincts are great, he’s too far to the left. I happen to have respect for you and a lot of what you’re saying.
O’REILLY: Think about it, though.
TOBIAS: But to the extent, and I’m not saying you’re the Republican leadership, but I think that there is a balance here.
O’REILLY: It has to be done fairly. It has to be done fairly.
TOBIAS: I totally agree with you. I totally agree.
O’REILLY: Not taking it. All right, gentlemen, thanks very much. Always fun to read that Parade piece.
TOBIAS: Thank you.
O’REILLY: Mel Gibson when we come back in a moment.
What Will It Take To Wake Up the ‘Sleeping Giant’ of the New Working Class?
The American working class has been dissed and dismissed. Our unions busted, our wages slashed, our homes foreclosed and our rents raised. We’re blamed for the rise of Trump, but otherwise do not exist in the media landscape.
But the working class is a sleeping giant that is beginning to stir and will soon instigate a great campaign for racial and economic justice, according to a new book by Tamara Draut. A vice president of the liberal think tank Demos, Draut’s previous book, Strapped: Why America’s 20- and 30- Somethings Can’t Get Ahead, explored the how the high cost of college, housing and health insurance, combined with stagnant wages and made the usual milestones of adulthood increasingly out of reach for millennials.
Her new book, Sleeping Giant: How the New Working Class Will Transform America, attempts to connect the dots between the struggles of those millennials and the politics of austerity, globalization and the massive transfer of wealth to the 1 percent that has reduced the living standards of almost all working families over the course of the last 40 years. It finds a strong sense of optimism in the recent increase in protest activity.
Draut spends a good deal of her narrative making the case that there is still a working class in “post-industrial,” “digital age” U.S.A. The heterogeneity of this new working class—no longer solidly white and male, if it ever was—along with media indifference and a cultural legacy of devaluing “women’s work” and disenfranchising immigrants and people of color renders it “invisible” to many.
Quantifying who is even in the working class, statistically speaking, is a notoriously hard thing to do. She consults with the dean of working-class studies, SUNY Stony Brook professor Michael Zweig, who uses federal occupational data to estimate that 60 percent of us comprise the working class. But most political surveys do not inquire into one’s relationship with the means of production, and so Draut uses educational attainment as a not-unreasonable proxy.
Not that Draut’s tome would fit within the mountain of punditry that emphasizes educational attainment as a cure for poverty. She eviscerates this “elite blind spot” that focuses on the “miniscule” sliver of new professional jobs while ignoring the “scads of new jobs being created in home health care, fast food, and retail.”
Draut is one of the few mainstream writers I’ve seen who has noted the fact that workers are increasingly rejecting the label “middle class” for themselves, while political and media elites still use the term as a shorthand for the ideal American lifestyle. Not noted—perhaps not known—is that when unions do internal polling on political campaigns, questions phrased around improving the lives of middle-class Americans perform significantly worse than identical questions that talk instead about “working families.” Workers hear politicians’ “middle class” campaign rhetoric as promises to give more breaks to people who are already better off than them. (Which probably isn’t that far from the truth.)
The largest class of people in the country demanding their visibility and raising expectations that they deserve more is the very definition of a sleeping giant stirring. Draut sees the “Day without Immigrants” May Day protests, Black Lives Matter and the Fight for 15 as the beginning of a new workers movement. The key, she says, will be working through the historical legacy of racism and sexism to make common cause between these three interconnected movements.
There is perhaps a little too much optimism in Sleeping Giant. After all, the last big May Day strike was over a decade ago at this point. The ground is undeniably shifting, opening up a space for more progressive demands, but it’s not moving all that fast.
Still, since Draut handed in her final draft of this book, millions of voters rallied have to a socialist presidential candidate who will rewrite the Democratic Party’s platform, and the workers at Kohler and Verizon proved that the remaining large industrial unions can still go on strike and win. So the time is right for books that speak confidently that a new workers movement is rising up.
Still, since Draut handed in her final draft of this book, millions of voters rallied have to a socialist presidential candidate who will rewrite the Democratic Party’s platform, and the workers at Kohler and Verizon proved that the remaining large industrial unions can still go on strike and win. So the time is right for books that speak confidently that a new workers movement is rising up.
But it’s not entirely clear who the audience is for Sleeping Giant. While she clearly advocates for more unions, Draut’s treatment of unions is a little too abstract.
The “real power” of unions, she writes, is that they “can amass significant resources to engage in voter turnout, agenda setting and issue advocacy.” That’s a think-tank view of unions. Anyone who’s ever been a part of a workplace job action that resulted in, say, a reduced workload or new safety equipment or got a disrespectful supervisor straightened could take offense at the notion that our “real” power is in our union treasury and checkbook.
Sleeping Giant seems best addressed to the Acela-riding political class: reporters and political staffers who need to learn that the working class still exists and that their “untapped political power” should be heeded. There’s a value to that. One thing that preceded labor’s great upsurge in the 1930’s, ever so slightly, was a rising tide of opinion among intellectuals and political actors that an increase in union power was necessary to stabilize the economy and shore up the Democratic Party’s base.
They can have their reasons for wanting unions, and we’ll always have ours.
The book falters a bit as well when it comes to the “Blueprint for a Better Deal” it advocates. Draut correctly notes that while the demand for a $15 minimum wage was immediately derided as unrealistic, the high bar that the demand set, combined with workplace action, quickly opened up a space that made a range of wage raises politically possible. Curiously, though, her programmatic proposals are safe, moderate, vetted. It includes paid sick and family leave, universal pre-K, tuition-free public college, card check for union organizing and overturning Citizens United.
I’ll take it all, but this is the stuff of a white paper, not a political manifesto. These are transitional demands that have a snowball’s chance in hell in the short term, and that, once the sleeping giant is fully woke and pressing a campaign that looks more like a mass strike wave, would hopefully be traded-in for much more ambitious demands.
Still, Sleeping Giant is a worthy entry in the contemporary progressive canon that should inspire more debate about the world we have to win.
[This article first appeared at In These Times.]
A New Low in Social Media
In my never-ending quest to figure what the hell is going on in the social media world and how we can use it to organize for a better world, I’ve been kicking around on Tumblr. I first discovered this thanks to my 17-year-old cousin, whose tumblr (I won’t link to it; you can’t make me) is a mesmerizing mess of “will you date me?” quizzes, Megaman fan art, Topless Tuesday feminist critiques, Topless Tuesday reposts, animated porn gifs, animated Tyler the Creator gifs, animated “SLC Punk” gifs, “open this pit up” memes and other various and sundry glimpses into our younger generation and decaying society.
It’s an animated train wreck that’s hard to look away from. Thankfully, Kate is mesmerized, so I have an excuse to continue to troll my cousin’s tumblr. We’ve actually created our own tumblr, but that’s a secret so you can’t see it.
I’ve discovered that my fancy-pants student edition version of Photoshop allows me to create my own animated gifs. They’re mesmerizing. Here’s a sampling of the fruits of my labor:
Some IT Crowd
This guy, from a commercial in the “Let’s Spend Some Time Together” episode of the Ed Sullivan Show
I even worked in some union content. That’s Norma Rae.
And that’s The Trotsky
That’s duck.
And that’s Numberwang!
Thanks for playing at home. And remember, STAY INDOORS!”
