By Patrick Appel
Hendrik Hertzberg responds to O’Reilly:
I didn’t accuse Gingrich of being a bigot, let alone a “vicious bigot,” as the guy with the mike put it. I think it’s fairly clear that what I did accuse him of was playing to bigotry.
Nor do I think I took Gingrich out of context. In Gingrich’s November 14th interview with O’Reilly, the context is O’Reilly’s mention of two instances of disruptive thuggery, one person being “fired” (the reference is to the artistic director of the California Musical Theatre, who resigned under pressure after colleagues and financial contributors objected to his financial support of the California anti-gay-marriage ballot item), and some boycotts of restaurants. As O’Reilly talks, the screen shows pictures of people protesting peacefully and carrying signs.
The thuggery O’Reilly mentions was contemptible, but the rest of it was just normal democratic protest. (O’Reilly himself frequently asks his viewers to boycott businesses that offend him, such as department stores whose employees wish customers “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.”) None of it comes anywhere near “fascism,” let alone some sort of fascist “movement” that could plausibly threaten to take over the government. I don’t think it was at all unreasonable for me to infer that the targets of Mr. Gingrich’s “fascism” remarks were the mainstream gay-rights movement in general and the opponents of Proposition 8 in particular.
The Dish 