ARCHIVE ARTICLES

 

 

 
A Loyal Southern Misfit


Probably only us Southerners and Southern sympathizers can appreciate the incident I am about to relate. It was 1982, and I was sitting on Capitol Hill in Washington talking to someone at my publisher's office on Manhattan Island. The New Right Papers had just been published, and I had more plans for promoting it.

The New Yorker said unto me words I never expected to hear spoken to a boy from Pontiac, South Carolina straight from the Big Apple,

"Bob, you shouldn't be so PUSHY!"

I started laughing uncontrollably, and the guy at the publisher's asked me what I was suddenly laughing at. I said, "It would take YEARS for me to explain!"

I have always been a fanatically loyal Southerner, but I have always been a serious pusher in the midst of a region noted for its passivity. This is illustrated by the fact that, when I went uptown from Pontiac to Columbia High School in 1955, my best friend at Columbia High was one Lake Erie High, Junior.

There were about a thousand students at Columbia High, and Lake and I never had a single class in common. But Lake was another fanatically loyal Southerner who never, before or since, has been noted for his passivity.

In 1971, when I got back from Rhodesia, I was at a loss as to what to do next. There was no market for the particular talents I had developed there. So I took some courses in premedicine at East Carolina University. The only student I became friends with there was Raymond Moody, who later became a psychiatrist and began the near-death experiences craze with his book Life After Life.

I remember being at Ray's house, with his wife and my new wife there, looking at the first water bed I ever saw, while Ray talked about his own out-of-body experiences.

Raymond Moody is a North Carolinian, but he is a pusher and promoter like Lake and me. His image is that of a passive North Carolina boy with a very calm, Southern "accent"(Southerners don't have accents). But he didn't take the country by storm with his theories by being passive.

It tells you something that I have never been hired by another Southerner. I had several jobs in Washington, staying in each for several years. The only Southerner I ever had EVEN AS A RECOMMENDATION, out of dozens of people I used for recommendations through the years, was Floyd Spence.

The poor man had no choice, since I had driven him all over the state in his 1962 campaign and a large part of my family were his constituents.

The only Southerner who ever interviewed me for a job was Jesse Helms. But here again, the real story is different. His Administrative Assistant - the head of his office directly under Helms - brought me to him, and this AA was from Michigan.

From Michigan, but with excellent Copperhead instincts. He had a 1785 map of Virginia on his wall which showed his part of Michigan inside Virginia. He said that made him a Southerner.

I guess I was in DC for the same reason I was in Rhodesia. I'm the kind of Southerner other loyal Southerners are glad to have on their side - at a distance. Tom Fleming said of me in a speech that Americans could either be reasonable and settle for Southerners like him or choose to fight it out and "deal with Whitaker".

Let me tell you, when you get old and tired, you really LOVE it when somebody says something that makes you sound that macho!

Maybe I ought to get back in touch with Ray. At my age, life is becoming one long near-death experience.

My problem is, what do I do when we achieve independence? Do I live at the northern border of the Confederacy and commute, or will one of you folks in the government find me a nice job at a very, very distant Confederate embassy?



 

 

Ain't We Got Fun!

Everybody else has on looks of outrage, sadness, and all the other praiseworthy emotions about the present presidential situation.

True to my absolutely classless tradition, I am having an absolute ball.

I have admitted fearlessly unto you that I have known Lake High for well over forty years. If that does not show a lack of class, I challenge anyone to tell me what does. But a joke Lake told sums up the present Clinton situation beautifully.

There was a professional con man who had taught his son all the tricks. One day, the little fellow asked his father, "Dad, is there ever a time when you should just tell the TRUTH?"

The father looked a bit taken aback, then he looked thoughtful. Finally he said, "Son, in a real pinch, ANY gimmick will do."

Thus spake William Jefferson Clinton.

Another classless remark: I LIKE Clinton. He is very much a Southerner. He is real trash, but he is the kind of trash I am used to. When he flew in the face of all the rules of politics and selected Al Gore for his Vice President, he gained a lot of loyalty from me.

They are both Southerners. They are Southern turncoats, but so is every other Southerner who is now a public figure. Clinton feels comfortable working with another Southerner, and I like that. When Al Gore went to Yale, he was a roommate of Tommy Lee Jones.

In these days, when the so-called conservative Southerners are every bit as anti-white as liberal ones, I fail to see the difference.

In the midst of the present flood of commentary, let me interrupt the chorus of conservative "DUHHs" to make a couple of simple points:

First, no practicing addict to anything, be it alcohol or sex, should be president.

Secondly, the sexual harassment that occurred in the Oval Office had nothing to do with the consensual relationship between Bill and Monica. When any executive provides access in return for sex, it creates a hostile work environment for the OTHER, repeat OTHER, young women in the office. That is the harassment. It has nothing to do with the consensual relationship.

Now back to conservatives trying to contradict liberals who say it was a consensual relationship.

In Washington, I would always make points like that, which utterly destroyed the other side when they were made. But the conservatives always went right back to their "DUHHs." Their attitude toward me was once expressed beautifully, accurately, and I am not kidding here, in MAD Magazine: "Him smart. Me throw rocks."

I like Clinton's Southernness, but I DO hate liberals, and I am deeply and truly enjoying watching the total destruction Clinton's situation is causing liberalism. Even the press is talking about the libs' wild hypocrisy. The most amazing people are noticing that you simply cannot pry the truth out of these people with a corkscrew.

I said one thing to my brother Jon some months ago that is very important today. This Clinton thing has driven the first critical wedge between the American left and the national media

The national media is hard left, but if you understand it, you can do a lot with it. Back in 1982, Paul Weyrich discussed his astonishing success with the press in his article in The New Right Papers. He made the point that the media is made up of people, and the first thing you do in dealing with people is to figure out what they want from you.

Nobody gets along in the media if he is not a good liberal or one of the few thoroughly vetted and acceptable respectable conservatives. It is true that each person in the press is, ideologically, your dedicated enemy. He couldn't get there if he were anything else. But there is a huge mass of people there, and every single one of them is in front of you for a reason. They need news. They need a well-written press release that is highly quotable. If you write it well enough, they'll use your words entirely!

I was a new appointee in the Reagan Administration, for heaven's sake, and I got my picture and favorable coverage in the New York Times because I wrote a major part of the reporter's story for him! Paul Weyrich was born and bred up North, but he gave David Beasley his Orwell Award for demanding the removal of the Confederate flag.

I choose my friends well, gang! My smart remark to Jon came directly from listening carefully to Paul Weyrich's wisdom about the press. When the Administration struck out, it struck at Starr, but it also hit the media.

Everybody blames the press, but I noticed that this time the press took it personally. Maybe I noticed because I have dealt with them a long time. At the Voice of America, I was one of them briefly. It surprised me how badly they took it this time. I think that they were caught in a uniquely bad situation.

It is true that criticism of the press happens a lot, but it is always from only one predictable direction. They criticize the right, and are attacked from the right. They report something bad about a liberal politician, and he attacks them. If they criticize one group, that group says they're awful. This time, when the President jumped them for talking about the scandal, everybody either agreed with him or hid under the bed.

The press had to report the situation because that was what readers wanted to read about. Competition today is fiercer than ever, and they simply could not do the boring stuff and ignore the interesting story.

There was a time when the press could ignore anything it wanted to. Us older folks can remember when the network news ignored the burning down of major parts of cities all over America. People literally watched the news while they saw the smoke going up in their cities, and the press never said a word about it.

All good conservatives have forgotten that, but I haven't. Ask anyone over 55, and they'll remember it. I will never forget when one of the all powerful network anchors felt that the hundreds of thousands of letters of complaint required some kind of response. He complained that he had gotten all these demands, and in a clipped, angry voice, he read off the list of riots and burnings that had occurred THAT DAY.

When you hear the media commentators talking about the 1960's today, you can see that they are almost crying. Boy, those were the days! The three network bureaucracies had eliminated ALL opposition. They were absolute. They can't do that today. Even if they had wanted to, they couldn't have ignored the Clinton scandal. The fact that liberals refused to understand that hit home. NOBODY took the media's side in this.

Public opinion was four or five to one against them, saying that the people wanted to forget about sex and talk about social security, educational testing standards and other fascinating stuff. For once, the junk that people tell the pollsters, the same stuff that the press usually uses for their side, was used against the press.

The same people who would click the remote instantly the second the talk went from Paula Jones to national educational testing were saying they had had enough of scandal. And while they talked about Clinton, none of Clinton's opponents said a word. Good old conservative cowardice usually makes them smile weakly and say the press is fair. Usually conservative cowardice works for the press. Now it made conservatives tacitly back Clinton.

Everybody, on every side, was against the press, and the press could not do a damned thing about it. They can dish out abuse, but they are FAMOUS for not being able to take it. This time they had to take it month after month after month. The press got its butt kicked, and liberals are spending the last bit of moral capital they have left.

Ain't we got fun? Let me add, that right now Clinton is having the most exciting illicit relationship of his life. That is how addicts behave, gang.

 


 

 

 

 

 

Home | Current Articles | Article Archive | About Bob Whitaker | Contact Bob | Links | Privacy Policy

MENU

Home

Current Articles

Article Archive

Whitaker's World View

World View Archives

About Bob Whitaker

Contact Bob

Links

Privacy Policy


Current Issue
Issue: Sep.. 12, 1998
Editor: Virgil H. Huston, Jr.
© 2001 WhitakerOnLine.org


Email List
Sign up for our email list to be notified of site updates:
E-Mail:

© Copyright 2001, 2002. All rights reserved. Contact: bob@whitakeronline.org