Mike,
buddy, how are ya?
And
how's Winston? Your love for that old doggie comes across
in your words, and I'm pulling for him.
Listen,
Mike - I love you like a brother, I have to tell you. You
don't know me from Adam, of course, but I've been spending
several productive hours of my days with you for so long (ever
since those days back at the old station!) that I
feel as though I can speak to you openly, and hope that you'll
take my words in the spirit in which they're offered, as opposed
to getting all on the defense or taking offense.
Oh,
I think you know how I mean that, Mike. Lately you've been
showing a tendency toward defensiveness when a caller takes
you to task, no matter how tenderly. Just the other day you
provided a great example. Your performance with that liberal
info-babe on your show was, frankly, disgraceful, Mike. What
was her name? Flavian, or Flavio, or Florence or something?
That woman played you like a worn-out fiddle, Mike. She walked
all over you, and you just sat there and took it. It was embarrassing,
and just as I was wondering if I was the only guy in Philly
who was screaming "Grow A Backbone!" at his radio,
two callers restored my faith in the potential of humanity
by getting on and pointing out to you this very thing.
Both
of those callers made the point that you were not responding
to obvious liberal lies and Democratic talking points as they
felt you should have been, Mike. Both of them, a man and a
woman, were polite, deferential and articulate. And what was
your response? Did you offer an explanation that, say, maybe
you were smartly allowing your guest to dig her own grave?
Or did you perhaps tell the callers that, yes, you are right,
I should be more aggressive in the defense of my beliefs?
You
could have done those things Mike, but you didn't. Instead,
you attempted to shield yourself by leveling the same charge
at each of the two callers- you accused each of them of "taking
a cheap shot" at you.
Do
you know what a "cheap shot" is, Mike? Here's a
clue: Criticism is not, inherently, a "cheap shot,"
and these two respectful expressions of disappointment in
your non-response to liberal blather were as far from a "cheap
shot" as a caller comment can be. In fact, Mike, the
two callers were right-on and deserving of the same respectful
tone in your response that they offered you in their criticism.
Your
tap-dance, Mike, around the sensibilities of Falvio or Floozie
or Flounder or whatever her name was, was reminiscent of your
frankly shameful performance in that special broadcast during
the Philadelphia Mayoral race last year. The concept of that
broadcast was a good one. In one of the most racially polarized
mayoral elections in the memory of one of the most racially
polarized cities in the nation - in an election where the
black mayor of a huge Eastern city was virtually guaranteed
re-election by a majority black citizenry because
of rather than in spite of accusations of corruption
(the man is out to get me!), you got together with
a radio personality who championed the perceived interests
of the "opposing" race, and who certainly represented
a political ideology that is diametrically opposed to the
ideology of normal people. (Oops! That's a strong statement.
Integrity and rule of law, "normal?"
I can't say that! I retract it.)
To
cut the crap and make tell it like it is, the infobabe in
question was a racist, a liberal whacko, and on several issues
an outright liar, yet you let her ride herd over you like
a sheep. It was shameful performance, Mike, and I believe
it was the beginning of your decline.
Yes
yes, I know. If I knew so much I would have my own radio show.
And yes, it is in fact your show, and you can treat it any
way you damned well please. Me, I deliver my opinions in written
form almost exclusively, and I'd have no idea how to do broadcast
work.
But...
One
thing I do know, Mike, and that's that the
most successful opinion merchants, written, TV or radio, are
those who have firm convictions and are not afraid to
voice them.
Not
a broadcast type, but an example of someone with firm convictions
who is not afraid to voice them would be a guy like, oh, say,
former Reagan administration official Alan
Keyes. Keys was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations
Social and Economic Council, 2000 Republican presidential
candidate, and is a devout Christian who takes his Christianity
very seriously. That may be funny to an enlightened guy like
you, Mike, and you certainly have every right to disagree
with him on issues. But to call Ambassador Keys, a true man
of integrity, one of the most principled men I've ever met,
a "Whack Job" for no better reason than his unyielding
Christian beliefs?
That,
Mike, is a "cheap shot." I'd love to see you debate
the man face-to-face, as opposed to taking "cheap shots"
to which he is not there to respond.
But
I'm getting bogged down in minutia, to coin a phrase. The
examples of your wishy-washiness are many, and seem to be
increasing every day. Recently a flaming liberal caller went
on a long rant, ticking off lie after lie after misconception.
You, Mike, the guy I think of as my advocate when listening
to talk radio, remained stonily silent all during the tirade.
When you finally ran out of time, you ended the conversation
with a meek "Obviously we disagree."
Obviously
we disagree?!? That's it? That's all? That's your only on-air
response to a litany of lies?
Sometimes,
Mike, it seems as though you are so eager to come across as
a nice guy, and as "fair," that you loose your footing.
It isn't rude to cut off a caller who has just told
a lie, Mike, and make him back it up before allowing him to
jabber on to the next lie. In fact it's the responsible thing
to do, I think. But taking a principled stand does
take stones, I know.
Your
positions used to be rooted in principle, Michael, if memory
serves. Your feet, once so firmly planted on the rock of that
principle, now flail relativistically about in mid-air, and
I'm at a loss to see why that might be.
You
will disagree of course. You may even see this letter in itself
as a "cheap shot" and dismiss it. Dust from the
feet, and all that. But I assure you that I wouldn't be writing
it or feel the urge to share it if I didn't care about you.
Your material is still relevant, and you are on-target more
often than not, I think. You champion causes that benefit
all of us - your work and advocacy on behalf of murdered police
officer Danny Faulkner alone should qualify you for sainthood.
This
is why I (we) don't want to lose you, either to obscurity
or to the black hole of moral and cultural relativism. Hence
this letter. I have not yet tuned you out entirely during
drive time, and it is my fervent hope that I never have reason
to turn you off permanently. But I do find myself reaching
for the dial more and more often - and that station change
is done too often in anger or disgust - and that never
used to be.
You
and I are more alike than you might imagine, Michael. We even
share the same hair stylist. Don't leave me, buddy. For crying
out loud, Mike, grow a set and wear 'em with pride, will you?
The photograph
of Mr. Smerconish that appears with this article is ©
The Tocquevillian Magazine and may not be reproduced without
written permission.
©
2004 Tocqevillian Magazine
