In his new book, Muzzled: The Assault on Honest Debate, Juan Williams talks about the intolerance he encountered even before being fired by National Public Radio. He talks with National Review Online’s Kathryn Jean Lopez about the book and life after NPR.
KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ: “One NPR news executive told me directly that having on staff a black man with social conservative views who was personal friends with conservatives infuriated NPR’s old guard,” you write in Muzzled. “They were unhappy with Enough, in which I had praised Bill Cosby for his critique of black leaders. It was clear they wanted me out the door, the same executive said, because I did not fit their view of how a black person thinks — my independence of thought, my willingness to listen to a wide range of views, and my strong journalistic credentials be damned.” What is that about? Does it expose some deep-seated ideological flaw? Is it groupthink? Racism? How do you make sense of it?
JUAN WILLIAMS: They see any black conservative as a weirdo. And that is the polite way to say it. The impolite version is to call me a sell-out and an Uncle Tom. In the middle of my controversial firing, one journalist said I deserved to be fired and humiliated because I appear on Fox and debate conservatives — “sleep with dogs, get fleas.” What I can reliably report about the mindset of NPR Washington managers is that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are the real black leaders and civil-rights leaders. Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, black ministers, and social conservatives on the other hand, to their mind are properly portrayed as aberrant and not really black. They offer a very limited range of political voices from the black community on the theory that anyone who is not a Jackson–Sharpton liberal is out of line, does not represent how black people really think. This is the all-black-people-think-alike school of journalism. I find it offensive and said so throughout my time there.
LOPEZ: “I am a black guy who makes fun of Muslims for the entertainment of white racists. . . . My animus for Muslims may be connected to my desire for publicity and the fact that I am mentally unstable.” And that was from former colleagues at NPR! What did you learn about human nature during the course of your firing controversy?
WILLIAMS: The big lesson for me was the intolerance of so-called liberals. I say intolerance because I grew up as a black Democrat in Brooklyn, N.Y., and always thought it was the Archie Bunker Republicans who practiced intolerance. My experience at NPR revealed to me how rigid liberals can be when their orthodoxy is challenged. I was the devil for simply raising questions, offering a different viewpoint, not shutting my mouth about the excesses of liberalism — a bad guy, a traitor to the cause.
LOPEZ: Have you come to some kind of peace about becoming Exhibit A in the right-wing case against NPR?
WILLIAMS: Facts are facts. I did not fire myself. I did nothing to warrant being fired. This was a painful, personal example of political correctness run wild. But it is not an isolated case. My job is to be an honest journalist. People who watch me, who read my writing, have to know that I work hard to be informative, insightful, and most of all credible. There is little value, from my point of view, in being a mouthpiece for any political cause. I want to hear people tell me what they know to be true. So, I have no trouble when the right wing cites my case in arguing that NPR lacks balance, can be intolerant, and does not protect a reporter’s right to speak his mind. Facts are facts.
LOPEZ: Roger Ailes comes off as a real mensch — as they say — in your book. What kind of impact has he had on journalism in America, in your estimation?
WILLIAMS: Roger has shaped cable-television news since Fox News Channel started in 1996 and quickly rose to the top of the ratings. In bringing strong, conservative personalities to primetime and hiring first-rate journalists of all political stripes to cover the daily news, he has revived American journalism. Even the visual look of the television screen, the intensity of watching authentic people in conversation and debate has been a tonic for journalism.
LOPEZ: “The honest middle, where much of the nation lives, can’t find a place to hear a genuine discussion.” Isn’t that what Parker-Spitzer was supposed to be the solution to? Are you saying it might have worked if it hadn’t been opposite O’Reilly?
WILLIAMS: That show had none of the energy, intelligence, and spirited debate of The O’Reilly Factor. It failed to engage the middle in the way that O’Reilly does. If you doubt me, just check the ratings.
LOPEZ: You write about how Presidents Bush and Obama have both whispered their support for the criticisms you’ve lodged against some black leaders and liberal policy on poverty and race, among other things. How can we make real progress here?
WILLIAMS: We have to be direct with people who are being hurt by policies that go unquestioned because they are supposed to be good liberal policies. Why is it left to conservatives to say to poor minorities directly that graduating from high school is a must; that getting the highest degree of education possible is a must; holding a job and developing a network of job contacts, a résumé, is a must; that marriage before having a child is a must? How did it become conservative to say these are the keys to avoiding poverty and putting yourself in position to succeed? Too often the civil-rights groups, the charities, the social-service groups fail to tell people that they can help themselves.
LOPEZ: Is it really true that “abortion is the epitome of fixed, intractable, polarized American politics” when polls suggest Americans aren’t so polarized as the way the debate often plays out in the media — usually during the heat of a political battle?
WILLIAMS: I am talking about the abortion debate. Abortion is a wedge issue for both Democrats and Republicans. It stirs the political base and fundraising. Over the years the polls suggest that Americans do not buy into the extremes on abortion. You wouldn’t know that from listening to debates on the subject. And using religious teachings to guide a social-policy debate on abortion is a prime example of how a debate can be polarized to the point of shutting down reason.
LOPEZ: Are some chapters in your book more important to you than others? If Muzzled were a workbook for someone in Washington or even local politics, where would you want folks to start?
WILLIAMS: Start with chapter two, “Defying the PC police.” It exposes how political correctness remains a poison in the body politic. In fact, money flows to advocacy groups and politicians who try to tell us how to think. That chapter is the heart of the book because it explains why most Americans today have decided it is best to keep their mouths shut instead of risk being told they are bigots, airing dirty laundry, and then being shunned or even fired.
LOPEZ: “The biggest critics of Fox admit they never watch the news channel. Most of NPR’s loudest critics concede they don’t listen to it.” Why is that? Isn’t that a flaunting of ignorance?
WILLIAMS: They are glad to flaunt their ignorance to express solidarity with others on the far Left or far Right.
LOPEZ: “Even an uninformed, uneducated rube can beat a brilliant statesman in opinion polls if the rube has passion, presents himself as a victim of Washington’s arrogance, and is willing to take a stand and put on a show of populist outrage.” Do you have someone in mind?
WILLIAMS: Populist outrage is the stock-in-trade for so many talk-show hosts — from Limbaugh to Olbermann — that I’d have a very long list of names. The problem is not politically slanted talk shows. The problem is that they are so dominant that there is no room for people who want to hear all sides of a debate that leads to some reasoned solution to critical issues of the day.
LOPEZ: You’ve done a lot to help poor kids in D.C. Why is this White House and so much of the Democratic party so stubborn on the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program? Can that be remedied?
WILLIAMS: The unions have a choke hold on the Democratic politicians. Any Democrat who speaks up for the best interest of children is accused of being a traitor to the teachers’ union.
LOPEZ: Is this an insane thought — that Muzzled is a Tea Party book?
WILLIAMS: It is a great thought! Tea Party people believe in thinking for themselves, they believe in public debate, and they want limited government that is really about serving people — as opposed to just growing large and lazy and serving itself. Tea Party people will find the book challenges them but also liberates them from charges of being racist, fascist, and mean-spirited for speaking up. The book makes the case that the Tea Party has something to say and that message deserves to be heard.
LOPEZ: What do you like most about conservatism?
WILLIAMS: The tremendous support for the family is what I cherish about conservatism. Liberals get tongue-tied in simply affirming the importance of family as the basic social unit and key to most people’s success.
LOPEZ: What do you miss most about NPR?
WILLIAMS: The audience. NPR reaches a lot of people. They value news and information and I wanted to give them a first-rate, fully informed view of life in this great country.
— Kathryn Jean Lopez is editor-at-large of National Review Online.