The talk show pundits have no hangups about attributing the UK riots to cuts and deprivation, but their prescriptions differ
Sean Hannity
Sean Hannity is deeply troubled by the British riots, particularly because he believes we may soon see similar levels of unrest here in America (view clip). Unlike many of his conservative counterparts in the United Kingdom, even Prime Minister Cameron who declared the riots nothing but "criminality, pure and simple", Hannity sees a direct link between the riots and the recent austerity measures imposed in Britain. Yet he believes the best way to avoid a similar outcome in America is to impose even deeper spending cuts than the $2.4tn recently authorised by Congress.
I'm looking at what's going on in London right now and the rioting that's taking place there. Rioting is taking place in large part because of austerity measures because their country's going bankrupt. We should be learning from their mistakes but we're not; and people are out there, they're blaming conservatives, they're blaming the government, they're blaming "rich people" that it's their fault. They've got 16,000 police officers in London trying to handle this – more than they've ever had – and I'm thinking this sounds a lot like America ten, 12, 15 years down the road, because once those promises can never be fulfilled [sic].
He discussed the problem with freshman Senator Rand Paul, a leading member of the Tea Party caucus, who agreed that the austerity measures that are due to be implemented in the US aren't nearly severe enough to stop Americans imitating their British counterparts. Although it may seem counterintuitive to think that the best way to prevent riots that both men believe were caused by austerity measures is to impose even more drastic austerity measures, Paul explains that it's best to start implementing cuts immediately, because if we wait too long, people will just get a bigger shock when their checks stop coming.
Neither Hannity nor Paul saw any merit in trying to find alternative means of dealing with our deficit woes (such as increasing revenue by revoking the tax cuts on the rich, for instance) that might avoid inflicting the sort of pain on the masses that could possibly cause them to revolt. Hannity was also upset that the Tea Party is being blamed for the downgrade of America's credit rating, which he fears will not be restored anytime soon.
Half the country doesn't pay taxes; 15% of the country now is on food stamps, Senator, and the chairman of S&P said they upgraded after they downgraded five countries, the average length of time that takes is between nine and 18 years. We're not going to be upgraded anytime soon, in spite of congressional senate investigations. That's not going to happen.
Paul agreed that the downgrade will be with us for a while, and added that blaming the Tea Party was "like blaming firemen for coming to put out the fire". (Although S&P did make it clear that some of the Tea Party contributions to the debate, including the "prolonged controversy" and the inability to reach "an agreement on raising revenues", were some of the reasons for their decision.) Anyway, the bottom line for both men was that the best way to prevent riots in America is to continue cutting spending.
Rush Limbaugh
Rush Limbaugh was also deeply concerned about the possibility of riot fever spreading to the United States (listen to clip). He did not buy the idea put forth by many in the media that the riots in British cities are simply hooliganism run amok; instead, he is certain that what we are witnessing is class warfare of the worst kind – that is, an all-out war on the rich. He equates the rioters with "Obama voters", or a group of have-nots, who just want to bring the have-lots down to their level.
All this is happening 'cause of rich people, the people that got businesses, the conservatives. That's why all this is happening. You're dubious about this? They burn down the stores to show the rich people we can destroy what they have so that they will have nothing, too. We can burn down the property of the rich people so that they've got nothing, either.
In addition to believing that the rioters and looters are no different than "Obama voters", Limbaugh goes on to assert than not only is it inevitable that the rioting is "precisely what we are headed for", but also that "Obama would not be upset. Obama wants it." He doesn't explain exactly why he thinks that President Obama would like to see American cities descend into chaos, but it appears to have something to do the fact that he believes the president is trying to spoil Americans the same way that British people have been spoiled with free healthcare.
They live in a full-fledged socialist country. They have their equivalent of food stamps. They have interminable unemployment. They have free medical care, ostensibly. This is what they were promised. These were the people that bought into the false promises of socialism. These are the people that bought into the false promises of Utopia, and who are they mad at? They are mad at people who didn't! They are mad at people who are self-reliant. They're mad at people who are making something of themselves independently. They think they have been defrauded.
So, apparently, Limbaugh believes that the best way to ensure that Americans do not react in a similar way to harsh spending cuts is to condition them to believe that they are entitled to nothing from the government, not even the entitlement programmes they pay into. Otherwise, they too will turn to rioting and looting or what he calls "the privilege of the new leisured class" or "wards of the state".
Bill O'Reilly
Bill O'Reilly believes that there is probably some economic element to the riots, but he is not sure how much of it has to do with the spending cuts and how much is just "a combination of thuggery and a little bit of that anarchy" (view clip). He discusses the situation with Fox News correspondent Amy Kellogg, who explains that while there have been huge cuts, some of which have affected youth programs and education opportunities, and while the riots may have been sparked by a legitimate grievance (the death of a Tottenham man shot by police), they have since turned into something else that everyone is grappling to understand. O'Reilly draws on his personal experience covering the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles to try to make sense of the situation.
Yeah, these are neighbourhoods that are marginalised, they're largely immigrant neighbourhoods; there is a class system in Great Britain, but this is similar to Rodney King situation in LA – and I was right in the middle of that, Amy, where you had the Rodney King beaten by the cops, and then you had all the riots and the looting and the burning and people dying … and it was crazy; there's no difference. All right, so the fuse is lit and this happens.
Like many people, O'Reilly is less concerned at the moment with the underlying causes of the riots than with containing them, and he thinks that this might be a good moment for Britain to review their stance on gun ownership: that is, to allow ordinary citizens, as well as police, to bear arms.
The difference between America and Great Britain is that here in America, many of us are armed because of the second amendment. In Great Britain, they don't like guns, as you mentioned, the cops don't even carry guns. But here is a really good example of if you are a shop owner or a store owner and you don't have a gun, you're in big trouble. Now, is [sic] any of that been raised by the BBC and the other liberal British press that maybe the cops should be tougher and maybe should be armed?
So far, there has been no serious proposal to arm British citizens, and considering that there were 54 fatalities in the LA riots, mostly from gun violence, that might not be a bad thing. O'Reilly feels certain, however, that if the riots spread to more upmarket areas, then the authorities will "have to bring in the military – and then the gun debate will ramp up".
