Dr. Laura Schlessinger

 

(..) Dr. Laura is hopelessly and even shamelessly arbitrary. She makes up her rules as she goes along. She has to do so, for she has no ultimate and overarching allegiance to any other set of absolute standards. (..)   source: the Conservative Christian World Magazine, 5/9/98
The following comments were written in early 2000 when Paramount/Viacom were just about to give this woman her own TV show. Now that the TV show has turned out to be an unmitigated disaster, some of what follows is no longer relevant.

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a very successful right-wing radio host who is on a crusade against what she believes are immoral people. Single mothers. Gays and Lesbians. Liberals. She is not a medical doctor. Her Ph.D. is in physiology, yet she intentionally creates and maintains the misperception that she is a medical doctor, psychologist or psychiatrist, and that her views are supported by the full authority of medical science. She converted to orthodox Judaism, and uses that to her advantage by accusing her critics of antisemitism. She can't get her story straight as to why she is opposed to homosexuality. Sometimes, it's because of her religious beliefs, a couple of days later, it's because of science. She is not a theologian, but she wrote a book on the ten commandments. Ideologically, she is a wholy owned subsidiary of the "Family Research" Council, which she recommends to her listeners for information on homosexuality.

Her social views suffer from the same fundamental contradiction as the social views of the religious right in general: they can't make up their minds as to the question of biological determinism vs. free will. When it comes to the role of women in society, the religious right takes the viewpoint of biological determinism: women were biologically designed by God for a specific role in society. They ought to get married to a man, stay at home and bear and raise children. They should not work, or serve in the military. In marriage, they are to submit to their husband, who is the natural leader of the family unit. Women are not supposed to make their own choices in life. In particular, they are not to decide whether or not they can have an abortion - male-dominated society must decide that for them (they can't).

When it comes to homosexuality, on the other hand, the religious right emphasizes free will and downplays the relevance of biological determinants. Supposedly, being gay is a freely chosen lifestyle, and gays and lesbians have the choice to be heterosexual. This theory is objectively false. Zoology, anthropology, psychology and sociobiology have conclusively shown that exclusive, life-long homosexuality is a naturally-occuring, perfectly healthy variation of human and animal sexuality that has always existed, even in the face of social disapproval and persecution, and will continue to exist. When confronoted with this undeniable fact, religious extremists invariably dismiss it as irrelevant, because of human free will. The contradiction should be obvious.

But I digress.. back to Dr. Laura. She has signed a deal with Paramount television to produce her own national TV show which will premiere in fall 2000. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation tried to get Paramount to reconsider that decision, but with only minimal success. Paramount issued a promise that the Dr. Laura show would be balanced and present diverse viewpoints, but there is probably no one on either side of the debate who believes that that is feasible. What is Paramount going to do, place GLAAD Executive Director Joan M. Garry by her side, and give them equal time?

Some gay activists must have felt the same way when they started their own protest website, StopDrLaura.com. Unlike GLAAD, StopDrLaura is taking a more confrontational approach, and it seems to be working. Schlessinger has hired a crisis response team, issued a weak apology, then fired the crisis response team and recanted her apology.

In the meantime, Schlessinger's supporters, among them the "Family Research" Council, have started a campaign of their own: Free Speech for Dr. Laura! They accuse the other side of trying to silence dissent, to censor what they consider the truth about homosexuality. But is this really a free speech issue?

Free Speech Right or Free Speech Privilege?

The first amendment does not imply a fundamental right to have your own television show. Dr. Laura Schlessinger is already enjoying a free speech privilege by having a radio show that reaches over 14 million listeners per week. Is it really censorship to not give such a person her own TV show? What about the 250 million Americans who have neither a television nor a radio show? Are they being "silenced", their opinions censored? Of course not. If Schlessinger's show gets canceled (which seems extremely unlikely at the moment), she will still have the free speech privilege of her radio show. And even if she lost the radio show, she would only be reduced to the same free speech venues as everyone else. She can still have her own website, write letters to the editors, stage protests in front of television stations, and run ads in magazines and pay for them with her own money.

Having a national tv show is a special right that only very few individuals enjoy. It is a rare privilege that must be used responsibly. Officially denying hatred of gays and lesbians, but then calling them "deviants" and "biological errors" is not responsible. Listener Joe Thug can draw his own conclusions. People like Schlessinger or James Dobson may not approve of violence against gays and lesbians, but their words have the effect of giving ideological permission to those who do. When you relentlessly attack a class of people for supposedly destroying the very fabric of human society, actions will follow. I want to be very clear on this one: I do not know whether Schlessinger hates gays and lesbians, because I cannot look inside her head. But I do know that her words have the potential of inspiring hatred in others, both hatred towards gays and lesbians and self-hatred in those who have yet to accept their own homosexual orientation.

As a Jew, Schlessinger should be aware of the powerful impact that words and ideas can have on people. For almost 2000 years, Christianity maintained, affirmed and reaffirmed the idea that the Jews are morally inferior, even products of satan himself. It didn't take much time for people to start acting on that idea. Hitler did not invent anti-semitism; Jews were being persecuted and murdererd a full millenium before Hitler walked on the face of the Earth.

In the summer of 1096, an undisciplined rabble of 200,000 peasants and artisans had assembled in France. However, there were no Moslems near at hand, so the champions of the cross turned their attention to the Jews, who, in their eyes, were just as much "infidels" and enemies of Christianity as the Moslems. They found they could commence the Crusade on the spot. Cruelty, instead of charity, began at home. As the Crusaders marched through Europe on their way to the Hold Land, they literally raped, pillaged, and plundered. Faced with the wild cries of the Crusaders, "The Jews crucified our Savior, and they must return to Him or die," the Jews had the alternative of baptism or death. Thousands preferred the death of martyrs.

While the Church did not officially sanction this activity, it nevertheless took place. Many local clergymen and bishops gave the Jews protection and refuge from the rabbles. Unfortunately, others actually participated in the executions. source

The church may not have officially sanctioned the behavior, but it nonetheless had created and maintained the motive behind it. The millions of Jews who were murdered by Christians throughout the centuries were not killed by the sword, or by bullets, or by poison gas. They were killed by an idea, an idea that still lives on in the minds of many Christians: they crucified our savior. Today, most christian denominations have renounced anti-semitism, but they haven't learned the lesson behind it. The lesson is that ideas can kill, and that those who create and perpetuate an idea must take the consequences for the actions that the idea inspires.

Dr. Laura's supporters also claim that this is about tolerance. I find this claim highly hypocritical. These are the people who are campaigning against Howard Stern, who got ABC to cancel Ellen, who rallied for the cancelation of South Park, and who are still boycotting Disney. These are the Christian culture warriors whose goal is to impose their personal religious beliefs and interpretation of scripture on the mainstream culture as the sole standard of morality. In short, these are people who are so unfamiliar with the concept of tolerance, they probably had to look up the word in a dictionary before starting to co-opt it for their own purpose. And now the same people cry foul, and ask for tolerance? They are only being given a taste of their own medicine.

Dr. Laura's supporters further assert that she never called gays and lesbians biological errors. She said that homosexuality is a biological error. If the premise of the Christian Right, that homosexuality is a chosen behavior, was correct, this would be a valid distinction. But since that premise is incorrect, that distinction is irrelevant. Who we love is a part of the very core of our existence, and to say that homosexuality is a biological error is to say that gays and lesbians are biological errors.

Schlessinger and the Christian Right have not always been best buddies. The Christian Fundamentalist World Magazine used to critize her as shallow, morally arbitrary and spiritually empty until just a few years ago. Then, with a high-profile campaign against her, a remarkable turnaround: support Dr. Laura! World recommends in April 2000. A significant step for the editors of a christian fundamentalist publication who believe that Judaism "will not save one soul from the fires of hell", but consistent with the overall strategy of religious fundamentalism these days. Christian, Jewish and Moslem zealots have been at each other's throats for centuries, but today they have come to the realization that their social agendas are virtually identical. They have thus forged a strategic alliance, knowing that the clock can only be turned back with their combined efforts, if at all. The Christian-Right support of an orthodox Jew is one prominent example of that alliance, the constant talk of "Judeo-Christian values" (which would have been unthinkable in the 1950s) is another.

However, orthodox Jews are gravely mistaken if they think that their new friendship with the Christian Right is anything more than strategic in nature. If the Religious-Right takeover of the American government actually happened, Jews would be sitting in the back of the bus faster than they could say anti semitism. Knowing Dr. Laura, she would probably decide to convert again and become a reborn Christian.

Schlessinger's use of common propaganda techniques

Dr. Laura's sermons are a veritable treasure trove of propaganda techniques. If you are completely unfamiliar with this subject, I suggest you take a look at the following articles: The following is an analysis of a 7/29/99 Schlessinger piece titled Why celebrate homosexuality? for its use of propagandistic techniques. Schlessinger's original text is given in italics, with a red background. For your convenience, I also provided short excerpts of relevant passages of the articles above, given in blue.

WE HAVE A REALLY SERIOUS ISSUE in this country, and most of you are scared to address it because when you do, you are made to feel evil and bad.

Assertions. Assertions are positive statements presented as fact. They imply that what is stated is self-evident and needs no further proof. Assertions may or may not be true.

In this case, the assertion is that people who disapprove of homosexuality are effectively silenced. While it may be true that some people keep their opposition to homosexuality to themselves, it is a daring statetement that that is indeed the case for "most" of her listeners, the unspoken accustation being that there is a massive violation of free speech rights going on. How does she know? Did 7 million of her 13 million listeners write her a letter? The letters to the editors sections of newspapers and newsmagazines seem to indicate the exact opposite: religious conservatives are quite vocal in expressing their views.

I know. I am routinely excoriated for having a different opinion. So I understand how difficult it is to stand up for heterosexual marriage.

Here, Schlessinger attempts to paint herself as the victim of the vicious liberal thought police. The implied accusation is that her constitional rights are being violated, and, by transfer, that those who oppose her are enemies of constitutional freedoms. Another device used is the Glittering Generality.

Glittering Generalities. Glittering generalities are intensely emotionally appealing words so closely associated with highly valued concepts and beliefs that they carry conviction without supporting information or reason. They appeal to such emotions as love of country, home; desire for peace, freedom, glory, honor, etc. They ask for approval without examination of the reason. Though the words and phrases are vague and suggest different things to different people, their connotation is always favorable: "The concepts and programs of the propagandist are always good, desirable, virtuous."

The glittering generality in this case is heterosexual marriage. Most people, and presumably all of Dr. Laura's listeners, believe that heterosexual marriage is a good thing. By invoking this ideal, Schlessinger tries to get her audience to also unquestioningly support her viewpoint that gay relationships constitute a threat to heterosexual marriage, and that heterosexual marriage needs to be defended from that threat. As a supporting propagandistic tool, she uses the device of reification. Reification means to treat an abstraction as if it was a real thing. It would be very hard even for Schlessinger to explain how legal recognition of gay couples would hurt a real, concrete marriage - because it wouldn't! Heterosexual marriages would not be hurt, but the metaphysical entity of heterosexual marriage will be - a claim that has the adventage of being beyond empirical verification.

But if we don't, pretty soon what we commonly understand and cherish as "family" will be gone.

Fear. When a propagandist warns members of her audience that disaster will ensue if they do not follow a particular course of action, she is using the fear appeal. By playing on the audience's deep-seated fears, practitioners of this technique hope to redirect attention away from the merits of a particular proposal and toward steps that can be taken to reduce the fear.

Schlessinger's statement is the textbook example of fearmongering and can only be characterized as hysterical. Legal recognition of the relationships of a minority that makes up about 5% of the population is going to make the dominant lifestyle of the other 95% disappear? Please.

There are two events I want to bring to your attention. One involves our president, who proclaimed June the month of "celebrating homosexuality." I think he must be nuts. He designated a whole MONTH to celebrate this? You only get a DAY if you're Irish. Right? Do we have a month to celebrate heterosexuality?

Insinuation device: Leading question. The propagandist may ask questions which suggest only one possible answer. Thus, the question, "What is there to do now that your unit is surrounded and you are completely cut off?" insinuates that surrender or desertion is the only reasonable alternative to annihilation.

It is evident that the answer to Schlessinger's rhetorical question is supposed to be "no, we do not have a month that celebrates heterosexuality, and the homosexuals are once again asking for - and receiving - special treatment." I would submit that there is an alternative answer:

Yes, we have in fact more than one month to celebrate heterosexuality - we have the other eleven!

President Clinton's proclamation said that businesses, families and all of us should "celebrate" the fact that some people cannot or will not mate with members of the opposite sex, be married and have children.

Lying and distortion. Lying is stating as truth that which is contrary to fact. For example, assertions may be lies.

Schlessinger's statement qualifies as a distortion, because it suggests that marriage and family can only be had with an opposite sex partner. It qualifies as a lie, because it is at odds with the following facts:

FACT 1: many same-sex couples do get married. That these marriages are not recognized by the law is a irrelevant from a moral point of view. The right to marry is a human right, and human rights are not granted by governments. Governments can choose to not recognize a particular human right, but that act does not diminish the legitimacy of the right in question. It only diminishes the legitimacy of the government. In the case of marriage, the situation is particularly clear. Traditionally, marriage is a private agreement between two people. It does not require a legal license. If Schlessinger truly upholds 'traditional' marriage, then she must recognize that two people who exchange marriage vows are by all rights and traditions married.

FACT 2: many same sex couples do have children, whether by means of adoption, surrogacy or artifical insemination.

In my opinion, that is not something to celebrate. It's very sad, and I have great compassion for homosexuals.

An interesting aside is that Clinton began his proclamation by saying, "in the year of our Lord, 1999." Where is the much-treasured separation of church and state?

Insinuation. Insinuation is used to create or stir up the suspicions of the target audience against ideas, groups, or individuals in order to divide an enemy. The propagandist hints, suggests, and implies, allowing the audience to draw its own conclusions. Latent suspicions and cleavages within the enemy camp are exploited in an attempt to structure them into active expressions of disunity which weaken the enemy's war effort.

In the statement at hand, the insinuation is that Clinton is a hypocrite, because he is contradicting his - presumed to be liberal - worldview. And by association, this makes everyone who supports equal rights for gays and separation of church and state a hypocrite. That propagandistic technique is also known as transfer.

And imagine invoking Jesus' name in the same breath as he celebrates behavior specified as sinful in both the Torah and Christian bible!

Simplification. This is a technique in which the many facts of a situation are reduced so the right or wrong, good or evil, of an act or decision is obvious to all. This technique (simplification) provides simple solutions for complex problems. By suggesting apparently simple solutions for complex problems, this technique offers simplified interpretations of events, ideas, concepts, or personalities. Statements are positive and firm; qualifying words are never used.

The simplification employed by Schlessinger is the reduction of a complex and controversial religious issue to a simple statement declaring her particular interpretation of religious scripture to be universally true. The truth in the matter is that Jews and Christians are divided on the issue of homosexuality. Some would consider Schlessinger's statement true, others would not.

So that's No. 1 -- this astonishing proclamation that directs Americans not to accept homosexuality, not to tolerate it, but rather to CELEBRATE it!

Here comes No. 2: Human rights campaign leader Elizabeth Birch and her partner, Hilary Rosen, who is a lobbyist for the Recording Industry Association of America, recently adopted male and female twins born Jan. 7 in Texas. There is no specific legislation in the state of Maryland, where they live, that prohibits placing children in homosexual households. The two women have proudly announced that the children will be raised by nannies.

Do we not have sufficient empirical evidence that fatherless homes are not the best environment for raising children?

Once again, Schlessinger uses insinuation by asking the purely rhetorical question "do we not have enough evidence..", which is obviously supposed to imply that there is in fact overwhelming evidence (that fatherless homes are not the best environment for raising children). In doing so, Schlessinger distorts the actual evidence. Studies may show that single mother homes are not the best environment for raising children. The obvious conclusion would be that children need the attention of more than one parent. Schlessinger, however, injects idiology into the science. She chooses to call single-mother homes "fatherless" homes , rhetorically obscuring the fact that the science she is alluding to is making a statement about single, heterosexual women only, and creating the appearance that the research is relevant to lesbian homes as well. The truth is that research specifically done on same-sex households shows that children who grow up in such households are actually doing slightly better than their peers. To an objective observer, that would come as no surprise, considering that same-sex couples have to invest considerable efforts to have children, while heterosexual couples often have them by accident.

And these particular babies aren't even going to have an attentive mother, either! How could any adoption agency give twins to two lesbians who don't even want to care for them when there are heterosexual, committed couples waiting for babies to adopt and dying to stay home and parent them?

Card stacking or selective omission. This is the process of choosing from a variety of facts only those which support the propagandist's purpose. In using this technique, facts are selected and presented which most effectively strengthen and authenticate the point of view of the propagandist.

Here's where Schlessinger gets really nasty and downright malicious. Heterosexual parents are associated only with positive characteristics, such as good, loving and nurturing, while Birch and her partner (and, by induction, every same-sex couple, of course!) are characterized as uncaring activists determined to have children just to advance their political agenda. No mention of the fact that heterosexual career couples exist as well as lesbian ones. No mention of the fact that same-sex couples can be "commited" and "dying to stay home" as well. No mention of the fact that there is actually a shortage of capable adoptive parents, and that by excluding same-sex couples from the adoptive process, society would actually be depriving children of loving homes. "Bias" doesn't even being to describe Schlessinger's selective reasoning. Journalistic values such as objectivity and integrity seem to have no meaning to her. The facts are whatever she wants them to be.

The article doesn't stop there, but I think I made my point. Schlessinger is a capable propagandist, and she uses that ability well to advance her social agenda. Her favourite propagandistic device appears to be the suggestion that all of her viewpoints are supported by science, which she constantly reinforces by calling herself a doctor.

(..) "While she's not entirely a fraud - like 'Dr.' Henry Kissinger she has a PhD, but in the irrelevant field of physiology - when she ventures into therapeutic territory she's an ignorant meddler. A recent convert to Orthodox Judaism, she hectored one Jewish mother who had qualms about circumcising her son, insisting that there was "overwhelming medical evidence" of the benefits of circumcision, which is false, and that those who said otherwise were members of hate groups pushing anti-Semitic propaganda."   Katha Pollitt, in The Nation, May 15, 2000