Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly can be an irritant to all with his bombastic populism, but he remains the most popular cable news figure. Still, people should think twice before siding with him or believing he sides with them. O’Reilly is both a conservative and a collectivist, but never a freedom lover. A recent diatribe against John Stossel confirms that O’Reilly plays both sides because he loves himself more than anything else.

O’Reilly welcomed Stossel, a great force for personal freedom, to his show and immediately beat him up over his libertarian views on the drug war. Using his well-worn tactic of interrupting his opponent right as he gets to his main point, O’Reilly concluded that because some people beat their wives when on drugs, drugs must remain illegal. As is typical of Republicans and Democrats, but rarely libertarians, O’Reilly often substitutes a public policy argument in place of an individual rights argument (e.g. Socialized medicine costs too much vs. socialized medicine is an extra-constitutional abuse of power).

O’Reilly, along with most drug warriors argues that because some people abuse illegal drugs and cause trouble for society, everyone must be banned from their use. The families of Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley, and Marilyn Monroe took little solace knowing that they died from the abuse of legal drugs. Jimi Hendrix and John Belushi are equal in death, even though their abuse was illegal. Considering the wide availability of both government sanctioned and banned drugs, O’Reilly’s suggestion that decriminalizing banned substances would increase social turmoil is implausible. If tomorrow, drugs were legalized like tobacco and alcohol, expect a giant wave of status quo.

Further, the argument that drugs have no use in society is bunk. Essentially, Marinol is the same as pot, Ritalin is the same as amphetamines, OxyContin is the same as heroin or morphine. MDA, known as ecstasy, has been shown to benefit post-traumatic stress disorder patients. The only difference is one form of these drugs is legal and the other is not. Is there really a difference between a bum with a bottle in the alley and Lindsay Lohan? If the only purpose of the drug war is to grant well connected drug users a veneer of propriety, O’Reilly’s arguments amount to elitism and self-delusion.

But doesn’t the prescription use of marijuana, speed, and heroin protect the end user? Doesn’t a doctor acting as a gatekeeper ensure only the proper use of drugs? Doctors prescribe any number of psycho active drugs to patients who feel anxious, depressed, and socially uncomfortable – many of the reasons illegal drug users get high. Doctors should be advisors helping people make their own decisions, but the government makes them gatekeepers of access to medicines and drugs. In every case, informed adults generally can make better choices about their lives than can governments and bureaucracies.

Back to O’Reilly, who wants to “look out for . . . the people.” What he means is substitute individual choice and responsibility for some sort of hybrid between government and O’Reilly himself. Most people neither need nor should want any form of big brother “looking out” for them. Since the active ingredients in pot, speed, and heroin have been proven safe and effective by the FDA, the only remaining argument is that people must be protected from their own potential for poor decisions. Without the individual freedom argument, O’Reilly routinely leans on the public policy argument, which is open to abuse and manipulation. O’Reilly pointing to anecdotal evidence of spousal abuse by drug users is the same cant as Pres. Obama citing .006 % of the population having been mistreated by insurance companies. There is always a sad sack story to support the need for regulation and control, which is why the public policy argument is usually weak and meritless.

All this leads to why O’Reilly felt compelled to brow beat Stossel, an employee of his own network. Fox News newcomers like Stossel and Glen Beck trade on ideas and principles. True, Beck may be a bit of a conspiracy nut, but the combination of his belief in principles and soaring popularity must worry O’Reilly. Beck and Stossel’s individualism is a direct threat to O’Reilly’s populism and ad-hock policy tirades. If Stossel achieves Beck’s success, expect O’Reilly’s ratings to take a hit as conservatives and libertarians abandon confrontation and ego worship for information and principle. It is well past time for people to realize that O’Reilly’s empire is built on a weak foundation; perhaps Beck and Stossel will cut him down a notch.