Over at the America Enterprise Institute, Charles Murray asks the question, links to some folks with a different view, and describes the people he tries to write for.
Who's right, do you think, and why?
Over at the America Enterprise Institute, Charles Murray asks the question, links to some folks with a different view, and describes the people he tries to write for.
Who's right, do you think, and why?
Here are some quick tips for adding simple Textile formatting to your comments, though you can also use proper HTML tags:
*This* puts text in bold.
_This_ puts text in italics.
bq. This "bq." at the beginning of a paragraph, flush with the left hand side and with a space after it, is the code to indent one paragraph of text as a block quote.
To add a live URL, "Text to display":http://windsofchange.net/ (no spaces between) will show up as Text to display. Always use this for links - otherwise you will screw up the columns on our main blog page.
I don't know, but I do think it's an irrelevant question. Beck is Beck, what does it matter if he is "conservative's friend"? Is there only one answer for all conservatives?
The only purpose for asking is, in my view, to provide a possible mechanism to attack conservatives for Beck's mistakes. I don't see that as good for conservatives and I don't see it as good for honest non-conservatives.
I admit that I have never actually seen or heard Glen Beck or his show(s).
Beck, like most high profile pundits and political entertainers, is no one's friend but his own.
Pundits don't generally aim to give you enough information to make a good choice, only to make the choice they want you to make.
And entertainers don't generally aim to give you enough information to make a good choice, only to make you want to keep listening... which in politics these days means enough to keep you outraged.
Beck speaks a common populist language - something Michael Moore occasionally does, when he's not hassling working people in the street. Apart from the content, the language itself should not be disdained.
As for content, is Beck giving out bad ideas? It occurs to me that he serves some function that even liberals should applaud: If Glenn Beck tells the paranoids that the government is NOT building a secret detention center in Montana, they will probably believe him. All the respectable people in the world could scold in vain.
If you think Beck has some sinister significance beyond that, then be honest about it: It's not Beck that is feared, but the people he talks to. Who do we think he's talking to? Degenerate Cthulhu-worshipping swamp dwellers in klan hoods, who listen to country music?
Are liberals the only parochial snobs in America? Would that it were so.
Is Glenn Beck disavowing conspiracy theories now? I thought conspiracy theories were his bread & butter?
Here's him looking for art conspiracies in rockefeller plaza
Here's him saying the levees inentionally failed in Katrina to protect ACORN???!!!!
Really, I could do this all day.
Beck is inevitable because the Republican party has abdicated any pretext of small government conservatism, much less libertarianism. Hence the voices from the wilderness will be listened to and amplified. The fact that he comes from the media is unsurprising for similar reasons. When 95% of national journalists are blue the loudest most obnoxious red voice will draw lots of attention.
I've never listened to Beck, so can't comment there, but I agree completely about the Republican establishment. A good chunk of it, RNC included, have turned into 'junior Democrats' when it comes to statism. They're hoping that Obama will overreach so far that just being not-Democrats will be sufficient to get back into power and on the gravy train. This abrogation is leaving plenty of room for those who explicitly back conservative / libertarian principles and actions.
Back to Murray's article, I see no problem with his own goals as such, but just how effective is he? How much moderates / undecideds / whatever wander past the AEI to be persuaded?
Alchemist, being that you have all day, could you post a quote from that Beck/Katrina clip that says what you and MediaMatters claim it does? And when in the clip the quote occurs? It sounded to me like Beck was saying that if a thoroughly corrupt leftist organization like ACORN had its headquarters in a city that was in mortal danger because the thoroughly corrupt local Democratic government was lining its own pockets instead of doing its duty, then when the inevitable natural disaster hit the city it would provide a nice cover for ACORN to claim that lots of incriminating records had been destroyed.
I’ll still bet he lost a lot of people who would have been deeply affected by his argument if they had read the book.
I would venture to say that anyone so offended by the title as to be lost to conservative thought for good and ever was never to be won in the first place. As for the rest, if Jonah's title was 'too strong' for them, well, he's not the only voice around.
hmm. Perhaps we need a Moh scale for conservative writers. Someone fluffy and harmless looking at one end and Ann Coulter at the other.
He doesn't say that in the clip they posted. He says it would be convenient for corrupt officials under investigation (and they are, in fact, finally under investigation, praise Allah) to claim that records were lost in the flood.
Beck is no Buckley, but this speaks to Media Matters credibility, not his.
If they could catch him fabricating quotes in the WaPo style they would have a better case, no?
Murray never comes closer to a substantive critique of Beck than when he complains, "who got on the cover of Time magazine the same week as Irving died? Glenn Beck, sticking his tongue out.." It's just taken for granted that "He and others like him comprise far too much of the public face of the Right today—crudely sarcastic when they are not being angry, mean-spirited, and often embarrassingly ignorant", like it is taken for granted that The Bell Curve is "a scabrous piece of racial pornography masquerading as serious scholarship." I don't expect much from alchemist and Media Matters, but you'd think after spending the 90s as the poster boy for the "right = racist" meme, Murray would know better than to parrot the attitudes of the Great and Good about anyone else.
I never saw a minute of Beck until people I loathe started whining about him. Today's show had two doctors talking about vaccines; one took the consensus medical position, and the other took the pseudoscientific fearmongering stance embraced by know-nothings like Bill Maher. Beck encouraged people to read more and make up their own minds.
On yesterday's show, he plugged his book, and took pains to point out that it was footnoted with cites to "mainstream" publications like the New York Times. That way, when his readers "engage in a debate on great issues" with friends and family, they won't have to "work harder" by being forced to quote Beck directly. Beck is equipping his millions of readers to each do what Murray does with whatever fraction of the 27,000 who bought his last book aren't people who started out agreeing with him. Murray advocates the right tactics, but Beck is doing logistics.
No comments on the "fake messages in roosevelt art thing though huh?" (Of note, the one peice of art that actually has communist connections was removed from the roosevelt building early on... as soon as roosevelt recognized it. Beck knew this, but intentionally pretended otherwise.
So, I said there were alot of these, so I'll keep going.
Healthcare reform is about reparations
(notice all the half cut quotes... context perhaps?)
ON fox & friends: "I can't debunk FEMA concentration"
(but after 12 hours, and 30+ minutes of fearmongering, this guy who's actually done research can) (Of note: this is a smashup of clips, and after watching 5 or 6, this appeared to be the best, but you can also watch the whole fox&friends and the whole beck show too... I was just having trouble finding them again)
Here's him linking to the birther movement
Cash for Clunkers is a government conspiracy! (Of course, he doesn't mention that he's on the dealers section of the website.... ). And Guess what? Cash for clunkers ended! Hazah! conspiracy over!
should I keep going?
Look, skepticism of your government I'm fine with. Heck, it's healthy & necessary. But publishing imaginary demons in the dark is uncalled for. It's dangerous. Now, I think this will help some conservatives (Bachmann, perhaps) but sooner or later he's going to bite everyone in the ass. He's going to cry wolf too many times.
Hmmmm... apparently too many links prevents posts. I'll have to keep that in mind in the future.
Glen: Can you provide links to these investigations? Couldn't find any newspaper articles on this. Even so, he is setting allegations based on no information, just suspicions. That's something I detest from all critics, left or right.
Again, there's alot more where this came from, although youtube clips are blocked at work. I'll give you two good examples that you can find on your own (just google videos, beck and each title)
1) FEMA camps: Beck on Fox & Friends: saying he can't "disprove" that FEMA is making secured "camps". And then goes ahead to put forth several theories about what these nonexistent camps are used for.
He even starts his show (12 hours later) with "I can't disprove these theories..." until he puts up his guest from popular mechanics who can, in fact completely disprove these theories. At the end he comes in with... "I've never believed these stories..."
2) Cars for clunkers: He talked (several months ago) with Jonah Goldberg claiming that "Cars for clunkers" would be permanent program designed to for fraud and waste. (well, the permanent has been proven false anyway). He then showed a government website that had a warning (using this website means your computer is property of the US government...).
What he didn't say, is that he was looking at the website for dealers, who were, in fact dealing incentives authorized by the government (as a corporate wing). Still, I have yet to see any computers "commandeered" by the government. And this is the case for most of the conspiracy claims... there's no proof of them at all, and these "possible outcomes" Beck talks about aren't plausible at all.
Even though Beck appeals to parts of the Republican base, I would be weary of him. He's going to cry wolf too many times, and eventually it's going to bite him (and the people around him).