Posted on 09/21/2009 4:22:12 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Unlike others associated with Time magazine, David von Drehle is a skilled, careful, and perceptive writer. So I was interested in his cover story on FOX News’s Glenn Beck, who is considered to be a red-hot commodity these days.
I don’t pretend to be an expert on Beck. In the past I assumed he was a typical figure in the pundit and cable-media world. Only recently have I watched portions of his television program, as well as interviews with him, and heard parts of his radio program. And what I’ve seen should worry the conservative movement.
I say that because he seems to be more of a populist and libertarian than a conservative, more of a Perotista than a Reaganite. His interest in conspiracy theories is disquieting, as is his admiration for Ron Paul and his charges of American “imperialism.” (He is now talking about pulling troops out of Afghanistan, South Korea, Germany, and elsewhere.) Some of Beck’s statements—for example, that President Obama has a “deep-seated hatred for white people”–are quite unfair and not good for the country. His argument that there is very little difference between the two parties is silly, and his contempt for parties in general is anti-Burkean (Burke himself was a great champion of political parties). And then there is his sometimes bizarre behavior, from tearing up to screaming at his callers. Beck seems to be a roiling mix of fear, resentment, and anger—the antithesis of Ronald Reagan.
I understand that a political movement is a mansion with many rooms; the people who occupy them are involved in intellectual and policy work, in politics, and in polemics. Different people take on different roles. And certainly some of the things Beck has done on his program are fine and appropriate. But the role Glenn Beck is playing is harmful in its totality. My hunch is that he is a comet blazing across the media sky right now—and will soon flame out. Whether he does or not, he isn’t the face or disposition that should represent modern-day conservatism. At a time when we should aim for intellectual depth, for tough-minded and reasoned arguments, for good cheer and calm purpose, rather than erratic behavior, he is not the kind of figure conservatives should embrace or cheer on.
You certainly have a way with words! My hat's off to you.
I’m glad we have liberals to give us advice. They told us to nominate McCain, to ignore Palin, and now to get rid of Beck. What would we do without their sincere help?
He needs to go write for the Huffington Post. More wisdom from Wehner:
The support for Obama, on the other hand, is more spontaneous, genuine, and intense. Obama comes across as likeable, civil, grounded, and not reflexively partisan (even though he might well be). He has undeniable star power.
The main problem with Obama is that he is so conventionally liberal, which may not hurt him in the Democratic primaries but would cost him in a general election.
If Sarah Palin becomes the face and future of the G.O.P., it would take a huge step toward securing its position as a minority party for many years to come.
I watch Beck every chance I get, but I don’t regard him as any kind of a faithful ally in the conservative cause.
I fear he may well do as much or more harm than he helps.
Conservatives outnumber liberals 2-1, yet we have Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and total liberal domination of the country.
Beck’s “Republicans are just as bad” may well fracture the conservative movement more than it already is.
We have the numbers, but we can’t seem to rely on “conservatives” to defeat liberals. And Beck’s apathy toward Republicans/Democrats isn’t helping.
Wehner, Charles Johnson, and Frum make up the Axis of Weasels.
Commentary knows better, but refuses to act like it. They are going the way of the Weekly Standard, out of business.
I’m not surprised to see that Wehner links to Frum’s anti-Beck hit piece.
You can hear the echo as site traffic to New Majority spikes as a result, up to a record 10 daily unique visitors!
Dang! Just dang!
And this guy was Bush's adviser?
The minds just boggles.
I will be happpy to send him a note when Republicans take over the House in 2010, because they campaigned on the fiscal responsibility, accountability and a tight reining in of spending that Sarah Plain espouses.
With “advisers” like this, its no surprise Bush continued to spend ike a drunken sailor, even while demanding that a budget busrting amnesty be granted to illegals in this country.
And that is somehow Beck's fault is it?
How many people had even heard of Beck back in 2006 when Pelosi took over as Speaker?
Hey, could it be that conservatives were pissed off with the Republican Party, and Bush because Bush kept spending like its going out of fashion, and never vetoed all these huge spending bills the congress kept sending him, even ehen Republicans were in the majority in both Houses of congress?
And could it be that conservatives were very annoyed with Bush and McCain for pushing a heinous amnesty bill that was drawn up in Mexico by LaRaza, on the American people?
Just leave Glenn Beck out of the sheer stupidity and screw ups of the Republican Paty will you?
The Republican Party brought everything on themselves. Beck had nothing to do with it.
What else is new? They viciously attack anyone that objects to their liberal-internationalist agenda. Remember what they did to Pat Buchanan after he won the 1996 New Hampshire Primary?
Horowitz and the Front Page/New Republic gangsters launched a "massive media assault" of libel and defamation that ruined Pat's chances.
The did the same to Ron Paul in 2008.
They are currently doing the same to Glen Beck.
They are preparing to do the same to Palin and Bachmann.
All I can say is that I hope you enjoy the fruits of your attitude: total domination by Marxist/fascist/liberalism.
You didn’t like the Bush spending. I get that. I hope you are enjoying the Obama spending. Obama’s 09 deficit exceeds all eight years of Bush red ink COMBINED.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obamas-09-deficit-exceeds-all-eight-years-of-Bush-red-ink-54801777.html
You had two choices, and apparently you chose the worst and most extravagant spending in human history to punish Bush. Good choice. Let me know in a few years how that works out for you.
And if enough people agree with you about Republicans, I hope you enjoy the coming Great Depression, and I hope you enjoy the coming famine.
Umm...it's not my “attitude” that put Pelosli and Reid and 0bama in power. It's Bush's out of control spending, and Bush and McCain’s amnesty bill, the financial meltdown and McCain's arrogance and terrible campaigning that helped put these suckers in power.
” I get that. I hope you are enjoying the Obama spending. Obama’s 09 deficit exceeds all eight years of Bush red ink COMBINED.”
0bama’s spending is far worse than anything Bush ever did, yes.
But that doesn't mean Bush's spending was good. He just refused to control spending.
“You had two choices, and apparently you chose the worst and most extravagant spending in human history to punish Bush”
Stop making stupid accusations that you can't back up with any evidence.
“And if enough people agree with you about Republicans, I hope you enjoy the coming Great Depression, and I hope you enjoy the coming famine”
Oh puleeze!
Enough of the dramatics already. It's not working on me.
Meanwhile, what does any of this have to do with Glenn Beck anyways, and your original accusation of Beck being responsible for putting Pelosi in power, something that happened in 2006, long before most of the country had even heard of Beck?
Stop blaming other people for screw ups by the Republican Party.
Beck’s “Republicans are just as bad” may well fracture the conservative movement more than it already is.
We have the numbers, but we can’t seem to rely on “conservatives” to defeat liberals. And Beck’s apathy toward Republicans/Democrats isn’t helping.
If the GOP would nominate some conservatives (plus guts) for a change, they’d win hands down against Dems. The idea that Republicans need to be more “moderate” is EXACTLY what has caused loss after loss.
That’s twice you’ve erroneously claimed that my argument is that Glenn Beck is the sole cause of every Republican disaster the last two election cycles. You seem to enjoy your straw men.
Not very sane of you to infer that from what I wrote. All I’m claiming is that that attitude that Beck espouses and a LOT of other people (like you very clearly) share is a big part of why we’re in the boat we’re in even though we actually easily double liberals.
Beck is merely one of (if not THE) most prominent guy/s arguing that Republicans are just as bad as Democrats. It’s everyone who AGREES with him who is responsible for putting liberals in total power.
I am truly stunned that you can continue to bitch about Bush’s spending when you’ve seen his successor’s spending. I guess numbers just don’t matter a whole lot to you.
Your “Enough of the dramatics already. It’s not working on me” comes from the extremely mistaken impression that I give a damn WHAT works on you.
You don’t want to believe me when I say that we’re heading right off a cliff? Fine. I don’t have a time machine to take you to the future, and I wouldn’t waste my time giving you a ride in it if I DID have one. Just go ahead and keep believing that the United States is eternal and no amount of debt will ever hurt us. Go on thinking that we can keep the kind of massive government spending and the kind economic climate Obama is giving us and things will keep chugging along. And keep thinking that your “third party guy” is going to win the next election and make everything all better.
I’m certainly not trying to argue that the Republican Party should be more moderate.
I would love nothing more than to see conservatives dominate the GOP, and for that conservative GOP to dominate American politics.
But this idea that shockingly terrible liberals is better than bad Republicans is madness.
If we don’t unite behind one candidate and VOTE in mass, we’re going to keep losing. And that will be true whether we have a 100% conservative or not on the GOP ticket.
Conservatives have a hard time dominating the GOP. A few reasons come to mind off hand:
1. The GOP elites are in the main not conservative, (as evinced by the article), are sort of appalled by conservatives, and like the status quo as it is. So they are part of the problem, a BIG part. Just as much as the Dems, since they offer little real alternative. Sort of like, would you like a really strong virulent poison, or a watered down mild poison that won’t kill you immediately but merely sicken you?
2. The media is part and parcel of the left, so the conservative message is harder to get out to the uninformed. Very hard, actually. Almost impossible other than a few voices such as Beck and a few others. And, of course, the internet. But since the majority of people apparently get their “information” from what used to be called the Main Stream Media, and hardcore leftists have a stranglehold on the MSM, where is the conservative message going to come from? Other than people like Beck.
Luckily, more and more people are finding news and views on the internet. That, of course, is why 0bama wants to control it.
3. Becuase the GOP keeps funding “moderates” and go-along to get-alongs, or nutcase ravers like McCain, or boring nothings like Bob Dole, or elistist one worlders like the elder Bush, or tax and spend guys like the junior Bush with too many financial and loyalty ties to the elites who are above the parties, conservatives who would otherwise vote “R” either don’t vote at all or vote third party.
If the GOP wants to get all conservatives to vote for them, by God! They better start serving up some conservatives to vote for.
Which is clearly nonsense.
The Republican Party is in the boat it's in because of the Republican Party, not because of conservatives, Glenn Beck or me. When you screw up,it's no one’s fault but your own.
Again stop finding people to blame for the Republican Party's own screw ups. You have the cart in front of the horse.
“Beck is merely one of (if not THE) most prominent guy/s arguing that Republicans are just as bad as Democrats”
There are too many instances where Republicans have been as bad as Democrats. Amnesty for illegal immigrants comes to mind.
The 3 people who were most responsible for pushing the nasty amnesty bill in 2007, were George Bush, John McCain, and Mel Martinez, all Republicans.
Even while John McCain was supposed to be campaigning for president last year, he was busy addressing the racist LaRaza conference, trashing conservatives, and promising to bring amnesty to illegals if he is elected. It would be only fair if conservatives had paid back McCain for his insults, by giving him the finger come poling day. No one owes John McCain his/her vote. He has to earn it, which he clearly didn't do.
” It’s everyone who AGREES with him who is responsible for putting liberals in total power.”
It's McCain's determination to bring amnesty to illegals, constant abuse and ridicule of conservatives over the past 8 years (a habbit that his fat daughter has taken up), his arrogance and stupidity, that put 0bama in power.
“I am truly stunned that you can continue to bitch about Bush’s spending when you’ve seen his successor’s spending.”
Answer me this:
If someone were to murder “only” one person, and another guy murders 10 people, does the fact that the first guy “only” murdered one person, make his crime any less severe, or bring back to life the person that he killed? Nope.
” I guess numbers just don’t matter a whole lot to you.”
I think it's you that can't seem to read numbers..the big spending bills that Bush signed into law that brought in big deficits. For some reason, Bush appears to have forgotten he had a vet pen that he could use to stop unnecessary spending.
“Your “Enough of the dramatics already. It’s not working on me” comes from the extremely mistaken impression that I give a damn WHAT works on you.”
I couldn't give two hoots whether you give or damn or not.
Suffice to say, that whatever dramatics you keep putting up, is not working.
“You don’t want to believe me when I say that we’re heading right off a cliff? “
Oh rubbish!
Who said anything about the country heading in the right direction?
That is not the issue. It's your pathetic attempt to attack Glenn Beck for the screw ups of the Republican Party (which is what caused these big Democratic Party wins).....that IS the issue here.
The rest of your rant is full of straw men. No one here on this site, thinks 0bama is not ruining the country. You are creating your own bogeymen then attacking it.
There’s a little more to say:
Another reason why the GOP has so many moderates is simply because it takes moderates to compete and win in some districts - and the goal of the GOP is to compete as a national party.
For example, do you think that if we ran an ultra conservative to run against Barney Frank, the people of his hard-core liberal district in Massachusetts would vote for him?
We need more conservatives - especially at the TOP of the ticket - but we can’t get rid of a lot of moderates. If you want to win a majority, you have to have a lot of moderates. And all you can do is hope they vote with you in the “big” votes.
We might not be able to do much about your 1) and 2), but we CAN and SHOULD do something about your 3) - WE CAN FUND THE GOOD CONSERVATIVES AND STARVE THE LOUSY MODERATES WITH OUR DONATIONS.
But that means we have to GIVE donations.
Personally, I’m not going to give to either my Representative or the one in the nearest district - they’re the kind of moderates you speak dimly of. But I can give money to one of the good ones - like Michelle Bachmann, as one example. Or I can hold my fire and donate to a good conservative Representative or Senator in a tight race.
Other than give money, one of the things we can do is get involved in a local branch of Republicans. I often go to Republican Women’s meetings, which routinely has local Republican politicians. By going, you get a chance to speak out, and send the right message. Over time, you can “talk” a “pandering” moderate into becoming a “pandering” conservative - which I’ll take.
And then there’s the letter-writing campaign. If you think that the GOP is too moderate (which we could also describe as tepid, timid, or lukewarm), TELL them. Let them know that if they start acting like conservatives, they can count on you for the financial support they need to win, for instance.
In this sense, what I’m saying is FIGHT THE GOP TO FORCE THEM TO BECOME BETTER. And keep at it.
My mother proudly tells me just about every week that she calls her politicians every week. And, like me, she lives in California - so she knows she’s talking to Democrats who probably don’t give a damn.
She’s a fighter, and she’s not going to let politicians do their sleaze without letting them know how she feels about it.
We should be doing the same with Republicans. And we might actually convince THEM to shape up!!!
I don’t disagree with anything you said. But more needs to be done, and Beck is doing some of it. Fires need to be lit, voices need to be raised, and people need to get seriously energized and sometimes that means getting angry, Not rabid with rage, but righteously angry.
If everyone who can do something, does whatever they can do, instead of sitting on the couch watching TV, things will change. But even a core bunch of activated people can do a lot.
People learn on FR, and many take action.
Anyway, I’m not saying the GOP should jettison every moderate. But they’re marginalizign conservatives. And not giving them funds, they give the money to moderate or liberal Republicans. ANd look at Steele! Yuck!
“If Beck weren’t in it to win, I don’t think he’d bother with Van Jones, ACORN, the tea parties, etc”
He’s in it to win it, surely. But victory to him is not Republican victory. It is Obama, or if you tuned in last year, losing.
There are plenty of people out there who pretend to be non-partisan, so that they’re not weighed down by the mistakes of one party or another. It’s the same instinct philosophers have had since Socrates (and which was so well criticized by Nietzsche); the instinct to be above it all. Nevertheless, everyone who comments on politics is partisan to some degree. It’s impossible not to be. For whatever it’s worth, Beck succeeds in treating both parties roughly, though not equally roughly. It may be a misguided aim, but he’s successful at it, which is a feat for someone who in no way represents a philosopher.
The only way Obama will lose is if a Republican wins. Third parties are trips down Liberal Lane: reference Ross Perot.
If I want to waste my time arguing with an idiot, there are plenty of idiots who are a lot closer to me.
Under President Obama, the 2009 budget deficit is set to reach a staggering $1.8 trillion. It took President George W. Bush seven years to run up $1.8 trillion in debt.And these deficits aren’t merely a temporary result of the recession; the president’s budget would run deficits averaging nearly $1 trillion a year for the next decade.The national debt would double. In other words, Obama would run up as much government debt as every president in US history from George Washington to George W. Bush — combined. Put simply, he’d dump $84,352 per household of new debt into the laps of our children and grandchildren over the next decade.
Mr. Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents — from George Washington to George W. Bush — combined. It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs.From Heritage:
The Office of Management and Budget has released its annual mid-session review that updates the budget projections from this past May.[1] They show that this year, Washington will spend $30,958 per household, tax $17,576 per household, and borrow $13,392 per household. The federal government will increase spending 22 percent this year to a peacetime-record 26 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). This spending is not just temporary: President Obama would permanently keep annual spending between $5,000 and $8,000 per household higher than it had been under President George W. Bush.[2]If you want to go on deluding yourself that Bush was somehow just as bad as Obama, I can’t stop you.Driven by this spending, America will run its first ever trillion-dollar budget deficit this year. Even worse, the President’s budget would borrow an additional $9 trillion over the next decade, more than doubling the national debt. By 2019, America will be spending nearly $800 billion on net interest to service this large debt.[3]
You can lead a fool to facts, but you can’t make him think.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.