Posted on 09/25/2009 7:33:20 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
When FOX News host Glenn Beck said during an interview with Katie Couric this week, “John McCain would have been worse for the country than Barack Obama,” his comments made headlines. Beck explained that “McCain is this weird progressive like Theodore Roosevelt was.” Beck laid out this view in better detail on his television program earlier this month:
I am becoming more and more libertarian every day, I guess the scales are falling off of my eyes, as I’m doing more and more research into history and learning real history. Back at the turn of the century in 1900, with Teddy Roosevelt—a Republican—we started this, “we’re going to tell the rest of the world,” “we’re going to spread democracy,” and we really became, down in Latin America, we really became thuggish and brutish. It only got worse with the next progressive that came into office—Teddy Roosevelt, Republican progressive—the next one was a Democratic progressive, Woodrow Wilson, and we did … we empire built. The Democrats felt we needed to empire build with one giant global government ... The Republicans took it as, we’re going to lead the world and we’ll be the leader of it … I don’t think we should be either of those. I think we need to mind our own business and protect our own people. When somebody hits us, hit back hard, then come home.
Beck is trying to explain how Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican precursor to what historians call “liberal internationalism,” a foreign policy view that contends the role of the U.S. is to intervene around the globe to advance liberal objectives. This progressive doctrine, later called “Wilsonian” after Woodrow Wilson, was intended to “make the world safe for democracy,” to quote our 28th president. Wilsonian globalism was embraced fully by George W. Bush, and as Beck notes, was also a guiding philosophy for his could-have-been successor, John McCain. In their application, there is very little difference between “neoconservative” foreign policy and “liberal internationalism,” and both views are progressive in origin.
Preferring to keep his audience in the dark on such distinctions, neoconservative talk host Mark Levin was angry that Beck would dare shine a light on them. Said Levin this week:
McCain is no conservative… but to say that he would be worse than a president who’s a Marxist, who’s running around the world apologizing for our nation, who’s slashing our defense budget… to say he would be worse is mindless… incoherent, as a matter of fact. There’s our 5 PMer on FOX.
It should be noted that Beck’s FOX News program airs at 5 PM EST.
Who else does Levin consider mindless? He continues:
I don’t know who people are playing to; I don’t know why they’re playing to certain people. Ron Paul’s another one ... this fascination with Ron Paul. Ron Paul, who blames America! American “imperialism,” quote, unquote, for the attacks on 9/11. How can any conservative embrace that? And yet the 5 PMer does.
For eight years, hosts like Levin and even Glenn Beck promoted full-blown neoconservatism without ever calling it by that name. For these mainstream pundits, conservatism simply equaled neoconservatism, and during the Bush years there was no talk of limited government, no concern about “socialism” and no real worries about anything else, other than the War on Terror. The Republican Party was a single issue party; Ron Paul was considered crazy, Joe Lieberman was considered cool—and government exploded.
But much to Levin’s chagrin, that impenetrable neoconservative unity no longer exists. Unlike Levin, Beck now claims “the scales are falling off of my eyes,” and he now questions old assumptions about foreign policy, the value of the GOP, the worth of the two-party system, or even if McCain would have been any better than Obama. Conservative columnist George Will once cheered Bush’s foreign policy, but now thinks it’s time to bring the troops home from both Iraq and Afghanistan. When Sarah Palin spoke in Hong Kong this week, a Wall Street Journal headline read, “Palin, Sounding Like Ron Paul, Takes on the Fed.” Few conservatives get excited by Joe Lieberman anymore. But many are starting to talk like Ron Paul.
The attacks on Beck by Levin are a reflection of what’s happening on the American Right as a whole, where the old fools’ game of merely corralling grassroots conservatives into the Republican Party is suffering from a severe shortage of fools. I’m not saying that Beck is an all-around, reliable conservative figure, nor do I believe the Republican Party is going to start seriously listening to Paul in the future, but there are at least now, finally, tiny slivers of truth making their way into the mainstream, thanks in no small part to a handful of celebrity truth-seekers, no matter how eccentric or inconsistent they may be.
And if there’s one thing we can be sure of—there would be no tea parties, no town hall protests, no marches on Washington, no questioning foreign policy, no attacking the Federal Reserve, no new-and-improved Glenn Beck and no new respect for Ron Paul—if John McCain had won the election. The neoconservative agenda would have continued, undisturbed, and according to plan. And something tells me Mark Levin would have preferred to keep it that way.
Mark’s pointing out that it’s ridiculous to say that McCain, for all of his faults, would have been worse than the One, which, of course it is. Glenn’s a good guy, he’s funny and could be an effective voice for conservatism if he’d stop making ridiculous claims like this. The most important rule for conservatives during the Obama presidency is to not let the fact that a Dem is in power affect you like Bush being in power affected the left.
Beck speaks in a style of hyperbole and exaggeration for dramatic effect.Ironic.
Like a Zen koan.
Technically, Levin is correct to take issue with the claim on logical and factual
grounds. But it was a hypothetical addressed with hyperbole and exaggeration for dramatic effect and irony. To Katie Couric.
It's entirely possible Beck was speaking esoterically.
Just as he addresses the Illuminati conspiracy as merely a matter of the progressive movement, as if it were all just a quaint gentlemen's disagreement
among confused affable Protestant plutocrats at a Cotillion party or country club luncheon debating how to depopulate the lower classes with food additives.
The truth would be a little more shocking, perhaps even to Katie Couric.
But we're stuck with Obama, Holdren & Co., so the McCain debate is hypothetical. Not sure this has to be taken that seriously. What he meant was that McCain would have continued statist expansion and government spending without the personal negatives of Obama and the spirited conservative opposition.
He keeps talking about his Libertarian leanings, but I think he’s trying to stay rooted in the Constitution. I agree with you that he’s sometimes ‘all over the place’ and I am growing weary of his repeated use of “we” when he ought to be saying “they” because the democrats are in charge of everything.
He’s addressing serious issues and subjects, but I wish he would omit the silliness.
Well I understood why Levin had it out for Savage, but it’s beyond me why it’s now Beck’s turn to be ‘savaged’ by him.
I like them both. Doesn’t bother me at all that they may disagree (sometimes vehemently) on things.
What is that, a Rhinonkey?
Please direct me to any post, or anything in print where I said he promotes a specific third party. What he does is to subtly and sometimes not-so-subtly promote ANY amorphous third, fourth or twentieth party as long as it isn't Republican or Democrat.
He also regularly adds to these opinions regular overt suggestions of moral equivalency between the Republican and Democrat parties.
Now, I'm an American first, a conservative second and a Republican third.....but to equalize the two major parties is false and misleading.
This is like saying a religious denomination is the moral equivalent of an atheistic cult because of corrupt, evil ministers or priests within its ranks.
Our job is to CLEAN UP the Republican party, rid it of its bad ministers and priests and restore it to its basic tenents. Throwing the Republican party out with the bathwater because it's the "moral equivalency" of the the Dim party is not the answer.
Third, fourth or twentieth parties never win.....so what is Beck's alternative to doing battle with the evil Democrat party? Throw in the towel and end up with divided ranks all searching for an alternative party?
I just stated my hoped-for solution above. What is Glenn's?
Leni
Mark needs to attack the enemy. Beck is correct and not the enemy. McCain is a worthless POS and not worth any ones time. McCain is not even worth our time.
But Levin was right when he chastised Beck for his "mindless" and "incoherent" statements. Beck is not a Republican or even a conservative. Beck is a libertarian with his own agenda. Beck's remarks are more ammunition for the liberal establishment to attack Republicans and undermine conservatism. Beck knew what he was saying.
I call it division of labor.
I love Beck. I love Levin. I love Limbaugh. Don’t always agree with everything any of them says; agree with 95% of what they do say, though.
They are all three bold, all three fighters, none of them are ashamed to speak up in defense of what is right, constitutional, moral. Beck is a little less coherent philosophically, he’s a bit scattershot, but I give him a lot of credit as a warrior. Levin is a little steadier philosophically.
Limbaugh writes the talking points that others read; he’s our philosopher. Levin’s our attorney. Beck slays the dragons. Like I say, division of labor.
For those who like to point out Beck’s lack of education beyond high school, we have a couple of others you can take shots at on those same grounds: Rush Limbaugh and Mark Steyn.
Screw that!
Time to get rid of that silly ass saying if it means overlooking corruption, lies, lack of principle.
GOP deserves to fade off into the dust of history...dumbest thing any party could have done was nominate the man most singely and proudly responsible for undermining his own party's majority.
The GOP is not Conservative nor is it the party of Conservatives.
Dont forget that the GOP helped us get Obama!
The debate as to how/whether to expand our influence around the world will always exist, and so will the debate as to what constitutes a God-given right. The latter, however, seems more critical, IMO, because it impinges so directly on individual liberty. I see Beck, Rush, Levin, Hannity, Palin, and many others on the same side in that respect, not to mention fore than a few who would be labeled “Democrat.”
Simply not true. Beck, for example, is against drug legalization and still defends the Patriot Act. Most libertarians are antiwar but he is very pro-war.
PS and that also goes for McCain fat butt daughter.
I wouldn’t lump in the Repubs with the corrupt Dems, but they are too complacent about them and don’t do enough to stop them.
Why is the "Natural Born Citizen" issue off the table for all of these jolly talkers? Are they afraid of the ridicule heaped on some of the more unfashionable among the "Birthers?" Why don't they explain to the radio audience how these issues are related, yet legally quite disinct? Why aren't they even mentioning the FOIA cases proceeding in Hawaii? Or Donofrio's work?
After all, they love our Constitution. Eligibility is spelled out in it. This is a legitimate Constitutional Issue. Why the silence?
Good analogy.
“This thread is a perfect example of how a movement gets a little success and starts eating its own. That seems to always happen. The Dems tried for years to get power and now that they have it, each faction wants their way. So much so, that it makes the Dem party as a whole ineffective.
The Conservative movement has had a mite of success in the ACORN investigations, Van Jones, 100k people on the mall. All of sudden, we are all at each others throats. No wonder things never change.”
Dittos, Pete!
Each of our spokesmen has his own niche and his own strong points. Can’t we all just get along? he, he
You’ve hit the nail on the head.
People, don’t be like the nutbar kids protesting the G20.
The young generation that protests just to protest are idiots.
Getting wild in protesting “everything”, i.e., the traditional conservative party - the Republicans - that is one half of a two-party system, is just as stupid.
People do this simply because they don’t have the guts to stand up and say they’re Republican because they are then identified as conservative. Instead, they say they are just “mad at both parties”, making them an angry loon who a goofball student protester type will have a conversation with instead of ridiculing a “conservative”.
Fed “conspiracy” people - are idiots. The Fed is owned by member banks, not Goldfinger.
The central bank and bank oversight in general is needed.
Their monetary policy, on the other hand, is misguided.
That’s understandable, because they’re pompous. They overestimate their ability to “help” the economy through managing the money supply. Fact is, the money needs to be what it needs to be to allow transactions to happen. Beyond that, control exerted is a problem waiting to happen. Once again, if the government would simply do their job, i.e., police banks to make sure they are solvent, that’s optimal. Doing strange contortions to the money supply is just risking actually doing damage.
Since economists are removed from the “real world” of accounting and business, they fail to point to the number one culprit, which is big government, which is a drag on efficiency. The study of efficiency is what Economics is really all about, but my Econ professors never made that point crystal clear, it’s just not the generally accepted view.
Again, the educational system which produces young adults that do no know _anything_ about the Depression turns out students that don’t know simple arithmetic, and therefore can be idiotic enough to think that a “gold standard” is mathematically possible.
There is not anywhere near enough gold to use it to “back” currency. Hey gold-back people - gold is used in manufacturing, making it a commodity, so just how can the price be controlled when it “backs” a dollar ? The dollar value of the material currency / coin is made of has to be less than the face value of the currency / coin, or people start destroying it to reclaim the material.
Fiat currency works fine if the money supply is simply kept at a reasonable level and not used to “fix” economic problems. When a “boom” happens, like in the 1990’s, government economists need to find out why it is really happening then they can correctly prepare for the bust. If they don’t know why it’s happening, there’s no way they can prepare, using money supply or anything.
Now, before someone wants to contradict the anti-gold standard position, I ask one thing - go do some googling, and put at the beginning of your response the total value of all gold on the surface of the earth, followed by a total figure of just the U.S. money supply. If you don’t know what I mean by money supply, then there’s no point in responding.
Now, other than that, Ron Paul has many excellent perspectives. Like my favorite one du jour - the federal Department of Education - it needs to be abolished. Every state has its’ own already, and they employ a ton of highly educated people who do not need other highly educated people to “oversee” them. Unfortunately, trying to “fix” schools at the Federal level sounds awesome under a conservative administration, i.e., we’ll whip those states into shape. Under the current communist administration, well, that kind of bounces back and hits us in the face. Which is why a President does well for the nation, the world and himself to think twice before expanding Executive branch powers. The answer for public schools is simple - they are too full of communist and wimpy “scared of islam” philosophy to function and people should home school or Christian school their children. Which is why they are catching on.
That being said, yes, Glenn Beck is doing a wonderful service of getting Republicans off their couches.
See, if seiu and acorn are out there organizing voters, conservatives must do the same - and conservatives MUST get true conservatives elected.
Glenn is, I suppose, trying to make his comments more palatable by saying this is “progressive”, the truth that we’re talking about communism is only being spoken of as time goes by. Progressive is a part of the equation, but libertarians need to wake up to reality that not supporting the Republican candidate results in the Democrat getting elected. This means, however, that we would, if we were smart, keep the Republican party’s house clean.
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.