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.
The trouble is, Glenn didn't say that during the interview. When Couric asked him why he thought McCain would have been worse, he said something about McCain being this kind of weird progressive guy along the lines of Theodore Roosevelt. It was foolish (and I love Glenn -- and Mark). I think he wanted a shocking soundbite, and he sure got one.
I see the good things that are coming from Obama's election -- such as lazy conservatives finally getting off their collective butt, conservatives learning and applying the Alinsky rules, etc. -- but four years of Obama and his socialist buddies in control is very bad for this country. For starters, Obama will probably have two Supreme Court picks, and we'll live with the consequences of that for decades to come.
This is NOT better than McCain, and clever talk won't make it so. When you want to travel from RINO Republicanism to true conservatism, you don't want to start your journey by getting tossed from RINOland back to socialism/progressivism. You just have that much further to go and that much more work to do. It's strained logic to suggest that falling even further behind and having even more damage done is good for the country.
Levin is quite clearly the more intelligent, learned, experienced and principled conservative. Though his personality can be a turn-off for the squeamish.
Beck can stir emotions and rally folks, especially those who may be middle-of-the-roaders or perhaps new to the political scene. He has a bit of the populist in him. He has good intentions. But, as he admits himself, he is only now barely beginning to learn the American history that Levin has in his DNA.
Beck: the sometimes entertaining but increasingly serious and effective reporter.
Levin: the often gruff but unquestionably wise professor of American history and conservatism.
"Can't we all just get along?"
Not quite.
"The personal attacks against me during the primary finally became so heavy that the state Republican chairman, Gaylord Parkinson, postulated what he called the Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. It's a rule I followed during that campaign and have ever since."
This came about in 1966 and it was Reagan's own personal rule he tried to follow. Of course Reagan attacked Pres Ford in the 1976 GOP race for President. Reagan wasn't so pure. When necessary Reagan could be one tough hombre. As George Christopher, Pat Brown, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale and Mikel Gorbachev came to find out.
Beck is right, Levin is just jealous, we’e on the same team folks, and McCain would have been worse, because he was a socialist too, only the blame for ruining America would have been on the GOP, at least this way it’s not. I fully support Beck
These guys will be well served to take on the “real enemies” of this country expecially those who will undermine freedom from within. Savage blasts Rush & Hannity, Levin slams Beck.....this is what the RATS & MSM feed on.
The fact of the matter is that there are, as time goes on, fewer and fewer differences between the Democratic and Republican platforms. They’ll never be the same, but they are so similar on so many levels that it begs the question: “What’s the difference?”
I used to laugh at Pravda’s assertion that Dems & ‘Pubs were two sides of the same coin...but now I don’t. Its like the old saw, “I used to laugh at mother-in-law jokes, until I got married.”
The Founders were largely libertarian (small “L”) in their view of the role of the federal government. It was viewed as a necessary evil. They didn’t much like powerful central governments, having just fought a bloody and costly war against one. They feared its potential, so they only gave it certain enumerated powers, powers divided between competing branches with checks and balances. Here’s what Washington himself said:
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
For about 150 years the federal government only spent about 3% of GNP, except during wars, and we always repaid war debts as fast as possible. Does that bear any resemblence to the government of today? Nope, and it hasn’t since the time of the Depression, at least. Government is pervasive in the effect of its laws and regulations, and takes upwards of 20% of the GNP in each year (more, when you consider the debts it is obligating us taxpayers to repay at some point in the future).
Beck is pissed at this, echoing what many people around the country think and believe. He understands, as did the Founders, that when government becomes too large, corruption sets in. Frankly, IMHO, it matters not whether a “-D” or an “-R” follows someone’s name, they are either corrupted by the prospect of power before coming into office, or they become corrupted by it sometime not too long after attaining office. There are, of course, exceptions...but not too many. That’s just a natural result of the combination of human nature and the system of government we have - it should be no surprise to anyone with any knowledge or experience.
On the issue of Levin v. Beck, I take the side of Beck. I have, over time, changed from a much more conservative point of view to a more libertarian one. That’s not to say that there aren’t certain big problems with libertarian philosophy and political positions - there most definitely are - but I firmly believe that “that government governs best which governs least.” We take power from DC, and the corruption will lessen, the influence of special interests will lessen. I am still very much a hawk on foreign and defense policy - but I have always been and will remain a proponent of the POV that IF we’re going to fight a war, we go in big, hit very, very hard, and leave. It cuts the losses of blood and treasure, and leaves someone else - the one who is to blame - with the expense and effort of cleaning up the mess. It also serves as an object lesson to any future aggressors - you F with the USA, and it will utterly destroy you and your nation. Bush campaigned in 2000 against “nation-building” as was done by Clinton in old Yugoslavia and elsewhere, and then turned around and did the same thing on a much grander scale in Iraq - aided and abetted by John McCain.
I know that McCain, despite this, would have been much better on foreign policy and defense, and somewhat better on the appointing of judges, but little else domestically would have been different. McCain was also for Cap & Trade and amnesty for illegals, unforgivable positions IMHO. McCain simply bends over too far to get along with the Dems - who rarely compromise on their positions for the sake of getting along or bipartisanship. IOW, McCain is a sucker when it comes to domestic politics (like virtually all RINOs). Beck is correct that the Republicans would NEVER have been united against Cap & Trade or the Healthcare proposals if McCain would have been President, and the fact that we’d have perhaps gotten watered-down versions of both bills would be little consolation for taxpayers and those receiving medical care in this country - they (i.e. WE) would have been screwed. Plus, and this is something I have learned from history, when the Dems would have gotten power later on they WOULD have tacked much more spending and much more onerous regulations onto the framework that McCain would have worked so hard on and been so proud of. Now, at least, the Republicans are in strong oppostion and many Dems are running from Obama because of that opposition.
By the way, I voted for McCain. Really, it was a vote against Obama, as was my primary vote for Hillary (since McCain had already defeated the entire field, including my favorite, Fred Thompson). I knew that Obama would be a disaster, and tried my best to stop him. It is just that in retrospect, I now know that McCain would have left me about as ticked off - without the large and determined opposition to socialism and appeasement that has developed and which will, I sincerely hope and pray, result in a similar remaking of the American political scene as we experienced in 1980 as our revulsion for Carter set the stage for Reagan. Gerry Ford as President fro 1977-1981 would NEVER have allowed for Reagan to be elected, just as the election of McCain last year would never have allowed for the rise of a future Reagan-like President.
Do you really think that a troll would bother to establish a monthly in the Freepathon? After all, it would seem like an awful waste of money to do so, if all one was intent on doing was trolling, now wouldn't it?
And for your information, I do actually post lots of other things, considering that I run a financial markets ping list.
"Sick and twisted" would be included in Beck's autobiography. I am a regular listener, usually tolerating small doses at a time.
Beck, Rush, Levin and Hannity are all helping in their own way to defend our freedoms and the Constitution.
The right needs to take the GOP back. Too many lefties have been allowed places of prominence, which deludes the effectiveness of the party. Fragmenting like the left does is not the answer, it only hurts us in the long run. They don’t call a platform a platform for nothing. The democrats platform floats, and it will eventually sink.
Agreed. I am, however, very happy that Beck's views are getting such wide attention...along with his exposure of the big picture of things that the Obamanoids are trying to do, plus their corruption.
Birther-ism is a big loser. It’s a great way to look like a racist and a illogical hater. The constitutional purity argument falls lame since all the Birthers are ‘politically’ opposed to Obama too. How the hell can you remove a sitting president based on birth-place unless you can prove he knowingly deceived the country, that he knew he was not legal?
Where were the Birther-constitutional purists on Bush vs Gore? Levin (his book) pointed out where is was clearly outside the SCOTUS power to get involved with the Florida election . That is why the SCOTUS wont get involved with the MA Senate replacement, no authority.
I dont go with ant-democrat arguments that are non-sense. That’s my complaint with talk radio.
>>>>>"I am becoming more and more libertarian every day... " ~ Glenn Beck
Sounds to me like Beck is saying, I'm becoming a libertarian. No?
YES!
Why? Because he’s trying to clean out the rotten core of the Republican Party?
Mark, as much as I love your show and respect your intellect, I believe your attacks on Glenn Beck are totally unnecessary and counter-productive. Like you, I disagree with Beck's claim that McCain would have been worse than Obama, but can I see where he was coming from: Zero has galvanized the conservative movement. And Glenn played a huge role in organizing the 9/12 rallies in DC.
Please, Mark, STAND DOWN THE CIRCULAR FIRING SQUAD, knock off the Howard Stern crap of accusing other hosts of ripping you off, and set your sights on the real enemy: the Left.
RE :”Are you a troll rabs?”
We need more Rabs’s to keep republicans honest. We dont need braindead drones following party hacks orders.
defining what a NeoConservative is about is tough as defining the “Bush Doctrine”, but my understanding is a republican who:
favors strong military action globally
favors no immigration enforcement
prefers irresponsible spending vs. responsible
Neither Glen or Mike would qualify as a NeoConservative IMO
then we can rebuild
Please re-read my post. That's precisely what I postulated what has to be done.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to point it up again.
Leni
I agree in totality - Mark, I also love your commentary and your unshakable determination to set the record straight and return America to what it once was.
But PLEASE stop this family fight. First kill the enemy (figuratively speaking, of course), THEN fight your idiot brother (if that’s how you view him).
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.