Replies

>> Small gov’t types who aren’t religious or As religious are bailing daily.

> I think you hit the nail on the head.

You have to asked ‘what changed?’ And while there were mentions of aspects of religion in the past, when he changed from the ‘question with boldness, hold on to the truth, and speak out, etc.’ (a pretty good message, I thought) to the ‘faith, hope and charity’ the content of the show went predominantly to that as the solution.

Plus his ‘defining’ “hope” as “truth” doesn’t fit. Like he’s trying to put a round peg into a square hole just to adjust. Seems contrived to me.

The fact is, this country wasn’t founded on faith, hope and charity - that last of which - while I know doesn’t always have an altruist connotation - is still a bit anti-individualistic and one could say that if there was one thing that was different in the founding of our gov’t than all others was that, for the first time, the natural rights of individuals were held higher than those of the church or the state. Before the state ruled or the church or the church in combination with the state (worst case scenario, imo). And I don’t mean to say that the freedom of religion wasn’t an important part of the rights of an individual - they most certainly were, but the focus was on all rights of the individual. And the way to fix what we have now is to restore all the rights of the individual and by doing so we would shrink the size of gov’t just as a by product. Eliminating all gov’t intervention into everything other than the constitutional guarantees. Then those that are religious can go about their faith, hope and charity but using them as a starting point for fixing things is wrong headed.

While I don’t particularly like him saying the the Dems and Republicans are the same - they’re not - not all of the Repubs - all you have to do is look at the voting records. Not all of them vote like McCain, Graham, Collins, Snowe and Voinovich... to name a few. But, I don’t think it really hurts Beck to say that. In fact, it might be a good political ploy.

I also don’t think his position on the birther issue is going to hurt him all that much - sure will with some, I agree. But those last things he’s really not ‘changed’ his view from the start. What did change is the focus on faith, hope and charity.

Another slight ‘factor’ (excuse the pun) is that once his popularity rose, Bill O’Reilly (out of jealousy and fear that Beck may overtake his ratings - which would have been a slam dunk for Beck at any time slot after 8pm) has done a lot toward making fun of him, putting him on the spot on the Factor, and, imo, co-opting Beck’s road shows by (likely) inviting himself to ‘co-host’ them. O’Reilly being a bit of a boss, Beck likely had no option on that - but he should have just said no and after the first few appearances on the Factor, should have refused other appearances - once he realized that he would be made to look silly.

And I don’t think the ‘crying’ - which was more a thing of the past - but which the liberals hold on for deer life (or is it dear life? ;-) is that much of a factor anymore. In fact, the last time he came close was during that show about his grandfather - a great analogy about restoring the chair, btw, and he had me close to tears. Anyway, that’s a non-factor.

What changed? to answer my question above is really quite clear - he said it himself - a new direction - and that was faith, hope and charity and he hasn’t gone long without reinforcing that message in almost every show. Some shows now, it consumes the entire show. I’ve fast forwarded through many and even missed a few - something that never happened before.

Full disclosure - I’m a Randian, but I know that my allies are Christians that believe in small gov’t and individual rights. Our difference is the source of the rights, not that they don’t exist. And both views are as needed now as they were at our founding - Nature’s Law and Nature’s God. Inalienable and self-evident and endowed by our Creator. We need to speak to the widest possible audience.