The cover of Beck's latest book
The late film critic Pauline Kael is often quoted as having said, in the wake of Richard Nixon’s landslide victory in the 1972 presidential election, that she couldn’t believe Nixon had won since no one she knew had voted for him. Perhaps I am similarly out of touch with my fellow Americans because I don’t know a single person that will admit to watching The Glenn Beck Program—and yet its one of the highest rated shows on cable television.
If you’ve never watched the show before (and if the ratings are any indication, you have) you probably can’t fathom just how far past the point of reason and sanity Beck is willing to go. As James Joyner says, “Glenn Beck continues to impress in his ability to top himself with zaniness. Today, he explained how ‘they’ have all manner of plans to destroy America and make it more like Cuba. And ‘they’ may be getting away with it because ‘they’ are so far ahead of us.”
Such talk is so crazy you’d be justified in assuming it was the rantings of a deluded conspiracy-obsessed dupe. But though Beck is narcissitic and weird, I don’t think he’s either stupid or insane. So could there be something else going on? Beck fancies himself something of a comedian so you have to wonder, “Is this all an elaborate put-on?”
Stephen Colbert has shown that riches and fame can be had by playing a stereotypical right-wing bloward, a parody of a Bill O’Reilly-style talk show host. But Colbert always has a wink and a smile to provide just enough ironic detachment so that no one mistakes him for being a real conservative. Beck seems to be offereing up an over-the-top parody too (assume, for the sake of my conspirtorial musings, that it is a put-on) but he does it without ever breaking character. Take, for instance, his recent spelling “gaffe.”
Does the missing “C” reveal his cluelessness or is it a subtle nod to those who are wondering if his whole schtick is a grand piece of Andy Kaufman-esque performance art? Could it be that Beck is ramping up the crazy to see how far folks will follow him and that then when the joke becomes untenable—though how much farther can you go after spreading rumors that Obama is planning to put us in concentration camps?*—will he then admit that it was all a ruse?
Or is my own Beckian conspiracy theory outside the realms of plausibility? What do you think? Is Beck the heir apparent of Kaufmann or is he just plain nuts?
*Originally I implied that he had made such a claim. In fact, he merely spread the crazy rumor, said he couldn’t “debunk them,” and then debunked them on his show. The fact that no one in their right mind ever believed the rumors were true, should have been enough to avoid the topic. But Beck thinks his own audience is made of kooks and conspiracy nuts so he spent plenty of time on it.
August 31st, 2009 | 7:27 pm
If you have ever had to demonstrate something live in front of people (say as a teacher) you know that these kinds of mistakes are extremely common. I think anyone taking this beyond a simple mistake is grasping for straws.
To maintain he is a poor speller it would have to be that he thinks “oligarhy” is a word. That makes no sense when he clearly pronounces it correctly. I can see someone thinking “potatoe” is correct, but “oligarhy”? hmmm
August 31st, 2009 | 7:38 pm
I watch Beck almost every day (and have even before he was on Foxnews) and I think he is dead on in most of his commentary. I’m willing to admit it and I know lots of others who watch as well.
And he’s not putting on a front or playing a character. He’s the real deal; a genuine, down to earth kinda guy. I think that is why his ratings are so high. People can relate to him. I know I can. He’s just concerned for his country, as am I.
And don’t believe his ratings? Check out 912project.com. He started this network and over 1 million people have registered to be a part of it. Quite amazing.
August 31st, 2009 | 7:46 pm
I’m pretty sure Beck’s program on the “concentration camps” thing you reference said exactly the opposite.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/23671/
August 31st, 2009 | 8:12 pm
Ben: I’m pretty sure Beck’s program on the “concentration camps” thing you reference said exactly the opposite.
But it was Beck who spread the rumor in the first place. No one in their right mind was taking such a rumor seriously. Yet Beck said he “couldn’t debunk [the rumor]” and pretended that it was possible that it could be true (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwegjQ35bJc&feature=player_embedded). Debunking rumors that you spread yourself is part of the behavior I’m talking about. On one hand he pretends that he’s as gullible as his audience and then the next minute he’s calling them crazy for believing such nonsense.
Still, I’ll clarify my post to note that point.
August 31st, 2009 | 8:47 pm
As a 4 year reader and subscriber to First Things I thought I would toss my hat into the ring of support for Glenn Beck. Although I have never read any of his books, I do catch his program from time to time and believe he does a good job presenting important news that would otherwise be ignored.
I know he had Nouriel Roubini on predicting a Financial pandemic a good year before last September”s “meltdown,” and currently seems to be the only one covering the radical advisers to the White House. Americans are concerned with country’s quick and major shift to the left. He reflects it, perhaps too much to your point.
August 31st, 2009 | 10:36 pm
Glenn Beck distresses me. He reminds me of the anchor in the movie, Network, who proclaims: “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!”
But he does take it, he becomes it; he is what moves “it.”
I’m not one for the political mechanization that this current administration is creating; but there is a claustrophobic phenomenon taking place, and Glenn Beck is quickly becoming a fleshy part of the center of this madness. Washington, Beck, Obama, Fox News, MSNBC, the blogs, Jon Stewart, Rush Limbaugh; Patriots For This, Patriots Against That….everything is hyper-political right now, and it is a very uncomfortable feeling.
I am very worried that this politics-as-everything/politics as the ultimate entertainment mentality is becoming solidified as normal existence. If so, I don’t know how long I can last. I am not one to judge Beck; to mock him would be just as bad as praising him. But whom benefits from Glenn Beck- besides Glenn Beck? He isn’t Andy Kauffman (it’s as if Foxnews ruined him; he was much more entertaining constrained by his CNN job,) and yet he isn’t crazy or stupid. He is another emotive voice, with mediocre thoughts, that is running about ruining minds in the long term.
Like the lyric from a White Stripes song, “Any man with a microphone could tell you what he loves the most.” We have so many of these people; and a lack of discerning discretion is perpetuates this Beckian trend. Yes, I am very concerned about where this is heading.
September 1st, 2009 | 9:18 am
It bothers me a great deal that While Beck, O’Rielly, and others like them present opinions and information about the leaders or direction of our country, issues that affect all of our lives and well being, Others like Oberman (who by the way can be a very gifted reporter when he chooses) spend most of their energy ignoring important issues and instead concentrate on spelling or grammar. Sure Beck goes a little to far sometimes but is he wrong about everything??
September 1st, 2009 | 9:30 am
Joe Carter is at pains to distance himself from Glenn Beck. Too declassé for the Better Sort of conservative. But NRO’s Jonah Goldberg does not shrink from giving Beck credit where it is due. Is there anyone else in the media talking about Obama’s communications czar Van Jones, with his unsavory background and creepy admiration for Chavez’s assault on Venezuelan media?
Beck calls national attention to Cass Sunstein and Dr. Emanuel, Obama’s lunatic world-improvers. The concept of life-unworthy-of-life has its defenders in this administration and Beck is unafraid to say so. That counts for more that
his spelling. Or his trademark shtick.
September 1st, 2009 | 10:35 am
As with Limbaugh, part of the package is verbal slap-stick. The core of his argument is absolutely spot on.
September 1st, 2009 | 11:28 am
TomG: As with Limbaugh, part of the package is verbal slap-stick. The core of his argument is absolutely spot on.
So you believe that America is headed into an armed revolution against our government? I doubt you do (at least I hope not) but that is exactly what Beck claims. The problem is that you will chalk that up to his slap-stick while others will think he is serious.
And that is the main problem with Beck: You can’t divide his message from his rhetoric, picking and choosing which parts are serious and which are part of the joke. He’ll make the most outrageous claims and then when he’s called on it will say that he was joking. But at the time he doesn’t appear to be joking and the conspiracy-minded crazies who are stockpiling weapons for the coming apocalypse don’t think he’s joking either.
September 1st, 2009 | 12:19 pm
As adult citizens of this Republic we are all free moral agents. That and what flows from that are simply the price we pay for our liberties. And I quite simply resist the idea that he is whipping up the yahoos. And anyway: he would hardly be making the splash he is now were it not for the undeniable statist/corporatist (dare I say fascist?) push of the present administration.
September 1st, 2009 | 1:57 pm
My mistake. Let me correct it , please. Van Jones is the “green jobs” czar. Mark Lloyd, of the FCC, is the diversity czar who will bring issues of racial
diversity and “local control” to communications.
Neither one is good for us. Glenn Beck deserves credit for calling attention to the agendas of both.
September 1st, 2009 | 3:12 pm
Beck admits he is over the top. He is funny. But within the program he sets forth facts, brings on authors who support what they say. No other program gives as much factual background to support the logical conclusions that it espouses. When he gets some fact wrong, he acknowledges it. Yet all the criticism is about the uncouth manner in which he supposedly presents his material, not on the factual basis for what he says. Don’t you find that odd? Where is the program that sets forth the factual basis for all that the big government thinks should be enacted without so much as a peep from the lowly citizen? As Thomas Sowell put it a month or two ago–”If its so good, why can’t it be explained?” Beck does not advocate violence; but he does advocate that we educate ourselves on these matters and speak up. What’s wrong with that? He presents quotes from the people he holds up for our examination. We can make our own decisions based upon the material that he presents. I find him refreshing and consider myself intelligent enough to sift the wheat from the chaff, and decide for myself for what I will advocate. He is a unique voice and I am glad he has a platform.
September 1st, 2009 | 3:23 pm
“Others like Oberman (who by the way can be a very gifted reporter when he chooses) spend most of their energy ignoring important issues and instead concentrate on spelling or grammar” – Ken, shall we assume you mean “Olbermann”?
Beck is a disgrace to thought and to conservatism. His is thought and reasoning are mediocre at best (as with Hannity and O’Reilly). Also like Hannity and O’Reilly, he’s a crass, lowbrow, populist showman, more than he is a true conservative or the serious thinker he seems to fancy himself being.
It’s a shame how far far the public face of conservatism has fallen. Men like WFB, Fr. Neuhaus, et al., are probably spinning in their graves at the thought of people like Beck, Hannity, Palin, and O’Reilly, and Coulter being hailed as the standard-bearers for the right.
September 1st, 2009 | 4:12 pm
I watch Glenn Beck fairly often, and I agree with many of the things he says. I think if people could look past some of the comedic interjection (though I find him to be pretty funny at times), they just might realize that a lot of what he says has merit.
September 1st, 2009 | 4:56 pm
I have been reading what people are saying about Beck. What I am seeing is mostly personal attacks. I am not seeing to many people dispute facts that Beck has put fourth.
The fact that Beck’s message is so un-polished tells me he is more right than wrong. Besides, Olberman & Co. should thank Beck for giving them something to bat around. They need the viewers. Don’t like Beck? Don’t watch! Drown yourself in rhetoric and platituds on the other networks, they could use the money and I don’t want to bail them out.
September 1st, 2009 | 5:44 pm
I think that I saw this theory tossed around in Slate about Ann Coulter one time.
September 1st, 2009 | 6:46 pm
“Don’t like Beck? Don’t watch! Drown yourself in rhetoric and platituds on the other networks…”
Mark, you seem to be implying that those who don’t like Beck are turning to other networks and guys like Olbermann. For what it’s worth, I have no more regard for Olbermann, Matthews, or anyone else at MSNBC or CNN, than I do for Beck. I find all the cable news channels and their hosts almost uniformly insufferable. Beck and Olbermann in particular seem to be competing for who can be more crass and low class. As for Beck, he is the poster boy not only for everything leftists and the mainstream media despise about FoxNews but also for everything about which serious, thinking conservatives should cringe.
September 1st, 2009 | 7:00 pm
Dennis writes, “Beck is a disgrace to thought and to conservatism. His is thought and reasoning are mediocre at . . . he’s a crass, lowbrow, populist showman [like Obama?], more than he is a true conservative or the serious thinker he seems to fancy himself being [sic].”
This is pure emotion. I’m unimpressed by it and by Joe Carter’s cavils. Check out the shocking subversion Beck is exposing about the “Green Czar”, Van Jones (and Obama’s 35 or so other, unaccountable czars). Beck has the videos to prove his point. Check out the new and disturbing partnership between the Obama administration and the NEA, which Beck exposed today, with convincing evidence. Who else is doing this?
Van Jones, the other czars, and Obama are far scarier than Glenn Beck any day. I’m very tired of “conservatives” and serious Christians being hoodwinked by “going with the liberal flow”. How about substance? Beck provides that, though, wrapped as it is in a flamboyant package, the substance may be, in my opinion, hard for the less discerning, more conformist types to see. (VERY hard, if they don’t watch!)
I watch Glenn Beck and thank God that he’s telling all kinds of truths that the faint of heart toadies and sycophants are afraid to. It’s just possible that Glenn Beck is one of God’s (beloved) fools. Yes, it is . . .
September 2nd, 2009 | 1:46 am
Glen Beck is investigating things that no one else (outside of the blogosphere) will. He has stepped outside the comfortable Limbaugh/Hannity/ra-ra-Republican fold. His work on the Progressive tradition and its effect on both parties is pretty insightful stuff. I have never heard him advocate violence. It seems to me that he had planned to build his career around being a goofball and he is using the only skills he has. I think he is to be commended.
September 2nd, 2009 | 3:31 am
Nasica Cato has saved me the time as I mirror exactly what he has said. Take the time to read the statement below:
To Congress, The 5 Pledges
1. I believe in a balanced budget and therefore will vote for a freeze in government spending until that goal is realized.
2. I believe government should not increase the financial burden on its citizenry during a difficult economic times, therefore I will oppose all tax increases until our economy has rebounded.
3. I believe more than four decades of US dependence on foreign oil is a travesty, therefore I will support an energy plan that calls for immediately increasing usage of all domestic resources including nuclear energy, natural gas and coal as necessary.
4. I believe in the sovereignty and security of our country and therefore will support measures to close our borders except for designated immigration points so we will know who is entering and why. I will vehemently oppose any measure giving another country, the United Nations, or any other entity power over US citizens.
5. I believe the United States of America is the greatest country on earth and therefore will not apologize for policies or actions which have served to free more and feed more people around the world than any other nation on the planet.
I fear we are witnessing change that we, as Americans, struggled hard for our liberties since we became aware as young ones in the 50s, wnet to war and came home and reached retirement age. Do not want to see it all disolve for my 2 daughters and my 2 grandsons.
September 2nd, 2009 | 8:08 am
I’m with Judy.
I don’t have cable so I don’t watch Beck’s TV show, but I have been listening to him on the radio since 2002. He has been remarkably prescient on many topics. He has the instincts of someone with a lot of common sense combined with a public forum. To me, that is exactly what is needed today.
I have learned things about our history from his show that I have never heard anywhere else. And when you check it out, it’s true.
I’m no different than most people – I don’t want to look at the hard things, the unthinkable things. I want to find a good explanation that keeps everything contained in my known universe where might is right and justice prevails. I don’t want to look at the radicals currently installed in our government and think the worst.
That’s why I’m glad Glenn Beck is there asking the questions. Like he always says, he really, really wishes that someone can prove him wrong. I just haven’t heard anyone do that yet.
September 2nd, 2009 | 9:33 am
Just to clarify Bob of Nevada’s post: the 5 Pledges he quotes above are Glenn Beck’s and can be found at his web site.
As a subscriber to First Things, I’m disappointed that this thread was an attempt by Joe Carter to ridicule and marginalize Glenn Beck. Democrats and liberals use snob appeal all the time. I think, especially if we claim to be discerning Christians, that we should be looking beyond the surface to the substance of the matter. So, I’m very pleased to see that of 22 posts on this thread (including this one) 17, or 77%, defend Glenn Beck. That he is exposing the crazy and dangerous people, who are surrounding Obama and who have been given real power over this administration’s totalitarian agenda, is a very good thing.
Joe Carter claims, “And that is the main problem with Beck: You can’t divide his message from his rhetoric, picking and choosing which parts are serious and which are part of the joke.” With respect, I’d say, “Speak for yourself”: I’m rather surprised, but I happen to like Beck’s over the top personality. But I also listen carefully and watch the evidence, which he always provides to document his claims.
Let’s have some perspective here. It’s not Glenn Beck who’s dangerous and scary, it’s what he reports that’s dangerous and scary: Chicago trained Obama and his altogether unsavoury (including ex convicts) and, I suggest, unconstitutional posse—his 36 “czars” are only accountable to the president and are outside congressional oversight—whose agenda is to fundamentally change the way the US government does business.
I’m grateful that Glenn Beck, whose family now needs full time security, has the courage to speak up and let us know what’s going on. God bless you, Glenn Beck!
September 2nd, 2009 | 9:36 am
I’ve just seen Janet’s post: another intelligent and compelling voice in favour of Glenn Beck. Brava, Janet!
September 2nd, 2009 | 9:41 am
From the perspective of someone who seeks to be an orthodox Catholic and also believes that Catholic social teaching is sometimes in conflict with popular American conservatism, it is encouraging to see First Things distancing itself from the worst elements of this type of “conservatism.” Thank you!
September 2nd, 2009 | 10:29 am
Amy, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but how does exposing crucial information about a rogue administration, which Glenn Beck does, albeit, in a flamboyant style, count as “the worst elements of this type of [popular American] ‘conservatism’”?
It seems to me that you’re shooting the messenger here. I too count myself as an observant Catholic: I don’t see how we can make discerning choices if we’re uninformed. I can understand that one might wish for a more low key presentation of the facts, but to reject the message outright because one doesn’t like the package seems pretty short-sighted and unproductive to me. I think we’ve all been warned not to judge a book by its cover. Glenn Beck’s style has nothing to do with the content of his message. Mixing metaphors, I don’t think it’s wise to throw the baby out with the bath water.
September 2nd, 2009 | 12:26 pm
Judy–you go, girl! We “The intelligentsia” have much to learn from common sense. I find Beck always makes sense and despite his flamboyance he always slows down and addresses us seriously. I may not find some of the things he brings to our attention to be as egregious as he does, but I certainly want to know about them. Once one reads “The Forgotten Man” by Amity Shlaes about the political proclivities of FDR’s advisors and how they influenced policy, one cannot ignore the political past of any President’s advisors. The information provided by Beck is valuable because so little of it is available anywhere else.
September 2nd, 2009 | 1:16 pm
“The information provided by Beck is valuable because so little of it is available anywhere else.” You’ve got it, Tom!
And why does no one else provide it? Perhaps it’s got something to do with the very kind of shunning we’re seeing here. (And the 24-hour protection Beck’s family now needs.)
I’m a new Catholic. I was basically shunned out of my former denomination because of my religious principles, which include a pro-life stand on abortion. I was even moderate—not zany like Glenn is (sometimes)!—but the pro-life message was just too unpalatable for the liberals there to stand. They basically told me to shut up if I wanted to be treated with anything like courtesy. Kyrie eleison.
There was another person, two thousand years ago, who spoke unpleasant truths boldly. Look what happened to Him. In my opinion, Christians, of all people, should be able to face the truth and not “shoot the messenger”.
September 2nd, 2009 | 2:39 pm
You should have stopped when you wrote, “because I don’t know a single person that will admit to watching The Glenn Beck Program—and yet its one of the highest rated shows on cable television.”
If he is that high in the ratings, then he seems to be in touch with a TON of people watching television.
September 2nd, 2009 | 5:02 pm
Glenn Beck, as with Rush Limbaugh, has gotten traction with American citizens because he is articulating the mayhem in process that is directed at our republican form of government. We either suspect or know that something indeed is ‘rotten in Denmark’. It is the ignorance , as in uninformed, of the Beck detractors that is the problem. Many of us have followed this socialist, communist, agenda for years and are actually glad that it is out in the open for all to judge for themselves the danger to our American way of life. With the czars that Obama has installed, our representative government is becoming a sham. And yes, we do need as many Paul Reveres as are willing and able to spread the word that the enemy is closing in and must be stopped. Radical enough for you deniers of the obvious? I am used to many years of lofty thinkers who shun the boots on the ground effort it takes to keep this country a free nation. It is more than tiresome. Beck is right. You are wrong.
September 2nd, 2009 | 5:15 pm
“There was another person, two thousand years ago, who spoke unpleasant truths boldly. Look what happened to Him” – Oh my, please tell me you are not comparing Glenn Beck to Jesus!
The people defending him because he has some good things to say and gets some good information out there that might not otherwise be covered are, I think, missing the point (After all, I’m sure Olbermann is not 100% wrong on every issue all the time either, but that doesn’t make him any less cartoonish and insufferable than Beck is).
The main problem with Beck is one of style as much as substance (though substantively he can often veer dangerously into crazy-right teritory of the kind once inhabited by John Birchers). His manner, even if and when he has something valuable to say, turns off not just many people who might largely agree with him on substance, but also largely eliminates the possibility of reaching and changing the minds of people in the middle or to the left, all of whom can easily, and in good conscience, simply dismiss and ignore him because of his crass, lowbrow, anti-intellectual, populist manner.
He does a grave disservice to the image, and hence the political prospects, of conservatism. The fact that he is apparently so popular says much about the current woeful state of policital conservatism as an intellectualy serious and principled movement (as does the popularity of the likes of Hannity, Palin, and Coulter)
September 2nd, 2009 | 5:53 pm
(Yes, Dennis, I’m comparing Glenn Beck to Jesus, but only in the context of being bold about presenting unpalatable truths that most “go along to get along” folks don’t want to hear. Jesus told us that if we followed Him, we would be persecuted: telling the hard truth has a tendency to end up that way.)
Otherwise, Dennis, I hear you. However, until the MSM showed itself to be completely unwilling to dispassionately cover the rogue administration of Barack Obama—they’re Obama cheerleaders—I didn’t watch Fox News. I don’t particularly like the tabloid format of the programs on this network, but I do like that Fox presents some very important facts that informed citizens need to know.
It’s so easy to shoot the (conservative) messenger, an objective of politically correct forces, which are everywhere, that lots of good conservative people, who should be paying attention to the shocking corruption, cronyism, and subversion that Fox is exposing about Obama and his henchpeople, take the easy—and leading to serfdom—way out.
I’m watching Beck right now: except for a few—justified—zany facial expressions, he’s being altogether straightforward and reasonable, while presenting the altogether subversive and dangerous machinations of Obama and crew. Would I prefer a less tabloid presentation—e.g., like Peter Robinson’s Uncommon Knowledge? Yes. However, if Fox used such a format, I guess it wouldn’t reach the huge numbers it does. So, it’s a compromise.
Would I rather have no Fox News programs and no Glenn Beck? NO.
September 2nd, 2009 | 6:41 pm
Dennis. You and I apparently have a serious disagreement about what constitutes conservatism. Intellectualism at this point in history has had it’s run with accommodation of socialist liberals, aka communists, and an ‘after you Gaston’ approach to politics. My branch of conservatism thinks, knows, it is time to take the kick me sign off our backs and get serious about fighting to preserve our freedoms. For those Americans who want to know what the fuss is all about, there could be no better source of information than right wing radio and the FOX lineup of Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. I do not appreciate those who willingly compromise my freedom because I am a version of what they consider uncouth. At some point, perhaps to survive, the necessity of becoming impolite will overide the reluctance of the efete conservatives to face the seamy side of life. Socialism and communism are on the march and American freedom is at risk. Don’t wait too long.
September 2nd, 2009 | 9:47 pm
I just found Glenn Beck a little while ago. Yeah, he’s over the top sometimes, but the guy laughs at himself while he’s at it, and (most importantly) he is digging up things that the rest of the media (in their desire to appear oh-so-sophisticated) refuse to acknowledge or investigate–to their ever-lasting shame.
Mr. Carter’s insufferable little piece here is an example of why I can’t bring myself to pay for a subscription to First Things.
September 2nd, 2009 | 10:17 pm
“Intellectualism at this point in history has had it’s run with accommodation of socialist liberals”
So, “intellectual”= “socialist liberal”? No wonder Leftists call conservatives the “stupid party,” if conservatism’s own adherents are ready to cede “intellect” to “socialist liberals!” There are plenty of sound conservative intellecutals, both now and in the past, from whom we can draw sustenance: take virtually anyone who writes for First Things, Commentary, or the New Criterion, for example; or men like Roger Scruton, Robert George, Richard Weaver, Russell Kirk, the late William F. Buckley and Fr. Neuhaus, to name but a few.
To go from the heyday of WFB and the early National Review crowd as leaders and representatives of the Conservative movement, to the Age of Beck, Hannity, Palin and Coulter et al., is a steep intellectual decline, which, I fear, does not bode well for the future of conservatism or for the American republic in general. (Admittedly, the state of political discourse and genuine intellectual engagement is no better on the Left right now; their own present-day standard-bearers are hardly intellectual giants either. For all their carping about Fox, MSNBC and much of the rest of the mainstream media are now stylistically indistinguishable from Fox; they’re all engaged in the lowest form of tabloid-style, sound-bite journalism, sensationalism, and shallow discourse. But I see now reason why we conservatives should merrily accept that state of things a celebrate Beck and his ilk in the same way Leftists applaud the odious Olbermann, Matthews, and Maddow on MSNBC)
September 3rd, 2009 | 12:18 am
Dennis, you haven’t addressed the substance of what the Janets, Toms, Ruthannes, Stops, Gretchens, Judys, and a host of others have said here.
“The perfect is the enemy of the good.” E.g., I’ve said I’d much prefer an “Uncommon Knowledge” approach, but, Dennis, it ain’t gonna happen. Get over it and get with it. Really.
And God bless Glenn Beck and his ilk.
September 3rd, 2009 | 12:39 am
P.S. How come every post here is marked 5:14 p.m.?
September 3rd, 2009 | 1:12 am
Watch this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWL-pfCao-U&feature=player_embedded) and tell me that Beck doesn’t think his audience is a bunch of conspiracy-minded dupes. Commies! Commies everywhere! They’re even sneaking their propaganda into our art!
Sheesh.
September 3rd, 2009 | 8:39 am
Joe’s last comment gets to the bottom of his problem with Glenn Beck:
He’s terrified that those on the right are a bunch of ‘conspiracy-minded dupes’.
Someone has bought the old, old liberal line that those on the right are all just Barry Goldwater paranoiacs. And how terribly embarrassing that is, hein?
Is Beck pointing out truths, or is he spouting tinfoil hat stuff? Seems that he is presenting a conclusion based on a gathering of facts, and then backing it up with evidence. That seems to me emminently reasonable.
Either those buildings have artwork that celebrates marxist/socialist/progressive icons and ideals, or not. Either Van Jones spouts marxist drivel, or he does not. Either marxists and their descendents use art as propaganda, or they do not. If we can answer yes to any of that, then you cannot accuse Beck of being a conspiracy loon.
You may argue with his delivery and style, but not the substance. It’s traditionally liberals who ignore facts and elevate their feelings and emotions. If one has a fastidious objection to the style of Beck, it might help to hold one’s nose and attempt to truly listen to what is being said. One might find oneself beginning to ask questions, too.
September 3rd, 2009 | 9:31 am
Sheesh too, Joe. I’ve just watched the clip you provided. Out of context—it was highlighted on the same program—which you failed to provide, Beck’s thesis might well look extreme. I think, however, that one must keep in mind what’s going on between the arts community in the US and the rogue Obama administration. The artwork Beck brings to our attention is quite definitely propaganda, even if not government propaganda. But, hey, that’s well on its way!
You say, with derision “They’re [as in Obama’s self-confessed, communist “green czar”, Van Jones?] even sneaking their propaganda into our art.” Well, yes, Joe, that’s exactly what the little partnership that’s being concocted at present between the White House and the NEA (National Endowment for the Arts) is planning to do. Didn’t you catch that clip?
One Patrick Courrielche, a filmmaker, marketer, and art community consultant based in Los Angeles, was recently invited to be part of a conference call. Here’s an excerpt of an article he wrote about this:
“On Thursday August 6th, I was invited by the National Endowment for the Arts to attend a conference call scheduled for Monday August 10th hosted by the NEA, the White House Office of Public Engagement, and United We Serve. The call would include ‘a group of artists, producers, promoters, organizers, influencers, marketers, taste-makers, leaders or just plain cool people to join together and work together to promote a more civically engaged America and celebrate how the arts can be used for a positive change!’
“. . . Backed by the full weight of President Barack Obama’s call to service and the institutional weight of the NEA, the conference call was billed as an opportunity for those in the art community to inspire service in four key categories, and at the top of the list were ‘health care’ and ‘energy and environment.’ The service was to be attached to the President’s United We Serve campaign, a nationwide federal initiative to make service a way of life for all Americans.
“It sounded, how should I phrase it…unusual, that the NEA would invite the art community to a meeting to discuss issues currently under vehement national debate. I decided to call in, and what I heard concerned me. . . ”
(See the whole article at http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/pcourrielche/2009/08/25/the-national-endowment-for-the-art-of-persuasion-patrick-courrielche/)
(Just imagine if the Bush White House had suggested such a partnership?)
Joe, you don’t think this sounds even a little bit like, in your own words, “They’re even sneaking their propaganda into our art”? Don’t you think Americans should know about this questionable partnership? How come Beck’s the only one who noticed this and is raising the alarm? Sorry, Joe, for using such incendiary language as “alarm”, but Americans should darn well be alarmed about this—very alarmed.
So let’s give Glenn Beck credit where credit is due. Is that too much to ask?
September 3rd, 2009 | 9:59 am
Gretchen: Is Beck pointing out truths, or is he spouting tinfoil hat stuff? Seems that he is presenting a conclusion based on a gathering of facts, and then backing it up with evidence. That seems to me emminently reasonable.
Yes, just like Dan Brown, right? Brown has gathered all the evidence to show that that Vatican is secretly conspiring to show that Christ had children, et al. It must be true because of all the secret hidden messages in artwork—messages, of course, that no one ever noticed before.
Judy: Well, yes, Joe, that’s exactly what the little partnership that’s being concocted at present between the White House and the NEA (National Endowment for the Arts) is planning to do. Didn’t you catch that clip?
Yes, I did catch that clip. But it was a story I already knew about. It might surprise you to learn that the stuff that the super-secret info that Beck is letting you in on can be found in other sources (such as the Communist-run Boston Globe – http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/articles/2009/09/01/the_art_of_agitprop/).
To people who get all their news from TV—nee from Beck’s show—it might seem that he is the sole Dispenser of Truth in America. But the fact is that he doesn’t get his news any earlier than the rest of us, he just rants about it louder.
Beck’s the only one who noticed this and is raising the alarm?
Uh, he’s not. Maybe you noticed that it wasn’t Beck who broke the news about the NEA conference call but a guy from BigHollywood.com. The story was picked up by, among other sources, the Boston Globe, the Washington Times, and The Wall Street Journal.
September 3rd, 2009 | 10:29 am
I’ll concede that Beck didn’t scoop this story. And who said the NEA/White House partnership was secret?
Smoke and mirrors, Joe. ‘Disappointing.
September 3rd, 2009 | 11:50 am
You are using deflection, Joe. Dan Brown wrote a fiction book. Fiction. Pretend stuff.
Beck states facts. Is it a fact that communist-inspired artwork graces some of our buildings? He demonstrates it, reasonably to me, since he specifically points out certain images that are prevelant in communist/socialist propaganda, as well as naming a particular artist who was known for just such art. Could it all be coincidental? Sure. But that doesn’t mean it’s not there and that other conclusions should not or could not be drawn.
Also, in the video Beck states quite plainly that none of it is hidden, which you accuse him of insinuating. He says it several times, in fact. I know this painful, but maybe you ought to go back and watch the video again.
September 3rd, 2009 | 3:51 pm
Well said, Gretchen.
Joe wrote—at one of the 5:14 p.m. spots—“Watch this clip . . . and tell me that Beck doesn’t think his audience is a bunch of conspiracy-minded dupes. Commies! Commies everywhere! They’re even sneaking their propaganda into our art!”
1) As Glenn Beck was saying: check out Power Line today, “A Vulgar Marxist Twice Over” (7:22 a.m.). Watch the video (link given) and listen to the radio interview, where Van Jones, Obama’s “green czar”, explains his radical agenda for the USA.
Scott writes—note the measured tone—“We’ve written about Obama administration green jobs commissar Van Jones as a Communist in the White House. Jim Hoft posts the video of Jones unburdening himself before a friendly audience without inhibition. Jones gives new meaning to the term vulgar Marxist. [Jones says, on camera, to an appreciative Democratic audience, “Republicans are assholes.”]
“Now courtesy of Breitbart.tv and Naked Emperor News we have Jones explaining the deep meaning of the Obama administration’s devotion to ‘green jobs.’ THE GOAL OF GREEN JOBS IS COMPLETE REVOLUTION STEP BY STEP AWAY FROM GRAY CAPITALISM UNTIL THE FORCES OF OPPRESSION ARE OVERCOME. The video concludes with a tribute to Jones from Obama alter ego Valerie Jarrett. [Emphasis mine]
“Thank you for the explanation, Comrade Jones.”
2) Then there’s the White House/NEA propaganda power play, which I explained in detail above.
Joe, rather than all the deflections, how about addressing these substantive issues, the very ones you placed on the table?
September 3rd, 2009 | 5:56 pm
Gretchen: You are using deflection, Joe. Dan Brown wrote a fiction book. Fiction. Pretend stuff.
In Brown’s “Da Vinci Code”, on a page labeled ‘Fact,’ prior to the main text, Brown claims that “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.” His book may be fictional but he claims that everything in it is true—and hundreds of thousands of gullible people believed him!
Beck states facts. Is it a fact that communist-inspired artwork graces some of our buildings? He demonstrates it, reasonably to me, since he specifically points out certain images that are prevelant in communist/socialist propaganda, as well as naming a particular artist who was known for just such art.
Before we dig into the facts, let’s take a look at what you’re claiming is so persuasive (I just watched the video again):
Beck is saying that an oil company may actually be evil since a purported capitalist, Rockefeller, hired artists to include communist-art on his building in New York.
Beck fails to clarify:
(a) Which Rockefeller he is talking about,
(b) Why a oil baron would be a communist/fascist sympathizer,
(c) Why this “Rockefeller” would subscribe to two idealogies—communism and fascism—that were mutually opposed to each other,
(c) Why they would use propaganda—the deliberate use of images to help a movement—that was so subtle that no one noticed it for 70 years, and
(d) Why Beck is the first person to make this connection despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of people have seen the images before now.
Beck says, “The hammer and the sickle, where have we seen those before?” implying that the terms are inherently communist. They are not. They were used as images for a hundred years in Europe before they were co-opted by the commies. It is natural that a German artist would use them for a piece titled “Industry and Agriculture.”
By the way, does Beck think the cross is a rascist symbol since it was co-opted by the Klan? Are Christians secretly racists when we display that symbol on our churches?
And the part where Beck says, ” This represents, at the time this was made, Mussolini. This represents Mussolini.” Uh, no. There is no evidence that the artist, Attilio Piccirilli, was a fascist sympathizer. Also, Piccirilli was the same one who used the hammer and sickle imagery in the piece that Beck had just complained about. So which is it? Is Piccirilli a commie or a fascist? The fact that Beck thinks they go together shows that he still isn’t that up on his history (as he admitted just a few days ago).
Beck then goes on to point to a picture that says “Isaiah” and talks about beating swords into plowshares. It appears to completely have slipped past the historically and biblically illiterate Beck that that phrase comes from the Bible.
Somehow, though, Beck ties this nefarious image to the statue on his desk which is a model of one that is displayed at the UN. The only connection: Rockefeller donated that land to the UN in 1946. Thirteen years later a statue was given to the UN—not to Rockefeller—that was to symbolize the UN’s commitment to ending war.
Beck’s scurrilous implication that John D. Rockefeller was a crypto-commie/fascist is just . . . stupid. There’s no other word for it. It’s one thing for people who aren’t that familiar with history to be taken in by Beck. It’s quite another for him to make such dumb claims about a historical figure on national television.
By the way, Beck fails to note that this quote by John D. is also on that same building:
Sounds a bit like something Beck himself might say, don’t it?
Oh, but that’s not all. Beck returns to his Rockefeller rant—but confuses John D for Nelson.
He says that Diego Rivera’s painting can now be found in a museum in Mexico city, but that it was originally in the lobby of the building. The one that Beck shows is not the original. The original was torn down and destroyed by Nelson Rockefeller because he was infuriated by the propagandistic painting. Rivera painted another which is now in Mexico, and which was the one Beck used.
Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky—even Rockefeller himself—were not in the original. In other words, Beck lied to his audiences (or, if you prefer, was so careless with the facts that he simply doesn’t know enough to Google the “facts”). The picture he showed was never displayed at 30 Rock.
So now can you see why I get a bit perturbed when people defend Beck’s antics? Sure, he may be right some (or even most) of the time. But when he produces outright nonsense like this—and people lap it up!—it destroys his credibility and makes conservatives look like we really are a bunch of gullible morons who will believe any conspiracy theory that we hear. Glenn Beck is a self-admitted clown who will do anything to get attention and ratings. If it means making his audience look like a bunch of moon-barking crazies, then what’s that to him?
September 3rd, 2009 | 6:48 pm
Dennis. How about fixing my post to read that intellectualism has run its course as applied to accommodating the liberals and socialists and communists and political ner-do-wells. I suspect obtusness was not unintended —but just in case, this should help clarify my meaning. Also, it is the Republican party that gets snarked with the stupid line, not conservatives. We conservatives are all pretty smart, some just more up to speed than than others. LOL.
September 3rd, 2009 | 6:51 pm
I don’t appreciate that my latest post (before 5:14 p.m.) has been censored—I guess: it hasn’t shown up—while Joe continues to equivocate, at length. (This sure doesn’t feel like a level playing field to me.)
I gave pertinent, new information on this thread about Van Jones—I quoted from Power Line—and asked Joe, who’s ridiculed Glenn Beck on both counts, to address the substantive issues of communists in Obama’s administration and government arts propaganda.
I’m still waiting.
September 3rd, 2009 | 7:45 pm
Judy: . . .has been censored—I guess: it hasn’t shown up—while Joe continues to equivocate, at length. (This sure doesn’t feel like a level playing field to me.)
Our spam filter automatically kicked your comment to the spam filter because it contained profanity (a**holes). It’s now posted above.
I gave pertinent, new information on this thread about Van Jones—I quoted from Power Line—and asked Joe, who’s ridiculed Glenn Beck on both counts, to address the substantive issues of communists in Obama’s administration and government arts propaganda.
What substantive issues do you want me to address? Van Jones appears to be a Marxist. Now that he is embarrassing Obama he’ll likely be kicked under the bus along with his grandmother, Rev. Wright, et al.
Yes, Beck talked about this issue—at length—but he did so that brought discredit to the conservative movement. Obama should be thanking his luck stars that Beck is on TV. Because Beck is screaming about “Commies everywhere! Their propaganda is even on our buildings!” it makes people dismiss not only him but the fact that a real-live commie was actually appointed to the President’s team.
I’ll say it again. Beck is detrimental to the conservative movement. But he doesn’t care because Beck is about Beck. He’s an entertainer who will play the conspiratorial nut for laughs and ratings and then will jump to something else when people tire of being duped by him.
September 3rd, 2009 | 8:14 pm
Very strange: now that my latest “5:14 p.m.” post has appeared, so has my earlier “5:14 p.m.”, “Well said, Gretchen” post—which was NOT between Gretchen’s and Joe’s posts before now.
(When I noticed that my first “Well said, Gretchen” post was missing, I posted it again at the real 5:14 p.m. I was informed that I’d already posted that comment—still not published. Then I saw Joe’s long-winded reply to Gretchen. So I sent my “I don’t appreciate”, “5:14 p.m.” post. And now, here it—and my earlier, added in—post are! Fishy. . .
I asked earlier on this thread about the “5:14 p.m.” time accorded to every post. This is a very serious problem. I ask that First Things blog rectify this oversight. Displaying the correct time that posts are made is very important.
September 3rd, 2009 | 9:29 pm
Joe, I appreciate your explanation about the delay in publishing my “5:14 p.m.”, “Well said. . .” post above. Next time, if I’m quoting a Democratic partisan saying “a**hole”, I’ll use the asterisks.
In your “5:14 p.m.”, “Judy . . .” post above, you write, “Yes, Beck talked about this [Marxist] issue—at length—but he did so [in a way] that brought discredit to the conservative movement.” Is that so? Evidence, please. (Honestly, Joe, I think this undocumented mantra from you is both tedious and so much hot air.)
The substantive issues I wanted addressed, about which you seem confused? Try looking at 1) and 2).
Joe, you’ve also ignored another substantive issue presented to you, this one entirely non-political: WHY IS EVERY POST HERE GIVEN THE TIME, 5:14 P.M.?
It is ESSENTIAL that the times of our posts here be accurately documented.
My husband and I have a multi-year subscription to First Things, a publication for which we’ve had the highest regard. However, my new experience on this blog has been altogether disappointing: I expect a much more professional level of discourse from a First Things contributor than I’ve experienced on this thread.
At a First Things site, I also expect that such an important matter as the accurate recording of the times of each comment would be both acknowledged and rectified. I gather you are the Web Editor. Is there any chance that accurate recording of posting times might be happening sometime soon?
September 3rd, 2009 | 11:07 pm
Judy: Is that so? Evidence, please. (Honestly, Joe, I think this undocumented mantra from you is both tedious and so much hot air.)
If it’s not obvious, then I’m not sure what evidence would convince you. But let me give it a try.
First, keep in mine that only a fraction of the people in America will ever watch an entire episode of Beck’s show. All they will know his clips of his antics and the most outrageous things he says. From this limited exposure—and the fact that he has conservatives who will defend him no matter how ridiculous or indefensible he becomes—they will assume that this is what conservatives are really like. (Sadly, this may actually be true.)
Let me be clear that Beck could be right on his message 100% of the time (which he isn’t), but if the way he delivers his message turns people off and makes people think conservatives are stupid, gullible, and insane, then he is bad for conservatism.
While it might be fun to hole up in our bunkers and scream “The socialists are taking over!” it isn’t the best way to make a positive change on our country. Talk radio and cable TV are already dumbing down the discourse of our nation. But Beck is going to extremes. He is not only not convincing anyone to become a conservative (which isn’t really his job since he’s not a conservative himself) but he is turning people off.
Not only does he turn off independents and moderates, he turns off conservatives.
—Beck went on TV yesterday and made claims about communist propaganda that are simply indefensible. For him to say such things when an actual communist is an adviser to the President makes me wonder if he isn’t simply trying to undermine his own message simply for more attention. (To Beck, negative attention is as good as positive press.)
I haven’t found one respectable source defend his claims. Not one.
—Beck called Obama a racist and said he wanted to poison Nancy Pelosi’s wine. This 33 of Fox’s advertisers to pull their ads from him show. What kind of message does that send? (By the way, are you comfortable with these statements of his?)
—Many of the biggest conservatives websites openly mock him (HotAir.com and Little Green Footballs are prime examples). Even Sheppard Smith, his own co-worker at Fox makes fun of him.
—The conservative writer David Frum said Mr. Beck’s success “is a product of the collapse of conservatism as an organized political force, and the rise of conservatism as an alienated cultural sensibility.”
And here’s my favorite, from the mouth of Beck himself: “I say on the air all time, ‘if you take what I say as gospel, you’re an idiot.’ ”
That is exactly what Beck thinks of his audience. He is being outrageous to be entertaining. If he hits on the truth, great. If he makes stuff up, no big deal. It’s not his duty to be truthful, only entertaining. To him it’s all the same; it’s about ratings.
The substantive issues I wanted addressed, about which you seem confused? Try looking at 1) and 2).
I looked at them again and I’m not sure what you want addressed. I’m also not sure I would agree that these are “substantive issues.” These are “talk radio issues”—hot button topics that play well on radio but actually have no real impact on the direction of our country.
Van Jones is an outrageous choice and Obama will eventually dump him. But at the end of the day Beck and his cable cronies will take credit for taking a scalp while the bigger issue—why do we have a “green jobs” czar in the first place?— will go unaddressed. For the talk radio/cable TV hosts, as long as they are keeping the rabble stirred up and are getting ratings, it doesn’t really matter that serious issues are being ignored.
My husband and I have a multi-year subscription to First Things, a publication for which we’ve had the highest regard. However, my new experience on this blog has been altogether disappointing: I expect a much more professional level of discourse from a First Things contributor than I’ve experienced on this thread.
Um, you’re defending the antics of Glen Beck and then chastising me for being unprofessional? Normally I would assume you were kidding but I fear you are all too serious.
Unless you equate “not liking Glenn Beck” to “being unprofessional” I also have no idea what you are talking about. Can you give me an example of what you mean?
At a First Things site, I also expect that such an important matter as the accurate recording of the times of each comment would be both acknowledged and rectified.
Actually, until just a few days ago, the comments section didn’t even have time stamps: No one said a thing and I suspect few people even noticed. I’m sure it is important to some readers, however, and because of that I’ll try to get them fixed as soon as possible.
September 4th, 2009 | 9:36 am
I feel I’m spinning my wheels here. Your illogic and spin, Joe, are not helpful. And, yes, I do expect much more of First Things than I do of Fox News, though I firmly believe that Fox News serves a worthwhile purpose, especially as we are saddled with the weasel MSM, which do not report the facts an informed citizenry needs.
Re Beck, he’s certainly no worse an advertisement for conservatism than Obama is for progressives. And look at the adulation Obama receives. IMO, Beck is a much more reliable witness than Obama, who has proven himself to be a serial liar. Re David Frum, I have little respect for him these days. He’s free to have an opinion. I don’t agree with it. (And, by what authority should I?)
Joe, you make a lot of undocumented assertions (with, unfortunately, like Obama, many grammatical errors):
Joe: “Beck went on TV yesterday and made claims [which ones?] about communist propaganda that are simply indefensible. [How so?]”
“I haven’t found one respectable source [sic] defend his claims [which ones?]. Not one.”
“This [caused?] 33 of Fox’s advertisers to pull their ads from him [sic] show.”
You don’t mention that this boycott is an orchestrated campaign by Color of Change, “Changing the color of democracy”, a radical lobby group. One of its founders? VAN JONES! You were speaking of “respectable sources” . . .?
Joe: “I looked at them [my points at 1) and 2), above] again and I’m not sure what you want addressed. [I made my points perfectly clear.] I’m also not sure I would agree that these are ‘substantive issues.’ [Communist infiltration at the upper/policy making level of the White House, and the WH using the arts community with public funds to produce propaganda are not substantial issues?] These are ‘talk radio issues’ [like the war, the deficit, unemployment, company takeovers by the government, health care reform, etc., I guess]—hot button topics that play well on radio but actually have no real impact on the direction of our country.” YOU’VE GOT TO BE JOKING: WHAT AN ABSURDLY RIDICULOUS AND UNINTELLIGENT ASSERTION.
Joe: “Actually, until just a few days ago, the comments section didn’t even have time stamps: No one said a thing [so no one should?] and I suspect few people even noticed. [So?] I’m sure it is important to some readers, however, and because of that I’ll try to get them fixed as soon as possible.” Thanks.
Joe, have you considered just doing it because it’s the right and professional thing to do?
I’m going to stop here. A back and forth with someone who seems to have a language processing problem and an apparent desire to obfuscate and bait is not my idea of either a professional blog or a good way to spend any more of my time. Have a fine day.
September 12th, 2009 | 9:28 am
He left out the “C” because he doesn’t want us to know he’s a Fifth-Column Communist. How do I know? First, he teaches his audience about the features of socialist art. Then, he organizes the March on Washington.
The event logo? Stark, stylized red fists raised in defiant unison in front of the nation’s capital. Anonymous sources tell me Kim Jong Il might be Comrade Beck’s art director…
Check it out at http://912dc.org/store/!
September 28th, 2009 | 1:50 pm
[...] my last post on Glenn Beck I told myself I wouldn’t bother mentioning him again on this blog. There isn’t much I [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact