After my last post on Glenn Beck I told myself I wouldn’t bother mentioning him again on this blog. There isn’t much I could add to the criticisms—from the left, right, and center—that have been made against him in the last few weeks. His recent comments have shown that he’s a naked opportunist who will say anything to get attention: If he’s on his television show on Fox he’ll pander to the audience by saying that President Obama is a racist who is ushering in an age of socialism, if not the apocalypse; then, when he is in front of Katie Couric and CBS News, he says that John McCain would have been worse for the country than Obama (which begs the question, “What exactly is worse than the socialist/communist/fascist apocalypse?”).
Yet despite his antics and inconsistencies, he retains a cult of personality that rivals Obama. (Disagree? Try saying something negative about Beck and see what kind of feedback you get.) So its not worth trying to persuade people that he is bad for conservatism, bad for America, and bad for anyone who believes political discourse should be civil and sane. Those who are open to such a discussion don’t need to be convinced and and those that aren’t simply won’t brook any criticisms of their populist hero.
While I would rather not talk about him at all, there is still one reason why it is worth bringing him back into the discussion: Beck has an agenda that is similar to—and competes with—the mission of First Things.
The mission of the Institute on Religion and Public Life, which publishes this magazine and website, is to be an interreligious, nonpartisan research and education institute whose purpose is to advance a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society. Beck also is attempting to “advance a religiously informed public philosophy” though, as Rod Dreher points out, it often goes unacknowledged by his audience:
Beck is a white Jeremiah Wright, a crazy-pants conspiracy theorist whose worldview is rooted in the paranoid teachings of a far-right Mormon political guru named W. Cleon Skousen. Before signing up as a recruit in Beck’s army, conservative Becketeers had better think long and hard about where their affable leader is taking them.
[. . . ]Beck’s paranoia doesn’t come from nowhere. His man Skousen was a fanatical Mormon reactionary so far to the right that the Latter-day Saints church finally felt compelled to distance itself from his teaching.
[. . . ]
In a 1976 lecture, the audio of which is available on the pro-Skousen site AwakeAndArise.org, Skousen rails like an Old Testament prophet, quoting Mormon scriptures and detailing how Satan is working with “secret combinations” – a Mormon theological term – within political parties, churches, labor unions and the wealthy elite, especially the Rockefeller family, to bring about the “One World Order.”
Skousen, like his follower Beck, is obsessed with the idea that these secret combinations are conniving to overthrow the U.S. Constitution. Though it is not part of official LDS doctrine, some Mormons believe in an apocalyptic prophecy attributed to church founder Joseph Smith, who supposedly taught that the Constitution would one dark day be hanging by a thread and that Mormon elders would rescue it.
The pudgy, sweet-natured Beck offers a more palatable form of this paranoia – but all his fruit and sugar can’t hide the Skousenite firewater. How ironic that conservative Christians who unjustly dunned conventional Mitt Romney because of his LDS faith are uncritically backing the squirrelly Beck, who looks like he’s casting himself as hero of a prophetic Mormon melodrama.
As someone who champions the idea that public philosophy should be religiously informed, I don’t begrudge Beck his attempt to insinuate his religious views into the public square. True, I wish he were more open about it and that his acolytes were more aware of what they were signing on for. But in our pluralistic society, even religiously-rooted conspiracy-based philosophies should be able to compete for the attention of the public.
The danger, of course, is that such errant philosophies will be accepted as legitimate by people who put their trust more in personalities and political parties more than in logic, reason, or their own religious traditions. In this case, though, I’m not sure how much I need to worry. While Beck may be an evangelist for the views of Skousen, there is no evidence that he really believes it himself—indeed there is scant evidence that Beck believes in anything other than ratings and attention.
And if the prophet doesn’t believe it himself, how long will he be able to convince his followers to accept his testament?
September 28th, 2009 | 3:26 pm
And I suppose people like Jonah Goldberg speak well of him so they can keep appearing on his show? Yeah, Glenn has a real showman’s flair – maybe to excess at times. But this is not CFR/Trilateral Commission stuff: George Soros’ tenacles are everywhere. And nobody but Beck has bothered to lift the rock and watch the varmits scurry!
September 28th, 2009 | 3:26 pm
Make that “varmints.”
September 28th, 2009 | 3:28 pm
Rod Dreher and hysteria? Reminds me of Jackie Gleason when asked if he imbibed: “I’ve known the taste.”
September 28th, 2009 | 3:39 pm
TomG: And I suppose people like Jonah Goldberg speak well of him so they can keep appearing on his show?
To be honest, I find Jonah’s support of Beck to be incredibly weak. It comes down to (a) Beck supports his book, (b) he likes Beck personally, and (c) though he’s a populist he’s a libertarian populist which is less dangerous than the other kinds.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement—or one that has been well-thought out. My prediction: Jonah will follow Levin and Limbaugh’s lead and throw Beck under the bus within the next 6 months.
And nobody but Beck has bothered to lift the rock and watch the varmits scurry!
I’m sure this may seem to be true for people who think the only source of news and information is cable TV. But none of the (legitimate) information that Beck has been putting out originated with him. He certainly deserves credit for pushing some of this stuff to TV first. Of course, he doesn’t separate fact from fiction so he doesn’t have to ensure that what he’s saying is correct before he says it—which makes it easier to be first.
But if we are going to give him credit for when he is right, then we should hold him responsible for when he spouts lunatic nonsense.
September 28th, 2009 | 5:01 pm
Look, he like Limbaugh is a great popularizer. You and Dreher are perfectly entitled to your opinions of him – his feet are of clay – but please temper your descriptions a little. It’s a long way from Glenn Beck to Huey Long.
September 28th, 2009 | 6:04 pm
Per:
“he [Beck] says that John McCain would have been worse for the country than Obama”
Interestingly, that is very (dangerously) close to Rod Dreher’s position that he wrote in his own column last October. Dreher made his opinions known on why he was voting the way he was – which was not to vote. Look at the treatment he gives McCain, the GOP, “the shipwrecked conservative movement”, and Sarah Palin versus his treatment of Obama who is more than awful on the issue that means most to Dreher -abortion:
“All my life, I’ve cast votes in presidential elections that were votes against the Democrat rather than for the Republican. Such is life. Sure, the Dole ’96 campaign had all the explosive excitement of road tripping to Dubuque in a Crown Victoria, but it wasn’t hard to vote for the guy, considering the alternative. Voting in American presidential politics usually requires discerning voters to resolve not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough.
“This year, though, I’m close to being done with that compromise. At the risk of scandalizing my high school civics teacher, this might be the first presidential and congressional election I’ve sat out on principle. As a character in Richard Linklater’s film Slacker says, “Withdrawing in disgust is not the same as apathy.”
“A vote for Barack Obama is all but impossible. I am a pro-life social conservative, full stop. Mr. Obama is radically pro-choice, even voting against legislation that would have forced medical personnel to save the lives of babies born during botched abortions. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s spiritual son is disqualifyingly left-wing on social issues that matter most to me.
“As for John McCain, his hot temper and bellicose foreign policy instincts are deeply troubling. America cannot afford the wars we have, much less new ones with Russia or any other nation. Worse, the executive branch has far more freedom to conduct foreign policy than it does domestic policy. And the more Gov. Sarah Palin shares her nitwit nostrums, the less confidence I have that she’s capable of running the country if her elderly boss were abruptly retired by illness or death.
“After eight years of GOP misrule from the White House, Republicans don’t deserve to win again – especially if it’s hard to see how a President McCain would differ meaningfully from the man he seeks to replace. But given the active role Democrats have played in the rolling financial catastrophe, from Clinton-era Wall Street deregulation to water carrying for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they don’t deserve voters’ trust either.
“Mr. McCain is awful on war. Mr. Obama is awful on the sanctity of life. Neither inspires confidence on the economy, nor do their parties – both of which are up to their eyeballs in culpability for the present economic catastrophe. We all want change, but Mr. McCain is not credible on that front, and Mr. Obama only offers a fresh new gloss on tired, old Democratic boilerplate.
“When neither candidate is tolerable, what does the responsible voter do? Withhold his vote, as a form of civic protest.
“In 2004, leading Catholic philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre announced he would sit out the presidential vote because he rejected the Democrats’ hostile stance toward unborn life and the Republicans’ economic policies, which in his view undermined the stability of the traditional family. Dr. MacIntyre argued that not voting in a particular election is a morally just act of resistance to a system that presents us with an unacceptable choice.
“Besides, what if Mr. McCain won, given the kind of campaign he has run? What will he have been elected to do, except to not associate with 1960s domestic terrorists and crazy-pants black preachers and, to paraphrase Tina Fey, find out what a maverick would do in a given situation and then do it? A McCain presidency would only delay what the shipwrecked conservative movement desperately needs to do: rethink, rebuild and relaunch in light of new realities.
“Both parties have run the country into the ground, and I have no faith – none – in the leadership class in Washington. With any luck, the 2010 midterm elections will see true mavericks arise from the grassroots of both parties to challenge the incumbents. This year, though, voting in the presidential and congressional contests only gives voters the chance to affirm Washington’s rent-seeking, self-serving status quo.
“Granted, anything could happen between now and Election Day that would change my mind. But absent something extraordinary, I’m going to reject both the Republican and the Democrat.
“Say what you will, but that will be the first presidential vote I’ve cast, so to speak, that I can truly believe in.”
We’re on to Dreher. He and Beck are the different sides of the same coin – they just differ on their ideas of civic protest. Glen has 9/12 protests with 300,000+ attendees. Dreher doesn’t show up his local polling station. The main difference between the two men was summed up nicely by Charles Krauthammer in a recent essay on Obama where he compared him to Bill Clinton:
“Slickness wasn’t fatal to “Slick Willie” Clinton [Beck] because he possessed a winning, near-irresistible charm. Obama’s [Dreher] persona is more cool, distant, imperial. The charming scoundrel can get away with endless deception; the righteous redeemer cannot.”
September 28th, 2009 | 6:35 pm
I’ve probably heard or seen less than 30 minutes of Beck. People didn’t rag him as much before the Time cover story with the unappealing photo.
Dreher sounds like Damon Linker or Andrew Sullivan talking about First Things and Fr. Neuhaus’ theocratic designs. He leaves out any evidence connecting Beck to the more extreme comments of Skousen. You can endorse one book without endorsing the author’s whole corpus.
Dreher’s acceptance of the need to purge the lovable loonies will see himself purged from the movement when his time comes. In a democracy you grow a political movement by adding, not subtracting, followers. Conservatives supposed to cater to a right-wing base, not to the media’s credibility certification process.
Besides, the W. Bush presidency has done far more to discredit conservatism than Beck ever could.
September 28th, 2009 | 8:01 pm
When FoxNews took off several years ago, I thought it would be a relatively benign influence on the conservative movement in the United States. I think it is now safe to say that it has significantly altered the thinking of ordinary conservatives and the direction of the GOP. There is nothing novel in the fact that the vast majority of people will ape whatever their favored political commentator says. However, instead of aping Bill Buckley on Firing Line, conservatives now ape Glenn Beck on FoxNews. And whatever one thinks of Beck’s ideas (and I agree with him on the big, substantive issues more often than not), he and others like him have disseminated a crude, faux populism and an “ends justifies the means” mentality throughout the Republican Party. This type of thinking is so widespread that hitherto “high-brow” voices of conservatism are reluctant to criticize Beck et al (and even take a surprisingly sympathetic view on these demagogues) for fear that the masses will rise up against them & cancel their subscriptions. It seems nothing shuts up a conservative writer faster than the accusation that he is just another “elite” who doesn’t understand the plight or “git-r-done” gumption of the “common man,” which, happily, has become incarnate in the persons of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh.
As you have found out from your last post on Beck, Mr. Carter, more than a few First Things readers are more than ready to throw around this accusation. Nonetheless, I, and I’m sure others, would appreciate it if you and First Things (or at least First Thoughts)–another high brow conservative voice–would not shut up about Beck and his ilk. May be the magazine will lose some subscriptions, but Beck’s antics are harmful and are not in keeping with traditional conservative discourse. And, I would have formerly thought that this goes without saying, they are not consistent with being a Christian gentleman.
September 28th, 2009 | 11:16 pm
[...] won’t pretend to be deeply familiar with Glenn Beck’s work. Instead, I’ll rely on Joe Carter at First Things: There isn’t much I could add to the criticisms—from the left, right, and center—that have [...]
September 29th, 2009 | 4:52 am
Oh come on! The reason Glenn Beck thinks McCain would have been worse is because with Obama in charge Americans are waking up. Democrats, Republicans and Independents who are conservative/libertarian are having this president’s radical agenda shoved in their faces.
As Beck stated (which you do not include in this posting…) similar things would have happened under McCain but given the nature of politics, conservatives wouldn’t have woken up and would have defended a President McCain, even though they’d disagree with his policies.
Obama has been excellent in uniting Americans and against Washington and the corruption in the White House. This is Beck’s reasoning – and I believe it’s sound.
September 29th, 2009 | 9:48 am
-Glenn Beck’s tv show is kind of annoying. Beck seems to channel William Shatner when it comes to laying on the schlock, and he indeed often goes over-the-top. He is not nearly as informative or original as Rush, Laura, Steyn, and other right-leaning media figures. In the end he doesn’t do much for me.
- That said, Glenn Beck is not a threat to the republic, nor is he a particularly bad influence on the right. In the end he will probably not repel any more people than he attracts to the conservative cause. In the grand scheme of things, wasting this much ink on Beck – pro or con – is a waste of time considering the more important issues we face.
September 29th, 2009 | 10:20 am
My 80-year-old Mom never misses Beck. I catch him every now and then. I like his unabashedly corny blackboard antics where he literally connects the dots. I also like his panels of everyday folks, who echo what an awful lot of us are feeling: that we’re angry — not just about the direction in which this country’s headed — but also because so many of our media “watchdogs” would rather spend their time and energy impugning us as “astro turf” and “extremist”; investigating Glenn Beck, Limbaugh and Hannah Giles instead of Van Jones, Acorn and Ayers.
September 29th, 2009 | 10:23 am
Mark Steyn (at The Corner) has an interesting piece this morning. No, it’s not about Glenn Beck’s religion but it is worth a read as his point is an important one for religious conservatives. Steyn doesn’t mention Dreher, but he does mention Dreher’s fellow horrified pal, David Frum:
“What They’re Telling Us [Mark Steyn]
“This piece by Lloyd Marcus, a black conservative, is called “Stop Allowing the Left to Set The Rules,” and deals with the alleged racism of the anti-Obama opposition. As Mr. Marcus notes:
“The Left published a cartoon depicting former black Secretary of State Condolezza Rice as an Aunt Jemima; another depicted Rice as a huge-lipped parrot for her Massa Bush. Neither were considered racist by their creators or publishers, or even widely condemned on the Left.
“In opposition to black Republican Michael Steele’s campaign torun for U.S. Senate, a liberal blogger published a doctored photo of Steele in black face and big red lips made to look like a minstrel. The caption read, “Simple Sambo wants to move to the big house”. Not one Democrat denounced these racist portrayals of black conservatives.
“True. Nobody minds liberal commentators expressing the hope that Clarence Thomas “will die early from heart disease like many black men,” etc. Contemporary identity-group politics are prototype one-party states: If you’re a black Republican Secretary of State, you’re not really black. If you’re a female Republican vice-presidential nominee, you’re not really a woman. What’s racist and sexist here is the notion that, if you’re black or female, your politics is determined by your group membership.
“But, if we’re talking about letting the Left “set the rules,” Mr. Marcus’s column reminded me of a larger point: Don’t take your opponents at face value; listen to what they’re really saying. What does the frenzy unleashed on Sarah Palin last fall tell us? What does Newsweek’s “Mad Man” cover on Glenn Beck mean? Why have “civility” drones like Joe Klein so eagerly adopted Anderson Cooper’s scrotal “teabagging” slur and characterized as “racists” and “terrorists” what are (certainly by comparison with the anti-G20 crowd) the best behaved and tidiest street agitators in modern history?
“They’re telling you who they really fear. Whom the media gods would destroy they first make into “mad men.” Liz Cheney should be due for the treatment any day now.
“Sad to say, many who should know better go along with it. Our old comrade David Frum wrote a piece called “Whose Side Is Glenn Beck On?” Well, in the space of a week Beck claimed the scalps of Van Jones, ACORN and that Yosi Sergant guy at the NEA, none of whom should ever have been anywhere near the corridors of power but who’d still be there if it weren’t for Beck. So whoever’s side he is on, it seems pretty clear he’s not on the Obama administration’s. Hence, Media Matters’s sudden obsession with such pressing concerns as Glenn’s mom’s three decade-old suicide.
“The media would like the American Right to be represented by the likes of Bob Dole and John McCain, decent old sticks who know how to give dignified concession speeches. Last time round, we went along with their recommendation. If you want to get rave reviews for losing gracefully, that’s the way to go. If you want to win, look at whom the Democrats and their media chums are so frantic to destroy: That’s the better guide to what they’re really worried about.”
September 29th, 2009 | 10:56 am
I gotta say, for all the talk of saving this-or-that or of being genuine and straightforward – despite all that – this post is rife with the flavor of unsubstantiated accusation, as well as a simple lack of charity. ‘Pudgy’? ‘LDS paranoia’?
Two things: Beck is kind of a buffoon, and high-brow conservatives seem inclined to give him a wide berth. Fine. That’s one. Second, as one commenter pointed out, the man has done a great deal of good in exposing several ludicrous left-wing schemes and personalities.
Conservatives of a certain stripe can choose to bury their nose in books and snipe about Beck’s brand of populism. That’s OK. But conservatives have been suffering in the media for the last ten years, and Beck is leading one of the few successful counter-attacks that conservatives of a younger generation have seen. It’s hard not to cheer.
September 29th, 2009 | 11:16 am
John: Well said. I couldn’t agree more.
September 29th, 2009 | 11:48 am
It appears that the I.R.P.L., publisher of FIRST THINGS, is not above publishing a vitriolic “ad hominem” attack upon another individual, by providing a forum for Rod Dreher.
And, who is RodDdreher, anyway? And what evidence does he have that Beck is a “disciple” of W. Cleon Skousen?
Is FIRST THING guilty of the things it accuses Glenn Beck?
September 29th, 2009 | 1:45 pm
Having followed Joe Carter and many of his colleagues over here to First Things after the doing away with of Culture11, and, having been an admirer of Glenn Beck for some time now, I think I am qualified to comment on this post. I only comment because I take Carter seriously, but respectfully disagree.
I can understand that Carter might be a little uncomfortable with the appeal that Beck has to the American populace. However, if that is indeed where the discomfort lies, then his qualm ought not to stand with Beck so much as with the American people. Lets face it, Glenn Beck is the most popular face in the media today. He is only now becoming a story of controversy because the mainstream media can no longer ignore his popularity. The reality of current American politics in our trend toward democracy (and maybe American politics throughout history) is that it is a popular affair. The GOP, being bereft of any current popular appeal, is instead piggybacking on Beck.
What is ironic is that Carter and Dreher, sense Beck’s popularity as dangerous when Beck, Carter, and Dreher share so much in common that only in these irrational times would Dreher and Carter be able to convince themselves that they were different. I will not attempt to speak for Carter, but at least for Dreher it seems that much of what he advocates is a more religiously principled populace (that takes into consideration many of our duties to our fellow man) and a government that is closer to the people (which would be subject to such duties). Has Carter read anything about the 9/12 project? The 9 principles such as “God is at the center of my life, etc.” or the 12 values such as “Reverence, Charity, Personal Responsibility, etc.”
Carter’s statement that Beck doesn’t believe in anything himself is entirely unfounded, and somewhat unlike Carter’s normal sound analysis. Does Beck pose some seemingly outrageous scenarios that we presently think could never come true? Sure. But if we were to hearken back to just 12 months ago who could have imagined that the Federal government would be giving taxpayer money to banks and car companies and insurance companies, or the discussion would be about the Federal Government determining how to best ration care in the medical field.
Referencing your last post about Beck, I don’t think Carter is out of touch with the American people, but maybe just a bit out of touch with what is actually going on in America. I would actually look forward to a response from Carter about how his goals and Becks differ.
September 29th, 2009 | 2:16 pm
I am glad that Rod Dreher’s piece has been referred to here, as I would not have caught it otherwise. I am also glad to have the background of the possible theological underpinnings of Glenn Beck brought to our attention. Dreher does give a site where one could do further research into the teachings of the little known Skousen, if one chose to pursue the matter. I want to know as much about the purveoyrs of information as I can, so that I can critically evaluate what they say. I am on record on the previous blogs about Beck at this site as finding him informative and amusing. some of his shows resonate with me than others– the public artwork show left me completely cold. but even as amusing as he is, I venture to say that Beck would not hold so much sway if we knew more about the President’s past, he had more experience, his advisors had been more thoroughly examined by the press before assuming their positions, the advisors themselves hadn’t taken such provacative posiitons in the past, and the policies that are being proposed and enacted weren’t so extreme and different than what was inferred would be the policies during the election. This, combined with the almost complete lack of curiosity on the part of the legacy media (with Bernie Goldberg and Rich Lowry I refuse to say “main stream media” any longer), makes Beck so influential. I am glad for the information that he imparts–in between the rantings–but I do want to know from whence he speaks as well. Thank you Joe for posting this; I think it is a useful additon to the portrait.
September 29th, 2009 | 5:22 pm
Racb9R I want to say – thank you for this!
September 30th, 2009 | 12:57 pm
About the Joseph Smith prophecy mentioned near the end of the post…
I’m aware of the historical debate over whether or not Smith actually made that prophecy–there doesn’t seem to be a way to be sure about this one–but if he did say it, I’ve always understood it to refer, not to a dramatic uprising or seizing of power or some other such apocalyptic conspiracy, but simply to preserving the principles of the Constitution in my family, as the world further abandons them.
Last July, I taught my children about the Bill of Rights, especially the “free exercise” clause of the 1st amendment, and the limits imposed on the federal government / guaranteed to the states by the 9th and 10th amendments. They’d never learned this in school. I see that as a fulfillment of this (putative) prophecy.
September 30th, 2009 | 6:30 pm
This is an insulting column.
I’m sick of being told that I’m not intelligent enough to analyze and decide for myself how much credence to put into what I hear–from all sides. This isn’t the First Things that I used to know and love.
September 30th, 2009 | 8:13 pm
LOUISE: I COULDN’T HAVE SAID IT BETTER. SOMETHING HAS CHANGED AT FT, AND I SUSPECT NOT FOR THE BETTER.
September 30th, 2009 | 10:08 pm
Louise I’m sick of being told that I’m not intelligent enough to analyze and decide for myself how much credence to put into what I hear–from all sides.
Who said anything like that? Unless you take Skousen’s views as seriously as Beck does—I presume you don’t?—then I’m not talking about you.
Louise said: “This isn’t the First Things that I used to know and love.
William said: SOMETHING HAS CHANGED AT FT, AND I SUSPECT NOT FOR THE BETTER.
Really? So let me make sure I understand: Glenn Beck is a former “Morning Zoo” DJ turned TV personality who (a) tells everyone who will listen that they should read the book of a cultish wacko nut, (b) gives credence to nutty conspiracy theories before pretending to “debunk” them, (c) rants about communist/fascist/socialist artwork hiding in plain sight in New York City, (d) calls the President of the United States a racist, and (e) promotes apocalyptic scenarios and tells his audience that they should “be very afraid.”
When in the world was this something that First Thing would support? Seriously, I’m curious who you think that has written for First Things that believes this kind of silly stuff?
October 1st, 2009 | 12:00 pm
Well, I don’t know who this Skousen is, but, thanks to Spengler, I know who Cone is and what Black Liberation Theology is, and therefore who and what J. Wright is, and wonder where his ideas might find a sympathetic foothold. The description of BLT brought back memories of an inner-city Episcopal Sunday school where I taught and where I heard the most peculiar, (dare I say) revolutionary ideas coming from third graders. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. Those children must be about 50 by now. These ideas go back a very long way.
The most helpful book I have read about understanding history is Belloc’s How the Reformation Happened. Our country today can be explained very nicely by his theories of history, and they also explain why it may never again be as it was. When the name Marx and Chamberlain cause a 30-something’s eyes to glaze over, you know that your in trouble.
We are living in the Baby Boomers’ experience come to fruition: Make love not war; don’t trust anyone over 30 (70 now); free love without consequences; rebellion against all authority–especially that out-of-date Constitution–except the authority that we hold. We invented the world; there was nothing before us; we even invented music (note what is shown on Great Performances on PBS). Ban tobacco (that was our parent’s drug) but everything else is acceptable. And, as Chris Matthews notably said once, “Nobody was ever supposed to be younger than we are.”
A few BBs actually managed to grow out of that culture, but the ones rabid enough to shape their generation’s culture at their coming of age were the same ones rabid enough to seek and hold the reins of power when the grew older. They will brook no opposition and they don’t give a hoot about the consequences.
Where did you say that? You said it in your tone, in your diction, in the pace and length of your sentences, in your breathlessness. I don’t listen to Beck on the radio, but I watch his program two afternoons a week. However, I don’t think that Colin Powell would have told me about the ACORN twins, or Valerie Jarrett or Van Jones or John Holdren, etc. etc. I already knew about R. Emanuel and J. Podesta, two bad pennies from Clinton days. John McCain was seething listening to “You will know me by the company I keep” but, for some reason kept his mouth shut–too gentlemanly, I guess. How long before the New York Times would get around to explaining the incestuous connections between Bill Ayers and spouse, the Acorn twins, V. Jarrett, SEIU, the Tides Foundation, and the Apollo Group? Yes, Beck’s religious platitudes fall far short of Catholic moral theology, but he’s not a Catholic and all of my non-Catholic friends think on that level and in those terms.
I think that I am capable of asking the right questions of Beck at the right time, just as I did prior to Nov., 2008, (e.g., what kind of change?) and I can probably come up with the same answers. And we don’t need Beck to tell us about the dark corners of Obama’s life. “Chicago politics” tells us all we need to know if we are a certain age and generation (Belloc, again). No one gets that far that fast in Chicago without playing the game by their rules.
I mourn our country and I never thought I would see the day when I, too, might think, “Blessed are the barren and wombs that never bore,” and look with sadness on an infant, wondering what kind of a country he will inherit.
October 2nd, 2009 | 12:49 am
After watching Beck for some time now, there is something about him that resonates, shall I say at our core. Sarah Palin can have the same effect. The presentation is not so polished, but something causes one to look at things a little different then many in the mainstream media (MSM) present. My opinion is that MSM talk DOWN to people, where Beck talks ACROSS to people. He may be “different” at times, but not in the snide way that comes across so often in MSM. In addition, there is that feeling it comes from the “heart”. Something that seems to be lacking in many a Sunday sermon, and statements from bishops.
I find Beck’s views like a bucket of cold water in the face. He does make one think, if one is listening to him. Maybe to look below the surface of what we see and hear, and think for ourselves of how and where things are going for this country.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact