“I think I’ve wasted your time. I think this is the first time I have wasted an hour of your time and I apologize for that.” — Glenn Beck apologizes for his interview with former Congressman Massa.
“Yes, it’s true that you may like strawberry ice cream more than chocolate, whereas I prefer chocolate. But that shouldn’t obscure the much bigger point: everybody likes ice cream more than they like gall-bladder surgery.” — Daniel Gilbert, a Harvard psychologist who is apparently unaware of the existence of lactose-intolerant gastrointestinal surgeons, on how we aren’t so different after all.
“I can tell that a novel is top-rate when I start praying for the characters.” — Peggy Rosenthal really liked Barbara Kingsolver’s latest novel, The Lacuna.
“Our milk is safe to drink (and is not contaminated with bacteria or other pollutants) not primarily because some regulator is imposing penalties on milk producers who do it wrong, but because all those workers from the cow to the supermarket just know that somebody will drink this milk, and intrinsically want to do their job right.” — Yale economics professor Robert Shiller on business and social trust.
“The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according [to] the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling.” — Chief Justice John Roberts is still wondering why he has to sit through President Obama’s State of the Union insults.
“Because every day, this elected leader [Hugo Chavez] is called a dictator here, and we just accept it! And accept it. And this is mainstream media, who should – truly, there should be a bar by which one goes to prison for these kinds of lies.” — Irony-immune actor Sean Penn on his favorite dictator leftist authoritarian leader.
“Greed does not cause rate hikes. I’m not sure why some [health insurance] premiums have shot up lately, but I’m quite sure that “greed” is not the answer. That’s because I’m quite sure that the insurance companies are no greedier today than they were a year ago. To explain a change in prices, you’ve got to point to something that’s changed. Greed is pretty much a constant.” — Economist Steve Landsburg schools the Obama administration on how prices work.
“Today’s journalists are much too well-bred and well-connected to stand there in the crowd shouting “The emperor has no clothes!” They’ve worked with the tailors, they have had long background interviews with the tailors, they’ve been present for some of the fittings. Of course the emperor’s new clothes are fantastic; only those rude and uncouth ‘clothing deniers’ still have any doubts.” — Walter Russell Mead explaining why journalists often get the story wrong.
(Some quotes via: The Browser)
March 11th, 2010 | 10:19 am
I’ve always considered First Things an intellectual endeavor, sometimes even esoterically (if forgivably) so, but I never considered First Things to be elitist.
Am I wrong?
March 11th, 2010 | 10:29 am
. . . but I never considered First Things to be elitist. Am I wrong?
Hmm. . . I don’t think we’re elitist (if you mean that in a bad way). What makes you ask?
March 11th, 2010 | 10:35 am
If Erin’s thinking is like mine, it probably has something to do with blanket condemnation of everything Glenn Beck says. For various reasons, I seldom watch his show. But on the occasions I have, I think his points and presentation on certain matters has been very good. It has to be remembered that, like Limbaugh, he is at LEAST 50% entertainment.
March 11th, 2010 | 10:49 am
TomG It has to be remembered that, like Limbaugh, he is at LEAST 50% entertainment.
And therein lies the problem. . .
If Beck says something worthwhile, we are to take him seriously as a political commentator; if Beck says something inane we are supposed to dismiss it because he is an entertainer.
When did we get to the point where political discourse was not only considered “entertainment” but we have to treat these pundit-entertainers as if they were sacred cows or be pegged as “elitist”?
It’s become embarrassing. Speak ill of Edmund Burke and conservatives (assuming they know who you’re talking about) will shrug. Speak ill of Rush Limbaugh and conservatives will read you out of the movement. The most untouchable people in conservatism are the clowns and entertainers. Is it any wonder that conservatism is in trouble?
Also, I have a special animus against Beck because I don’t think he really believes what he’s saying. Sure, he has a natural libertarian bent (as many people who have no solid political convictions do) but there is no evidence that he has anything other than the most shallow understanding of what he’s talking about. He’s a morning Zoo DJ who found that there was money to be made pandering to conservatives–and he’s right.
(In fairness, Rush didn’t believe in conservatism all that much in the beginning of his career anyway (if his brother can be believed) but he seems to believe it now. Maybe the same will happen to Beck.)
March 11th, 2010 | 11:06 am
Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh certainly do make Left-leaning people uncomfortable — that’s for sure.
March 11th, 2010 | 11:13 am
Edward Alleyn Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh certainly do make Left-leaning people uncomfortable — that’s for sure.
Really? I suspect they may make some liberals uneasy, but the liberal elite loves them (though they’d be loathe to admit it). The rise of progressivism over the past few decades has gone hand-in-hand with the rise of conservative talk radio. Liberals know that if they can paint all conservatives as Dittoheads or Beckian conspiracy theorists they can persuade independents that conservatives are anti-intellectual and unable to govern.
Talk radio isn’t solely to blame for the troubles of conservatism, of course, but the net effect has been largely detrimental.
March 11th, 2010 | 11:48 am
Joe-
I’m not a big Beck fan either, but when you say that “there is no evidence that he has anything other than the most shallow understanding of what he’s talking about,” I have to question whether you’ve actually spent any time listening to him lately. On matters such as the original intentions of the Founders and the roots of the modern day Progressive movement, I would say that he’s better informed than many talk radio hosts and other media pundits (Hannity and O’Reilly immediately come to mind). Perhaps that’s a low bar to judge him against, but it’s a little unfair to expect him to be some sort of Claremont Institute wonk
The reality is the a large number of Americans aren’t going spend their free time studying Edmund Burke or Russell Kirk or reading National Review or First Things. While I prefer listening to the likes of Bennett, Prager, and Hewitt when it comes to talk radio, I don’t see why there can’t be a place for Rush and Beck in the conservative conversation too. The two of them have likely won over far more converts over the years than all the institutes, think tanks, and policy geeks combined.
March 11th, 2010 | 12:49 pm
Chad: On matters such as the original intentions of the Founders and the roots of the modern day Progressive movement, I would say that he’s better informed than many talk radio hosts and other media pundits (Hannity and O’Reilly immediately come to mind). Perhaps that’s a low bar to judge him against, but it’s a little unfair to expect him to be some sort of Claremont Institute wonk.
True, Beck does seem to have a read a couple of books lately (which seems more than Sean Hannity has done). And he may even get some things right from time to time. But one of the key problems with Beck is that he has a problem discerning what sources are reliable. He is as likely to quote from some conspiracy theorist/nutjob as he is the Founding Fathers (and if a conspiracy theorist/nutjob writes a book on the Founding Fathers you know he’s going to plug it on air.).
Also, why do we set the bar so low? You say that it’s “a little unfair to expect him to be some sort of Claremont Institute wonk.” Why is it unfair to expect that people who have a national platform to spout about policy actually have some level of expertise on policy? I realize that this is the reality we’ve created but it doesn’t mean we should accept it.
The reality is the a large number of Americans aren’t going spend their free time studying Edmund Burke or Russell Kirk or reading National Review or First Things.
I’ll certainly grant that most people won’t spend their time on more worthy sources. But just because not all people will drink milk does not mean that we should be okay with the masses being served dirty water.
Bill Bennett once told me that one of his largest and most loyal audiences for his radio show were truck drivers. They loved to call in to talk about philosophy, the Great Books, etc. The same audience that cynical radio programmers write off as Hannitized drones deeply craves something of substance. Why don’t we give them more of that? If Bennett had the same reach as Beck I have no doubt that his show would be huge.
While I prefer listening to the likes of Bennett, Prager, and Hewitt when it comes to talk radio, I don’t see why there can’t be a place for Rush and Beck in the conservative conversation too.
I certainly don’t begrudge them a place. I’m just disheartened that they are given such prominence. Whatever their personal beliefs, on air they are more “anti-liberal” than conservative. There may be a place for that but when it gets to the point where people think that is what conservatism is about—as they have now—then we are in trouble.
Another thing that irks me is that saying anything against them is considered anathema (Rush more than Beck). You can speak ill of Bennett or Prager and no one will raise a fuss. Criticize Rush, though, and people will say that you aren’t really a conservative (it has happened to me more than once).
The two of them have likely won over far more converts over the years than all the institutes, think tanks, and policy geeks combined.
Converts to what, though? A dumbed-down simulacra of conservatism? Maybe they’ve converted some people to the cause of tax cuts or anti-liberalism, but I certainly don’t see them grooming conservatives.
And we can’t even say they’ve been effective on pragmatic grounds. Since the rise of talk radio we’ve had two terms of Clinton, two terms of Bush, and Obama. There aren’t more than a handful of reliable conservative politicians on the national level. What exactly do we have to show for their efforts? To my mind, their primary effect has been to suck all of the oxygen out of the room so that true conservative discussions can’t even take place.
March 11th, 2010 | 1:12 pm
Joe-
I don’t have time for a more complete response at the moment. For now, here’s a timely post from Jonah Goldberg that links Beck, Progessives, and the Claremont Institute:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjZjMmU2YjNkYzE5N2MyMmY4MTJiMjdlYmNmZjg4YTk=
March 11th, 2010 | 1:51 pm
Mr. Carter, when did you become a “simulacra” of Conor Friedersdorf? What, aside from a bunch of comments, is First Things accomplishing with posts like this?
“True, Beck does seem to have a read a couple of books lately . . . I certainly don’t begrudge them a place . . .” – it’s just a series of backpedals from a weakly-defined original position. I don’t listen to talk radio, but it would be more interesting if, rather than continually jabbing, you spent your time making this case: “The rise of progressivism over the past few decades has gone hand-in-hand with the rise of conservative talk radio. Liberals know that if they can paint all conservatives as Dittoheads or Beckian conspiracy theorists they can persuade independents that conservatives are anti-intellectual and unable to govern.”
March 11th, 2010 | 1:59 pm
Mr. Carter:
Given that Clinton enacted welfare reform, NAFTA, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, campaigned on “amend it don’t end it” regarding affirmative action thereby acknowledging there was a problem, championed the death penalty, had the campaign slogan “It’s the economy, stupid” and basically ran to the right of GWH Bush its hard to peg him as a liberal.
And Obama’s pretty much continuing GW Bush’s War on Terror policies. Not to mention that Obama ran as a tax cutter (remember the claim that if you made under $250k your taxes will go down?).
Democrats get elected running as Republicans, as Jim Webb, Evan Bayh, Heath Shuler, Barak Obama, Stupak, and many other politicians prove every election cycle; which hardly points to a big fat nothing for conservatism over the last 20 years.
Plus, what is a “true conservative discussion,” anyway?
March 11th, 2010 | 2:47 pm
I’m so much happier now! In all seriousness. THIS is true conservative discussion.
My point about elitism was a concern that a libertarian/conservative argument like Beck’s gets dismissed from an intellectual endeavor like First Things as though there is no truth or value within the antics. However, when we engage at this level of critique and discussion (instead of side-armed barbs aimed at inflaming the conservative masses), I am satisfied that elitism (of the bad kind) has not engulfed my favorite publication.
I’ll concede Joe’s point about the confusion of what to take seriously if he’s an entertainer and/or commentator, but I’ve personally never seen much entertainment value in the show. It’s not worth much for how it looks or is presented so much as it’s valuable for what is said, or more precisely, asked. A common man is asking legitimate questions about disturbing facts that are mainly hidden or ignored by the rest of the media; to denigrate the questioner does not illegitimize the questions. And I guess that is my main concern over the anti-Beck-ness of this blog. Let us not dismiss the conservative concerns because they may happen to be delivered by a man some might consider silly. If that is what is at stake, then First Things has become the ivory tower where commoners like myself are no longer welcome.
PS Joe, America is obviously hungry for valid reading. Why don’t you submit to your readers a suggested reading list for America’s history, faith and founding?
thanks!
March 11th, 2010 | 3:19 pm
lmao, it was like a moment of bs free beck
March 11th, 2010 | 3:51 pm
Joe-
To say that conservative talk radio has failed because Clinton, Bush, and Obama have been our presidents since its rise is a pretty weak argument. Using that logic in 1979, someone could have said that National Review and Bill Buckley had failed citing Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter. It also ignores the polls that show again and again that more Americans identify themselves as conservatives. And you could argue, as Buttercup has, that our national politics would have been even less conservative without talk radio to provide balance.
Speaking of the late, great Mr. Buckley, if I’m not mistaken he was an admirer of Rush and appreciated the role that he played in advancing the conservative cause. He understood that you needed many modes to deliver the message and having a popular voice like Rush in an accessible medium was a boon to conservatives.
You had a great insight a while back that three of the greatest conservative media influences in the last half of the 20th century were Reader’s Digest, Paul Harvey, and the Boy Scout handbook. All three of these hit home with me as my exposure to all three growing up–the first two through my parents–no doubt helped shape my conservative ideology. Both of my parents grew up on farms and neither went to college. They didn’t read Burke or Kirk or Hayek. Rather their conservative “education” was based on what they received from the more accessible mediums of the time: Reader’s Digest and Paul Harvey.
Guess who they listen to, watch, and read today? Rush, Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly, etc. True, sometimes I cringe when my mom says “Did you hear what O’Reilly said last night?” or “You should really read this new book by Glenn Beck,” but I don’t see how it’s detrimental to conservatives to have their message (however imperfect) get out in a popular and entertaining manner.
No one says that you have like Glen Beck. I’m not particularly fond of him myself. But I think people are weary of the length that some conservative pundits seem to believe they must to go to repudiate and reject these more populist voices.
Finally, I think you fall into the Air America fallacy with your comment about Bennett being as popular as Beck if only he had the “reach.” Air America boosters liked to argue that if their hosts were on as many stations as Rush they would be as popular as he was. Of course they had this all backwards as it was Rush’s popularity that created his network of stations not the other way around. Again, I prefer Bennett to Beck, but if Bennett’s show was as popular as Beck’s his “reach” wouldn’t be a problem.
March 11th, 2010 | 4:06 pm
Enjoyed the quote from Walter Russell Mead. It must be tough out there for these “journalists”. In the first place, there’s way too many of them, and they all have to fight to get their faces on the chat shows. Which means they are forced to go on shows like Imus or Maher or Stewart in order to keep their careers humming or sell their books. (I’ve seen parts of Maher’s “comedy” performances on TV, and believe me, the guy is a lowlife.) Same thing goes for politicians. So we see Elliot Spitzer trying to rehabilitate himself on the Maher show, or Newt Gingrich trying to explain health care issues to Maher’s audience of adolescents. I know that Gingrich may be running for President, and is trying to reach as many people as possible, but the absurdity remains.
March 11th, 2010 | 4:44 pm
Given that Clinton enacted welfare reform, NAFTA, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, campaigned on “amend it don’t end it” regarding affirmative action thereby acknowledging there was a problem, championed the death penalty, had the campaign slogan “It’s the economy, stupid” and basically ran to the right of GWH Bush its hard to peg him as a liberal.
Clinton had welfare reform shoved on him by Republicans and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was an embaressing compromise he had to make after promising to allow gays to openly serve in the military. Free trade is one thing conservatives and liberals can both agree on so I’m not sure how NAFTA fits in. Also, I’m not sure has preventing the repeal of affirmative action is anything other than a liberal move.
. . . basically ran to the right of GWH Bush its hard to peg him as a liberal.
Sure, if you look at it in purely economic terms, Clinton was not as liberal as Mondale or Obama. But on social issues he far from conservative.
Plus, what is a “true conservative discussion,” anyway?
Discussion about what is worth conserving (e.g., the family) and how best to go about it. Opposing liberalism obviously has its place, but when that shouldn’t be the sole—or even the primary—focus of the movement.
My point about elitism was a concern that a libertarian/conservative argument like Beck’s gets dismissed from an intellectual endeavor like First Things as though there is no truth or value within the antics.
I’m a firm believer that presentation is almost as important to an argument as content. That is one of the things that bothers me most about Beck. When he acts like a buffoon, it undercuts any serious point he makes—and causes people to dismiss the same argument when other people make it.
A common man is asking legitimate questions about disturbing facts that are mainly hidden or ignored by the rest of the media; to denigrate the questioner does not illegitimize the questions.
Sometimes that is true, but other times he raises questions/concerns that may appear legitimate but are based on nonsense. For example, last year he went off about how the Rockefellers have subversive messages put in the artwork around New York City. It was the type of silliness created by his cultish hero Skounsen but plenty of people thought it was legitimate.
Also, it’s hard to claim Beck as a representative of the “common man.” He is millionaire media figure who subscribes to both a minority religion and some cultish political views. He is easily duped (see: Massa) and quick to decieve (albeit unintentionally) his audience. He also hides under the cover of “entertainer” so that he doesn’t have to be responsbile for when he says something that turns out not to be true.
If that is what is at stake, then First Things has become the ivory tower where commoners like myself are no longer welcome.
Oh, I don’t think you have to worry about that. I’m about as common as they get and they let me have free reign on the blog.
PS Joe, America is obviously hungry for valid reading. Why don’t you submit to your readers a suggested reading list for America’s history, faith and founding?
That’s a great suggestion. I’ve been intending to ask readers for recommended reading lists on other topics, so I’ll add this to the list.
Chad
Fair enough. I agree that it would be too much to say that is a sign that they failed. More likely it is a sign that they had no significant effect on the voting population.
It also ignores the polls that show again and again that more Americans identify themselves as conservatives.
It is true that they do show that, but that has largely remain unchanged since the pre-talk radio days.
And you could argue, as Buttercup has, that our national politics would have been even less conservative without talk radio to provide balance.
I think an easier argument would be that national politics would be less right-wing populist. That is, however, an altogether different thing than conservatism.
Rather their conservative “education” was based on what they received from the more accessible mediums of the time: Reader’s Digest and Paul Harvey. Guess who they listen to, watch, and read today? Rush, Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly, etc.
I’m glad you brought this up, because it underlines my problem with the Beck-Hannity-Rush types. Paul Harvey was the greatest radio man ever. Rush is admittedly talented but he isn’t worhty of polishing Harvey’s mic. How we went from Harvey to Beck is inconceivable?
I remember when I was just about—maybe ten years old—and heard Harvey talking about illegal immigration. He said something like we weren’t hostile to our foreign neighbors, it was just that we needed to get our own house in order before we let in anymore guests. It was so winsome, persuasive, and thoughtful that I still remember it thirty years later. Compare that to almost every other radio host today who talks about immigration.
Harvey was a true evangelist for conservativism (even though he rarely used the term) while today’s hosts are merely preaching to the converted.
But I think people are weary of the length that some conservative pundits seem to believe they must to go to repudiate and reject these more populist voices.
I think one of the reasons we need to repudiate them is because conservatism is antithetical to populism. Yet we’ve become such a “big-tent” that we think the conservative movmenet should (must?) embrace libertarians, populists, or anyone else who is anti-liberal. The result is that there are increasing numbers of libertarians and populists who call themselves conservative and fewer and fewer people who resemble anything that resembles classical conservatism.
Of course they had this all backwards as it was Rush’s popularity that created his network of stations not the other way around. Again, I prefer Bennett to Beck, but if Bennett’s show was as popular as Beck’s his “reach” wouldn’t be a problem.
You have to admit, though, that when Rush started he was working a virtual vaccum. He had very little serious competition. Imagine if he were to start today with all of the compeitiors. True, they are mostly imitators of him (Hannity is almost a better “Rush” than Limbaugh himself) but if he had to start from scratch he wouldn’t be nearly as sucessful as he is today.
You might be right about Bennett. I wish there was a way to test it. I suspect—though I may be wrong—that if you put Bennett in the primetime slots that Beck, Hannity, and Rush and on the same number of stations that he would more than hold his own.
March 11th, 2010 | 4:58 pm
[...] tip to Joe Carter at First Thoughts) addthis_url = [...]
March 11th, 2010 | 6:01 pm
Joe-
You’re right that it was easier for Rush to rise back when he started than it is for someone today. But he’s still clearly in a league of his own when it comes to talent. Hannity is a very pale imitation at best. He’s the one conservative media star whose popularity I don’t understand. I can see the appeal of O’Reilly and to a lesser extent Beck, but what Hannity brings to the table that hundreds of other hosts don’t is simply beyond me.
Your aspiration for American conservatism to return to its more classical roots is understandable. But without at least some overlap with more populist and libertarian elements, that conservative tent would become so small as to be virtually irrelevant.
And I gotta needle you a bit by asking how your support of Huckabee squares with that sentiment. Wasn’t a large part of his appeal his more populist message? You might reject that label for Huckabee, but I think you’d be hard pressed to claim him as a “classical conservative” either.
March 11th, 2010 | 10:08 pm
While many dismiss Beck as less then equal to the “journalists” out there, he does bring into focus many things that have shaped this country, that have been forgotten. Today he had a item on Fr. Couglon (not sure of the spelling) who was a Catholic priest and popular radio speaker in the 30′s. My parents would talk about him and later I noted he was referenced in commentaries about the “Depression” prior to WW II. Never knew Fr. Couglon’s periodical was called the “Social Justice”. Now why does that sound familiar?
I think Beck did a excellent job in presenting this individual, and the rise of Nazi and Communist parties in the countries during the 30′s and 40′s.
So to dismiss Beck as some moron, or fly in the ointment, would be a grave and arrogant mistake. As Santayana noted about those who do not learn from history.
March 12th, 2010 | 9:27 am
“Greed does not cause rate hikes. . . . Greed is pretty much a constant.”
Er, if greed’s a constant, wouldn’t it be constantly wanting to hike rates?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact