The article isn’t entirely fair and certainly not sympathetic (it is, after all, the NYT). But if you have any interest at all in the man some describe as a post-angry Oprah, you’ll find it utterly fascinating.
However, for those who don’t have time to read it all (it took me 67 minutes), I’ve selected ten choices passages to give you an idea of what you’re missing:
1. . . . as [Beck] said in July of last year, “Everything that is getting pushed through Congress, including this health care bill,” is “driven by President Obama’s thinking on . . . reparations” and his desire to “settle old racial scores.”
2. In the middle of his analogy to me about his own personal crash and the country’s need to heal itself, Beck looked at his publicist with a flash of alarm about how I might construe what he was saying. “He is going to write a story that I believe the whole country is alcoholics,” he said. And then he went on to essentially compare his “Restoring Honor” pageant at the Lincoln Memorial to a large-scale A.A. meeting.
3. Beck’s staff and loyalists love to compare Beck with Oprah Winfrey. . . . As Winfrey does, Beck talks a great deal about himself and subscribes to the pop-recovery ethic.
4. [Beck’s office] is spacious, sun-filled and arrayed with family photos, books and a yellowed copy of The Boston Post with the headline “Woodrow Wilson Is Dead.”
5. [Beck] tells of walking into a bookstore and loading up on books by a hodgepodge that included Alan Dershowitz, Pope John Paul II, Carl Sagan, Nietzsche, Billy Graham and Adolf Hitler. “The library of a serial killer,” he called it.
6. [Beck] wanted to marry, and she agreed, but only on the condition that they find a religion together. They shopped around, attended services and eventually settled on Mormonism — inspired in part by Beck’s best friend and radio sidekick, Pat Gray, who himself is Mormon. Beck, who was brought up Roman Catholic, has called his faith “the most important thing” in his life.
7. Beck fashions himself a kind of self-teaching populist for the Internet age. His characteristic chalkboard lends his show an air of retro-professorial authority, despite the fact that Beck did not attend college and says that before Sept. 11, 2001, “I didn’t know my butt from my elbow.”
8. Several people at Beck’s events described themselves as “students of history” or “historians.” When I asked one if he was affiliated with a school or college, he said: “Yes. Glenn Beck University.”
9. “I wrote Sarah Palin a letter last night about 2 in the morning,” Beck said on his radio show in September. “And I said: ‘Sarah, I don’t know if I’m doing more harm or more good. I don’t know anymore.’ ”
10. [Beck's] most animated attacks on Obama in the days after the “Restoring Honor” rally were over his take on the president’s religious convictions, which Beck called “a perversion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as most Christians know it.”
September 30th, 2010 | 2:50 am
I’m not sure it’s fair to say that, Beck, and his wife “settled” on Mormonism. I think that they became mormons, because they believe that it’s true. I’m not a mormon, but, believe it or not, there are intelligent, serious adults, who accept mormonism, because they believe it’s true, and they deserve our respect, not condescension.
September 30th, 2010 | 3:25 am
Joe,
Do you watch Glenn Beck’s TV show or listen to his radio show on a regular basis? Y N
Why Joe do you ‘wish he would go away’ ?
I read the 17 page article and it didn’t take me 67 mins.
What was the point of your article I’m still scratching my head?
September 30th, 2010 | 3:35 am
Bret Lythgoe I’m not sure it’s fair to say that, Beck, and his wife “settled” on Mormonism. I think that they became mormons, because they believe that it’s true.
No doubt Beck and his wife believe it is true. But I also suspect they chose their church for the reasons that many other Americans do: because they felt comfortable there.
D Carter Do you watch Glenn Beck’s TV show or listen to his radio show on a regular basis? Y N
Regularly? No, I cannot stand to watch his show or listen to his radio program for any extended period of time.
Why Joe do you ‘wish he would go away’ ?
Because I think he has an overall negative impact on political discourse in our country. Because I think his views on history are often naive and/or puerile and that people’s time would be better spent by reading books on history. Because he is defined more by what he hates (progressives) than by what he loves. Because he is a libertarian and that philosophy is almost as destructive for this country as liberalism.
I read the 17 page article and it didn’t take me 67 mins.
The average reading speed online is 120 wpm. What can I say, I’m average.
What was the point of your article I’m still scratching my head?
The point of the article was to (a) inform people who might be interested that there is an article out about Glenn Beck and (b) provide selections from that article to entice them to read the whole thing and learn more about Beck.
September 30th, 2010 | 5:29 am
Joe Carter:
1) Glenn Beck encourages his viewers/listeners to think for themselves and not take his word for it. Furthermore, Beck is always recommending books for people to read, including quite obscure ones. And they usually end up being number one of Amazon the next day!
2) He isn’t defined more by what he hates – well perhaps, by your definition his is. However, to one who regularly listens and watches, it’s quite clear what he loves and is always floating interesting ideas, like privatising the military.
As you say, you don’t watch/listen to him regularly and this is the problem. Glenn Beck is a complex character and popping in now and then to see what he’s doing just won’t do if you want to understand what he’s all about.
September 30th, 2010 | 5:59 am
Joe,
If you wish Beck would go away, why are you making him even more omnipresent than he already is? My only exposure to Beck — though it’s substantial — is via commentators like you who “wish he would go away.” For many of us, who have no interest in Beck, Beck would not be here, in our consciousness, at all without the efforts of people like you who “wish he would go away.”
September 30th, 2010 | 8:05 am
Joe Carter: You’re right. I think that that’s probably true.
September 30th, 2010 | 8:22 am
Perhaps this is how Joe Carter demonstrates his wish that Beck would go away. By posting yet another article about him.
September 30th, 2010 | 8:26 am
I have said this before, but: Anyone who writes a book called “Arguing with Idiots,” firstly, doesn’t know what real argument is, and secondly, is part of the problem, not the solution.
It’s the same type of thinking undergirding Al Franken, Michael Moore, etc. Beck’s writing might be more congenial to us as conservatives than that of Franken, Moore, et al., but it’s not more helpful.
September 30th, 2010 | 9:52 am
Craig, you should have watched Glenn Beck’s discussion recently on the work of Economist Friedrich Hayek. Seems his theory about fiscal responsibility is getting a new look after the failure of the Keynesian “stimulus” program.
That was a fascinating discussion of economics, and the economic path this country is taking. Even the Wall St. Journal commented on it, which is more then they bother to to do on say, Oberman.
Besides Beck can laugh at himself, and can be funny and serious at the same time..
September 30th, 2010 | 10:08 am
John Beck is always recommending books for people to read, including quite obscure ones. And they usually end up being number one of Amazon the next day!
Let’s look at some of Beck’s recommendations:
Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley – As Matt Continetti of The Weekly Standard has noted, this book is “the bible of conspiracy theorists. Why? Because in it Quigley, a Georgetown professor for many years and a man of the left, ‘admitted’ that most of world history since the early twentieth century has been the design of secret societies.”
The 5,000 Year Leap by Cleon Skousen – Beck describes Skousen as one of his favorite writers (he also wrote the forward to the most recent edition of this book). So who is the man? He was a conspiracy theorist and member/defender of the John Birch Society who was so extreme that during the Goldwater-era he was shunned by almost all conservative groups.
In fairness, he does recommend some good books. But it makes me wonder if he has actually read them. For example, here’s a quote from one of the books he made #1 on Amazon:
The state helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance? Doesn’t that sound a lot like Obamacare?
That quote, of course, is from Hayek’s Road to Serfdom. Yet if you told Beck those words had come from Rahm Emanuel he’d swear it was evidence that the Chicago pol was a Communist.
He isn’t defined more by what he hates – well perhaps, by your definition his is.
Are you saying that at least 50% of Beck’s show is not spent railing against the evils of liberalism?
However, to one who regularly listens and watches, it’s quite clear what he loves and is always floating interesting ideas, like privatising the military.
You know what a “privatized military” is called? Mercenaries. You know where we’ve used mercenaries recently (e.g., Blackwater)? In Iraq. And, for the most part, they were a disaster.
I think you’ve really chosen a bad example there. Anyone who thinks that privatizing the military is a good idea has drunk too deeply from the libertarian Kool-Aid.
Glenn Beck is a complex character and popping in now and then to see what he’s doing just won’t do if you want to understand what he’s all about.
I may not understand all of what Beck is about, but the parts that I do—his ignorance of history, his promotion of conspiracy theorists—is enough to make me think we should avoid him.
Ben If you wish Beck would go away, why are you making him even more omnipresent than he already is?
Someone like Beck doesn’t go away simply because he is ignored. It’s similar to the John Birch Society. You know why we don’t hear much from those crazies anymore? Because conservatives like William Buckley took the time to write about them and explain why we should distance ourselves from such groups despite the fact that they were on our side and occasionally made positive contributions.
Beck is dragging down the conservative movement—which is ironic because he’s not even conservative. The people he appeals to have the right instincts and motivations, but they are being led astray by a man who is too gullible and is prone to believing nutty stuff.
September 30th, 2010 | 10:21 am
“Beck is dragging down the conservative movement—which is ironic because he’s not even conservative.”
If by ‘dragging down the conservative movement’ you mean rallying hundreds of thousands of conservatives to attend a rally in DC, and inspiring millions of others to learn about our founding principles, you are right. America could use a bit more dragging like this, or so it seems to me.
Mr. Beck is not always my cup of tea, either, but he has influenced a great many people to consider–perhaps for the first time in their lives–some of our first principles. Or, some of our ‘first things…”
September 30th, 2010 | 10:32 am
For what it’s worth, I appreciate that Joe Carter and First Things highlight the differences within the conservative movement that might be lost on some people. It’s difficult for people to refer to themselves as “conservatives” in certain circles because the “movement” is defined by people like Glenn Beck.
September 30th, 2010 | 10:39 am
Joe,
I don’t really care if Beck stays or if he goes away. He’s irrelevant to me, and I would venture that he’s irrelevant to almost everyone who reads this blog. I can see the point of one essay taking note of Beck and critiquing Beck. But I can’t see the point of a steady stream to posts taking note of and commenting on the man’s every move. There’s a “gullible” man who believes “nutty stuff” in The White House now who is “dragging” the whole country “down” — not just the conservative movement — and leading many millions “astray.” Taking note of what he’s up to seems more pressing to me than yet another post on Beck, who, when last I checked, was not presiding over two wars, a stagnant economy, and an ongoing effort to revolutionize moral norms through the force of the state.
September 30th, 2010 | 11:15 am
Michael Reilly Mr. Beck is not always my cup of tea, either, but he has influenced a great many people to consider–perhaps for the first time in their lives–some of our first principles. Or, some of our ‘first things…”
One of the reasons why I think it is important to write about Beck is because of claims similar to the one you make, Michael: “Beck isn’t someone that would influence me but since he’s influencing other people in positive ways we shouldn’t throw stones at him.”
The problem with this is that it leads to a confusion. On one hand we are saying that there are hordes of ignorant Americans who are so ill-informed about such subjects as history and America’s founding that they could gain by being taught by Beck. Yet on the other hand we claim that these ignorant Americans are smart enough to discern when what Beck is teaching them is total bunk.
Many of the views Beck promotes—especially in the fringe books he champions—are based on a conspiracy theorist’s worldview. When Beck talks about Communists taking over the White House, he isn’t engaging in hyperbole. He really believes, as did his mentor Skousen, that the government is truly being infiltrated by secret commies.
Ben He’s irrelevant to me, and I would venture that he’s irrelevant to almost everyone who reads this blog.
I wish that were true. I wish I could claim that FT readers are not the type to fall for Beck’s weird worldview. But anytime he’s mentioned on this blog, I get repeatedly attacked for questioning Beck. I suspect that a significant number of our readers either think Beck is harmless or an overall positive influence on conservatives.
But I can’t see the point of a steady stream to posts taking note of and commenting on the man’s every move.
Over the past year I’ve written 894 posts. Only .8 percent (a total of 7) have been about Glenn Beck. That hardly seems like overkill.
September 30th, 2010 | 11:33 am
Joe Carter: “I wish that were true. I wish I could claim that FT readers are not the type to fall for Beck’s weird worldview. But anytime he’s mentioned on this blog, I get repeatedly attacked for questioning Beck. I suspect that a significant number of our readers either think Beck is harmless or an overall positive influence on conservatives.”
I totally agree with this – I don’t care for Beck and think he probably is an overall negative for conservatives. But I’ve got to say: having the Gateway Pundit on your site is not helping. He and Beck likely draw similar crowds – and both of them are beneath First Things.
September 30th, 2010 | 11:37 am
Glenn Beck is a populist with an emotional style that delivers audiences. Whatever the flaws in his political philosophy, he gets regular people interested in conservative solutions.
I suspect that for people like Joe Carter, Beck remains the easy answer to the question, Who is the Al Franken or Michael Moore of the right? It is a question that lazily presumes equivalence, and the answer makes Carter feel fair and balanced and intellectually honest.
Beck is not Michael Moore. I don’t particularly care for Beck’s populist style either, but I am ecstatic about his bringing serious questions to mass audiences. I have faith that the more information people have, the more conservative they will become, even if some of that information is rotten. I began my own intellectual journey with the stunted Ayn Rand and have long since jettisoned her for better thinkers. But I will be forever grateful for that gateway drug.
September 30th, 2010 | 11:40 am
There is a such thing as intellectual bullying. It is harder to detect because bullies believe they are the vanguard of civility, and tone defeats substance. See for example, J-School seminars, soporific NPR “round tables,” the NYT editorial page, Davids Frum, Brooks, and Gergen, and any typical university colloquium. In truth, these whispering radicals are merely hiding their philosophy from the sternest tests.
So, along comes Fox News and talk radio with their brash style, and suddenly the dictates of civility become synonymous with preserving the status quo. Like it or not: communication today is a jungle. Liberty demands it be. Some want to become official zookeepers with whips and cages and access to the food supply from far above. Others of us have the skill, equipment, and courage to get low and go on safari.
I realize that nothing but patty-cake will make some people comfortable. But those who are blunt, shout, rough around the edges, and take no prisoners, are not always wrong. And those who rally in the name of peace and civility are often the ones with more to hide and more to lose. The peace of totalitarianism is the peace of the grave.
September 30th, 2010 | 12:08 pm
King Glenn Beck is a populist with an emotional style that delivers audiences. Whatever the flaws in his political philosophy, he gets regular people interested in conservative solutions.
Yes, he does—sometimes. But he also gets them interested in libertarian solutions, which are not much better than their philosophical cousin, progressivism.
Neither populism nor libertarianism is consonant with conservatism. Eventually the majority of people who are attracted to those streams of thought end up supporting liberal causes (see for example the current vogue of “liberaltarianism”).
I suspect that for people like Joe Carter, Beck remains the easy answer to the question, Who is the Al Franken or Michael Moore of the right? . . . Beck is not Michael Moore.
I don’t know if it’s the easy answer, but it is the answer. And no, Beck is not Moore. He is more like Franken.
I began my own intellectual journey with the stunted Ayn Rand and have long since jettisoned her for better thinkers.
I completely understand that this is why so many people give Beck a pass. It’s understandable to think that Beck is making people more conservative. To some extnet that is probably even true, though I suspect those people are already conservatives. But I think there is also the danger that he is also helping to expand two other groups: pro-American liberals and right wing wackos.
So, along comes Fox News and talk radio with their brash style, and suddenly the dictates of civility become synonymous with preserving the status quo.
The status quo on the Right is Fox News and talk radio. See how long you can make it in the conservative movment by talking trash about Fox or Rush Limbaugh.
But those who are blunt, shout, rough around the edges, and take no prisoners, are not always wrong.
Not always, but often. And if a position cannot be advocated reasonably and civilly, if it requires being being rough and shouting a lot, then it should be viewed suspiciously by anyone who calls themselves a conservative.
September 30th, 2010 | 12:08 pm
Yes, we rise in defense of Glenn Beck, not out of any particular love for his populism or philosophical inconsistency, but because your critique is lazy and formed on illegitimate grounds. We conservatives are used to being criticized on anything but substance, and what’s more, we are used to the bait-and-switch once that critique is countered. It’s not Glenn Beck’s tasteless style, you say, it’s his promotion of conspiracy theory now.
Poppycock.
On one hand we are saying that there are hordes of ignorant Americans who are so ill-informed about such subjects as history and America’s founding that they could gain by being taught by Beck. Yet on the other hand we claim that these ignorant Americans are smart enough to discern when what Beck is teaching them is total bunk.
No. The presumption that Americans are ignorant is all yours. Our presumption is that Americans are disaffected or busy but perfectly capable of discerning smart philosophy from “total bunk.” Which is why we give Beck an A for effort. Which is why we don’t freak out when Skousen is introduced alongside Hayek. Like you do.
Most of us responding to you are just as uncomfortable being mentioned in the same intellectual breath as a carnival show barker like Glenn Beck. The difference is, we don’t presume our varying presentations indicate a fundamental divergence in philosophy. That you so fervently attack an ally like Beck seems to indicate a prejudice that has nothing to do with your (legitimate) critique against conspiracy theory. You are constantly searching for a way to rationalize, on philosophical grounds, separation from the more embarrassing segments of the big tent. For conservatives, that unsolicited attitude loudly proclaimed is like an warning klaxon. High minded snobbishness in place of argument is the technique of choice of the left.
You are not “repeatedly attacked for questioning Beck.” Rather, you are questioned for repeatedly attacking Beck.
September 30th, 2010 | 12:24 pm
Joe Carter writes that “neither populism or libertarianism is consonant with conservatism.” Really? I would like to believe this is true (because I find both unpalatable) but so many conservatives I know seem to be both much of the time.
September 30th, 2010 | 12:29 pm
Joe Carter: I completely understand that this is why so many people give Beck a pass. It’s understandable to think that Beck is making people more conservative. To some extent that is probably even true, though I suspect those people are already conservatives. But I think there is also the danger that he is also helping to expand two other groups: pro-American liberals and right wing wackos.
I speak from experience, and others will confirm with their own: I know plenty of people who would not otherwise be politically engaged but have been brought to the discussion by Glenn Beck. They do not have backgrounds in the founding documents of conservatism. They do not always know when they are presented with bunkum.
But I do trust in their common sense, particularly when they get the rest of the story. Our job is not to tear down their inspiration but rather to give them the rest of the story. They will never get the whole narrative without starting on page one, and for Beck to inspire them to pick up a book on this subject, any book, is a step in the right direction. Intellectual engagement must precede intellectual consistency and unity.
Of course there is always the danger they go The Full Skousen. The difference is, we believe it is worth the danger whereas you lack confidence in the temperamentally conservative citizen’s bunkum detector.
Sometimes the Beckites tell me, “Hey, did you know there are socialists in the government even as we speak?”! Rather than dismiss them out of hand as obviously paranoid, I ask them to make their case. And in those conversations we discover whether Beck did his substantive work or didn’t. If he did? Great! If he didn’t deliver the substance — thank God for the conversational opening!
This conversation in miniature is what Beck is doing for the conservative movement writ large. He is keeping us on our toes and discouraging intellectual entropy. Conservatives should welcome engagement rather than attempt to erect a barrier between us and them. “The facts of life are conservative.” The more that freeborn citizens in a republic are explicitly engaged in that truth, the more we win. And I want to win.
September 30th, 2010 | 12:31 pm
Tom Really? I would like to believe this is true (because I find both unpalatable) but so many conservatives I know seem to be both much of the time.
As is often the case when I make blanket statements (i.e, every day), I should have clarified that a bit. A more accurate claim would be that neither populism nor libertarianism is consonant with consistent conservatism.
That is not to say that either populism or libertarianism are necessarily intrinsically wrong (though I believe they are). It is just saying that their principles are not consonant with the principles of conservatism. It is like someone claiming to be a Christian Muslim.
September 30th, 2010 | 12:42 pm
Joe:
I don’t really know anything about Glenn Beck, I can’t recall ever watching his show or listening to him on the radio. I don’t have a dog in this fight.
But, I wonder if some of your objections aren’t just stylistic. I don’t think you can expect the host of a general interest T.V. show to discuss anything at the level of an academic seminar. It seems to me that popularizers are always accused by pedants (I mean pedant in the best possible way, of course;-) ) of having omitted the most essential points or of confusing some important detail or other.
There is also the problem of quality control inherent in preparing and producing a daily(?) program lasting several hours. Mr. Beck does not have the luxury, given his format, of meditating for days or weeks on his every pronouncement. He has to produce a show today.
Perhaps because I am too familiar with the gross mischaracterization of good people and their positions by men who hold themselves up as exemplars of scholarship and rectitude, I suggest extreme generosity towards Mr. Beck’s supposed errors.
Greg Marquez
September 30th, 2010 | 12:56 pm
Thanks for responding, Mr. Carter, but I was hoping you might go into why populism and libertarianism are incompatible with conservatism, although perhaps this isn’t the right place for such a discussion. I’d like to know if only because I feel like I’m constantly getting into disagreements with conservatives who make libertarian or populist arguments, whether they’re aware of it or not.
September 30th, 2010 | 1:08 pm
Greg I don’t think you can expect the host of a general interest T.V. show to discuss anything at the level of an academic seminar.
You raise a great point. Bill Buckley was able to do it with “Firing Line” but that was only a weekly program. Putting together something on a daily basis certainly reduced the level of rigor and depth.
As a blogger I understand that all too well. That is why the ratio of light/trivial posts to serious ones is very high, even though this is the blog of an intellectual journal. Dailiness is not conducive to serious, thoughtful reflection.
The problem, in my opinion, is not so much what Beck is trying to do, but the way he is taken so seriously. Beck promotes that by reading a history book or two he can become an expert on a subject—and his viewers can too.
Notice the quote above where the people at Beck’s rally described themselves as “students of history” or “historians.” They aren’t kidding. They truly think that because they heard Peter Lillback claim that the Washington was an orthodox Christian (he wasn’t) that they are now experts on the subject too.
As an committed autodidact, I’m completely in favor of people trying to learn about subjects on their own. In that regard, I fully support Beck’s efforts. But with him there is no quality control. To him (and presumably to his viewers), a book by a crank conspiracy theorist who claims that slaves in the American South didn’t have it so bad (Skounsen again) is as valuable and trustworthy as a work of rigorous historical scholarship.
It reminds me of when I was a freshman in college. I tried to convince a history professor that he was wrong by asserting the authoritative insights of Ayn Rand. At the time I told myself that the reason he wasn’t able to see the truth was because he was a liberal. But the real truth was that Ayn Rand was a crank that serious people don’t take too seriously.
Reading is good but it is not an absolute good. Reading trashy romance novels isn’t better than watching trashy romance movies. Similarly, learning about history is good but only if it is based on historical fact unfiltered through crazy conspiracy theories about how Rockefeller controls the world.
September 30th, 2010 | 1:18 pm
Tom I was hoping you might go into why populism and libertarianism are incompatible with conservatism
Those are topics that are certainly deserving of more consideration. While I’m not quite up to the task of adequately defending the claim, I’ll try to do that in a future OTS column.
In the meantime, here is a post I wrote last year that touches on that: Virtue Ethics and Broken Windows or Why I Am Not a Libertarian
Also, here is an article by Russell Kirk that I consider to be the best article ever written on libertarians and conservatives.
September 30th, 2010 | 1:55 pm
Joe,
You have fallen into the trap that many liberals do. You have taken a little bit of what you think you know and funneled it into an uniformed opinion. The problem is, you don’t really know what Glenn Beck talks about on his program by your own admission (you rarely listen). Same thing happens with Rush–his critics don’t actually listen to him, just what they hear from other critics–the blind leading the blind.
And, for you to then criticize folks who listen to him and are influenced by his take on history rather than reading history for themselves… Do you see the irony here?
September 30th, 2010 | 3:35 pm
Jmar You have fallen into the trap that many liberals do.
Really? Who set the trap. ; )
You have taken a little bit of what you think you know and funneled it into an uniformed opinion. The problem is, you don’t really know what Glenn Beck talks about on his program by your own admission (you rarely listen).
Okay, I’ll bite: How long do you think I’d need to watch Beck’s show before I learned I was wrong, and that he wasn’t a weepy, overly-emotive, undereducated pundit who has a tendency to promote books by conspiracy theorists?
Same thing happens with Rush–his critics don’t actually listen to him, just what they hear from other critics–the blind leading the blind.
From what I’ve seen, when someone criticizes Rush they quote him directly. He and his fans reply by saying that the critics just don’t get it, Rush is just an entertainer and they shouldn’t take everything he says so seriously since he doesn’t really mean everything he says. Then when other critics say that Rush is just an just an entertainer and they people shouldn’t take everything he says so seriously since he doesn’t really mean everything he says, he and his fans rail about being dismissed.
It’s a brilliant move. It completely shields Rush from any legitimate criticism. (And before you say that people are free to make legitimate criticisms of Rush without fear of earning the ire of their fellow conservatives I’ll simply ask, “Where is this happening?”)
If you want to see the blind-leading-the-blind, you have to look no further than a conservative movement that takes its cues from people whose sole accomplishment is being able to talk for several hours and day.
And, for you to then criticize folks who listen to him and are influenced by his take on history rather than reading history for themselves… Do you see the irony here?
Um, no, I don’t. While he may recommend a few worthy books on history, too many of the ones he suggest are based on conspiracies (Skousen) or poor scholarship (Lillback). Fortunately, I suspect that most people that buy books based on his recommendations don’t actually bother to read them.
King Yes, we rise in defense of Glenn Beck, not out of any particular love for his populism or philosophical inconsistency, but because your critique is lazy and formed on illegitimate grounds.
So the problem is not that my criticisms aren’t true (you seem to be implying that you agree with me about Beck) but that my ” your critique is lazy and formed on illegitimate grounds.”
In other words, you have a problem with the style but not the substance. ; )
It’s not Glenn Beck’s tasteless style, you say, it’s his promotion of conspiracy theory now.
No, it’s both. His style is tasteless nad he promotes conspiracy theories. They are both problematic.
No. The presumption that Americans are ignorant is all yours.
Let me refer you to Micheal Reilly’s comment: ” Mr. Beck is not always my cup of tea, either, but he has influenced a great many people to consider–perhaps for the first time in their lives–some of our first principles.”
That certainly seems to be implying that Americans are ignorant of first principles. Also, if they are not ignoratnt about history, then what are they learning at “Glenn Beck University.”
Our presumption is that Americans are disaffected or busy but perfectly capable of discerning smart philosophy from “total bunk.”
I suspect you don’t really believe that at all (Glenn Beck sure doesn’t). If it is true that Americans are “perfectly capable of discerning smart philosophy from ‘total bunk’”, why then do so many fall for (a) conspiracy theories and (b) liberalism.
I mean that quite seriously. If Americans truly are so discerning, then how did Obama get elected? I never understood why conservative say liberals are illinfomed but then when someone (like John Kerry) says that Americans (which includes liberals) are illinformed, conservatives take umbrage.
Which is why we give Beck an A for effort. Which is why we don’t freak out when Skousen is introduced alongside Hayek. Like you do.
If Glenn Beck himself can’t discern the difference in value between the two, then why should I have faith that his followers can? If they students are smarter than their teacher, then why are they relying on Beck for their knowledge in the first place?
Most of us responding to you are just as uncomfortable being mentioned in the same intellectual breath as a carnival show barker like Glenn Beck. The difference is, we don’t presume our varying presentations indicate a fundamental divergence in philosophy.
Actually, I think you do. Most of the people hear would probably identify themselves as conservatives. Beck, in contrast, is a libertarian. That is a “fundamental divergence in philosophy.” Sadly, too many conservatives fail to recognize that fact or how libertarianism is just as closely aligned with progressivism as with conservatism.
That you so fervently attack an ally like Beck seems to indicate a prejudice that has nothing to do with your (legitimate) critique against conspiracy theory.
I’ve heard (but never agreed with) the line, “No enemies to the Right.” But I wasn’t aware we weren’t allowed to cricitize those who were to our left but who happen so serve (sometimes) as allies.
Also, I apologize if anyone got the impression that my only critique was about the conspiracy theory stuff. My list of reasons for not liking Beck are numerous, some have to do with substance and some have to do with style. Both, however, are legitimate concerns.
You are constantly searching for a way to rationalize, on philosophical grounds, separation from the more embarrassing segments of the big tent.
Well . . . yes. Seperating yourself from the embarrassing segments is one of the key traditions in American conservatism. Without fail, ever conservative I know does this. Just about every one that chastizes me for criticizing Glenn Beck thinks that there isn’t enough room in the tent for moderates like David Frum. We all have our preferences for who we want to be associated with.
For conservatives, that unsolicited attitude loudly proclaimed is like an warning klaxon. High minded snobbishness in place of argument is the technique of choice of the left.
And you know what is another “technique of choice of the left?” The fallacy of guilt by association: When you do X you are sounding like Y. Example: When you [engage in high minded snobbiness] you are sounding like [a leftist]
Seriously, can’t we stop using that trite “you’re being like the Left!” stuff? It’s silly.
You are not “repeatedly attacked for questioning Beck.” Rather, you are questioned for repeatedly attacking Beck.
While I give you props for the clever parallelism, both sentences say basically the same thing.
To see why, let’s reduce the hyperbole on both sides by making a simple semantic substitution:
“You are not [criticized] for [criticizing] Beck. Rather you are [being criticized] for repeatedly [criticizing] Beck.”
September 30th, 2010 | 4:08 pm
With Beck’s Mormonism in mind this quote is particularly ironic:
“… [Beck's] take on the president’s religious convictions, which Beck called “a perversion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as most Christians know it.”
Ouch Glenn.
September 30th, 2010 | 4:42 pm
I’m not sure I understand what all the fuss is about. Mr. Carter laments the fact people like Rush and Beck do more harm than good because they provide nothing more than daily entertainment, in which little intellectual depth is available, if even possible. Mr. Carter has a legitimate point.
Detractors claim Beck and Rush are being short-changed with such criticism; and they, too, are right.
Our history is replete with examples of talking-heads leading the masses for periodic moments, for good or ill (William Jennings Bryan and Father Coughlin come to mind). Yet the true intellectual profundity of the conservative movement did not overtly suffer as a result. And in seeing it that way I like to use a common tactic of the late Father R.J. Neuhaus, and claim it is not an “either / or”, but rather a “both / and”. The conservative movement does quite well with the tandem of soft and hard intellectualism, for lack of more appropriate descriptive terms. Why does it have to be one or the other? Or in Mr. Carter’s case, one and not the other?
Personally, I listen to Rush on occasion, and find him quite entertaining. As for Beck, I found him interesting, for about three weeks. He quickly turned me off, and I find it difficult to handle much more than fifteen minutes of him anymore. But that’s simply a personal taste issue for me, and in no way should define what Beck provides to conservatism today.
I love to read, and reading conservative authors and the history of conservatism is a favorite pastime. However, even if Rush and Beck are not nearly as intellectual-deep as most serious books one can read, that still doesn’t mean they do not hit on truths during their daily routines.
Becoming interested in the contemporary political and social scene in general, and conservative ideology and ideals in particular, are the starting point. Digging deeper once you become involved is the ultimate goal. Beck and Rush aren’t necessarily doing much for helping people reach the goal, but they are getting many people to the starting point, and that in itself is laudable and worthwhile indeed.
September 30th, 2010 | 5:57 pm
Mr. Carter,
I watch the Beck’s show fairly regularly, and I think you have been taken in by the malicious caricature and the gross misrepresentation by those fine impartial writers at the New York Times who, presumably, have no axes to grind ?!? Really?
Agreed, there is a certain pomposity, posturing and popularity seeking in the Beck show, which we could do without, but that is a crucial part of all shows today. Yes, Beck was originally a “rodeo clown”, and perhaps he is still a somewhat confused clown, but at least he is a clown who is honestly seeking the truth, unlike many hypocrites or outright confused people with deadly serious agendas, and their minions, like the liberal HuffPo writers, or foul-mouthed media clowns like Jon Stewart (not his real name), who just turn my stomach whenever I happen to watch or listen to them for 5 minutes.
As far as Beck railing against liberalism, Catholics since G. K. Chesterton, who considered himself the last old-time liberal, have been railing agains the evils of modern liberalism and progressivism. It is a shame many Catholics today don’t understand why it is so necessary to rail against it.
Perhaps you consider yourself a true-blue intellectual conservative in the tradition of Burke and Russell Kirk, but while one may agree with much of this conservativism, there are, as Chesterton wrote about St. Augustine, purple patches or shortcomings and logical inconsistencies in such intellectual conservativism.
As far as libertarianism — I don’t think Beck is a libertarian, even if he may, knowingly or unknowingly, borrow from it. Besides, the definition of libertarianism is fairly wide, and Beck is certainly not a socialist, communist or an anarchist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
As far as history — Beck readily admits he is an amateur who has started learning history from other people not too long ago. So in referring to authority Beck rather relies on professionals whom he often interviews, people like David Barton, and on first hand witnesses like Alveda King, and other prestigious authors, pastors, professors, etc.
Are you saying that people like Barton or King who wholeheartedly support Beck are not reliable historical sources?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Barton_(author)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alveda_King
Perhaps Beck isn’t intellectual enough for you to pay attention to what he is saying, (and neither were St. Bernadette, or St. Faustina, or St. Jean-Marie Vianney, and many other such “simplistic” saints), but that should not be the deciding criterion, and God often uses such “clowns” to convey His message, especially when the smart and educated intellectuals fail to deliver the message God desires to deliver.
September 30th, 2010 | 6:00 pm
Joe,
After reading your piece, glancing over the article itself, and reading the comments here, I think it might be helpful if you wrote a piece (if you haven’t already done so) on the differences between conservatism, libertarianism, and liberalism. You’ve mentioned, once or twice, that libertarianism and liberalism are cousins and that it’s easy to slip from one into the other. Perhaps such an article would be beneficial to your readers, especially as they evaluate Beck’s political views.
Thanks for the good work!
October 1st, 2010 | 11:27 am
Joe,
I appreciate you sticking your neck out to put some distance between First Things-style conservatism and Beck-style conservatism. However, when it comes to “first things,” I’ll never understand why some think debates about “conservatism” or “liberalism” is where the action is. We’re Christians. That’s the first thing, or the last thing that casts light backwards on all first things. If we have to have a debate about who’s in and who’s out, what counts for an identity, and what doesn’t, why not start there?
If the point is that we’re talking about American public life, and that we don’t all come to the public square with the same faith commitments and therefore we have to translate into some neutral idiom like “conservatism” or “liberalism,” then doesn’t that just demonstrate that debates about liberalism and conservatism in public life are not in fact debates about first things?
October 2nd, 2010 | 2:41 pm
Mr. Carter, thank you for taking the time for a point-by-point reply. It is clear we have strategic and perhaps philosophical differences that cannot be resolved in a dissection of the Practical Uses of Mister Glenn Lee Beck.
I only meant to give you an idea why your ongoing critique of Beck inspires an equally passionate response. And I meant to make an important distinction: our passion in response is not synonymous with Beck’s emotional style, or even deriving from the same sources.
No true conservative would agree with “no enemies on the right.” But as a practical political strategy it has merit, particularly when fundamental institutions necessary to the health of the republic have been attacked at the foundations with little effective response for half-a-century. Attacked with impunity and now crumbling.
Is that synonymous with libertarianism? Sure, there is some overlap. We need to fill the ranks with bodies right now, and let’s take them from all corners. It seems you disagree on principle if not on strategy, which is noble in its way. But the long-term dangers of alliance are not as dire as you present them, and in any event, they are worth the risk in this urgent climate.
As Governor Christie recently remarked (paraphrased), We’ve been having a party for the last ten years and I’m here in time for the clean up.
If we disagree it is because we have different ideas of the urgency of the moment, not because we necessarily diverge philosophically. We fiddle while Rome burns to be passionately engaged in intramural purges at this time in history. You apparently disagree on the size of the Roman fire.
I am orthodox Catholic, and you are, from what I read, evangelical. Just as I choose to concentrate on our mutual intense love for Christ with regard to my reading of your religious works, I choose to concentrate on Beck’s love of country when reading his politics.
His populism may eventually influence a great many of the great unwashed to adopt libertarianism. But for now, the debates on the right are dynamic and constructive precisely because of a healthy tension between libertarianism and conservatism. My aim is to keep the tension healthy and brotherly, not to pretend there are no differences among us. The essence of loyal opposition and civil disagreement is one step deeper than the principles you choose to focus on. Love of country trumps methodology in times of crisis. Let’s agree to fight later. Promise to fight, but later.
Like Russian Agent Triple X in The Spy Who Loved me, who promised to kill Bond once the mission was over, we might just find rapproachement in the meantime:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QW7em0J7YHw [at 0:55]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact