Comments on: Mainstreaming Radicalism

By: Robert Cheeks

Robert Cheeks — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 20:36:54 +0000

Beck has never claimed to be a philosopher; he may be Aristotle’s spoudaios (aner) however, and if that’s the case, Beck’s just fine.

Your analysis appears predicated on preconceived notions.

“I am claiming that Beck is a Straussian in the sense that he A. Has the Will to Power, B. See’s himself as superior to the masses, and C. believes he is right because he believes in God.”

Does he have the “Will to Power” because he seeks to participate in the public political dialectic? How do you know he believes he’s “superior to the masses?” And, his publicly proclaimed belief in God is rather refreshing in this immanenist world..or at least I find it so. In understanding the divine/human participation in existence he is far superior to many of his enemies.

“He is a person who can talk really emphatically about stuff that he thinks he believes in, but hasn’t actually spent the time to actually contemplate it deeply.”
Again, this seems to be an analysis conducted from a very biased perspective and one that reveals a certain and decided antipathy. Why? What has Beck done that so upsets you? He wages verbal battle against the consolidating forces, the radical, psychopathological Left, and does so with a humor that leaves his foemen deeply wounded.
His analysis, while it might not please a philosopher, brings a certain historical knowledge to those who are for all intents and purposes paying the bills, carrying the burden placed on them by Barry and his party. I can understand why consolidators, Leftists, and commie-dems might not appreciate Brother Beck, but for the life of me I can not understand why any gentleman of the right would bear such harsh judgement agaisnt this man?

By: Ben

Ben — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 22:12:14 +0000

This is ludicrous. Beck is not a populist. He is typical elitist who tries to pretend like he is one the proletariat. I think that my points have been misunderstood, and for that I am sorry. Here is what I am trying to say, because I think you’re right my opinion has come across as hubristic intellectualism. I am claiming that Beck is a Straussian in the sense that he A. Has the Will to Power, B. See’s himself as superior to the masses, and C. believes he is right because he believes in God. So, my point is 1. This sort of individual must remain “properly veiled” to quote Machiavelli and Strauss and 2. convince the public of his “noble lie.” However, he does neither of those to things, not because he is some radical who wants to start a populace movement to restore honor. Rather, he is a political elitist who has opinion which he wants to assert on to the world. This is not that controversial and as such they way he goes about it lack epistemology i.e. my assertions on Strauss, and lacks, though I know this blog disagrees with me on this issue, a proper metaphysics (I take a Wittgensteinian approach, Lawler takes a dualistic approach). What I want from you Robert, is a concession that he is not a populist he is a political elitist who lies, but lies poorly and for the wrong reason, that being his own misunderstanding. He isn’t an intellectual giant, he isn’t even a Hubristic Fear-Mongering giant. He is a person who can talk really emphatically about stuff that he thinks he believes in, but hasn’t actually spent the time to actually contemplate it deeply. As is evidenced by the fact that he doesn’t moderate his position with Hegelian synthesis.

By: Robert Cheeks

Robert Cheeks — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 18:18:27 +0000

“….and verity has nothing whatsoever to do with it. ”

Really, Mr. Sabin, really!!!!!

Well, I’ll be waiting for your citations of Brother Becks’ lies..and, I’ll tell you what, I’ll even accept ‘distortions’ of the truth.
Hell, I’ll tell you what, DW Sabin, I’ll even take a couple of “half-truths”!

You know, you Porchers come over here and disrupt our little conversations, then you get upset when we hurl the “Leftist” or “commie-dem” epithaph your way. And, btw, there’s a whole lotta ‘kumbaya’ going on over at the Porch. When are ‘you people’ going to discuss serious stuff, again?

By: D.W. Sabin

D.W. Sabin — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:49:28 +0000

“his version of the Founding” the operative term.

Mr. Beck is a performer and inasmuch as the citizenry is reduced to a spectator, he has found himself in the right place at the right time and verity has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Half-truths work fine nowadays.

By: Robert Cheeks

Robert Cheeks — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:33:25 +0000

Ben, I’m pretty sure that the vast majority of ‘Beck-heads’ “understand the issue.” Dr. Beck, without benefit of our fine university system is teaching millions and millions of plain, old Americans about the founding, or perhaps, I should say ‘his’ version of the founding.
Actually, you should ‘comment’ on his website and ‘thank’ him for stopping the rather obvious American decline into disorder. I’m pretty sure Beck, almost single handedly, has halted the decline by his radio and TV efforts, and has now focused the mob of unwashed so that they might defeat not only those Neocons on the Right who, in the spirit of the ‘Noble Lie,’ seek wars in the Levant in order to facilitate ‘democracy’ but also the psycyhopathological commie-Dems, who destroy their young.
Now, Ben, can you ‘imagine’ (“imagine there’s no heaven…”) a free country with the Neocons and librul, commie-dems cast far from the levers of power. A country where us’n Americans is-a runnin’ things.
I gotta feeling you’re going to be a Beck-head pretty soon.

By: Ben

Ben — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 22:27:21 +0000

Hubristic intellectualism is something I hate more than almost anything except Hubristic fear mongering based on a flawed metaphysics and a nonexistent epitomology. That’s not necessarily straussian though nor is it my critique of him. Obviously to get good rating Hubristic intellectualism alienates his entire audience apparently including you. Whereas Hubristic fear mongering gets great ratings! I’m against beck because he firstly fails to offer us some means to an end he has elaborate ends but what are his means as I stated he fails the straussian noble lie test so he cannot be endorsed as sufficiently political. Secondly his ends are based on a false assumption that people have thought about the issues enough to make real judgments possible. I’d you’re going to negate the noble lie and give the people a choice and the ability to enact change it’s important they understand the issue.

By: Robert Cheeks

Robert Cheeks — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 19:31:23 +0000

Ben, dude, a quick note, because I’m thinking of blogging an apologetics for Mr. Beck.
Thanks for your critique. I tend to agree with you re: my “ability to comprehend.” I sometimes daydream a bit and to be honest it was something of a problem during my school days.
And, yes you Straussians are a bit confusing albiet very smart, and if you were a Voegelinian you’d appreciate the good professor’s abhorrence of ‘ideologies.’ I don’t think Voegelin would be unhappy about Beck’s lack of ideology, and perhaps he’d think that he was less of a threat because of it.
I may be wrong about how our Straussian friends understand/interpret Beck but it seems to me to be predicated on a rather hubristic intellectualism that comes perilously close to engaging in a world-immanent perspective.
Beck may have failed to ruminate thoroughly on Nietzsche, but he is clearly conscious of existence in the tension of the human and divine.

By: ben

ben — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 06:33:46 +0000

I always find myself agreeing with John and D.W. so i feel in good company. Beck is not the anti-statist perspective Robert. The fact that you have succumbed to such a ludicrous assumption does not speak well for either your empirical data or Beck or your ability to comprehend that anyone who is blatantly contradictory doesnt worthy being followed. Firstly, the man doesn’t even pretend to represent an ideology, how could he? That would assume he has one, i.e. he has contemplated the possibility in conjunction with some epistemological understanding of the capacity of politics to fulfill its purpose ep. Aristotle. Secondly, he since he fails to contemplate epistemology his metaphysical understanding of the world i.e. his supposed religious fundamentalism doesn’t manifest itself appropriately in the realm of politics due to primarily i believe blatant misunderstanding of the purpose of religion in “shaping politics” (see strauss). So I understand why he is called radical by so many, he is couching religious fundamentalism with small government but showing where the strong manifest themselves (his will to power is not veiled). So don’t pretend like real straussians shouldn’t dislike Beck. we should he is very dangerous and its all because he failed to read Nietzsche and comprehend the purpose of rumination. etc.

By: Joules

Joules — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 20:31:15 +0000

Great post with enjoyable comments from all of you. I really liked Glenn Beck the first time I saw him. I always go right back in time to Independence Day fireworks on the Mall in 1976 when I was 11 years old and had my first real experience of pride in being an American when I hear someone like Beck or Palin speaking. Then I shake it off and remember that I’m 45 and don’t see the world as an 11-year-old anymore. The second time I saw his show I realized he was annoying and dorky so I stopped paying attention. I don’t think there will be tea-party style radical change in the U.S. Even if things turn for a while toward conservatism in reaction to Obama’s time in office, it’ll probably continue to be see-sawing back and forth between conservatives and liberals jostling for power and lots of wrangling. Business as usual.

By: Robert Cheeks

Robert Cheeks — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 18:04:17 +0000

I dunno, I kinda like Beck. He is what he is..primarily an entertainer who talks about the gummint…from a anti-statist perspective. How bad is that?
And, why would smart guys like D.W., Peter, and my pal, John, get so upset?
I refuse to believe they’re expressing the frustrations of the ‘ruling class,’ or the ‘edumacated class’. I do, I do!
I’m figurin’ if the TPers don’t cleanse the American stables the nation may be on the verge of a ‘come-to-Jesus-moment,’ where our primary objective will be to hide the ammo while seeking salvation.