TheAgitator.com
90 Responses to “The Glenn Beck Revival”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Site Features
- Home
- About Radley Balko
- Publications
- Speaking Info
- Multimedia
- Resume
- Picasa Photos
- Recommendations
- RSS Feed
- Buy Agitator Gear
-
-
$12/month Recurring Donation
$6/month Recurring Donation
- My Amazon wishlist
-
Site Credits
I agree with Nick, hatin’ on Muslims and Mexicans isn’t political “in any conventional sense”.
Up with people, dude.
it’s funny how ‘freedom’ can mean so many different things to different people…
Very interesting happy face placed on a religious-political event.
Reverend Coughlin would certainly be proud, though.
Spending a sunny hot humid Saturday in a religous revival crowd in DC is not my cup of tea…but Father Coughlin that was not. I wish the focus was more on our shared secular founding principals–which is the true brilliance of our Constitution (and why it protects individual faith and belief so well), but the folks seemed sincere, well behaived, and if it results in a shift to less government and spending, great.
Nick did a very good job.
I am no fan of Beck, but anyone promoting Hayek can’t be all bad.
I haven’t watched but a handful of Beck’s shows, and knew nothing about him before the last year, when the White House stupidly decided to attack Fox News.
When he’s focused on libertarian ideas about individual rights, I think he contributes something good. But when he gets onto religion, he’s a real bore. I was disappointed in his post-rally interview on Fox when he repeatedly stated that civil rights were about “people of faith.” Well, from this atheist, let me just say frak you very much, Mr. Beck, for excluding me from the fight for justice.
As a libertarian who sees Obama/Pelosi/Reed as an acceleration of the attack on individual rights by big government, I can sometimes appreciate Beck’s focus on the collectivist underpinnings of the current government. As much as Jon Stewart does a clever job making fun of Beck’s goofy chalkboard conspiracy lectures, Beck is closer to a reasonable appreciation for individual rights than Stewart. Sure, the guy is making a living off of scaring people and he does present a narrow view of things, but people should be afraid of what the government is doing. I just don’t see Stewart’s aloof Pollyanna approach to Big Government intrusion into our lives to be productive, no matter how funny he is. (When Stewart is on the right side of an issue, making fun of some idiot in the news, he’s great. But he’s got a huge blind spot when it comes to Big Government.)
And, having the shrill Sarah Palin at the rally made it even more lame.
But at least it wasn’t the sheet-wearing lynch mob that Sharpton, et al. wanted it to be. Glad to see him and his ilk look like fools for their hysterical predictions.
I think I was at a Golden Corral buffet in Bangor Maine the last time I saw that high a percentage of doughy white people.
As member of the religious right, I get tired of politicians (Beck is, in a way) using religion it to further their ambitions! Granted moral laws are good, but it looks like we are turning our country into a theocracy! It seems to me, that it makes us no different than the Muslims. The funny thing is that it is a Mormon in the spotlight! They have been called a cult religion!
I like the Constitution. How it handled religious freedom is brilliant. I agree that the mosque in NYC seems insensitive to me. It is still very unconstitutional to try to block its establishment. I have strong emotions about it, but we have to be logical and not a bunch of crazies, letting our emotions run our lives.
“using religion to further”
Elliot, our government was intended to be secular. We do however need all people, those of religious faith and those without, of all races and backgrounds, to support the core principals of the constitution. Which is the guarantee of freedom to all, liberty, and the proposition that the government serves us, we do not serve the government.
With all due respect to the black American lady, that was not America. That was mostly a glorified prayer breakfast with “small gubmint” overtones.
I think it was kind of appropriate that there was a Rothbard shirt in crowd though. Murray Rothbard portrayed himself as an “enemy of the state,” but also talked about how the “cops need to be unleashed” during the 1992 LA riots. I am certainly not a Rothbard scholar, but he struck me as the kind of “anarchist” that was mostly just pissed off at government for not being hard enough on the urban poor or the union types that disrupted his father’s business (apparently Rothbard never heard of the Ludlow Massacre!).
So Rothbard’s vision of “anarchy” may have been hell on earth for poor blacks and for wage workers. And Glenn Beck’s vision of returning to the small government vision of the founders would probably be a dystopia for Muslims (cuz they’re out to kill us good christians), Mexicans (cuz there takin’ r jawwwbs) and a liberal agnostic like me. I am not a libertarian (just a liberal in the Tom Paine tradition), but it still pisses me off when the tea partiers try to pretend that they really believe in limited government. Limited government for comfortable, white Christians, perhaps. But what about the rest of us, Mr. Beck?
“I’m not African. I’m American.”
Exactly.
“the D.C. police officers are rude and mean”
I think that’s something we can all agree on!
Hey somebody tell me something-are any libertarian ideas coming into the public through this Glen Beck guy or is he just another douchebag looking to sell books? I guess he could be both but if something besides the same old republican crap is coming out of this then maybe that could be a good thing?
#13 hilzoy fangirl: “the D.C. police officers are rude and mean”
“I think that’s something we can all agree on!”
Well, I don’t know. Allow me to play the contrarian. Admittedly, I haven’t always heard glowing reviews of the MPD, but she didn’t elaborate on why she felt that way. Maybe the officers weren’t genuflecting in the presence of “good white Christians.” Or, scarier yet, maybe some of the officers were black, or hispanic or even Muslim-lookin’.
This crowd is convinced that it is being persecuted by the government, Muslims, Los Mexicanos (I will have to tell my wife to stop hatin’ on these good white folk. Ella es de Juarez) and god knows who or what else. I don’t mean to discount all of their grievances, but maybe they should hang out down in the southeast area of D.C. to witness the real downfalls of urban policing. Oh that’s right, they were told not to go down to mingle with the rabble.
“the D.C. police officers are rude and mean”
————————
Because Pelosi is more or less the Police chief. Social/Religious conservatives love the state jack boot, and you never hear them bring up Police Unions in their anti-public employee union talk. They always squawk “Rule of Law” when police openly violate people’s rights. The funniest part is when they say that showing ID to police is not a big deal but when Arizona passed the illegal immigration law there are a couple of reports of conservatives threatening cops when they asked them for ID.
Beck and the rest of the Neocons talk a good game but in reality they’re full of shit. Yea one hand may be on your shoulder with a smile on his face but in the other hand is a knife.
To the extent that Beck becomes associated with libertarianism or any tenet thereof, libertarianism is concomitantly damaged. When a blubbering theocratic conspiracy-theorist with no sense of history and even less logical capacity starts repackaging (and distorting) libertarianism in service to his own ends, I don’t understand why more libertarians don’t run screaming.
I cannot watch his TV show (it is unwatchable) but he is occasionally entertaining on radio (when I am flipping channels I have listened to him). Yes, believe it or not, Beck is kind of libertarian (he is certainly a small government low tax guy).
But like most recovering alcoholics, he has that 12 step glint in his eye. Now I suppose he (at least subjectively) was bottomed out when he was partying and snorting coke off the back side of some stripper and now he has seen the light as a reformed family man. I support that story of redemption for him, provided he lets others learn first hand that partying and snorting coke off the backside of a stripper is not a good idea.
#16
Beck is not a neoconservative. The term has a fairly specific definition, which he doesn’t come close to meeting.
Elemenope, don’t drive away potential allies because they would be bummers at your next party. You do not have to hang out with the Glenn Becks of the world, but the guy is genuinely afraid of government power and would support many things you support. Limited government is good for us all.
Embrace that part, yet keep your eyes open too. Libertarianism always has that tendency of becomign Losertarianism.
Joe “I support that story of redemption for him, provided he lets others learn first hand that partying and snorting coke off the backside of a stripper is not a good idea.”
I guess I’ll take your word for it but it sounds kind of fun to me.
Helmut O’Hooligan-
Great points. There are obviously legitimate concerns for us all about government infringement of individual rights. But there is something disingenuous about the way Beck and his ilk turn themselves into victims, since so often the approach A) ignores other folks who are at far greater risk of being victimized if not already being outright victimized, B) is predicated on the pursuit or protection of entitlements they have no business feeling entitled to, or C) advocate persecuting others.
We all have to find our own ways. I am not judging JS, either way! Provided everyone is a consenting adult, we have to find out things on our own.
BSK, being a little judgmental there? Obviously some have victim status, but not everyone. Beck is for less government, lower taxes, and more individual responsiblity. That part sounds good to me. I am not into the prayer meeting aspects of his revival meeting, but what about those very libertarian principals are wrong?
Joe-
I have no opposition to those points. My issue is when Beck (or others) advocate achieving those goals for themselves while either deliberately or incidentally making it harder for others to realize them. Too often, a lot of folks who speak about keeping the government out of their lives are only interested in their own lives, or those like them, and have no issue with (or even demand) more government in other folks lives. That is why I generally appreciate Radley so much, who applies his viewpoints consistently and genuinely to all folks. I don’t see that with Beck and other liked-minded commentators.
Obviously, such criticism is not monopolized by those on his side of the aisle, as most pundits seem to be more about furthering their own celebrity than actually making a difference.
Also, when I referred to Beck’s “ilk” I was talking about media members, not necessarily his fans/followers or others who attended the rallies. Obviously, some may fall into the same camp as Beck or be far worse, but I won’t make those assumptions or generalizations about the group as a whole necessarily. I’m talking about the people who make it pretty clear where there opinions lie by constantly shouting them at us from the television and radio.
It matters little which imaginary friend one prays to. They are all the same–imaginary. In the meantime, shouldn’t the grups take over until these children grow up?
Elemenope, don’t drive away potential allies because they would be bummers at your next party. You do not have to hang out with the Glenn Becks of the world, but the guy is genuinely afraid of government power and would support many things you support.
It’s not about whether I like him personally or not, or would enjoy having a beer with him or whatever. It’s simply that when he speaks, he normally sounds crazy, and so what comes out of his mouth people naturally associate with being crazy. Whenever he speaks about less government, it has the practical effect of making wanting to have a smaller government sound crazy.
Beck like a lot of the right seems to find libertarianism once Democrats are in office but are silent when Republicans are in power. He is libertarian in that he does like how his taxes are spent by Democrats so wants lower taxes and he found out some dude wrote a book many years ago calling taxes slavery. He is all for freedom of religion when its for conservative Christians and Mormons. They are against government enforcement when its conspiracy theory crap about agents coming for guns and fema trains but where is he on the erosion of 4th amendment rights or the increase in the imperial presidency?
“If you’re a good Muslim, you kill Christians.”
Setting aside the sheer stupidity of this statement, it would be funny to seem him debate an actual Muslim and see the idiot insist that the actual Muslim doesn’t know anything about his religion and his duties under Islam.
I guess there are lots of bad Muslims out there, especially in all the Muslim countries with large Christian minorities.
This is weird about Beck. He appears crazy Beale like on TV. On the radio he is actually kind of funny, normal, and realitively sane. And I am no fan of Beck, I just occasionally listen to him on the radio. He and his cohorts make jokes, valid and invalid points, but it is a completely different style that that idiotic TV show of his. You cannot fake that (the radio show), so I suspect the TV thing is complete schtick.
Or he is schizo.
But I am not suggesting you be a Beck fan. I am just saying it makes sense for libertarians to avoid what Obama and the left are doing about Beck and his followers. Or for that matter the RNC. They both should be looking to peal off some of these folks, not alienate them.
Adam, where is that quote from? Thanks.
Adam, that was from one of the people interviewed in Gillespie’s video.
I watched the video but I missed that quote. It must have been when I was
momentarily snorting coke off the butt of a strippercleaning the gunk out of the garbage disposal before the wife got hime from the store. I agree, that is nutso.Beck and Fox News have successfully pulled off the biggest love bomb in history. I would assume that most people that would go to this rally felt the need to, because they where primed by a well oiled manipulation machine such as Fox is. I view these people as very dangerous. When a large group of people pray at a political rally and have no understanding why they are there, is very worrisome. And they have the most watched media organization footing the bill for these events. I’ve to a few anti-war rallys and most of them didn’t even make 5 minutes on the news.Or have money for a fancy stage.
The promos for Restoring Honor never said anything about Faith or scripture.
“When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”
This shit absolutely terrifies me. Its like society has suddenly decided to throw itself back into the dark ages and embrace the mentality of the salem witch trials. These people are sick in the head if they cant get through the days of their lives without taking marching orders from the invisible man in the sky. Keep thy religion to thyself and keep it out of my government….or be prepared for me to tell you and your god to both !&#@ off !!
Having now watched the video, I thought the point made about the people being inarticulate about what was lost was really interesting, and I think that gets at the heart of some of the problems with Beck’s approach. There is so much fearmongering that he has used to rile people up about the assaults on their freedoms and what not, yet little substance about what the real threats are. So much of the “We want our America back” rhetoric is just full of nonsense. Yes, there are real threats that individuals face at the hands of government, but I’m not so sure that those threats are necessarily greater now than they ever have been. Certainly, in many areas, the government is LESS of a threat than it has been historically, particularly for people of color, women, and other groups. In some ways, it is more of a threat, particularly with regards to how the use of technology has increased the ability and willingness of the government to infiltrate its citizens’ private lives. All-in-all, I’d venture to guess that most Americans are more free now than they ever have been. Does that mean problems don’t exist and there are not real threats? Obviously not. But Beck seems more intent on radicalizing folks with scare tactics about how the big bad government is going to kill them and take all their money and give it to “those people” or whatever that any legitimate substance that might exist is lost.
Beck takes things to an extreme that I just don’t think is reasonable. Moreover, I think he knows that, but also knows that dealing in extremes and fear gets higher ratings and allows him to exploit folks, which is disturbing. Obviously, he is free to do as he pleases within the confines of the law, but I’ll prefer folks (like Radley and others) whose goals are actually effecting legitimate change in areas with real, identified needs over folks who deal in hyperbole for the sake of ratings and preying on folks.
Theater. As an actor, Beck channels William Shatner to expected results.
I’ve watched/listened to Beck off and on for a few years now. I’m impressed with his control.
Beck is a showman. A pied piper with deep pockets. And like all showmen he knows exactly what to do, what to say, how to appear. Like all good showmen, he knows that the audience must feel like it’s their idea to be there, to cough up the coins, to step onto the stage.
He’s so damned good at being Beck. The whole thing is really quite scary.
Joe … thanks for not having a lot of fun at my expense over the fact I didn’t know you from Adam.
Beck is for smaller government when it does not govern the way he believes. It is a glaring contradiction to hold rallies based on such a premise while simultaneously glorifying the military industrial complex. And doing it in the name of God no less! Beck and Palin saying what they said was simply a bible thumping love fest with the war drums supplying the backbeat. Their hypocrisy is only exceeded by their joy in doing so.
Beck ain’t no “libertarian” — if he was, he would have been screaming when Bush was promoting big government, sanctioning a police-state through torture, ineptly running the government – but during that time he was silent on those wrongs – as soon as a Democrat became president, Beck starting wrapping himself in the libertarian flag as to promote his far right wing points of views. Remember he was the one who defended water boarding…
also he is one of the worst when it comes to hiding behind fake patriotism (just like Palin)… the charity that was to benefit this event was Veterans returning from the war – yet the proceeds first went to pay exorbitant speaking fees – Palin ($65K – private jet – suites) all in order to “honor” her son for fighting… both are just actors playing roles to get paid…
#20- Joe,
I see why people are wary of Beck and his followers- just like John Lilburne and his followers were screwed by their ‘ally’, Oliver Cromwell, in the English Civil War.
Beck speaks of Hayek and smaller govt, but his whiney followers don’t want liberty, they want God.
I’m with #16 on this one…
I have never heard Beck squawk about 4th amendment abuses, the police state, the war on drugs, etc., etc. What on earth is remotely “libertarian” about him other than wanting lower taxes and vague rhetoric about “small government” and “taking back our country”?
Acutally Beck was opposed to torture. And was opposed to Bush spending.
Really.
Opps. My bad. Beck actually sucks on torture. I was giving him the benefit of doubt when he supporting constitutional protections on Fox a few months ago.
Glenn, go back and school your self on the rights and wrongs, the dos and don’t on interrogation. Start with this interview with Hewitt and Col. Herrington. Herrington schools Hewitt on the rights and wrongs of torture and interrogation.
“A) ignores other folks who are at far greater risk of being victimized if not already being outright victimized”
BSK Translation: Beck is white, most of the people there were white, and only brown people are victims, usually at the hands of whitey.
“Too often, a lot of folks who speak about keeping the government out of their lives are only interested in their own lives, or those like them”
BSK Translation: Whitey only cares about himself and screwing over brown people.
“Certainly, in many areas, the government is LESS of a threat than it has been historically, particularly for people of color, women, and other groups.”
BSK Translation: Now Whitey’s getting the bill for Obamacare after wronging “brown people” for centuries, so screw him!
I hope you got that garbage disposal cleaned out Joe! lol
Gregory Peckory, aren’t you worried being in such close proximity to LongBowHunter?
(btw I saw a nice six point on the way home from the supermarket tonight).
Okay, this seems a bit paranoid, but the nine points are really not that insane, okay…
Is Glenn Beck a libertarian plant?
The Raymond Powell commentary of the nine points is not insane. Thinking that there is a conspiracy involving CNN and Fox, that seems a tad paranoid.
You seem to be confused about the meaning of anarchy, if you think that it means that it would be a system run according to some architect’s vision. Anarchy is the lack of a system.
Slavery and Jim Crow, the underlying cause of historical poverty and disadvantage amongst black Americans, were supported by and created by government. If allowing an individual to exercise her rights, like not deducting huge chunks of her paycheck to fund welfare programs, means that the would-be recipients don’t get to partake of her plundered wealth, that’s not her fault. Unless she herself caused the problem of the poor person, it’s not her responsibility to solve it, and so it’s wrong for you to stick a gun to her head and force her to be “compassionate” (according to your notions) or else.
And, how do you figure “wage workers” would suffer “hell on earth”? Accepting a job means you agree to the employment terms because it benefits you to get paid rather than trying to grow your own food, build your own automobile, etc.. If you consider a job “hell on earth” then don’t take it.
I’m an atheist and I prefer open borders so, I don’t see eye-to-eye with Beck, but I disagree with your prediction.
What you’re offering is the false dilemma, where there can only be Big Government which “protects” the disadvantaged, or a “dystopia” of some sort.
Wait a minute, how do you get limited government for some privileged group, but Big Government for the rest? If government is big for some, it’s just big. If it’s small for some, it’s just small.
Government has been trying to “solve” the problems of poverty and racism for decades. That’s be a rousing catastrophe.
You’re projecting exaggerated attitudes onto the people, most of whom said nothing remotely like what you’re accusing them of thinking. As Nick Gillespie, the reason.tv correspondent pointed out, many of the attendees had a difficult time articulating their ideas. I saw the same thing when people in Obama rallies were interviewed. Most couldn’t answer simple questions on current events, but were all full of the Hope and Change fever. A few dunces made YouTube fodder, like the woman who thought Obama’s election meant she won’t have to worry about the mortgage or paying to put gas in the car.
As an outsider to the Coke vs. Pepsi wars, I think my individual rights are far more threatened by the people who line up to support Big Government, than for people who at least give some lip service to limiting government. Mind you, I’m well aware that the Republicans they foolishly elect rarely make principled stands for individual rights. But many of the voters still have some respect for such principles.
What does that prove? You’ve never lived in a Taliban-controlled village in Afghanistan, or faced machete-wielding gangs in Rwanda. Does that mean the people who have gone through that hell get some special veto over your arguments?
Balko is definitely better than nearly anyone else in the blogosphere, but he has his faults. There are a few people I read who stick to their principles more consistently, as Radley occasionally comes down on the wrong side because of pragmatism. But those people aren’t helping Cory Maye or exposing Dr. Steven Hayne, for example, which makes up for his lapses, in my book. Not that I’ll stop my criticisms when I disagree.
Glenn Beck, for all his boorish nonsense about faith and his goofy chalkboard conspiracy ramblings, at least has been critical of Republicans for failing to cut spending and slow the growth of government.
Considering the attitudes of most Americans, I don’t see any sort of nefarious theocratic takeover as very probable. As an atheist, I don’t like this sort of stuff, but I don’t see it as significantly dangerous right now.
What has been dangerous have been the large crowds who attended Obama rallies during the campaign, most of whom had no understanding about simple current events. It was all mindless HopeNChange. And, tragically their votes resulted in legislation which has been and will be catastrophic to the US economy and to the freedom of individuals to make their own personal choices.
Not this rally. As lame and pointless as I consider it, I saw no indicators of fascism. “Fascism” has a definite meaning, and it doesn’t mean opposition to “leftist” dogma, despite what some might want you to believe.
Big Government is a threat to everyone, regardless of demographics. Sure, the lack of slavery and Jim Crow laws means the government was a necessary change, but nobody is trying to roll back history to those things. You can have limited government and no legal slaver and no legal segregation. Like many others, you’re offering a false dilemma.
There are minorities and women who are getting totally f*ed by government, day in and day out, as Balko so aptly documents. But many of the harms visited by government on such people are due to limiting their ability to start a business or find a job because the would-be employers are getting screwed over by new taxes and regulations.
If you think that you have to plunder what white men produce in order to do good for women and minorities, then you have no respect for individual rights and you’re an enemy of liberty.
He wasn’t silent. He criticized Bush and the Republicans for their spending and expansion of government. Not that I consider him to be consistently libertarian. He agrees with Republicans (or is silent) on things I think he should oppose them.
From the CNN comments section:
Anarchy10:
“Socialism got you down? Radical Islam worshiping next door? Feel like nobody appreciates your Obama Nazi sign? Are you sick of evil anchor babies? How about that unrighteous gay marriage thing? Feel like we’re not at war with enough countries? Sick of African Americans owning MLK? Well come on down to the great restoring of America rally. BBQ @ 4pm. Bring a friend. (not a minority) ” _made me chuckle a bit…
Elliot-
You are misrepresenting my position. My point is not that things now are necessarily acceptable or that the only way to make them acceptable for all is at the expense of others. Rather, I am bothered by some of the “doom and gloom” prognosticating that Beck and others rely upon to gain a lot of their support. Yes, there is room for improvement (as there certainly always will be), but imagining false bogeymen takes attention away from the real issues.
With regards to making improvements by “plundering” what “white men” produce, I am not advocating for that. However, there are certain unearned privileges that certain individuals and groups hold (though this obviously varies in different contexts) and I do advocate that this disparity be eliminated, either by removing the privilege from those unfairly benefiting from it and/or extending its benefits to all. Note that privilege here does not necessarily mean money or property. Rather, I speak of issues like sentencing disparities between white and black defendants; here the solution is obviously to not impose draconian punishments on MORE people, but on less. So white folks will essentially remain unaffected. Some people are bothered by even that proposition, because it seems to threaten their position in society, but that is another conversation for another day.
The trouble is when we look at the historical legacies of policies that continue to lead to disparities today. As you noted, slavery and Jim Crow are over, but there are folks still alive today who were directly impacted by the segregation of the early and mid 20th century and many more who are directly impacted by it. How do we correct for that? Honestly, I don’t know the answer. But just because the answer is difficult to find does not mean it is not worth finding and right to seek out.
I lean libertarian on many issues, but sometimes the problems I have have to do with the historical myopia with which people want to apply its principals. America has not acted particularly libertarian, with some groups feeling the sting of government far more than others, with long lasting effects. To say now that we should simply remove government protections or assistance, programs that were/are necessary because of how some groups were (and continue to be) treated by the government is flawed reasoning. Obviously, there are better solutions than most of what is being done now, much of which exacerbates these problems, but I don’t think the solution is just to create “Libertopia” and be confident it will all work out. The playing field is not even, largely because of government action that deliberately unevened it for folks based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, etc. To suddenly say, “Well, we’ve removed most of the government imposed unevening so, we’re all good now!” ignores how that uneveness continues to play out and fosters more uneveness.
I’m not calling for radical wealth distribution, because A) I don’t think it would work or B) it runs into may moral issues. But I do think more needs to be done to address the government’s role in addressing the inequities they promoted/required for so long.
Back to the issue at hand, the reason I oppose Beck and others like him is they are opportunistic and don’t really seem interested in the morality of shrinking government, only the convenience of it. They speak out about issues like welfare, ignoring the identical issues with farm subsidies. They complain about lowering taxes, while often not offering practical ways to lower the current NEED for taxes (eliminating welfare is not nearly enough to get taxes to a level they would find justified). They want smaller government, but then argue for increased police involvement in immigration enforcement (a la Arizona) and generally support the intense criminalization of drugs. They want freedoms, but so often complain when others enjoy those freedoms in ways they don’t like (which obviously is there right, but the demands they make often make their “freedom mantra” ring hollow). If Beck seemed genuinely interested in enacting change, I could see myself supporting him. That is why I support Radley, because he does and has made a difference and his primary focus is the principals themselves, not who happens to be impacted by them. Yes, Radley is wrong at times, just as we all are, but his efforts are genuine and sincere. I don’t think the same can be said of Beck.
carrying a cross and wrapped in a flag.
These folks scare me a hell of a lot more than the Muslims.
Elliot -
“If you think that you have to plunder what white men produce in order to do good for women and minorities, then you have no respect for individual rights and you’re an enemy of liberty.”
Bingo. The stuff some of these people peddle is little more than a racialized version of the old mercantilist fallacy with a tinge of racial marxism wrapped in.
Flukebucket,
We need the flying spaghetti monster now more than ever. It just looks bat shit crazy to me. And, I know I’m insensitive on this point.
Ramen.
“How do we correct for that? Honestly, I don’t know the answer.”
Come on, BSK. Why not state what you really think and endorse “slavery reparations” or some other marxian race-based redistributive nonsense? Because that’s the real and recurring subtext to your argument, even though you dance around it when it gets called out.
“They speak out about issues like welfare, ignoring the identical issues with farm subsidies. They complain about lowering taxes, while often not offering practical ways to lower the current NEED for taxes (eliminating welfare is not nearly enough to get taxes to a level they would find justified). They want smaller government, but then argue for increased police involvement in immigration enforcement (a la Arizona) and generally support the intense criminalization of drugs.”
BSK Translation: Beck & Co. are hypocrites on some issues, therefore we should discount everything they say about shrinking the government and continue right on course with big government all around for everyone…but especially for brown people, who need reparations for all the past injustices of Whitey.
#19
Beck for awhile was pounding the Iran War rhetoric. Mindless Warmongering is a tenant in Neoconservativism. Im not the only one who feels this way, Lew Rockwell and Co have Beck pegged.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/64326.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/64288.html
Liberty is good talk for Conservatives when they’re out of power, but once they get back we will just revert back to Statist-lite with religious bullshit thrown in.
#60- I tried to uptick you, but apparently hit the neg by mistake.
BSK- ‘All-in-all, I’d venture to guess that most Americans are more free now than they ever have been.’
I’m sure there’s been a couple responses that I missed, but going from my own life and looking at kids today- cops with dogs are searching schools for drugs. students are urine tested without just cause. lockers/students are routinely searched. the supreme court struck down freedom of speech for students.
way too many things have worsened- gps units are being used to track people, we need passports to cross Canadian/Mexican borders, the amount of swat deployments have dramatically increased. just look at the amount of laws and increased complexity of our tax codes and you can see an erosion of freedom. smoking restrictions in private businesses/homes are becoming common. the drinking age has been raised to 21. seat belt laws.
I’m gonna say that all americans are much less free than they were even 25 years ago.
I don’t know what it is, I seem to need a vacation from trying to figure out how frightened I need to be when everyone is talking dog-whistle.
Meanwhile, I treasure, “Are you an Austrian?” “I’m an Austrian economist.”
_made me chuckle a bit…”
Humor requires a grain of truth, not clumsy projections of ideas you wish your opponents had so it would be easier to attack them. That’s called a strawman. If there were rallies in support of Mexican immigrants, Muslims, or some Democrat/”left” cause, one could concoct a bogus announcement along the lines of: “Bring your anchor babies.” “Learn how to make a bomb vest.” “Find out how you can help build the new GULAGs.” See how lame that is?
When people hold special privileges, they very often maintain that by leveraging the power of government. Using government to try to reduce privileges is like hiring ex-cons to improve your bank’s security. Politicians and bureaucrats love selling privileges to contributors.
Besides which, unless you’re talking the use of force or fraud to perpetuate some advantage, attempting to “punish” people perceived as privileged is a collectivist solution which tranples individual rights. At best, it’s class warfare punishing people who are productive with higher taxes. At worst, it’s a pogrom against “greedy Jews” or the “evil kulaks.”
History has shown that using government force to “eliminate [disparity]” by appealing to popular resentments is almost always unethical. (Certainly, there are exceptions, like seeing to it that racist lynchers are prosecuted.)
I disagree that taxpayer-funded welfare was ever “necessary.” Redistribution involves forcibly taking from innocents, as well as the guilty. And, creating a cycle of dependence only punts the problem down the road and causes it to grow.
No government system will solve everyone’s problems. A free society (“Libertopia”) will not solve everyone’s problems. But in a free society, at least people who want to get special advantages won’t be able to leverage the unstoppable force of government. And, no one will stop you from giving of your time and money to help the disadvantaged.
When you talk about something “work[ing] out,” always ask yourself, “work out for whom?” If I’m having a tough time under a minarchist government and I don’t think the free market is “working for me,” I still don’t have a rational justification to take from your pockets to solve my problems. They are, after all, my problems and not yours (unless, of course, you actually mugged me).
Glen Beck opposes farm subsidies and advocates legalizing marijuana. (The latter seems to be a flip-flop for him.)
Unfortunately, he’s on the anti-immigration bandwagon. I agree with you about that. Even Ron Paul, who is the closest thing to a decent politician (an oxymoron, to be sure), is on the wrong side on immigration.
I see that attitude from most “conservatives”/Republicans as well as nearly all “leftists”/Democrats. They’re horrible.
But the existence of hypocrites like these is no justification to abandon the push for reducing taxes, small government, etc.. It just means that you need to oppose both Coke and Pepsi parties when they are not respecting the rights of individuals.
Anyone who takes all these Tea Party folks seriously has a bad memory.
Remember the Clinton years, when all the conservatives sounded like relatively swell folks? I do.
Remember what they started doing and saying when their guy got elected?
I do. I won’t be fooled again.
If that little voice answers back TANSTAAFL, as it pertains to tax cuts and entitlement cuts (you will get less on social security and medicare), I could care less if it is Jesus, Mohammed, Elijah, or the ghost of Robert Heinlien they attribute it to.
Really. How is that Obama thing working out for you?
#70 Jor, great point. If the Republicans especially the tea party types take the house or senate you know it will be 2/4/6 years of nothing more than investigation after investigation into the New Black Panther Party and Obama’s role in this group, Acorn, Anchor Babies, a few blocks away from ground zero Mosque, and other nonsense. They will do zero, if not criticism him for not going far enough, to address Obama positions on state secrets, his war policies, Getmo and the like.
Elliot #52: “And, how do you figure ‘wage workers’ would suffer ‘hell on earth’? Accepting a job means you agree to the employment terms because it benefits you to get paid rather than trying to grow your own food, build your own automobile, etc.. If you consider a job ‘hell on earth’ then don’t take it.”
Ok, hell on earth may have been over the top. I don’t know for a fact that right-wing anarchism would leave hourly workers (like me) at a tremendous disadvantage, but I suspect it would.
Life is not like a game of Monopoly, Elliot. We do not all start out with the same amount of money (And I’m not saying we should). I predict that an anarcho-capitalist sytem would allow large private enterprises and wealthy individuals to ruthlessly dominate their workers and other “little people”(unless those little people band together and acquire more capital or weapons than their bosses, of course). It could even lead to a new kind of feudalism.
I am not a shrill progressive or a cheerleader for government. I am a liberal (probably more classical than modern at this point) who would like to see a system in which individuals come to rely less and less on government AND large corporations. To reach this goal, I support the idea of a basic income for all citizens (the funds for this could come from taxes on land, taxes on use of natural resources, fees for privileges and licenses granted by the state, etc.), and the reduction and eventual elimination of income tax. If wage workers had this new found “boost” of extra income, they could more easily choose to leave jobs they dislike. Maybe they could even work for themselves or for a small firm, which sounds pretty good to me after working for a large enterprise. Maybe they could also provide for most of their own healthcare and other services.
As of right now, however, your notion of employment as a fair contract is hopelessly naive. This is pretty common among libertarians, in my opinion. An employment contract is NOT a contract between two parties with equal resources at their disposal. This fact is obvious to those of us who are wage workers, and not salaried employees, business owners, bloggers, science fiction writers, academics, etc.
Life is not the same as an Austrian economics textbook, Elliot. In real life, people have to take or stay at jobs that they don’t care for in order to pay the bills. They have to accept intimidation and disrespect because they have to pay the bills. Sometimes jobs do become “hell on earth” and there’s not a god damn thing a worker can do about it, unless they want to lose their home and/or starve. Unions and government labor regulations are not the ideal solution, but right now it’s all some of us lowly wage workers have to level the playing field with our employers.
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross, sitting in a lawn chair and eating a KFC Double Down
Hilarious!
Elliot-
I am on board with limited government and actively advocate for it. I may not do so in all the same ways that others do, but I am certainly not a believer in bigger government. I just think the minimizing of government needs to be done deliberately and thoughtfully. Simply throwing it all out would be more problematic, I think. Instead, it should be dismantled slowly. That’s all I’m saying.
We have the same end, but see different ways of getting there. I don’t believe in the enlargement of the welfare state nor reparations for slavery, as some boneheads would like to think I am. I think the ideal government is only as large as is necessary, which I realize is essentially a meaningless statement without qualifying what “necessary” is, but suffice it to say I think it should be as small as possible while still being able to protect the rights of the citizens. I definitely would disagree with you on some elements of the tax policy, but that is a different conversation for a different day. My primary point is that one can be “small government” and still believe in many of the things I believe in (thinks like social justice, racial and gender equity), even though the current dialogue seems to put those things in mutually exclusive boxes. I do think that something needs to be done about the government-fostered inequities that continue to this day. Maybe the government is not the one to fix that, but I think it is morally irresponsible to act as we have as a country and then try to pretend none of it ever happened. How that should be done is a complex question and, as I’ve said, I don’t know the answer. But I don’t consider is acceptable, morally or otherwise, to have a government imposed system of inequity that is never corrected for.
And, to the commenter who inquired about my statement regarding people being more free now than before, I was taking a much larger historical perspective. I agree that if we look at a smaller time frame, then the reverse might be true. But if we look at the whole of human history, or even just our own country’s history, we are in a far better place now than we ever have been with regards to individual liberty and the extent to which they are enjoyed. I did note the disturbing trend that technology has fostered with regards to increased invasion and that is definitely a modern issue a step backward.
Helmut – And exactly what about government makes you think it can capably do anything you claim to desire with an end result that is anything other than a massive, bloated, ineffective, politically entrenched, and perpetual bureaucracy?
“I am on board with limited government and actively advocate for it.”
Really, BSK? Cause all you ever seem to post about around here is “racial injustice” and vague but thoroughly marxian allusions to how unfair it is that the “privileged” have their privilege and the rest – which you usually define on racial terms – do not, it being implicit that government can and should rectify this disparity.
If anything, I’d put you in the opposite corner from limited government as a statist racial marxist. As always, I invite you to demonstrate otherwise but I’m not holding my breath for that one.
I don’t know what “right-wing anarchism” means. The stupid, anachronistic left-to-right political scale is one-dimensional and I see no way to put free market anarchists on the side of loyalists to the French crown or whatever their modern equivalents would be.
If you’re at a disadvantage because a group of people are not using aggressive coercion, backed by a monopoly on the use of force, then perhaps your would-be lack of disadvantage isn’t a goal that any ethical person should strive for.
Life isn’t fair. I wasn’t born with the ability to be a world-class high jumper. Would anyone argue that we ought to injure the legs of people born with superior strength so I won’t be at a disadvantage?
Corporations are a product of government. Wealthy individuals who leverage the power of government (protectionism, rent seeking, monopolies, eminent domain) can do so at a fraction of the price it would cost them without government. A few hundred thousand in campaign contributions can buy you a politician who will see to it that you get millions of dollars return on your “investment,” including the backing of the police (and sometimes military, as is the case with international investors).
As far as I’m concerned, there’s not going to be a condition of free market anarchy on any large scale, because it’s in the nature of too many human beings to sign away their freedom (and that of their neighbors) to people promising safety. It’s a bit like speculating what would happen if extra-terrestrial aliens arrived and wanted to play baseball. We have no historical or contemporary experience with conditions which would lend themselves to anarcho-capitalism and don’t know what other world visitors would look like. So it’s a bit pointless to guess.
Sadly, I see little point in trying to discuss these things with you if you cannot see the glaring contradiction of what you just wrote.
I say no to your idea and I have no interest in finding any “middle ground” with anyone advocating wholesale theft. Few countries have attempted what you advocate and nearly all of them ended up breaking a few million “eggs” to make that omelete.
The word “fair” is yours, not mine. And, you seem to want to apply a special definition to that word to portray a mutual, consensual arrangement between people of different means to be “unfair.” I completely reject that as a valid measurement of ethics.
Plenty of people who started their working life making hourly wages have gone to night school and gotten high-salary jobs. Many have sacrificed to save and start their own business. That’s what The American Dream is all about, and the biggest barrier to achieving that today is not rich people keeping you down, but the government taxing, regulating, licensing, etc. to the point that a startup small business has to make significant profits just to stay afloat. Why do you think the Obama/Pelosi/Reid economic strategy has caused a second slide, instead of stimulating the economy to recovery?
You show me where von Mises or Hayek ever made promises that people wouldn’t have to work at jobs they didn’t care for. There is no government system which has any ethical solution to such problems. The communists, who also advocated a basic income for all and the wholesale theft of capital and natural resources, created systems in which everyone but the party elite had to work at jobs they didn’t care for, accepting intimidation and disrespect.
In a free society, at least you have the option to pick up and go elsewhere to look for better opportunity. That isn’t a guarantee and there’s certainly no promise that anyone you might do business with is going to be on an equal footing with you. Frankly, I find that attitude, that the world ought to work in such a way, to be a very childish one.
It doesn’t. Grow up and deal with it.
Unions, as a collective bargaining technique, are fine, in principle. Until the government comes in and gives unions special advantages (as a way to buy union votes, of course), then people have every right to join together to try to negotiate better agreements.
If you think unions are actually helping wage earners in the long run, just look at Detroit. Look at all of the jobs which have been outsourced to other countries where politicians aren’t forcing companies to give union employees above-market salaries and benefits. Look at UAW.
Anyone who purportedly fights for you, but ends up bankrupting the companies that provide you with a job, isn’t doing you any favors.
What do you mean by “social justice” or “equity”? Because most people who use those terms today define them as a collectivist means of imposing egalitarianism, based upon the irrational concept of positive liberty.
No one has a default obligation to serve another, which is what is required to create “social justice” and demographic equity.
If, on the other hand, you’re using those terms in an uncommon way, to mean that everyone’s individual rights (life, liberty, and property) ought to be respected regardless of their demographic group and oppression via the use of aggressive force ought to be counteracted, then I wouldn’t have a problem with you, though I’d suggest a few books you could read to get up to speed on the contemporary political lexicon.
80 – He’ll dance around it with vague and duplicitous language when you press him, but BSK means exactly what you think he means when using those terms. The other day he was blathering about the “privileged” (which to him means white people) contrasted with the underprivileged (minorities), implying how the gap he perceives between them needed to be corrected. Like the terms you caught above, it was a freudian slip and he quickly ducked away into denial when pressed…only to pop back up here a few days later spouting a new variant of the same marxist bullshit.
Keep smacking him down though. If you do it enough, he’ll soon devolve into accusing you of being an “angry racist white guy” who’s mad about his “privilege” being challenged by “brown people,” even though you’ve said nothing to indicate your own race, income, or anything else that would allow him to make that judgment.
Elliot-
I definitely think that social justice can be achieved without coercive government action. As I stated earlier, with the example of sentencing disparities between whites and blacks, I don’t think the solution is to punish whites more, but to punish blacks less. That is, if we consider the sentencing being doled out to whites to be appropriate, than that standard should apply to all. Now, if the inverse is true, where whites are being “under sentenced”, I’m not sure that the inverse solution should hold, as I think the default would be to look for ways to limit government coercion. So that is easily a case where the solution is less state violence.
Other issues are far more complex, for various reasons. For instance, if we look at public schooling, many libertarians are opposed to public education in any form. Others are not, so we’re starting from a more varied base that would need to be reconciled first before thinking about where to go from there.
I think that it should go without saying that any government that does exist should treat all folks equitably, regardless of gender, race, religion, etc. That is still not a reality in our society, which is where I would start. I realize that the prejudice is not necessarily codified in law, such as it was before women’s suffrage was realized or during Jim Crow, but there are many ways in which the actions of the government are prejudice. And this must be rectified. Maybe that means removing the government from the practice in general or something else. We’d need to look at it on a situation-by-situation basis.
Personally, I do think that prejudice in the free market should be outlawed, which I realize may put me in the minority here. I realize the arguments in favor of the free market correcting for this, but I don’t think we have enough practical evidence to conclude that is corrective enough. And whether we want to admit it or not, our current market system is partially built on the remnants of a system that held down people of color, religious minorities, women, immigrants, and other groups down. I think it has led to wealth being unfairly concentrated within certain groups. Now, I don’t think that radical redistribution is the answer. Which is why I think non-discrimination laws are still necessary. Will it end discrimination? No. Nothing will, unfortunately.
Also, the trouble I have with the moral arguments against taxation and such are that they ignore the amoral way our society has come to be. I realize that you don’t correct a wrong by committing further wrongs. But there is something bothersome to hear folks claim the great moral violations of progressive taxation while ignoring that in SOME (certainly not all) cases the folks who are in that top bracket being taxed the most are there in part because of the immoral oppression of other folks.
“Other issues are far more complex, for various reasons.”
“We’d need to look at it on a situation-by-situation basis.”
“Now, I don’t think that radical redistribution is the answer.”
“I realize that you don’t correct a wrong by committing further wrongs. But there is something bothersome to hear folks claim the great moral violations of progressive taxation…”
As previously noted, vague and duplicitous language that makes seemingly innocent and non-committal attempts to sound “reasonable” vis-a-vis an unspecified extreme…
“And whether we want to admit it or not, our current market system is partially built on the remnants of a system that held down people of color, religious minorities, women, immigrants, and other groups down. I think it has led to wealth being unfairly concentrated within certain groups.”
…capped off by a dose of statist redistributionism predicated upon the belief that Whitey inherently exploits brown people.
And yes, BSK, I am calling you out (again) as a racial marxist.
“Really. How is that Obama thing working out for you?”
Not much differently from his predecessor, but then, I never saw him as anything but a business-as-usual politician, nor his enthusiasts as anything but chumps and fools.
“Not much differently from his predecessor…”
That is true if you are not paying attention to spending.
No honest, rational person who follows current events would ever characterize the Obama/Pelosi/Reid legislative agenda as “business-as-usual.” Health Care Deform is a quantum leap away from the individualism which made America unique among nations of the world.
America was never particularly individualist, and the changes they’ve made to the medical system are perfectly in line with business-as-usual. In fact, business-as-usual could hardly lead in any other direction.
“That is true if you are not paying attention to spending.”
Spending went up under Dubya. Spending went up more under Obama. Spending will go up even more under whoever replaces him, regardless of party affiliation. Maybe Obama is exceptionally bad in his turn, but if he is I don’t see much more evidence for it than I do for absurd claims that Dubya was the worst president ever (really? worse than outright racist, fascist imperialists like TR and Wilson?). It’s awful, sure, but it’s business as usual.
As the fulfillment of the Enlightenment, America was the quintessential example of an individualist society, the very first in all of history, with the glaring exception of the original sin of slavery. American individualism fostered the creation of technology, agriculture, and entertainment, to make this place the most productive on Earth, ever.
I give no credit to any politicians for this as government nearly always retards productivity. (Sure, you can put men on the moon and build mighty armies if you take away enough tax money from people, but eventually you run out of other people’s money and you find yourself paying to guard other countries around the world, fighting costly wars.)
Health Care Deform is a quantum leap from the status quo of 2008. Sure, it’s a continuation of the collectivist programs from the New Deal onward, but the impact on the very fabric of doing business in this country is devastating beyond the worst of the pre-2008 Big Government programs.
Tell me, do you run your own business or work in management or HR? Are you familiar with the extra burdens imposed by Health Care Deform? How about the 1099 changes, which amount to a massive tax due to the man hours required just for those?
I will say that TARP, passed by Bush (with heavy support from Democrats in Congress), was also unprecedented, and inspired me to declare “The Land of the Free” gone at that point. That wasn’t business as usual, either. You could argue that Obama stepped into the train engine as it was already running full steam towards the cliff, but the Pelosi/Reid Congress, coupled with the Obama White House, have jammed the accelerator to the floor.
Uh, I think my analogy was a bit flawed. I should have left off “already running full steam” and said the train (under Bush/Pelosi) was simply headed for the cliff. The Obama administration marked a significant acceleration of the pace of The Endarkenment.