The Universal Notebook: Glenn Beck, the 'Libertarian Limbaugh'

Mr. Beem,
What is the purpose of your article? I do not have to be a supporter of Glenn Beck, nor even conservative, to understand that his views and expressed opinions represent a legitimate intent to progress the politics of today's America towards the one imagined by our founding fathers. Your article, however, is nothing short of a spiteful, immature, and discriminating attempt to discredit a source of patriotism and freedom of speech, a childish attack with no substance or evidence behind its argument.
First off, if I was Ms. O'Connor, I would be shocked and outraged by your insulting rhetoric. You ask, "Now where would a waitress from Berwick get over-the-top ideas such as these?" How dare you insinuate that a waitress would not be capable of forming her own opinion? How dare you suggest that her occupation limits her intelligence and originality? You only identify yourself as an elitist, dismissing the ideas of a good portion of Americans simply because they make an hourly wage. Your elitist attitude is again expressed as you attempt to discredit Beck by emphasizing the fact that he did not attend college, and is a recovering addict. Should he not be an inspiration? This is the American success story: someone who hits rock bottom, barely able to pay rent, only to turn his life around and become a successful guru of millions of American conservatives? "An enormous appeal to the weak-minded?" You undermine the intelligence and free will of any who do not share your opinion. You state that any who listen to him are hopelessly enslaved. Your article sends a clear message: if anyone is filled with hot air, it is you, Mr. Beem.
Secondly, the lack of substance to your article astonishes me. You rely on points which you do not explain or back with evidence to attack Mr. Beck. You say, "less government, less oversight, less regulation - is exactly what brought the U.S. to the brink of collapse." We are the most powerful nation on the planet, Mr. Beem. Your opinion of a diminished, weak America is quite unpatriotic. Furthermore, you attribute this alleged state of feebleness to three very vague concepts. Many factors have brought us to where we are today; attributing our faults to "what Beck (and Limbaugh) advocate" is simply naive and ignorant. You say Mr. Beck seems to believe he is God's gift to the common man. What suggests this idea? You do not support or explain any of your points. I see the opportunity for a coherent, stable argument replaced by childish methods and petty insults.
It strikes me, as I am writing this, that there is nothing political about my comment. That is because there is nothing political about your article. Is this really your idea of freedom of opinion? Attempting to discredit and undermine those who disagree with you? Of course you are entitled to your own opinion, Mr. Beem, but nowhere does this necessitate such spite and immaturity. You conclude your article by saying, "Leave the thinking to someone else." Well, that someone else is certainly not you, Mr. Beem. Your article does nothing to contribute to the political progress of our great country; it does nothing to express the coherent, thoughtful opinion which you accuse Mr. Beck of lacking. Next time, please exert some self-control, and keep your petty grudges to yourself. You should be embarrassed for yourself.

(sniff, sniff) What's that smell emanating from these fringe right comments? Fear. Fear that they're extremist ideologies are steaming toward obsoletism. They've latched their hopes to Beck, who has promised to lead them from the darkness with his glowing blue eyes and nationalist rhetoric. But the truth is, Beck has just repackaged the same, tired message that led his flock to the brink of oblivion: whites are victims, the president's a racist (which must really disappoint his white
mother) and the Marxists are circling. The names are new, but Beck's messsage has been heard before by such esteemed citizens as David Duke, who convinced himself, and thousands of others, that his predjudices were the defense mechanism against black and brown oppression. You'll note that one of the commenters here has equated America's so-called plight is akin to slavery, a claim that would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
Of course, Beck's defenders will say he is opposing Obama on other ideological grounds. But his recent foray into race reveals the subtext of all his arguments, and his fringe popularity. He exploits fear to advance his agenda, which by the way, has absolutley nothing to do with the good of the country and everything to do with Glenn Beck. He's a meglomanical narcissist.

Comment on: "Now where would a waitress from Berwick get over-the-top ideas such as these?" This sentence makes sense only if a "waitress from Berwick" cannot possibly be smart or intelligent enough to know current affairs and articulate enough to write "Letter to America."
Do you know what Mr. Beem has just done by writing that sentence? He's doing one of two things: One, a logical fallacy of ignoring the ISSUE (that President Obama has pushed Marxist agenda) and, instead, attacking the person who wrote the issue. And/or, two, no woman is that smart & articulate; no waitress is that smart & articulate; no one from Berwick is that smart & articulate.
Throughout the article, Mr. Beem addresses what kind of person is the person who claims a statement on an issue, but he has failed to address whether or not the claim is true to reality.
Two plus two is still four, even when stated by the people he crookedly thinks cannot be smart enough to know what's going on. Does a truth become false suddenly because it was spoken by (a) "uneducated" (b) "wealthy demagogue" & (c) one who believes "Mormonism"?
If you say it does, Mr. Beem, I suggest that you read your last three sentences, replacing the name "Glenn" with your own name.
Yes, leave it to others to think; please go somewhere else to tell us your fantasy world. That's not what the "Universal Notebook" is for.

I'm really surprised that a staunch liberal such as yourself could so harshly attack a member of the working class as you did to Ms. O'Connor. This is beyond your complaint about Beck and Limbaugh; this is about how you immediately discount the woman's intelligence based on her choice to listen to Mr. Beck and disagree with your widely renowned rants. Just because she listens to that show, doesn't immediately make her any less smart than you think you are.

"I'm quite certain that neither O'Connor nor any of the 912 Project true-Beck-believers has the slightest idea what Goethe meant by that cryptic statement."
Get off your high horse and look at what you are saying. Beck didn't go to college, so all of his followers are immediately morons? And you, since you watch CNN like a good little American, are a freaking genius. I hate that attitude. I am not a follower of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, as I disagree with a lot of things they say, but my complaint isn't about their policies, it is about you pretending like you are so much higher than people who believe something different from you.

Little response to a comment that you wrote along the line here...
Don't give us that bullcrap excuse that "no one should expect Obama to have fixed the country yet." The Dems have been saying that since day one; a disclaimer just in-case Obama didn't solve all of the problems that he said he would. Granted, I doubt anyone could fix the economy in this short amount of time, but to even pretend that Obama is the messiah and that he is doing everything possible to get out of this economic rut, is wrong. Just look at the second 100 days poll on CNN. It is obvious by the nationwide grades that the "people who elected him" aren't too happy with his policies. What does make me laugh though, is that despite the awful grades he got on the other questions, he still got high grades on himself as a president. The American people should pay less attention to how "awesome" he is, and more on his half-ass policies.

So far, all I have seen is a bunch of chest thumping, look at me "I sup with conservatives", and "I believe in doing good" testimony, coupled with "mommy, they're calling me names" protests.

No one has responded to the central point, which is Eddie's trashing of the essence of the creation of America.

He says the following:

"Among the nine "principles" of Beck's self-centered creed are "I have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results" and "I work hard for what I have and I will share it with whom I want."

In other words, Beck does not believe in equality, justice, or the common good."

That last line asserts facts not in evidence, and is classic collectivist agitprop. Lenin glasses, full facial hair, and hair parted down the middle notwithstanding.

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" may be embraced by Beck, but that is irrelevant; they are the inescapable essence of the American founding as explained in the Declaration of Independence. And "Beck's" subsequent phrases are direct and indisputable consequences of those unalienable rights properly understood. Beck is, at most, reminding us of how we got here, not creating some new manifesto.

Eddie responds with a classic collectivist broadside, directly dismissing the founding principles. I don't know how much clearer I could make that assertion, yet all the responses from the Beemians have scrupulously avoided the opening charges by Eddie and my response to them.

So let me repeat: Eddie is trashing the unalienable rights upon which America was founded, and without explanation or defense. And those who come to his defense are doing the same, explicitly.

I said earlier that "equality," "justice (understood here as "social" and "economic" justice), and "the common good" are code words for the collectivist agenda. And I said as well that "equal people are not free, and free people are not equal." And I have yet to hear a response to any of these points other than the equivalent of "stupid people who listen to talk radio know nothing."

Now some offerings in response to the emotional offerings of the Beemians.

1) Every known study of charitable giving habits rates conservatives well ahead of liberals in generosity and sharing the fruits of their labors with those who have not done as well. (Don't use the term "less fortunate.") Yet you will always find liberals (in the modern sense) bragging about how they "care more." I have specifically heard that explanation from an elected Maine official to rationalize our destructive taxation and economic policies.

2) My understanding of Christianity and Christ speaks to a personal relationship with one's heavenly Father and striving to live up to His expectations as revealed through His earthly Son. I know of no Christian principles that speak to establishing a government to take dominion over us and act as His agent to compel His will and expectations for us. And I find the suggestion from the Beemians to be absurd given the usual liberal demands about separating church and state. Further, such claims would put the Beemians in the position of espousing Christian principles over say, the principles of Islam. And we surely couldn't have that. Not in a pluralistic, tolerant, diverse, humanistic, tolerant, and non-judgmental utopia.

3) I find a bit ironic the liberal belief in Darwinism over creationism. The concepts of "natural selection" and "evolution of the species" and "survival of the fittest" suggest that the weak and downtrodden in society are simply an expression of Darwin's truth, and that one should not interfere with the perfection of that theory. On the other hand, creationism would suggest that all our made in God's image, and that it is meet and right to tend to those who need our help. So which is it, oh sage ones of the common good? Is it in the interest of the "common good" to proliferate those who are "naturally selected" not to survive, or is it in the "common good" to let Darwin have his way?

4) As to the classical meaning of "liberalism," I understand the term to derive from the same root as liberty, which modern liberals either don't understand in the fullest sense, or simply abhor. The classic meaning, to use the words of a book of recent years, has to do with the notion of "leave us alone," while the modern meaning has to do with the notion of "takings" to benefit those groups favored by the powers that be.

For a more succinct and erudite discussion of the difference, I would refer you to the introduction to "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman, a deceased University of Chicago Professor and a Nobel laureate in Economics. In it, he quotes Joseph Schumpeter: "As a supreme, if unintended compliment, the enemies of the system of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label."

Friedman writes: "the intellectual movement that went under the name of liberalism emphasized freedom as the ultimate goal and the individual as the ultimate entity in the society."

He writes further: "Beginning in the late nineteenth century, and especially after 1930 in the United States, the term liberalism came to be....associated with a readiness to rely primarily on the state rather than on private voluntary arrangements to achieve objectives regarded as desirable. The catchwords became welfare and equality rather than freedom. The nineteenth century liberal regarded an extension of freedom as the most effective way to promote welfare and equality; the twentieth century liberal regards welfare and equality as either prerequisites of or alternatives to freedom. In the name of welfare and equality, the twentieth century liberal has come to favor a revival of the very policies of state intervention and paternalism (or should we say nannyism?) against which classic liberalism fought.

So there....I have responded. Why don't you try doing the same; it would buff up your moral superiority credentials. Not to mention your prized reputation among the beautiful intellects.

I don't listen to radio much, but during my congressional campaign a kindly woman in Paris offered to buy me a ticket to Becks' show in Portland. Very entertaining. Made fun of the politicians' pretenses to be "regular guys" Offered some priceless examples of political correctness. Ridiculed some Homeland Security excesses and firearms phobia. Nothing remotely comparable to the screeching Bush Dementia.

A different subject, Sophisticated Eddie tells us that the Bush camarilla brought the U.S. to the brink of collapse with less government, less oversight, and less regulation. I'm not going to accuse him of ignorance (that would be hate) but under Bush the budget grew, the Federal Register published hundreds of new regulations and there was no significant reduction in oversight.

Where did his factoids come from?

John FrarySince Edgar Allan Beemer displays his erudition by quoting Amitai Etzioni, I offer this quote from that always interesting author: “....a strong case can be made that it is precisely the bonding together of community members that enable us to remain independent of the state. The anchoring of individuals in viable families, webs of friendships, faith communities, and neighborhoods -- in short, in communities -- best sustains their ability to resist the pressures of the state. The absence of these social foundations opens isolated individuals to totalitarian pressures. (This, of course, is the point Tocqueville makes in Democracy in America.).”

And further: “One can be as opposed to state intervention and regulation as a diehard libertarian and still see a great deal of merit in people encouraging one another to do what is right. (Technically speaking, the reference here is not to frustrating people and preventing them from acting on their preferences, which is what the coercive state does, but rather appealing to their better self to change or re-order their preferences).”

At the risk of causing distress, I must mention that this quote comes from an article in a neo-conservative quarterly, The Public Interest,.

Prof. Etzioni is worth reading. He never babbles biliously about hysterical far right- right-wing wacko, moron, goofballs who pander to the fears of the frightened listeners and espouse messianic selfishness with the intent to destroy the fabric of society. He is too well-educated to indulge in such mouth-foaming rhetoric.

EAB is also worth reading. He raises some interesting questions. When he proudly informs us that he espouses the values of cooperation, compassion, and community in contrast to Beck’s self-centered creed, we are entitled to ask what evidence he can offer that his personal life is more compassionate, cooperative and community-centered than Beck’s.

Odd that he mentions Glenn Becks conversion to Mormonism. My own consumption of alcohol, tobacco and coffee excludes me from that community, but strong community values are surely one of the characteristics of the Mormon sect. They tithe themselves, go on missionary tours on behalf of their community and famously work together in face of community disasters. To what community does EAB belong? Is his compassion more than verbal? Who did he cooperate with this week and last?

Way to go, Edgar. Not only did you manage to draw the ire of the alleged common woman, but you even drew the ever-righteous, ever-arrogant Melvin Udall from his ideological bunker, As Maine Goes. And how about the lunatic who just equated the current state of affairs with slavery. Yeah pal, you're the victim. Hope you managed to peck out your manifesto here before Master gave you thousand lashes and seperated you from your family.
Anyway Edgar, the mistake you made was thinking you can engage in a meaningful debate with people who never discuss the topic but instead latch on to some ancillary non-issue that gives them the moral high ground. In this case your alleged marginalizing of a waitress. You're better off letting these windbags blow smoke amongst themselves. Someday they'll disappear into obsoletism. That's why they're so angry.
Oh, and if you're into dark comedy, you should watch Beck with the sound down. He's cornered the market on wild-eyed histrionics.