carbonpenguin
02-17-2010, 11:08 PM
The Problem with Glenn Beck
Originally posted at ASR (http://asrblog.com/2010/02/17/751/)
Ever since Ron Paul’s presidential bid in 2007-2008, Glenn Beck has been something of a controversial figure among members of the liberty movement. On the one hand, he addresses many issues near and dear to our hearts (such as the bailouts and stimulus, the Federal Reserve, select police state measures, state sovereignty, etc.) which we’d come to expect to be completely ignored by the mainstream media. To add icing to the cake, Beck conducts those discussions in the *language* of the liberty movement, sprinkling his diatribes with generous helpings of references to the Constitution and Founders. Such references are deeply symbolic and emotionally resonant for people in the liberty movement, and his use of them cements Beck’s position in many minds as a friend of liberty.
However, the recent flap concerning Texas Gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina’s appearance on Beck’s show serves as a reminder of the entertainer’s dark side. Beck is well versed at talking the talk of liberty, and his faction of the Tea Party and “9/12 Movement” have certainly made a lot of noise waving signs and marching on things. However, when it appears that a champion of liberty has a shot at real political power, Beck’s resolve melts like a snowball in August. During the Ron Paul campaign, Beck was deeply dismissive of Paul while the primary was still contested; it was only after it could be safely assumed that he had no shot at winning the primary that Beck miraculously began to spout suspiciously Paulist Constitutionalist-libertarian rhetoric. Similarly, from the game Beck talks, one would think that Debra Medina would be his dream candidate. Instead, he attacked her when he came on her show by using some fairly twisted logic to label her a 911-Truther, and, in a subsequent show, referred to her oxymoronically as an “anarchist Nazi” and an advocate of a “Total State”.
There is a common thread which ties these two examples together that’s indicative of the role Beck plays. 98% of the time, he spouts dyed-in-the-wool liberty rhetoric, which endears him to members of the liberty movement and earns their trust; he is thus perceived as “one of us” rather than being dismissed as “just another MSM clown”. That trust is a powerful weapon which he deploys the 2% of the time that it really counts: when it appears that a true liberty candidate has a real chance. At that moment, whether in the case of Ron Paul raising millions of dollars or Debra Medina exploding from 4% to 24% in a three-way Republican primary in a short amount of time, Beck breaks ranks and attacks the liberty candidate. While we’ve become relatively immune to the rantings of the likes of Sean Hannity or Keith Olbermann, we’d been perceiving Beck as one of us, and his dissent throws the movement into disarray at a strategically vital moment. Once the threat of real success is past, Beck starts up the liberty rhetoric again and we’re tempted to forgive and forget, because it feels so good to hear about what we care about on Prime-Time cable.
I, for one, am done with Beck’s traitorous head-games. I was disgusted by his treatment of Dr. Paul during the ‘08 primary, and yet somehow deluded myself into thinking he’d had a change of heart and was “on our side”. Now that he’s back-stabbed the liberty movement twice, my eyes are open. The end of the empire and the restoration will not be brought about by a well-fed, well-paid corporate radio/TV toady telling people to get out and wave signs; it’ll be brought about by people of good conscience taking political power. If Beck can’t get behind that, then his antics need to be shunned. When T.V.s across America finally go silent, that’ll be when the oligarchs start to sweat… rhetoric, or rEVOLution?
Originally posted at ASR (http://asrblog.com/2010/02/17/751/)
Ever since Ron Paul’s presidential bid in 2007-2008, Glenn Beck has been something of a controversial figure among members of the liberty movement. On the one hand, he addresses many issues near and dear to our hearts (such as the bailouts and stimulus, the Federal Reserve, select police state measures, state sovereignty, etc.) which we’d come to expect to be completely ignored by the mainstream media. To add icing to the cake, Beck conducts those discussions in the *language* of the liberty movement, sprinkling his diatribes with generous helpings of references to the Constitution and Founders. Such references are deeply symbolic and emotionally resonant for people in the liberty movement, and his use of them cements Beck’s position in many minds as a friend of liberty.
However, the recent flap concerning Texas Gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina’s appearance on Beck’s show serves as a reminder of the entertainer’s dark side. Beck is well versed at talking the talk of liberty, and his faction of the Tea Party and “9/12 Movement” have certainly made a lot of noise waving signs and marching on things. However, when it appears that a champion of liberty has a shot at real political power, Beck’s resolve melts like a snowball in August. During the Ron Paul campaign, Beck was deeply dismissive of Paul while the primary was still contested; it was only after it could be safely assumed that he had no shot at winning the primary that Beck miraculously began to spout suspiciously Paulist Constitutionalist-libertarian rhetoric. Similarly, from the game Beck talks, one would think that Debra Medina would be his dream candidate. Instead, he attacked her when he came on her show by using some fairly twisted logic to label her a 911-Truther, and, in a subsequent show, referred to her oxymoronically as an “anarchist Nazi” and an advocate of a “Total State”.
There is a common thread which ties these two examples together that’s indicative of the role Beck plays. 98% of the time, he spouts dyed-in-the-wool liberty rhetoric, which endears him to members of the liberty movement and earns their trust; he is thus perceived as “one of us” rather than being dismissed as “just another MSM clown”. That trust is a powerful weapon which he deploys the 2% of the time that it really counts: when it appears that a true liberty candidate has a real chance. At that moment, whether in the case of Ron Paul raising millions of dollars or Debra Medina exploding from 4% to 24% in a three-way Republican primary in a short amount of time, Beck breaks ranks and attacks the liberty candidate. While we’ve become relatively immune to the rantings of the likes of Sean Hannity or Keith Olbermann, we’d been perceiving Beck as one of us, and his dissent throws the movement into disarray at a strategically vital moment. Once the threat of real success is past, Beck starts up the liberty rhetoric again and we’re tempted to forgive and forget, because it feels so good to hear about what we care about on Prime-Time cable.
I, for one, am done with Beck’s traitorous head-games. I was disgusted by his treatment of Dr. Paul during the ‘08 primary, and yet somehow deluded myself into thinking he’d had a change of heart and was “on our side”. Now that he’s back-stabbed the liberty movement twice, my eyes are open. The end of the empire and the restoration will not be brought about by a well-fed, well-paid corporate radio/TV toady telling people to get out and wave signs; it’ll be brought about by people of good conscience taking political power. If Beck can’t get behind that, then his antics need to be shunned. When T.V.s across America finally go silent, that’ll be when the oligarchs start to sweat… rhetoric, or rEVOLution?