The Glenn Beck Challenge
I can’t think of anyone that is as polarizing a public figure as Glenn Beck. I’ve never heard anyone say something moderate about the man; he is either saintly or satanic.
I must admit that I can’t stand watching him at all. The longest that I’ve made it is maybe a minute. Within that minute I was assaulted with half-truths, a martyrdom complex, race baiting, and juvenile sarcasm.
Like many others, I have used social media to share with my friends either stupid things Glenn Beck has said or the dangerous influence of his hysterical infotainment. And the response from my friends who like the guy is over-the-top defensive.
Defensive, except that they never actually mount a defense. Like their Fox Network hero, they just start using hysterical words about socialism, conspiracies, “the left”, etc. This leads me to believe that he appeals to fans’ loneliness and need for affirmation. He is the public personification of their ignorance, fears, and prejudice. His popularity means that they can feel better about themselves and their worldview. Beck makes them feel like they are the common-sense majority (Everyone agrees!) or a persecuted righteous minority (We are in danger!). Although these are contradictory claims, it seems that his specialty is to hold to both of these.
I want to understand. Or maybe I don’t. But I want to want to understand…so maybe you can help me?
So here’s my Glenn Beck challenge:
Is there anything excellent or praiseworthy that comes from the mouth of Glenn Beck?
Can anyone mount a reasoned argument why he deserves his salary, his ratings, or even my attention?
What is one thing that he has said or done that is wise or wonderful?
So you got all this admittedly by only watching him for one minute? You are either a genius or an idiot for blogging about something you don’t actually know about. Of course that is what most blogging is about. Just love busting your ballz.
Our first well-reasoned defense! Thank you, Wade.
Give me some time to think about what you have shared and weigh the merits of your argument.
I used to watch him a lot in Costa Rica. He was actually a lot more moderate then. Had a pretty good show. I’ve seen him a little bit lately, but admittedly only when people scream bloody murder over his latest mindless rant–like he’s going to get elected President tomorrow, put all the illegals in concentration camps, gas them, take away freedom of speech, take the vote away from women, cut down all the trees in the forest just for the hell of it, and maybe force-feed raw meat to vegetarians.
He’s become a conservative shock icon. And I think if his goal is to define a new standard of what radical rightism is so that people will soften to the more “moderate” right (which till now has been seen as radical) then he’s fulfilling his role splendidly.
He gets the giant salary because millions listen and watch… Ratings, well that’s due to the same… As for your attention, well, watch more than a minute and see what you learn.
The beauty of this great nation is that, as of now, you can ‘choose’ not to watch him. That one of the simple liberties he is trying to protect. Of course he is also an entertainer, but he’s making some compelling arguments.
Can you refute any of his points of contention or accusations of malfeasance? Is he wrong about this Administration? Or is it just his arrogance and demeanor that you have a problem with… either way, turn it off while he’s still on the air and the soft tyranny hasn’t silenced their critics.
Though he’s a bit crazy and emotional, Beck and other conservative voices are smoking out all of the radicals and progressives… If that’s you, well, step out of the shadows and proclaim your case – let’s see what Americans think of your ideas. Otherwise, quietly lash out at personalities and avoid the debate of ideas.
Matt – Because you stated it as an “if/then”, it’s difficult for me to know if that is your argument or if you’re just assessing Beck. Let me rephrase it and let me know if I understood you correctly.
Collin – I’m not sure you offered me anything in the way of an argument that Glenn Beck serves some good purpose. Maybe you did and I missed it. Let me know what he has said or done that you think is helpful or beneficial, and I will be glad to either agree with you that he serves some good purpose, or else offer what compelling arguments or refutations I am capable of serving.
Sure, there are plenty examples of notable purpose… He’s shed light on Progressives, as well as their history and goals. His research has smoked out a number of bad apples – Van Jones, Shore Bank, SEIU, the list goes on and on…
In addition to being a ‘balancing force’ as mentioned above, he is also bringing things like God and Personal Property back into the conversation. It’s helpful to have someone that will ‘go there’, and clearly the American people are interested in those topics.
Thanks for the discussion!
Collin, I appreciate the effort, but this is all very general. You named names there – that’s a bit more like it. Care to take one and then explain in a little detail how Glenn Beck has done us a service? Specificity is key. It will help us to appreciate or respond to the argument.
The American people are also “interested” in Jersey Shore. Interest does not indicate that something has any redeeming value. Afterall, Joel Osteen packs a megachurch every Sunday.
@pastormack Zing! ;-)
Alright guys…play nice. It’s cool that Collin is even willing to step up a bit. Obviously all others have not been willing.
Collin…would you care to elaborate? Take things a bit further and present a case?
Alright fellas, I agree that interest does not = value. However, the fact that people continue to watch Fox for news and shows like Beck is frankly because they get some value. Viewers are getting news and reporting that simply aren’t flowing through the other networks. Further, Beck in particular is inspiring action among Americans (912′ers, Tea Party, Libertarian activism). So, those folks are more than ‘interested’.
It is my opinion that discussion about God, America’s Founding, and charity are very valuable. I also have appreciation for the exposing reports of ‘bad apples’ within (almost the entire group) the inner circle of the Administration. Isn’t the offering of a different perspective always a ‘service’? Having the choice is good, right?
Do you have some examples of where he is wrong about the associates of the Administration, or other major points he makes? I’m talking about good stuff, not insignificant details like ‘Andy Stern was not the #1 visitor to the WH… He was #2 as of airing…’ – that was the last point of contention I encountered.
Collin, your request would be fair, but the challenge was not “Can people provide examples of how Glenn Beck is wrong?” I have read too many of these. What I have not read is anything approaching an answer to, “Can you provide examples of how Glenn Beck is good/helpful/excellent?”
So pick one…do you want to propose that:
- Glenn Beck is excellent because he talks about God.
- Glenn Beck is excellent because he is another choice on the menu of political commentary.
- Glenn Beck is excellent because he inspires real-life activism
- Glenn Beck is excellent because he advocates for charity.
Then if you could give quotes, links, etc. supporting the statement, THEN we will be ready to have a discussion. As it is, it seems that people have a vague notion that he’s good, but nothing substantial that we can really discuss. Similarly, whenever I have brought up things that he’s said or done that I think are awful, people often respond with either vague accusations about “socialism”, “leftism”, “media bias”, etc. If not accusations, then vague defenses (“He speaks out against tyranny”, etc.)
Which ‘God’ is Glenn Beck bringing back into the conversation? He is a mormon; I’m not entirely certain that when he says ‘God’ we are talking about the same deity.
Besides which, my issue with Beck is as much about tone (maybe more) than it is about content. The Glenn Becks of this world – on every side of the political spectrum – are going to turn us all into ignorant, one-note, talking-head alarmist morons.
And, as Sam Keen once wrote, “Nice gets you a C+ in life.”
Collin, I’ll give just one example that I’m looking at recently.
I’m watching his 3/23 episode where he attacks the idea of “social justice,” when defined as “forcible redistribution of wealth.” Now, in this episode, he says that we need to put God first and politics second — to which I agree wholeheartedly.
But let’s put our money where our mouth is: When God laid the foundations for Israelite society, he mandated in governmental law the celebration called “The Year of Jubilee.” In this celebration, all land property had to be returned to its previous caretaker, and all slaves had to be freed. It was an economic policy that ensured that no single social group could build an oppressive hegemony over another group, where an “upper class” could exploit a “lower class” in perpetuity.
Now, was this “forcible redistribution of wealth”? It is mandated in God’s law, it was compulsory — it was not “if your heart leads you.” Likewise, it was indeed a radical redistribution of wealth.
So, let’s put God first and political ideology second. How can we possibly say that “forcible redistribution of wealth” is wrong per se, when God himself institutes this policy on a radical macro-level?
American Christians are getting their theological education from a Mormon on television, who has no education on the issues whatsoever.
That’s cool, your playground – your rules. I propose that Beck does an excellent job of exposing the true political nature and questionable character of individuals within the current Administration.
Example: Van Jones – Beck exposes his revolutionary, communist agenda. Within days he is ousted from the ‘Green Job Czar’ post. No follow up from mainstream media…
As for God, Beck frequently sites Ben Franklin’s take on ‘America’s religion…’ – paraphrased: There is a heaven and a god who will judge us based on our life here on earth.
Beck is not overbearing or specific about his own religion, nor is he the source of my religious education. He deserves some credit for suggesting that faith matters. Judging from your blogs and comments, it seems that most of you also agree with that premise.
Personally, I consider it commendable to expose corruption and questionable ethics with powerful political figures. What do you folks think?
Regarding the rest of the challenge…
Viewers -> Ad revenue -> profits -> salary
Wisdom: ‘make up your own mind after seeing the facts…’
Collin, you realize that Ben Franklin explicitly said he doubted the divinity of Jesus Christ about a month before he died, right? His account is no better for the Christian than Beck’s Mormon account.
Also, it’s quite striking that you ignored the entirety of my previous post. Are God’s economic policies of Jubilee to “progressive”?
Aaron, I just needed a day to think your statement over. As a side note, however, all I’m experiencing thus far is the ignoring of my points, redirection, followed by character questions about Beck and Ben Franklin…?
As for Ben Franklin, I find his statement about America’s ‘religion’ to be quite profound, encapsulating the broad theology of many religions. If you feel his other statements take away from that or hurt his credibility, so be it.
As for your Old Testament reference, your interpretation is viable. Couldn’t it also be interpreted from that text that men should not have masters? That’s the lesson I get from that.
However, I believe that Jesus told a much different story than redistributive ‘social justice’. He did speak about giving from the heart.
If God meant redistribution should occur, why does that structure fail in every case where socialized governments exist? Further, socialism creates ‘classes’ and a ‘ruling class’ as well as results in a greater number of poor people… I suppose the classes don’t exist in perpetuity, because every example of that government has collapsed.
Now, back to the Beck Challenge… Do you all think he does an excellent job of smoking out bad guys and exposing some dangerous connections? Should we have left the revolutionary communist alone? Any opinion?
Beck has done so much damage to our political conversation as a nation that any “help” he has done has been nullified and then some. I don’t care who he is “exposing” if he is damaging all of us in the process. One can be a whistle-blower without being totally asinine.
And there is no such thing as “the broad theology of many religions.” Such an idea does violence to the particularities of each faith tradition. There isn’t even a unified theology in Christianity, much less across other religions.
As for Jubilee…well, Jubilee is a great idea when God speaks directly through prophets and the polity is theocratic anyway. I think figuring out how – and even if – the Jubilee concept plays into contemporary market economics is a whole different ballgame.
One danger is in letting the state do all of our charity for us. If we simply legislate our care for the poor, that is no merit to any of us. The work of actually loving others and convincing others to do so through serving and giving is much harder – which is why I assume so many progressive Christians want to run to the Nanny state to fulfill their vision of neighbor love.
Collin, you wrote: “Couldn’t it also be interpreted from that text that men should not have masters? That’s the lesson I get from that.”
Collin, I didn’t really take you for the postmodern-wishy-washy-type, talking about “what it means to me.” ‘Cause quite frankly, who cares about your “personal lesson” you get from scripture? Look at some hardcore biblical exegesis — the passage is reflecting other ancient Near Eastern practices (such as from Babylonian kings who had similar policies), where capital accumulation would get so unequally imbalanced that a wealthy few controlled all the land, and the majority were indebted to the minority in perpetuity. Do we see that happening today? (Yes.) And what was God’s proposed solution?
If you think that “socialism” creates ‘classes,’ clearly you have not seen this T-shirt: http://bit.ly/NoClassTee
It’s a pun on the fact that the whole philosophy is tearing down class structures. By contrast, you think capitalism does not give us ‘classes’? We have so many classes that we have sub-classes, such as “upper-middle-class” and “lower-middle-class.”
Just because atheistic nations with no manufacturing infrastructure fail in their communistic systems means nothing about the invalidity of “redistribution of wealth” as such.
You write, “If God meant redistribution should occur…” But again, have you read any large swaths of the Pentateuch? God legislates redistribution of wealth left and right, to every minority you can think of: the poor, the orphans, the widows, and even the immigrants.
Again, you can’t reject redistribution of wealth per se, when God explicitly writes it into governmental law in the Bible. You have to make a choice between “conservative” (neoliberal) ideology, or biblical theology — because in this case, they are directly antithetical.
Take Beck’s advice: Put God first, and political ideology second. Seriously, just think about it.
Aaron, thanks for addressing my comments and for the discussion. I’m gonna concede the debate on theology and biblical content to you, clearly you are an academic and Bible scholar. I’m a meager church goer and bible study attendee…
Regarding your comments ‘who cares’… well, only I care. You had stated your interpretation and I shared mine, that’s all. Isn’t it my relationship with God and Jesus that matters when it comes to my salvation? I’m interested in your opinion, whether I agree or not.
That said, I want to keep the debate on redistribution and socialism/communism going because they are important today – right now – and more so in November.
I agree that God/Jesus both encouraged redistribution, but not forced redistribution. Until the U.S. formed, history was full of tyrannical governments that stole from the people, then fed them… up until they collapsed.
Capitalism doesn’t create more classes, just different levels of success. Take for example the poor of the U.S., they live better lives than most of the world. They have shelter, food, medical care (access and actual care), and even cars, jobs, and vacations! Add to that the fact that they are safe and protected, enjoying freedom and society like the rest of us that have more money.
The tyrannical governments of history as well as modern Socialism/communism creates two classes – rulers and poor (slaves). The stories within scripture seem to confirm and condemn this arrangement. The modern day ‘third world’ puts it on display… and The United States is different.
What sets the poor here apart from the rest of the world, and all those that lived under tyrants throughout history, is that they have equal opportunity. They can go back to school, get an additional job, start a business, do whatever they want!
Americans have shared their wealth, leadership, and ideas with the rest of the world since our founding. The past 200 years have seen longer lives, less disease, and more free people throughout the world. That is due to us.
The richest two individuals among us are giving their entire fortunes to charity – not to mention the benevolence of the tens of thousands of successful persons they have employed and made wealthy with their hard work and business success.
Personally, I give what I can to my church. They redistribute it locally and abroad as they are directed by the congregation. I feel good about that. So good in fact that when I make more $$ I will give more.
I can and do reject forced redistribution, and the notion that God meant for man’s laws to mandate it. His rule of 10% to the church is fine with me.
•You had stated your interpretation and I shared mine, that’s all. Isn’t it my relationship with God and Jesus that matters when it comes to my salvation?
(a) Who questioned your salvation? And (b), What does any of this have to do with any of that? We’re not talking about your personal salvation. You said that “this Bible verse means ‘men shouldn’t have masters’ to me,” and I simply said “who cares what it means to you.” What’s any of that have to do with your personal salvation? (These are rhetorical questions that don’t need to be answered — the point is clear, it has nothing to do with this conversation.)
•“I agree that God/Jesus both encouraged redistribution, but not forced redistribution.”
Why do you keep “glossing over” the Year of Jubilee? Hardcore, radical redistribution of wealth, that was mandatory. If you want to say that God did not encourage FORCED redistribution of wealth, you have to address the scripture passage, not ignore it. Just because you keep repeating the mantras of neoliberal economics doesn’t make the Bible passages disappear.
•“Capitalism doesn’t create more classes, just different levels of success.”
Yes, we can label it whatever we want. “Pride” is simply “confidence.” “Envy” is actually “ambition.” Instead of calling them “classes,” let’s call them “levels of success.” You can package it with whatever wishy-washy-PR-marketing-talk you want, but the simple vernacular in the United States of America is that we have “upper-CLASS“, “lower-CLASS,” and a half-dozen more in-between.
•“[The poor in this country] can go back to school, get an additional job, start a business, do whatever they want!”
Clearly, you haven’t studied a lot of sociology. The poor in the U.S. cannot go or do whatever they want. People are not autonomous atomistic agents that can dominate their entire socio-cultural context. The poor are born into neighborhoods that systematically prevent them from being able to graduate high school, go to college, get good-paying jobs, get loans to start a business, etc. This is a well-documented phenomenon in sociology, it’s old-news. The “American dream” of anyone and everyone being the ruler of their own destiny is a load of hogwash.
•“The tyrannical governments of history as well as modern Socialism/communism creates two classes – rulers and poor (slaves). The stories within scripture seem to confirm and condemn this arrangement. The modern day ‘third world’ puts it on display… and The United States is different.”
This is perhaps the most misinformed part of your post. Again, the very definition of socialism/communism is that it eliminates class structures, that’s the entire point. You are exactly right that stories in scripture condemn an arrangement of class structures where there are few “rulers” and many poor. But again, that is exactly what capitalism does. Literally, Marx’s entire critique of capitalism was that it creates the classes of the bourgeois (rich minority) versus the proletariat (poor majority).
The “United States is different”? The United States is the chief pioneer of sweatshop-enslaved labor. The whole reason that the CEOs in the U.S. can continue to get richer and richer is because they keep finding factories overseas where they can pay laborers less and less, and make profits higher. Meanwhile, these laborers work 12+ hour shifts and don’t make enough wages to feed their families.
Collin, you rehearse a lot of neoliberal sound-bites. But it sounds like you need to compare the neoliberal ideology with (a) the actual state of affairs in the world (such as sociology and globalized capitalism), and (b) the Word of God.
To be honest, the fact that you’re even continuing to say “God didn’t encourage forced redistribution of wealth” after I explicitly showed you only one of MANY passages where God explicitly legislates compulsory redistribution of wealth is, frankly, dumbfounding.
I think it’s important to say that the poor in Rome at the height of the Roman Empire were pretty well off in comparison to the rest of the world’s poor, too.
In that case, it was that Rome was living well on the backs of the peoples at the edge of the empire (people like the Israelites).
We live in a country that has military bases all over the world, control over every major trade route (land, sky and sea), and has successfully (for the most part) exported its unique brand of market capitalism and cultural treasures (read: The Black Eyed Peas) all over the world.
Maybe we don’t suffer quite the same awful effects of poverty because we have allowed our government and our corporations to export the human costs of our lifestyle to people who don’t have much chance of resisting.
It’s nice to be at the center of the Empire instead of the fringes. That is, until the judgment.
All of which has very little to do with Glenn Beck…except perhaps to unmask the beneficiaries of his cheer-leading.
•Charismanglican: “Maybe we don’t suffer quite the same awful effects of poverty because we have allowed our government and our corporations to export the human costs of our lifestyle to people who don’t have much chance of resisting.”
This is exactly right — out of sight, out of mind. Export the poverty to the third world!
In the industrial revolution, it was AMERICANS who were in slave-labor conditions. It was BRITONS who were working in sweat-shops. This is what led to the rise of strong labor unions, etc.
So now, we export the poverty to the other side of the planet in the deep, dark areas where we don’t have to see it, and we think everything in America is “A-OK.” Neoliberals always talk about trying to preserve the “American way of life.” But when the “American way of life” impoverishes and enslaves the poor all over the world, what business does a Christian have in supporting that way of life?
Out of sight, out of mind.
“It’s nice to be at the center of the Empire instead of the fringes. That is, until the judgment.”
Bingo.
And then we dangle the carrot of aid and trade in front of poorer governments with only one tiny little request: that they bring the hammer down on all resistance within their own borders…like this one, for example.
Aaron, Jubilee is about liberty and men having no masters other than god. Additionally, it teaches about the value of land and personal property.
Now that we’ve been redirected away from the ‘challenge’, let’s get back to it. Any refute that Beck does an excellent job exposing bad guys? Charismanglican… what do you think?
As for the rhetorical questions and zingers – I have studied sociology and simply reject your conclusions that people are helpless products of their surroundings. I come down on the ‘family’ side of the argument, which the facts also support. Strong families = strong citizens & successful individuals
Different social classes need well defined boundaries. The U.S. has fluidity with it’s population, not distinguished ‘classes’. The rest of the world… Rich and poor. The poor there struggle for shelter, food, and safety. It has been that way since before 1776, so how are we responsible? Rest of the world, not our brand of ‘capitalism’ or truly free markets.
I rose to success from a low income family and public school system… In my practical business experience, it’s clear to me that achievement is due to nothing more than work ethic and discipline, probably best learned at home and by example.
You academic types might enjoy some business perspective I’m whipping up and will post this weekend… it’s about an ‘Evil Corporation’ and it’s impact on society. I’ve heard enough about ‘CEO’s and evil ‘profits’…
Thanks for the discussion, have a nice weekend!
You’re a good sport, Collin. Thanks for hanging in there.
Yeah, keeping it back on the original post would be good. If you scroll down you will see a small response to your questions about Glenn Beck smoking out “bad guys”.
You might need to single out one for us so we can respond in more depth. Just pick one and show how Glenn Beck (or his staff) did us all a favor by exposing the person. I’m tempted to ask whether he was instrumental, whether he did a good job of accurately representing these alleged “bad guys”, and whether he’s just borrowing other peoples’ research? But I suppose it would be enough to know that someone with a popular TV or radio show is willing to “assist the cause”, so to speak.
You might start it at the bottom of the thread, so that it can be addressed without all the baggage of this branch of the comment tree. Thanks.
What might be unclear in my response is that I have yet to see evidence that Glenn Beck has “outed” any “bad guys” at all. I know that he has slung a bunch of accusations, many false, at people in the Obama administration. Hard to trust a man who just loves slinging baseless accusations…the most obvious example being accusing the President of a deep-seated hatred of whites and their culture. But if Beck has done some decent investigative journalism rather than the type of histrionic innuendo that he’s associated with, please do tell.
It has been said that Beck is praiseworthy for “bringing God back into the conversation,” but who’s God does Beck worship? Since Glenn Beck explicitly condemns “social justice” when defined as “forcible redistribution of wealth” (3/23/10), we’re very much on-topic insofar as Beck’s neoliberal ideology is irreconcilable with the Christian Bible. (Besides, you said you wanted to get back “on topic,” but everything you wrote in your comment subsequent to that sentence was simply an attempted rebuttal to my points on this topic, such as sociology.)
•“Different social classes need well defined boundaries. The U.S. has fluidity with it’s population, not distinguished ‘classes’. The rest of the world… Rich and poor.”
If you’ve studied sociology, then you are familiar with the term “white flight.” It’s a phenomenon documented where when an increasing amount of racial minority groups moves into an area (lower class, poor minorities), the middle-and-upper-class white majority moves out. When the whites move out (to suburbs, etc.), the business and jobs subsequently move out as well. This has the compounding effect where the poor cannot find employment, nor transportation to the relocated business.
Our different social classes have such well-defined boundaries that in banking, we have a practice called “redlining,” where red lines are literally drawn on a map to show where banks simply refuse to invest — in poor places with racial minorities. Real estate values go down, banks won’t lend, and it’s all a snowballing effect. These people cannot simply “pick themselves up by their boot straps” and change their entire socio-economic situation that is entirely NOT of their own making. You can have a very strong family in this context, but it’s not going to make good schools or good jobs suddenly appear, nor the money or means to get to good schools or good jobs.
•“You academic types might enjoy some business perspective”
My father is a lifelong entrepreneur — in my lifetime I have literally never seen him have a job apart from his own companies that he has owned and run, along with my help. Your comments here are presumptuous at best. I know “the practical business world” very, very well, my friend. There’s nothing wrong with CEOs and profits as such, it’s when the profits come at the expense of laborers who cannot afford to feed their family and are overworked. Collin, surely you would agree that profits at the expense of laborers in sweat-shops is not a praiseworthy situation.
This point of your’s was particularly profound: “Jubilee is about liberty and men having no masters other than god. Additionally, it teaches about the value of land and personal property.”
Can you imagine if someone did this with Jesus’s teachings in the New Testament? We can imagine someone saying, “What Jesus’s teachings were really about was…” I have to say, I talk about this subject of Jubilee with a lot of neoliberals, but they’ll concede that it’s a tricky one to reconcile with neoliberalism. I’ve genuinely, honest-to-God never met someone respond in the manner you have, so willfully ignoring the whole point of Jubilee (God’s radical, mandatory redistribution of wealth), and instead emphasizing peripheral “truisms” such as “value of land.” This reminds me of Thomas Jefferson’s version of the “Bible,” where everything he didn’t like was literally cut out with a razor blade, and what little remained was pasted into a new volume.
In sum, the Bible paints a vivid, practical picture where society cares for its poor, its orphaned, its widows, and its immigrants. And not due to people’s own “personal preferences,” but mandated in the Law. Neoliberalism demands radical noninterference, even to the point where the recent nominee Rand Paul said that he’s not sure he would even have backed regulation on white business that refused to serve black customers. Is this really the picture we get from the Bible?
Or, another way to interpret: “Jubilee is about liberty and men having no masters other than god. Additionally, it teaches about the value of land and personal property.”
True liberty comes from Jubilee. Like C.S. Lewis said, I try to get rid of the money I have in my hand as fast as possible, lest it find it’s way into my heart. The stuff we own ends up owning us. Through Jubilee men have no masters other than God – not their creditors, and not their own selfish desires which drag them away from communion with God and man, enticed.
Jubilee teaches about the value of land and property – that its proper value is found in gift exchange. When viewed as “private” property, it is diminished, because nothing in God’s economy is meant for self, but for the edification of all.
And what does all that have to do with Glenn Beck?
Well, Glenn is a huge proponent of the “free market”, which (despite the name) doesn’t lead to the true liberty that God wants for man.
The market that Glenn calls “free” I say is an elaborate temple for the worship of Mammon. So if you were wondering which god Glenn is talking about…
Mmmmm…nope. I meant exactly what I wrote. I’m not passing judgement, just accurately calling it. Since my loyalties lie with a kingdom not of this world I don’t really care for anything Beck says or does except insofar as it advances–DIRECTLY advances–the Kingdom of Christ. Or hinders it.
That being the case, I don’t see him as an ideal spokesman for the Kingdom. He’s too concerned with worldly politics.
So you don’t really mean to propose that anything Beck says is excellent or praiseworthy…such thing might exist, but not to the extent that you consider it worth talking about. Do I understand you rightly?
I have to admit ignorance at this point since I don’t really listen to him. I did so as a matter of convenience in Costa Rica, but that was 2006. I think he’s changed a bit. Now my perception, based on the little evidence I actually see since it’s only based on what the drive-by media want us to pay attention to, is that he’s a right wing shock jock. And I usually find little to nothing valuable in shock jocks (leftist or rightist).
But like I said, I don’t find him an ideal spokesman for the Kingdom, so when he speaks on religion (which gets confused with the Kingdom) I tend to wince.
Yes Wade, thank you for making Joey’s point.
I loathe Glenn Beck. And this is from someone who voted for George Bush. Twice. No thinking conservative should watch him – or buy his books – or listen to him on the radio.
To Glenn Beck from Billy Madison (paraphrased):
“Everyone here is now dumber for having listened to you. I award you no points, and my God have mercy on your soul.”
Mack – stick around. I need a faithful conservative around to help measure the merits of any proposals. (I voted for Bush twice, too, and am still registered Republican despite my apostasy!)
My in-laws love Glenn Beck, and it is agonizing. I’m trying to decide to what degree I should simply ignore him (for the sake of my blood pressure), or to what degree he needs to be seriously refuted, for the sake of truth.
The other problem is that even if you refute him, nobody listens; exactly as you noted above. People just get defensive and offer no substance to back up his misinformation.
I am not joking when I say that Glenn Beck has caused me months of grief with family and friends. Serious division.
At any rate, you’re just saying all that because you’re a socialist.
Yeah, I’m trying to decide whether to pursue challenging Beck to my in-laws (and thus cause grief and division) or to let it lie. Maybe I will burn the wick from the other end, and proactively explain the views that are all contrary to Beck’s, rather than explicitly refute his views.
And I prefer the term “anarcho-conservative-collectivist,” since it makes “conservatives” cringe a little less ;-).
I think you’re right about his audience’s needs and how Beck meets them. I also think that’s why it’s so difficult to nail down the kind of specifics you’re asking. Beck doesn’t contribute anything specifically inflammatory or praiseworthy. Anything positive or negative one would say of him necessarily has to be general because all he deals with is generalities and strawmen (and I HAVE watched quite a bit of his shows from FN and CNN as well as read his books).
I used to get so angry with him until I realized he’s just a court jester paid to entertain the masses. Perhaps it’s time for the Church to meet the needs of his audience in a way that’s actually in a constructive and peaceful manner. Then characters like Beck will become irrelevant to the public.
What ‘generalities and strawmen’ are evident in putting pictures of faces on a chalk board and calling them commies or terrorists? That seems pretty specific to me…
When Liberals and Statists are thrown out of power – characters like Beck will be irrelevant. His critics should rest easily, that day may be very soon.
“I am not joking when I say that Glenn Beck has caused me months of grief with family and friends. Serious division.”
It seems to me that posts of this nature tend to prolong the grief and do nothing to heal things. I think it is rather ridiculous to challenge people to find something that proves Glenn Beck’s excellence, and that makes him worth listening too when peoples opinions and political stances are so varied, There is no one thing that is going to make him a perfect media personality for everyone.
I don’t have tape recorded broadcasts of his. So I can not quote verbatim things he has said. I don’t always agree with him. I think he is overly harsh and tends towards the dramatic, however there have been several instances where Beck and Fox News in general has given much more information on topics than any other news media.
During the last election Fox news was the only media that I found to be truly fair and balanced. Every other station that I watched for coverage was extremely biased and anti conservative in nature.
When Beck has mentioned things that I find interesting I look up more information online and have yet to find him misinformed or misleading in anyway.
Although Beck is Mormon I still appreciate his bringing God into the mix. He may not have the same view of God as I do but at least he recognizes his existence and role in the shaping of our country. You will not find that anywhere else. If anyone on MSNBC were to mention God in such a way they would be forced to give a public apology and then get canned.
As far as Beck’s followers being morons, idiots, dumbed down or whatever insult you want to throw, all that shows is you have nothing intelligent to say and have to resort to calling us names. It would be like me saying I hate rap music so everyone who listens to is is stupid.
Daniel says that Beck is simply a “court jester” with nothing particularly “inflammatory” to say. Well he is a joke all right but as a shock jock he makes every attempt to be as inflammatory as possible. His goal is to “inflame” the prejudice and fear of his decidedly ignorant audience. There’s a word for that. It’s called demagoguery.
For an almost exclusively “Christian” discussion, I’m hearing precious little condemnation of his tendency to sew discord and engender hatred. Didn’t Jesus say blessed are the peacemakers?
Barry, I love it when people who admit that they are not Christians throw Jesus’ teachings at others. And if you read my post you would see that I called Beck Harsh and dramatic. I don’t think it is hate filled to expose lies of those in political power. Does he over do it sometimes…yeah. As for causing discord….Jesus himself did some of that in His time on earth.
Yes he submitted himself to the political powers of the day but that does not mean that he agreed with them.
Joey if the point here is to educate others as to Becks downright lies, racism and hatred then why not post proof of those things. So far this is just a bunch of people saying I don’t like him because this or I like him because that, with nothing concrete to look at and dissect. As I said before I have researched topics I have heard on his show and while he ranted a lot the meat of his arguments were spot on.
I’m not against people who are not Christians reminding us of Jesus’ words. Sometimes we forget how strange those words are, sometimes we think that we have tamed Jesus, and sometimes we forget that God’s people are servants for the world (an extension of God’s promise to Abraham that through him all nations would be blessed). A great example of a non-Christian showing Christians what the words of Christ mean would be Gandhi (whom Dietrich Bonhoeffer wanted to study under). Jesus also told a tale about a Samaritan that illustrated something not uncommon throughout his ministry: He commended many people outside of Israel (the covenant people) for their extraordinary”faith” (meaning, living the covenant anyways). Don’t forget that prostitutes, pagan kings and even a donkey were used by God to instruct his people Israel when they weren’t wise enough.
Barry, the point of this post was not to condemn Glenn Beck’s message…at least not until someone shares something he has said that they consider worthwhile. The point here is NOT to educate others as to Beck’s lies, racism and hatred. I’ve read plenty of that online and posted some of it myself. The point of the post is to ask what he has done that is excellent or praiseworthy.
Telah, I’m all for criticizing those in power. I do it right here on my blog. That is precisely why I ask about Glenn Beck. He gets paid a lot more money than any head of state and he has the ear of millions of people. Asking “Why?” is legitimate.
I know that many of my readers can’t stand Glenn Beck. That’s not accidental–like attracts like. But I really do want to stick to the point of the post, which is to give his fans an opportunity to share what precisely makes him worth listening to. If we just slam people with the polemics then the thread will (rightly) be called an echo chamber. Instead, I’m looking for dialogue.
Now if someone (Telah perhaps?) could take just one thing and explain to us how Glenn Beck said or did something excellent or praiseworthy, some reason why he is worth listening to or why people like myself shouldn’t condemn him straight across the board…if someone would do that I would be greatly pleased.
Telah brought up this point – which has been said before in another comment – that she is grateful that a media personality is willing to talk about God and his role in shaping the united states. Could we start there?
Is it true that media personalities don’t speak about God enough? President Obama speaks about his faith in God quite often, dedicating large passages in his books to the place God has in his life and calling. Obama’s defense of u.s. military policy when he was accepting the Nobel Peace Prize was based on Reinhold Niehbur’s “Christian Realism”. Similarly, Pat Robertson always has something to say about God and his role in the world today (for example, sending tornadoes to kill people who tolerate homosexuality, or sending devastating earthquakes to punish Haiti for alleged deals with the devil).
Steven Colbert, though a satirist, insists on talking about God on his show all the time, including having prominent Christian theologians as guests. Jon Stewart reads passages from the Bible in this clip.
This leads me to ask other questions:
Telah, would you agree that the media isn’t silencing the President or Pat Robertson from earnest God-talk?
Would you say that you admire the President or Robertson because they talk about God?
Would you defend their overall message because they talk about God?
Does it make a difference HOW we talk about God, rather than just THAT we talk about him?
For me, that Glenn Beck talks about God doesn’t make him worth listening to. In fact, it makes it worse. I want him to shut up when he talks about God, because in his mouth God is just awful. It’s the same way I feel when Obama uses God-talk in the same breath as how we’re going to justify killing people, or Pat Robertson using God-talk to demonstrate the outer limits of fundamentalist idiocy.
That Glenn Beck talks about God, and that he conflates the God of Israel/Jesus with the god of u.s.american exceptionalism, is only one more reason to wish him off the air.
btw- I don’t think comparing Fox News to MSNBC is appropriate. I don’t know where people get that leftists watch MSNBC. Nearly all corporate news media are liars and hacks. The best religious news items that I’ve heard in ages were on NPR…seriously reducing me to tears.
I have officially decided that I am sad that any of us care this much about Glenn Beck.
I am not of the opinion that “leftists” watch msnbc. I was simply using them as an example.
Fair enough Joey, but without giving specifics, Telah seems to be suggesting that one “excellent” thing that Beck does is speak truth to power. Now that may be the irony of all ironies, but it’s a lie. She says that Beck sometimes takes his arguments too far but that basically he is telling the truth. That too is a lie. Beck says the president is a socialist. That is a lie. Beck says the president is a Nazi. That is a lie. Anyone who believes this of Obama doesn’t know the definition of either of those things, or the distinction between the two. As you say, you have seen plenty of evidence of Beck’s lies and innuendo. The list could go on ad infinitum, but Telah specifically asked for it.
As for any legitimate good or worthy thing that Beck has said or done, I too am waiting. I’ve yet to hear of anyting specific in that regard from Telah or anyone else in this discussion.
@Mack – People LISTEN to him. That should make us care right? Or does that just make him still more important? Ignoring him may be a better plan. Hmmm.
@Telah – All that time to address what you said and the best I get is a couple sentences? Or are you conceding the point that “talking about God” isn’t necessarily a point in anyone’s favor?
I didn’t write more because I had better things to do. Ive already told you that I do not have time to look up specifics so I guess my part of this conversation is done. Joey you said that its been months since Ben has posted anything that has offended you which is great…now you have become the offender. Your broad generalizations of beck appealing to the ignorant etc is offending even when you appeal to me later that you’re not talking about us.
In the interest of me remaining a friend I will not be commenting on anything you post of this or any political nature. You guys mean to much to me to squabble over non issues.
Telah, what I wrote doesn’t have to apply to you or Ben or anyone.
However, if someone who is a Christian (and especially anyone in a position of Christian leadership) has the time and interest to listen to godless chatter and not to the myriad of good Christian theologians, I think getting offended is probably good for them. And so far I have not a single piece of evidence that Glenn Beck offers anything but godless chatter.
I love you guys, too. Please consider these the wounds of a friend. Like Ben is fond of saying: The opposite of love is apathy.
I hope you can see that I’m not apathetic about this or about you guys. I’m interested in what you have to say…that’s what the post was about. Someday, when feeling aren’t so raw, I hope you guys can return the favor.
I think it says something positive about you that you showed up when all the people that I invited did not.
Telah – I don’t believe the “broad generalizations of Beck appealing to the ignorant” came from Joey. I think that was me.
Telah has, in another forum, given me this link to Glenn Beck’s website encouraging people (I kid you not) to pledge themselves to Martin Luther King Jr.’s principles of non-violence.
Given Glenn’s record and the obvious cheerleading he does for the military violence that Dr. King opposed vociferously (which I posted here), I am skeptical of the value of this message from GB. My guess is that he’s trying to a) minimize the scandal of co-opting the very date and location that Dr. King gave his Dream speech (skewered so artfully by Stephen Colbert here and here, and b) trying to make sure that the far-right contingent of his fan base don’t actually show up and do damage to person or property.
I hope it backfires, of course, and that people will be drawn to Dr. King’s message and be unable to return to the evil delights of Mr. Beck’s nationalism. That would definitely count as GB doing something excellent and praiseworthy, except that I’m still not sure that’s his motive. Time will tell.
So, while we wait and investigate the value of this possibly good thing to come from GB, I thought I would at least post one link so that those who keep insisting that we address his lies, etc. Click here to read a short list, that then links to this list from Politifact. When I say that Glenn tickles people’s ears, appealing to their ignorance and prejudice, I think that’s somewhat generous. Everybody has some ignorance and prejudice. Anybody who considers themselves educated or entertained with Glenn Beck’s many lies and false confidence in his own powers of prognostication could be accused of a lot worse.
That even gets an “Amen” from me, Joey.
New Feed from above dialog…
Now, wait a minute Aaron. Why is my claim profound, or different than yours? You are saying…’Jubilee is about… forced redistribution’. What’s the difference other than opinion? If you believe one interpretation and I another, can’t we both be right? I’m afraid you want government to fill the role of God there, don’t you?
Charismanglican – Sounds like CS Lewis agrees with my interpretation…? I enjoy the discussions, that’s why I keep at it. Thanks for the ‘hat tip’. If I am able to get just a few of you guys to admit your ‘buyer’s remorse’ with this Administration and vote Conservative (not Republican), then we can all get back to work and making money.
You know, GB hasn’t once pushed Mormonism. All he has said in any episode is that people should look to God (paraphrasing). He’s even said to go ‘to your church, synagogue, mosque…’. My claim is that that’s a good idea – people getting faith. Further, he’s the only political figure brave enough to say it. Do you guys agree or not?
As for the free market, are you suggesting that supporters are going against God? Our free market has generated more benevolence and help for the worlds’ less fortunate than any government or sovereign power in all of history.
As for the sociology, we can go back and forth about family/circumstance… it’s a chicken and egg argument. Ultimately, you want to make excuses for them and provide endless entitlements, I want to provide opportunity and hope for them.
As a side challenge for you guys (since you have thus far avoided addressing my examples) – why don’t you give me the examples of country/government where redistribution or socialism have worked and lasted?
Collin -
“What’s the difference other than opinion? If you believe one interpretation and I another, can’t we both be right?”
There are people who are radical relativists who think that contradictory truth claims can both be right. I’m pretty sure Aaron is not a radical relativist, and I would be surprised if you thought that way.
“If I am able to get just a few of you guys to admit your ‘buyer’s remorse’ with this Administration and vote Conservative (not Republican), then we can all get back to work and making money.”
Remorse about whichever administration is in office has virtually nothing to do with this thread. Do I have some? I said so here. Am I willing to vote for a conservative party in the u.s.? Not until conservatism looks more like this movement in the U.K.
“My claim is that that’s a good idea – people getting faith. Further, he’s the only political figure brave enough to say it. Do you guys agree or not?”
Click here to read the reply I already wrote 13 comments up…I totally disagree on every level.
“As for the free market, are you suggesting that supporters are going against God?”
Inasmuch as they define freedom incorrectly, yes. See this book review.
Look…economic systems, sociology, the history of failed socialist republics, Mormonism, etc. is all besides the point. If Glenn Beck has offered some excellent critique or vision or action in any of these areas, please point them out.
What has Glenn Beck said or done that was excellent or praiseworthy? You say it’s good that he talks about “faith”. I’ve addressed what I think of that. You said he has outed some bad guys. I responded briefly about his smears against people at the end of this comment, and I asked you some questions about that here so that we can take your claims seriously and move the discussion forward. If you want to switch the topic from either of these, should we assume that you concede that GB’s “faith” talk is pretty much useless, as is any claims about his investigative journalism? If you think there’s more to say on the topic then do that instead of changing the subject quickly.
Something Glenn Beck does all the time is to quickly spout out a million different conservative political buzzwords instead of discussing anything with any depth, having neither the patience, nor courtesy, nor integrity of responding to his critics. I’m getting the idea that it is contagious and has infected even his casual listeners.
(Thank you for starting a new feed =)
Collin: Are profits gained at the expense of laborers in sweat-shops a praiseworthy situation?
•“Now, wait a minute Aaron. Why is my claim profound, or different than yours? You are saying…’Jubilee is about… forced redistribution’. What’s the difference other than opinion? If you believe one interpretation and I another, can’t we both be right?”
So, basically what you’re trying to say is, you like to rub butter all over your body and run naked through shopping malls. I mean, that’s MY interpretation of what you wrote, or my “personal message” that I’m taking away from what you’re saying. Isn’t that what you’re getting at? ;-)
•“I’m afraid you want government to fill the role of God there, don’t you?”
I think you and I both know that there’s a very clear-and-easy distinction between government and God. In this instance, God is writing the laws of the Israelite government. And this forcible redistribution of wealth is written by God into the laws of government. You’re just willfully cutting that part out of the Bible, because it doesn’t fit into your neoliberal political ideology, just like Thomas Jefferson ;-).
•“…admit your ‘buyer’s remorse’ with this Administration and vote Conservative (not Republican), then we can all get back to work and making money.”
Collin, again you’re being presumptuous — I’m quite proud to say that I didn’t vote for this administration ;-). And really, you’re not describing “conservativism” in any meaningful sense, it’s neoliberalism. True “Conservativism” believes in family and community. Neoliberalism believes in independence and autonomy. Instead, if you must defame the “conservative” name by appropriating it to yourself, you should be called “21st-Century-American-Neoliberal-Conservative,” but certainly not “conservative” ;-).
•“As for the sociology, we can go back and forth about family/circumstance… it’s a chicken and egg argument. Ultimately, you want to make excuses for them and provide endless entitlements, I want to provide opportunity and hope for them.”
When did I suggest “endless entitlements”? And besides, I never suggested anything, all I did was report what GOD suggests in the Bible. But more importantly: How is your vision providing any “opportunity” or “hope” for them whatsoever? You explicitly said that these people need to just “work harder.” On the contrary, it is God’s vision that I am explicating here (Jubilee) that provides opportunity and hope for them. What does your neoliberal ideology offer for this sociological demographic?
•”…why don’t you give me the examples of country/government where redistribution or socialism have worked and lasted?”
I already did address this way, way above. I wrote: “Just because atheistic nations with no manufacturing infrastructure fail in their communistic systems means nothing about the invalidity of ‘redistribution of wealth’ as such.” Why? Because God explicitly commands it in the Bible! Frankly, you’re not in a debate with Charismanglican and myself — you’re in a debate with God’s policies explicitly outlined in the Bible.
(Besides, you’re a neoliberal, you ought to know that there are many successful welfare states in Europe, like Sweden. I remember reading that Sweden was like the highest taxed state in the world, but among the best in quality-of-life and such. I’d like to speak more to this issue, but I simply don’t know the data. But Wikipedia has a citation saying that Sweden ranks better in public health, literacy, and ‘human development’ than the United States.)
•Charismanglican: “Something Glenn Beck does all the time is to quickly spout out a million different conservative political buzzwords instead of discussing anything with any depth, having neither the patience, nor courtesy, nor integrity of responding to his critics. I’m getting the idea that it is contagious and has infected even his casual listeners.”
Sadly, I must concur.
If you agree, then join me in not being an accomplice anymore :) We all need to learn to take one thing at a time. I know it’s the internet, but geesh :P
Who do I have to kill to stop getting this discussion emailed to me? This quit being interesting back when Obama was a popular president.
Mack – since you’re a wordpress user, you somehow subscribed to the comment stream. You need to go to your WordPress account > Global Dashboard > Subscriptions > Comments
That is where you can find this thread and delete it. I’m not entirely sure how you subscribed accidentally in the first place…do you get the comments from other posts? Let me know and I’ll help you.
As I conclude my participation in this debate, I’ll say again that I’ve enjoyed the discussion.
That said, at this point we are simply restating our own positions. You are making the case that you support the idea that God wants forced redistribution. By supporting any forced redistribution, you are in turn supporting entitlement programs. They are the only mechanism for government to achieve such an ends.
You do have me stifled a bit, since you claim not to have voted for the POTUS. Did you vote at all in 2008? If you support re-distributive policy, how could you not have supported this devout Marxist and socialist?
Whatever we feel about religion and God, we are all better for worshiping. I’m surprised that you condemn Beck for simply suggesting that people look to God (whatever that means to them).
To this point I have named SPECIFIC names, yet there is no rebuke that they are either a) bad guys or b) associated with the WH or c) Beck is the only TV personality exposing such individuals.
My position regarding lower income families has not changed. In fact, I don’t feel they should ‘work harder’. Rather, I say they should strengthen their families and relationships with God. This will in turn strengthen their value system, work ethic, dedication to education – eventually yielding higher income and other successes.
We’ve been redistributing wealth through the government for more than fifty years. Why is nothing improving, in fact getting worse? The plain truth is that those policies only work to further suppress such people as well as damage the economy.
As Sweden and other European nations have their economies collapse within the coming years, the utter failure that is modern socialism will be on display for the world to witness. Voters within the U.S. seem to be taking note already, rejecting such policies and those that support it.
You can label me what you want and refer to these as ‘generalities and talking points’. What I’ve realized during these discussions is that you don’t like Beck, probably don’t even watch his show. I don’t need to defend him – you have a remote and the freedom to switch the channel.
Best wishes to you all, thanks for the discussion!
Collin, you’ve definitely been a good sport.
Did God mandate compulsory redistribution of wealth in the Old Testament, written into governmental law, or did he not?
Will urban minority families having relationships with God and emphasizing education make jobs and business come back, when there is no market to capitalize on that has any money?
•“…I say [minorities] should strengthen their families and relationships with God. This will in turn strengthen their value system, work ethic, dedication to education – eventually yielding higher income and other successes.”
That word “eventually” sure seems to be doing a lot of work for ya, there, Collin ;-). I am reminded of the popular meme:
1) Strengthen families and relationships with God
2) ???
3) PROFIT!!!
If you’re unfamiliar with the meme, it’s obviously a spoof on the smoke-and-mirrors that this type of logic uses. There’s a lot of hand-waving going on in your word “eventually,” there ;-). And besides, have you met any Hispanic families? They have way, WAY stronger families, relationships with God, and work ethics than the casual white American demographic. Give me a break.
•“As Sweden and other European nations have their economies collapse within the coming years…”
There’s only one economy “collapsing” right now: The U.S. banking market, dragging the rest of the world with it. Zing! ;-)
•“We’ve been redistributing wealth through the government for more than fifty years. Why is nothing improving, in fact getting worse?”
Why is it getting worse? The top wealthiest 1% in the U.S. have more money than the bottom 99% combined. Think about that statistic for a good, long, hard moment. Now consider this: We have been LOWERING the taxes on the rich. This stifles state revenues to provide for societal things like interstate highways, bridges, dams, and more. Why are things getting worse? The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. We have a radical gap between the rich and poor. Even Adam Smith (father of capitalism) went against current neoliberal policies, as he wrote that the wealthy should be taxed much more than the poor.
•And again: Are profits gained at the expense of laborers in sweat-shops a praiseworthy situation? (crickets chirping)
(Yes, I voted in 2008 =)
O no…the channel is being switched again!
Here’s what’s been put forward so far:
Argument: Glenn Beck is good because he talks about God publicly.
Response: Plenty of people talk about God publicly and yet aren’t worth our admiration. This is because talking about God isn’t necessarily good. What’s more important is how we talk about God. Glenn Beck’s god-talk isn’t good.
Rebuttal: None offered (meaning you concede the point?)
Argument: Glenn Beck is good because he has investigated and publicly outed “bad guys” from this administration.
Response: Glenn Beck has accused many with insinuation and half-truths, but I’m unaware of any specific examples of good, honest investigative journalism from him. Can you point out specific cases?
Rebuttal: None given (meaning that you concede the point?)
I would be glad to address your third argument, which I think is “Glenn Beck is good because he publicly supports free market capitalism and denounces socialism.” I will take silence on the first two arguments as evidence that you have no response, or that you agree.
So, would you like to discuss this third argument? Did I summarize it correctly? Because I’m not likely to give a reasoned response to you if it will result in either changing the subject or leaving the discussion.
Let’s clarify the arguments…
Argument: The fact that Beck encourages people to move toward God, whatever that may be for them personally, is a good thing.
Rebuttal: God and theological debate diversion, Charismanglican disagrees that this is ‘good’
Counter: Collin restates his position
Result: not conceded, agree to disagree
Argument: Beck does a good job of exposing ‘bad guys’ around the President and Administration.
Rebuttal: Specific examples?
Counter: Specific examples offered: Van Jones – revolutionary communist, Franklin Raines – corrupt CEO of Fannie Mae, Bill Ayers and his wife – known terrorists and revolutionaries. Can you deny or defend the POTUS ongoing relationships with these people? Additionally, no other news organization has researched nor reported such information – Nor have they provided any follow up.
Rebuttal: ‘none given’??? is what you claim.
Counter: Examples restated, awaiting your response…
Where have I changed the subject? I’ve simply responded to you and Aarons’ attempts to redirect. I’ll keep with the discussion, but let’s answer one another’s questions.
Wait a second…let me help you, because I must be having trouble speaking clearly. When I say that I want to hear an argument, I’m saying that you take something and then give reasons and evidence. You’re not doing that, so I’ll guide you through it.
On the first one, “agree to disagree”? I agree to no such thing. In matters of taste, sure, but not matters of truth. You gave no comment on my response to your contention that Glenn Beck talking about God is a good thing. Don’t change the subject yet, or “agree to disagree”…tell me why you disagree Put forth some kind of argument against what I wrote that warrants the conclusion, “I disagree.”
On the second one, you have yet to pick one person and present a case. Pick Van Jones. Tell me what he has said and done that shows that he is a revolutionary communist. Tell me why this is bad and why he should not work in the administration. Tell me what Glenn Beck did, said and reported. If possible, include links. Give me your analysis of how this builds the case that Glenn Beck did a good thing here. (Or pick someone else, because you already lose that argument: Van Jones is not a communist.) Bill Ayers and his wife are terrorists? Because Ayers and his wife were only involved in extreme acts of vandalism. Like a potentially more dangerous version of the Boston Tea Party, or Jesus clearing the temple with a whip. Again, you’re going to need to slow down and make a case…ONE CASE…so that I can try to make heads or tails of it. Don’t skate on the surface. That doesn’t work.
I’m not trying to redirect at all. You can choose any topic you like and explore it in depth and hold me accountable to follow you to the very end. But for you to say that I’m not answering your questions is simply not true. I’m not only listening, but I’m actively listening. I want to hear what you have to say, not what you have to say next.
I re-read the thread. My last comment on whether or not Glenn Beck’s god-talk qualifies as something good CAN BE FOUND BY CLICKING HERE. I didn’t find so much as an acknowledgment that you read what I wrote. Not even (as if this would be considered an effective argument) re-stating your position. Did I miss something? Re-post it until you get answers. I clearly won’t let you get off the hook…why shouldn’t you insist that I engage your argument? But stop moving the targets until we actually shoot something.
Wow, 70 comments. I think I’m going to post “The Sarah Palin Challenge.” :)
Jesus Christ it stinks here high and low
The rich are getting richer
I should know
While we’re going up
You’re going down
And no one gives a shit but Jackson Browne
-Randy Newman
Welcome to the CCBlogs network!
Glad to find you on here, and look forward to reading more of your thoughts!
Peace,
Peter Carey+
http://santospopsicles.blogspot.com
http://www.twitter.com/petermcarey
I’ve found it! An example of something excellent proceeding from Beck’s mouth. Perhaps prompted by a less-than-honorable motivation, I think this comment is spot on.
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/colbert-glenn-beck-says-hes-a-rodeo-clown-cause-both-are-good-at-working-with-bullsht-video.php
Tell me Colbert’s insight on this topic isn’t funny so I’ll have something to debate.
You won’t get an argument out of me against Colbert. I am waiting for his ascendancy to Pope and canonization as a saint.
I can’t tell you why you should watch/listen to him. I can only tell you why I personally like him. I’m a big fan of his radio show. I don’t get to watch his tv show as much…plus his tv show is much more serious and not as fun as his radio show. He does a great job of both entertaining and offering his perspective on the news on his radio show. You may not agree with or like what he says but he is a great entertainer.
On another note, in your post you singaled out Glenn Beck? Is that soley because you disagree with his politics? You said that you don’t like “half-truths, martyrdom complex, race baiting, and juvenile sarcasm”. Well, there are lots of left-leaning talking heads who fall into that category. Do you like Keith Olbermann or Ed Schultz? Do they get a pass because they are on the left and you agree with their views? I watch both MSNBC and Fox News and I must say Ed Schultz just might be the most hateful person on television.
Mac – thanks for responding.
Let me answer the last question first. I singled out Beck because he said some odious thing or another (which inspired this post, I cannot recall). I have no real love for any television news, and I have no idea who Ed Schultz is. He obviously isn’t the media celebrity that GB is, so it’s a moot point. I have seen a few clips of Keith Olbermann online, and if there were “half-truths, martyrdom complex, race baiting and juvenile sarcasm” I would have shut it off. Right or left has nothing to do with it. Stick around and you’ll hear me criticize the “left” – although I must say that I don’t think there is a significant leftist movement in the u.s., despite what people say.
As to why you personally like him and are a fan…can you help me understand that a little more? What does he do that is entertaining? Why is the way we offers his perspective great? That’s really what I’m looking for on this post. I know there are plenty of good and decent people that like Glenn Beck (friends of mine), but I still have no idea why.
In the end, if he is simply entertaining that concerns me. It’s not like he’s “So You Think You Can Dance?” or “Yo Gabba Gabba” where simply vegging out might make sense (actually, I could build a case that both of those qualify as art…but that’s another post). But that people find GB entertaining is, I suspect, the problem. I’m of the mind that we should pay attention to what captures our imagination and whether it contributes to our human flourishing.
Let me put it this way: If “infotainment” was food, then CBS Sunday Morning might be a well-balanced meal. Simply entertaining shows (“Autotune the news”?) could be called Twinkies – empty calories, but safe enough in moderation. If he’s merely entertaining, then he’s Twinkies. That seems to be what you are saying.
And what I’m saying is that I don’t think he’s Twinkies. I think he’s more like crystal meth. Feels good to the addicted, but destructive.
Hmmm…well I’m just a casual fan of his. I’m not some Glenn Beck disciple who froths at the mouth when people say some thing negative about him. For that reason, I don’t feel the need to go on a lengthy crusade about why every one should like him or watch/listen to him. To be honest, I don’t care if people like him or not. I don’t expect every to like him and I don’t put in any effort to try and persuade people to like him. People are free to turn him on or turn him off. That’s cool with me. Also, I suspect your mind is already made up about him.
I’ve listened to him for years (even before he got huge with the national media). I live in the Philly area and this is where he used to be based up until a few years ago when he moved to New York. I’ve even been to a few of his live shows. What orginally got me interested in him is that I find him to be absolutely hilarious (on the radio…which is much different from his tv show). I even read recently about how Rachel Maddow thought that Beck was her favorite radio person of all time. http://www.mediaite.com/online/rachel-maddow-glenn-beck-was-my-favorite-person-of-all-time-in-radio/ And that is coming from a liberal, openly gay, prime time host on MSNBC. Put aside his political views for a second. He is just down right funny to me. It’s hard to debate this because this is more of a matter of personal preference and taste than it is about hard facts that can be proved. Some people like Don Imus, some people like Howard Stern, some people like Randi Rodes, and some people like Glenn Beck. If you want to call him twinkies (as in infotainment food) that’s fine with me. It’s more about being entertained for me.
That’s an interesting article regarding Maddow. She’s another one that I’ve only seen in online clips. I gave up television (in my own home) my entire adult life until we started co-housing with my wife’s in-laws. Most television I watch is online (Netflix).
I must say that I have never listened to him on the radio. What video clips I’ve seen of him on his radio show seems to be quite serious (sarcasm aside).
At any rate, you’re not the person this post is aimed at (casual fans? previous fans?), but I would ask if you have a link to something he has said that is funny? I can get behind funny of whatever political persuasion. Dennis Miller is a good example on the right. While I might like some of the things George Carlin has to say, I am under no illusion that he’s funny.
I suppose if my intake of Glenn Beck was funny things he has said instead of stupid, untrue, aggravating things he has said, I might be more gracious.
Rather than weigh in with a comment, I thought I’d share a piece I wrote. I recently blogged about the connections between Beck’s mormon faith and his political message here:
http://pastormack.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/glenn-beck-restoring-jack-squat/
Cheers.
Very interesting. Thanks, Mack :)
Mack, as a conservative – do you think that watching Glenn Beck is defensible on anything other than the classically liberal grounds of “Everybody can do whatever they want”? What do you think when you hear people say that they find him entertaining? Do you find him merely not to your taste, or deleterious?
Even though this was directed at the other Mack I’ll take a stab at it. I think many things can be harmful. It all depends on the person I guess. Beck is not where I go to get my information. I think of him as more of an entertainer than an intellectual. Since I don’t hang on his every word and don’t go to him for my source of news I don’t find him to have any harmful effects on me. It could be different for other people I suppsose though. I don’t think watching/listening to him is either defensible or indefensible.
There are many conservative Christians out there who have some similar feelings:
http://www.russellmoore.com/2010/08/29/god-the-gospel-and-glenn-beck/
http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/01/glenn-becks-path-to-unity-a-rocky-road/
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/08/the-old-times-the-end-times-and-glenn-beck
Sure, I can give you an example of some thing Beck used to do that was very funny (to me anyways). He used to do a bit called Moron Trivia. The rules of the game can be found here: http://www.morontrivia.com/whatisit.php Unfortunately, I can’t find any free clips of it for you to hear it. IT can be found on his website but you have to pay for it. http://glennbeck.shop.musictoday.com/Dept.aspx?cp=29940_39632 He doesn’t even do that skit any more but that’s just one example of some thing funny he used to do.
If he’s no longer funny…then is there any good reason to be interested? I could very easily show a hundred clips of him doing more nefarious things than “being entertaining”.
Few things. I don’t listen to him as much as I used to. With that said, he is still pretty funny on his radio show. I hardly ever watch his tv show and that is where he makes most of his comments that seem to get him into trouble with the media. Most of what he says isn’t all that bad though. However, if you go looking for things to be offended about I’m sure you won’t be disappointed. Groups such as Media Matters make a living off of that. But again, just to be clear, I’m not really trying to defend or promote the guy. I’m just trying to explain what I like about him in the hopes that it will help you understand why others may feel differently about him than you. I might not be representative of most Beck fans I suppose though.
You might not be representative of most fans, as you don’t watch him much, but your answers are pretty representative.
His fans (at least the ones I know) post his stuff online religiously, and comment as if he is trustworthy or incisive in his journalism and analysis. But then, when they are pressed to answer for this, they fall back on something innocuous like “I’m not really a big fan” or “I just find him entertaining”. I know many people who love every word out of his mouth until an “unbelieving” person asks them “why?”.
Feel free to press me? Press away. All I can do is be honest with you. I’m not interested in giving standard, cookie cutter answers. I only speak for my self and no one else. I am in no way trying to be evasive or give innocuous. My experience is my experience and I can not change that. I honestly am not the greatest Beck fan in the world and I honestly do (or did when I listened to him on a regular basis) found him to be funny and entertaining. I am not sure what you want from me. You don’t have to agree with me. I don’t expect you to but I honestly have no idea what you want. I’m not looking for a debate or an argument. Instead, I was looking for an open discussion where we can understand eachother’s positions better. I’ll just continue giving my honest thoughts and opinions. That’s all I can do.
No need to get upset. You’ve been very cordial, and I take your word that you are not a fan of Glenn Beck. I’m not asking anything from you, with the possible exception that you provide evidence that he’s funny. I suppose the Maddow article is reason enough, being that it’s from someone with an interest in denigrating Beck. (Although it seems to me that the article confirms the idea that whatever value he might have brought in the past is long gone.)
Seriously, no big deal. I was looking for Glenn Beck fans to help me understand the attraction. You’re not a fan, or at least you let your fanclub membership expire (if not the nice memories). No harm no foul.
It can’t simply be a matter of taste in dealing with Beck. His popularity means that his message matters, for good or for ill. I would say the same thing about Jon Stewart, who brushes off complaints by saying, “Oh, I’m just a comedian.” It was, after all, a conservative who wrote a book entitled “ideas have consequences.”
I don’t want to even claim Beck as a conservative. As I understand conservatism at its best – that of Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk – conservatism is concerned with virtue, culture, and the dignity of the citizenry and the government. There is very little virtue, culture, or dignity with Glenn Beck. I think both this arguments and (especially) his methods are deplorable. He’s a sensationalizing populist, and little more. I suppose he’s capitalizing on all those on the Right that think Obama’s presidency is the end of the world as we know it.
There was a time when I liked the cable TV demagogues. In college, I could watch Fox news all day long. I can still watch a little O’Reilly, he can be a jerk but I think he has half a brain. Sean Hannity is an idiot, though.
And Glenn Beck makes Sean Hannity look like a Rhodes Scholar.
I agree with you in regards to Beck’s politics. He’s much more of a libertarian, populist than a conservative. I think he would actually readily admit that. You are spot on in looking at Burke and Kirk as models of conservatism.
By your definition of conservatism, I would be considered a conservative…or that’s how I would like to be considered. I’m not familiar with Burke and Kirk, so I’ll look out for that.
Must get back to homeschooling the kids…we happen to be studying Aristotle and virtue.
“Yo Gabba Gabba” = Art.