Who Hates Glenn Beck?
By Jack Hunter
His talk-radio brethren have less of a problem with his histrionics than with his evolving libertarianism
Warning that popular talk radio and Fox News host Glenn Beck was “Harmful to the Conservative Movement,” Peter Wehner wrote on Commentary’s “Contentions” blog in September: “he seems to be more of a populist and libertarian than a conservative, more of a Perotista than a Reaganite. His interest in conspiracy theories is disquieting, as is his admiration for Ron Paul and his charges of American ‘imperialism.’ (He is now talking about pulling troops out of Afghanistan, South Korea, Germany, and elsewhere.)”
Wehner is not alone in his criticism. When Beck told CBS News’ Katie Couric, “John McCain would have been worse for the country than Barack Obama,” fellow radio talker and New York Times bestselling author Mark Levin fired back: “to say that he would be worse than a president who’s a Marxist, who’s running around the world apologizing for our nation, who’s slashing our defense budget … to say he would be worse is mindless … incoherent, as a matter of fact.”
Beck has been criticized from both Left and Right for his melodramatic, sometimes conspiracy-minded, intermittently bizarre style. But his conservative critics seem most offended not by Beck’s manner but by his deviationism. He won’t stick to the ideological script.
Conservative radio and TV punditry has a strict set of ground rules. Whatever Democrats are up to is bad; Republicans aren’t perfect, but they are worth cheering for and at least deserve the benefit of the doubt. Rush Limbaugh’s occasional guest host Michael Medved reflected talk-radio orthodoxy perfectly when he said, “For those Americans who want to fight back against the menacing expansion of government and the insanely irresponsible spending of the Obama administration, there is only one way to succeed: electing more Republicans to high office.” But as Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic notes, Beck is an exception: “Beck claims to be non-partisan. Conservative, yes, but disdainful of the GOP, with no vested interest in seeing Republicans return to power.”
During the George W. Bush years, Beck’s politics were less differentiated from those of other radio talkers. He deferred to the Bush administration, promoted militarism as patriotism, and called the day’s news along partisan lines. When Ron Paul received national attention for questioning America’s interventionist foreign policy during a 2007 GOP presidential primary debate, Beck called Paul “crazy” and asked, “how did this guy get on stage?” At the time there were no complaints about Beck from the likes of Wehner and Levin — because Beck sounded much like them.
Sometimes he still does, mashing recycled neoconservative jargon with wild-eyed panic about the growth of government power under Obama. But however politically incoherent or ideologically imperfect his rants may be, Beck, unlike other conservative media celebrities, seems to have learned something from the past eight years. He said in September:
I am becoming more and more libertarian every day, I guess the scales are falling off of my eyes, as I’m doing more and more research into history and learning real history. Back at the turn of the century in 1900, with Teddy Roosevelt — a Republican — we started this, ‘we’re going to tell the rest of the world,’ ‘we’re going to spread democracy,’ and we really became, down in Latin America, we really became thuggish and brutish. It only got worse with the next progressive that came into office — Teddy Roosevelt, Republican progressive — the next one was a Democratic progressive, Woodrow Wilson, and we did … we empire built. The Democrats felt we needed to empire build with one giant global government … The Republicans took it as, we’re going to lead the world and we’ll be the leader of it … I don’t think we should be either of those. I think we need to mind our own business and protect our own people. When somebody hits us, hit back hard, then come home.
When he made headlines by saying that McCain would have been worse than Obama, Beck explained to Couric, “McCain is this weird progressive like Theodore Roosevelt was.”
Beck has devoted much airtime to warning about the dangers of “transnationalism” and “progressivism.” His notion of the latter seems to be inspired by Ronald J. Pestritto’s American Progressivism: A Reader, a book Beck recommends on his website. His take on progressivism shows a characteristic mixture of conspiracy theory, ignorance, and, when you least expect it, the truth. On a show in June, he warned: “Now, the progressive movement, this is so insidious … I mean, for instance, and I don’t want to get into this, but Woodrow Wilson, nobody knows anything about. One evil son of a bitch. And nobody knows it. Nobody really knows what the progressive movement is because they’ve controlled history.” He said in May: “I have to tell you, the answer is to get away from the two-party system because they are both progressives.”
Beck gives a less sensational account of progressivism in his recent bestseller Glenn Beck’s Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, in which he explains: “The Progressives on the right believed in Statism and American expansion through military strength, while the Progressives on the left believed in Statism and expansion through transnationalist entities such as the League of Nations and then the United Nations.” On “transnationalism” Beck adds, “Under President Bush, politics and global corporations dictated much of our economic and border policy. Nation building and internationalism also played a huge role in our move away from founding principles.”
Beck is hardly a noninterventionist, and he still makes hawkish statements similar to those others on the Right side of the dial. But in revisiting the foreign policies of Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt and questioning the “expansion” of “progressivism … through military strength,” Beck sets himself apart from the conservative retreads still promoting Bush’s overseas agenda. Beck has embarked on an ideological journey that is unfolding before a large national audience (he’s third in the talk-radio ratings, behind Limbaugh and Hannity), and the host himself seems unsure where his wanderings will take him. But they have already led him, and his listenership, away from the familiar shores of movement conservatism.
Beck gets credit for this from some unexpected sources. The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan, for example, says, “I do think that Beck deserves some kudos for putting defense on the table as an issue for small government conservatives.” For Peter Wehner, on the other hand, Beck’s, “populist,” “libertarian,” and anti-imperial deviations remain troublesome: “My hunch is that he is a comet blazing across the media sky right now — and will soon flame out. Whether he does or not, he isn’t the face or disposition that should represent modern-day conservatism.”
Wehner may be right — Beck’s zany disposition should not be the public face of today’s conservatism. But clearly neoconservatives and Bush administration alumni like Wehner should not be the face of conservatism, either. As Daniel Larison has noted, “The faction most responsible for the GOP’s political failure is national security conservatives. Yet within the party, they remain unscathed, their assumptions about the use of American power largely unquestioned, and their gross errors in judgment forgotten or readily forgiven.” Now is the time for conservatives to ask questions, reexamine their assumptions, and own up to some gross errors.
Beck has been the only A-list conservative pundit willing to capitalize on the sentiments of Republicans disgruntled with their own party, and the only one to address the taboo subject of Bush-era foreign policy. Plenty of others continue to bash Obama-only Beck has been willing to make conservative discontent retroactive. Other hosts continue to promise future Republican victories in the face of Obama’s plummeting popularity, but Beck continues to ask, “what’s the point?” And while it might be true that Beck doesn’t always ask the right questions, he deserves some credit for being the only guy asking any questions while the rest of the right-wing infotainment industry refuses to acknowledge any mistakes at all. Far from being the worst of conservative pundits, Beck, despite his outrageous antics, may be the only one of them who is mentally alive.
Jack Hunter broadcasts as “The Southern Avenger” for 1250 AM WTMA talk radio in Charleston, S.C. and is a columnist for the Charleston City Paper.
Zaniness and all, Beck comes across like Einstein compared with G.O.P “wind up” shill, Sean Hannity!
One way to say it would be that Beck’s opinons are constantly evolving; but I suspect it’s more acurate to say he’s making it up as he goes along.
I wouldn’t join Olberman in calling him an entertainer because I think he really believes he’s informing his audience, but by the somewhat schitzophrenic changes in position and topic, I think he probably comes up with topics the same way a humorist might — by flipping through the channels or reading a couple websites till he finds a good angle on a topic. I think he sometimes chooses his position not based on ideoloy but on what he thinks will get a reaction and/or will make him a target/victim. He really likes the martyr role.
Jack is spot on, Beck can be zany, but at least he’s discovering and revealing the bipartisan national security emperor is wearing no conservative clothes. He is challenging the base to consequence the neocons and corporate shills, to imagine a world without globalism.
Well with so much going on at least Beck and Fox seem to be getting the information out that no one else covers or is afraid to.
Yes I was following Ron Paul and even voted for him in the primary but alas the gop picked the dinosaur and rouge so we got nothing. While I don’t agree with everything Beck says he did uncover the czars and Obama’s radicalism. Now with the white house on the defensive against Fox because of uncovering the truth, this administration’s true colors are shining through! Hopefully everone will wake up to their true agenda.
Glenn Beck has one omnipresent question burning in the depths of his soul:
“What’s selling today?”
Give credit to the man for locating the answer, a hundred percent of the time!
Excellent article, Mr. Hunter. What I find most refreshing is your restraint in judgment. Everybody has to take sides nowadays it seems, calling everything that pops up either “good” or “bad.” No fence sitting!
The real world rejects such purity.
Glenn is a clown, and his on-air persona is carefully crafted, but that does not discredit his message. I believe it actually makes his message more attractive and interesting to people who normally would not tune in to hear discussions on the Federal Reserve, monetary policy, and the constitution.
Intellectuals right and left can sneer at him, but what have they done to bring the issues of the day to ordinary people?
Glenn Beck has found his niche in the disenchanted Ron Pauls. At First no one seriously paid attention to Ron Paul. His warnings of the Fed and big government seemed unreal, then the financial collapse happened and Ron Paul was one of the clarion callers.
No I dont buy accusations of conspiracy theory. His accusations are deeper and more complex, as Ron Paul and others said, the interlocking foreign lobbies and industrial lobbies (foreign and domestic) that nearly control domestic and foreign policy. Thats not conspiracy but conflict of interest weight against the citizen voter…and its this conflict of interest that his listeners see not conspiracy.
If the conservatives and republicans dont like Glenn Beck because he doesnt play by the book, then they have only themselves to blame. They have still not faced up to the errors of de-regulation, free trade, foriegn wars, no child left behind (instead of school choice and school vouchers) and it seems the only change has been in now being strong advocates of borders and reduced immigration.
Until the republicans and conservatives to a true self examination then recognize that there is a growing disenfranchised group of libertarians, republicans and conservatives that will not follow the neoconservatives then they will not succeed in unifying the party. Unfortunately this leaves the democrats liberals and marxists to exploit but its true there are militarists on the right and marxists on the left…but neither represent the US voter constituent who wants less immigration, less war, less government and more jobs.
Basically everything the democrats and republicans, liberals and conservatives, etc are doing is the opposite of what the people want.
All policies are for big government, big business, foreign trade and foreign governments, open border immigration.
There are no policies to pull back our foreign wars and foreign commitments, no policies to break up big business so its not to big to fail and so small businesses can grow, no policies to end immigration so american workers can find jobs, no policies to end the monopolies of public schools by opening school taxes up to school vouchers and school choice, no policies that follow the dictates of the US voting constituent. Instead the lobbyists set the policies, get government buy-in and then sell the public. Its the exact opposite of democracy and our republic.
Its why so many people are disenfranchised from both parties.
I cannot go as far as both Beck and Pestritto do in condemning TR as a progressive that prefigures the present leftists. Russell Kirk saw much to admire in him, saying that for Richard Hofstadter to denounce TR as rabidly as he did speaks highly of the man’s conservative bona fides.
Adam Rurik:
Glenn Beck has one omnipresent question burning in the depths of his soul:
“What’s selling today?”
Give credit to the man for locating the answer, a hundred percent of the time!
____________________________
Maybe, but at least that means he’s thinking and adapting. The neocons are what psychiatrists call “non-responsive” i.e. crazy in a way that reality doesn’t affect.
People who have something to hide hate Glenn Beck. People who have lied to the American people hate him. People who are corrupt in government hate him.
Good essay. It’s the style of the man that puts me off — that manic quality Beck has and the little boy antics — not that he sometimes wishes a plague on both political houses.
Great article….
Beck is evolving and I admire him for doing so…
G.W. Bush was the best thing for the neo-con movement and the worst thing for true conservatives (Traditional Conservatives as Ron Paul would say)…
I think now-a-days people are confused about what being a conservative truly is and hopefully Beck will continue on his journey and open up peoples eyes to what is really going on….
It’s an uphill battle but if people like Beck begin to deviate from the typical Neocon script hopefully others will follow…
@ Al: Good essay. It’s the style of the man that puts me off — that manic quality Beck has and the little boy antics — not that he sometimes wishes a plague on both political houses.
——–
That seems to be the dividing line for many. I like his manic style, but I can see how it’s off-putting for others.
@ AnthonyJ: People who have something to hide hate Glenn Beck. People who have lied to the American people hate him. People who are corrupt in government hate him.
——–
So true. Just as Obama should be judged by who his friends are, Beck should be judged by who his enemies are.
The thing about Beck is that he wants to trace the country’s problem to the progressives of the time of T.R.,What he won’t say (or maybe can’t) is that what he fears goes back to Lincoln and the Radical Republicans of the 1850’s ,60’s and 70’s.He seems to miss the fact that the result of the Civil War was that the Constitution was turned upside down.Pre Civil War,the Constitution was used as intended,to limit the power of the federal government,the war blew all those limits away.The country,created by the Union(federal govt.) victory was one were the Constitution is used to coerce the States and citizens to it’s will.Instead of the States being the judge of the federal govenments powers,it became it’s own judge,and has judged that there are no limits.
Apparently not that many people on here pay close attention to some of the things that Beck actually states. Some of which are incredibly manipulated, wildly deceptive, and often simply made up. They are also often wildly incendiary and absurdly illogical. But then logic never was much of a leading human condition. Particularly in comparison to the heavy tendency for us to think that we are, or are being, logical, which is something that sometimes profoundly ignorant Beck aptly taps into, while distorting actual reason and fact into a grotesque wreckage of its former self. Sort of an extremist and even more wildly ignorant version of Rush Limbaugh, if that were possible; which, Beck has shown, it is.
“The thing about Beck is that he wants to trace the country’s problem to the progressives of the time of T.R.,What he won’t say (or maybe can’t) is that what he fears goes back to Lincoln and the Radical Republicans of the 1850’s ,60’s and 70’s”
Agreed–TR’s politics stemmed from the positions of those who opposed these radical republicans. His own father was a ‘reform republican’ in 1876 who combated the stalwarts of the Grant administration.
Beck may be for real. Maybe he really believes in defending our borders, deporting the illegals, ending the fraudulent work visa programs and pulling out of these ruinous and seemingly endless wars fought at the behest of supranational corporations and the Israel Lobby. I hope so, and I hope his popularity reflects that. Time will tell. In any case I doubt he’ll fall for the patented neocon combination of threats (racist, anti-Semite etc) and inducements (you wanna keep that chair at Fox, bubbi?) unless he really wants to.
[...] in The American Conservative, Jack Hunter opines: Warning that popular talk radio and Fox News host Glenn Beck was “Harmful to the Conservative [...]
It goes back to the 18th-19th century reform movements and to Hess-Marx-Engels and before that the Village Idiot of Slit Trench, Mass.
I’m not a big fan of Beck’s style. It’s just a little too goofy for me, but I think the personal nature of his show(s) is really reaching a lot of people. Beck’s no intellectual, and he’s far from academic. His path seems to reflect the mixed up combination of logic, intuition, occasional inspiration and somewhat haphazard personal study that characterizes the evolution of most individuals’ personal opinions. I think that’s how he’s getting so many followers.
All in all, though, I think he’s on the right track. Libs/Progs can target the guy’s shortcomings and motivations, but it’s hard to argue with the truths that he occasionally clarifies for his audience.
In case a google search by the subject leads him to these comments, check out mises.org, Mr Beck. There’s a PhD in economics on that site.
It goes back to the Venus of Willendorf…clearly, the right has taken its cue from the initial cultural divide between the gaiia and the testosterone Neanderthal disjunct that drives, TO THIS DAY, the likes of Beck, Savage and Hannity. The diminished libido, effectiveness and overcompensation are clearly documented in the fossil record, and the branch of “homo conservatus” that descended (unlike the still un-descended testicular appurtenances, a signal trait of the neocons…) from the earliest “breast envy” of the latter day commentatorship speaks for itself.
Or, more accurately, slurps for itself.
* Jesse Ventura Interview