Monday, March 18, AD 2024 10:09pm

On Glenn Beck & Other Crazy People

I am allergic to political cable tv shows, talk radio, and nightly news. I cannot watch or listen to these programs for longer than fifteen minutes without subjecting anyone within earshot to a lengthy rant. And so I won’t pretend to be deeply familiar with Glenn Beck’s work. Instead, I’ll rely on Joe Carter at First Things:

There isn’t much I could add to the criticisms—from the left, right, and center—that have been made against him in the last few weeks. His recent comments have shown that he’s a naked opportunist who will say anything to get attention: If he’s on his television show on Fox he’ll pander to the audience by saying that President Obama is a racist who is ushering in an age of socialism, if not the apocalypse; then, when he is in front of Katie Couric and CBS News, he says that John McCain would have been worse for the country than Obama (which begs the question, “What exactly is worse than the socialist/communist/fascist apocalypse?”).

Yet despite his antics and inconsistencies, he retains a cult of personality that rivals Obama. (Disagree? Try saying something negative about Beck and see what kind of feedback you get.) So its not worth trying to persuade people that he is bad for conservatism, bad for America, and bad for anyone who believes political discourse should be civil and sane. Those who are open to such a discussion don’t need to be convinced and and those that aren’t simply won’t brook any criticisms of their populist hero.

Now, let me anticipate the first response to this post right now, and say, yes, there are crazy people on the left too. Craziness is an actively bi-partisan phenomenon (just ask the 1/3 of Democrats who are, or at any rate, were 9/11 Truthers).

What I’m curious about is why people find this type of nonsense appealing. After all, it’s fairly obvious that elections are determined by independents and swing voters. In other words, people who are unlikely to be influenced by the over-the-top hysteria of someone like Beck. If anything, this type of ranting is likely to turn off the people who decide elections. And it hardly makes Republicans  look good when they’re defending a guy who:

pretended to pour gasoline over a guest’s body as he brandished a book of matches beside him, who regularly employs the affectation of tears, who deliberately cultivates the mannerisms of an unstable loon, and who most recently pretended to throw a live frog into a pot of boiling water.

Setting aside my own hopelessly naive notions of civility, fair play, and the importance of honest public discourse, is there even any political benefit to defending this type of lunacy? And, even if there are political benefits, shouldn’t we see more Catholics denouncing people like Beck, rather than offering tepid defenses?

Also, this story concerning Beck and the miscarriage of a fellow broadcaster’s wife is simply disgusting.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
100 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Eric Brown
Monday, September 28, AD 2009 10:37pm

John Henry, you are my hero!

Eric Brown
Monday, September 28, AD 2009 11:02pm

It’s fine John Henry. I was deleting my comment about Republicans and ended up deleting the whole thing and was too lazy to move ‘back’ so the changes would not go into effect. I just let everything be deleted. 🙂

Kate Sullivan
Kate Sullivan
Monday, September 28, AD 2009 11:05pm

Glenn Beck is trying to get the people of this country to wake up! he is doing a far better job of
telling the truth and mobilizing folks to educate themselves on the Constitution than are many in the media. He is the parent of a child with severe cerebral palsy. Who the hell are you to judge him?
Why don’t you get the lumber out of your own eye first before removing the speck in your neighbor’s???

Matt McDonald
Matt McDonald
Monday, September 28, AD 2009 11:24pm

I don’t much appreciate sensationalism from Glenn Beck, any more than sensationalism in attacking him as has been done above and on First Things. I think, John Henry if you consider a few of the sources of your post, aside from First Things you’d find that you’re actually pulling data from the loonies on the left, to attack who you’re calling a loon on the right.

That said, I won’t defend Beck, though many of the complaints are based on out of context quotes.

I will say, as one who sympathizes with his notion of restoring a government actually based on the founding documents, I do have some concerns about the 9/12 movement, and Glenn Beck, as well as the “5000 year leap”. I’ve just started reading it and so will perhaps have more to say another time.

TomSVDP
TomSVDP
Monday, September 28, AD 2009 11:44pm

KateSullivan: Now that is a heroic statement, honestly, we need to know what is going on. That is for certain.

I don’t think mentioning someone has a child is saying they are beyond criticism. It’s saying, hey, he’s probably a good guy. No, I wouldn’t go marking anyone, especially with a Catholic name like “Sullivan” as saying they have found this through some questionable means. It doesn’t change the fact, that her remarks are right on the mark.

Fox showed this morning how some public school around San Francisco showed some sort of gay oriented cartoon to kids. This is a very random example, however, I do believe it points to the fact, that we do need people out there telling us what is going on.

I’m not into Glenn Beck, I like Hannity a lot. I don’t really get into Beck’s show that much but I’ve heard good things from him. This James Trafficant was on Hannity’s radio show today and I understand was going to be on tv. Something about Trafficant being a former congressman who got sent to prison. I have heard of him but don’t know his story.

TomSVDP
TomSVDP
Monday, September 28, AD 2009 11:58pm

Beck goes on it seems about some things, once being an alcoholic, etc. But I’ve heard him speaking about the existence of God! Spot on! It was about the first time I ever heard him as they were playing his show during the evening hours and he did indeed testify. So, although, some odd quotes seem to be taken out on him and I haven’t read his book, I’d like to see these quotes about his faith quoted. I think I’ve heard he’s a Mormon but again, he really hasn’t caught my interest that much but I don’t find fault with him. I do admit he may say somethings that sound like kneejerk reactions and seem to be made too rashly.

Kevin in Texas
Kevin in Texas
Tuesday, September 29, AD 2009 4:41am

John, I tend to agree with you on political cable TV shows and talk radio, although I’ve found a singular exception to the talk radio phenomenon, a conservative who is principled and not simply in it to “sell soap”: Dennis Prager. He’s an observant Jew and a neo-con to some degree (mugged by reality as a young adult, etc.), but his show focuses only about 50% of the time on politics. The rest is society, religion, ethics, and the most random topics that tickle his fancy. For example, his producer and best friend, Allen, has the hobby of collecting honey from around the world, so once a week or so he’ll have a “honey update.” He also has an excellent segment for an hour every Friday called the “Happiness Hour,” which completely eschews political topics and focuses on the human condition.

As a Catholic I find his views on some sexual issues too libertine (e.g., he thinks men looking at girlie magazines is normal and should be encouraged by wives to keep their husbands from straying), but otherwise he is an honest and very wise man who really enjoys digging deeply into issues and debating/discussing them with callers and guests representing a wide variety of viewpoints. Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity can’t hold a candle to him intellectually, or I would even say as hosts.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Tuesday, September 29, AD 2009 5:36am

Beck is an entertainer above all and not to my taste. However, his popularity in the ratings is I think more attributable to the fact that he covers stories that the mainstream media simply ignores. For example he led the charge against Van Jones in the Obama administration. The first story in the New York Times about the Van Jones affair was published on the day when he resigned.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Why-did-the-press-ignore-the-Van-Jones-scandal_-8210602-57658222.html

When clowns are reporting the news because journalists are too biased to do so, people are going to be tuning in to the clowns.

paul zummo
Admin
Tuesday, September 29, AD 2009 5:49am

, is there even any political benefit to defending this type of lunacy?

I don’t really like Beck, but I don’t think the criticisms of him are completely fair. So while I will continue to not watch his television show, I don’t think jumping on anti-Beck bandwagons are completely worthwhile, not when there are much more important things to worry about. Then again, I don’t begin every day wondering how I can suck up to people who disagree with me.

paul zummo
Admin
Tuesday, September 29, AD 2009 6:40am

Awww, John, did I touch a nerve? Frankly, I don’t really care about this topic, and I’m not going to delve further into this stupidity. But I’ll leave you free to criticize Beck and Limbaugh – that’s a really important priority. I mean it’s not like there are people out there defending human cloning or other things which actually may affect our lives.

So fight the good fight, you crazy culture warrior you.

BTW, Beck’s not even a Republican, but why waste some good sanctimony.

Elaine Krewer
Admin
Tuesday, September 29, AD 2009 6:42am

I don’t think I’ve watched Glenn Beck more than two or three times. I have explained in the past why I cannot stand even to listen to Rush Limbaugh for more than a few minutes at a time so I’m probably not missing anything by not watching Glenn Beck.

Years ago I was chatting with a DRE in the parish I was attending at the time. He mentioned that he had once aspired to be a writer of political satire but eventually gave it up because, and I quote, “it kills your soul eventually.” And this was before the internet and blogging really took off.

One only has to look at the effect the “take no prisoners” approach to political discourse has at times even on people like us, who are for the most part conscientious Catholics, to see what he meant. ;-(

Elaine Krewer
Admin
Tuesday, September 29, AD 2009 6:59am

The “gasoline” incident, which I just watched for the first time, would have played much better as an SNL sketch. When you can’t tell the difference between a real show and an SNL parody version, something’s wrong!

cminor
Tuesday, September 29, AD 2009 7:44am

Never heard Beck, myself. Those who find talk radio obnoxious might try listening to William Bennett’s show occasionally. It’s generally civil and smarter than your average bear.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Tuesday, September 29, AD 2009 7:47am

What I’m curious about is why people find this type of nonsense appealing. After all, it’s fairly obvious that elections are determined by independents and swing voters.

People do not play those angles when they elect what to listen to on the radio. Crude radio programming is a function of declining standards of taste. The question which has been unanswered for upwards of forty years is where the bottom is.

Phillip
Phillip
Tuesday, September 29, AD 2009 8:40am

Watched Beck a few times a couple of years ago. Have listened a few times on radio. Listened a few more times since the left has erected him as the new boogie man (no more Bushitler and railroading Limbaugh hasn’t worked.) Stopped listening again after a couple of shows. Too conspiritorial and over the top. Not as bad as an Olberman or Maddow. Actually more sane than them. But who will critcize the latter two?
Has his good points. Very pro-family. And then there’s this about Obama’s asinine commment on “a baby as punishment”:

“This is the amazing thing. This is what you can — this is what you need to take away from Barack Obama on this. What you learned from Barack Obama in, you know, I don’t want them punished with a baby is this: That he sees children as a punishment, not for everybody but for some children are a punishment. Others, children is a blessing. A child is a blessing because you are trying. You are trying to avoid it. So it’s a punishment. The point is the baby becomes an “It.” The baby is just it. So he doesn’t see the sanctity of life is something that can punish you or bless you. I’m sorry but that’s an abomination in the eyes of God as I would see it. I can’t imagine how a baby could punish you. A baby is a gift at all times. A baby is the closest to perfection that we get at all times. We should be striving to be more like that innocent child than trying to just say, I don’t want them to be punished by a baby.”

So on this point he is a lot more sane than our President.

Bill Sr.
Bill Sr.
Tuesday, September 29, AD 2009 8:57am

As far as Glen Beck and the value or spectacle of his cable TV show ranting, one needs only to acknowledge some of the very obvious results he has produced, some would say almost single handedly but it is safe to say that he had assistance from Hannity and Limbaugh.

Washington DC was recently deluged with throngs of “common folks” who came from all over American to protest the sudden new intrusion of big government into their lives and openly express their objections to the policies of the current administration as well as the desire to protect the nation they love from the onslaught of a socialist agenda. Limbaugh had been educating the public and Hannity had called for the freedom express across the country but Don’t even attempt to deny that, especially if you admit you didn’t bother to watch it unfold.

The president’s beloved and highly praised favorite community organization which he worked for and ignited his political career, ACORN, was involved in voter fraud and voter intimidation charges during the recent election. The MSM had little or nothing to say while several states had lawsuits pending against them. Many Americans who were paying attention to the issues had every right to believe ACORN had more in its agenda than “voter registration”. So who do we thank for exposing the deception and outright corruption we now know was part of Obama’s beloved before but suddenly now not that much aware of what was going on at ACORN? No one more so than the GB show!

The agenda set for the very inexperienced Barack Obama was obviously too big for him to handle, community organizing was child’s play next to being president, so he needed lots of help if it was to “fundamentally change” America and establish his personal goal of redistribution overnight as intended. Enter the far left’s most radical group of elitists and Marxist leaning liberals along with the usual batch of Washington insiders. The anointed one, possibly at the urging of the many “catholic” cronies flocking to help the most pro-abortion president in history, quickly assembled and incorporated “Czar City” for “The One”. These Bishops of Bureaucracy were given lots of money and the power to spend it anywhere to further the Marxist inspired presidents “social justice” initiatives. Oops! The Audacity of Arrogance, scum rose to the surface. Van Jones the race baiting self proclaimed Communists somehow had taken a seat beside the president as the MSM continues to ignore their job. So how will the American people be privileged to the truth?
Enter Glen Beck! You can’t deny he has been accused of personally exposing this heavy handed Obamination.

Now as far as Beck sounding crazy and causing a ruckus, well a while back I seem to remember the liberals in their inevitable way of trying to persuade the hearts of Christians to their point of view to compare them to Jesus the “radical” as a “community organizer”.
Now children , back to reality on the count of three 1 2 3
Mmm Mmm Mmm Barack Hussein Obama Mmm Mmm Mmm

awakaman
awakaman
Tuesday, September 29, AD 2009 9:07am

For the record I really don’t like any of the talking heads on TV or radio, Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin, O’Reilly, Meadows, etc.. How anybody can listen to an a**-**** like Levin for more than 30 seconds is beyond me. There use to be a time in the early ’90’s when I found Limbaough to be extremely entertaining, but then he began to believe his own press and merely became the drug and vice addicted shill of the Republican party.

However, I find it extremely interesting that Beck was never criticized by fellow “conservatives” as long as he was defending the Bush war and torture atrocities and Bush’s building an ofincreasingly bigger and intrusive Federal government and called crazy those on the right those who criticised Bush, e.g. Ron Paul, crazy.

It is only now that Beck is increasing in his criticism of the Republican party that he is being increasingly criticised by his fellow “conservatives”. He has had the audacity to point out that big givernment is not the fault of Democrats alone. Would McCain have been worse than Obama – yes, because he would have advanced basically the same programs – perhaps at a slower pace and under different names – but he would not have faced resistance from the Republicans and conservatives because he was one of them. Just as Nixon was able to flush Taiwan down the toilet because he was an “anti-communist” and Bush was able to push Socialist corporate bail -outs through with minimal Republican opposition. Government continues to grow no matter who is in power. Presidents continue to accumulate executive powers no matter what party they belong to. They just use different rataionalizations and move at different speeds.

Matt
Matt
Tuesday, September 29, AD 2009 9:08am

John Henry,


When clowns are reporting the news because journalists are too biased to do so, people are going to be tuning in to the clowns.

It’s a good point. The Times coverage, or, rather, lack thereof, of the Van Jones and Acorn scandals has been inexcusable. To rephrase what you said slightly, if all journalists are clowns, the ones with the most outlandish outfits will capture the viewers.

You didn’t rephrase what he said, you changed it. Regardless of a degree of ‘clownishness’, people listen to Beck because of the news that the MSM does not present.

paul zummo
Admin
Tuesday, September 29, AD 2009 9:09am

All right, let me try this with a little bit less snark. Here’s where I’m coming from – I am not a particular fan of Beck. I used to listen to his radio show from time to time when he was on in DC, and he wasn’t quite as, well, crazy as he is now. He hasn’t been on in this market for probably about a year, and the Fox show is on at a time when I am almost never home. This was the first time I had seen much of it, and I am not really impressed. I think he is hyperbolic, and frankly his idol seems to be William Shatner at least when it comes to over-acting.

My only point is that I think there is an over-reaction against him as well. I really don’t see him as being any kind of particular threat to the well-being of the republic, nor am I much concerned that he’s doing the conservative cause any significant harm. In the grand scheme of things, he probably attracts as many people as he repels, and perhaps actually gains more, but I can’t prove that one way or the other. When there are so many worse pundits out there – people who are advocating things like cloning and genetic engineering and all sorts of horrible things, why waste this much ink on people like Beck. I recognize that not all blogging has to be about one thing – you can certainly castigate me for putting up posts about the red zone channel rather than the situation in Honduras. But when I see these kinds of posts again and again, it gets wearying.

One last thing. I found your reaction a little funny because when I cross-posted my thoughts on Back on Southern Appeal, his defenders acted as though I had blasphemed. And now your reaction is to say that I am (tepidly) defending him. It’s all a matter of perspective I guess.

Matt
Matt
Tuesday, September 29, AD 2009 9:10am

JH,

If you’re not interested in a subject, just don’t comment….

It’s you’re thread man, but a comment to the extent that too much concern is placed in an area to the distraction of others is a completely legitimate opinion that deserves to be heard.

TomSVDP
TomSVDP
Tuesday, September 29, AD 2009 9:38am

Awakaman: I was not aware that the Congressionally Approved Iraq War is exclusively Bush’s War. Furthermore, we do see the Washington Post has in fact, defended the use of enhanced torture techniques versus the unpatriotic Americans who would not mind seeing our citizens blown to smithereens.

awakaman
awakaman
Tuesday, September 29, AD 2009 10:09am

TomNSDAPSVDP:

I agree TomNSDAPSVDP the Democrats have just as much blood on their hands as the Republicans do for these unjust and bloody wars. War=bigger and stronger federal government and that is something to which both parties can agree.

So, TomNSDAPSVDP, the Washington post is now your Magisterium? How special! Who are these unpatriotic Americans you’d like to have enhanced torture techniques used on? I’m sure that your list would differ from that of the Obama administration. Please give specific instances where American lives have been saved through the use of torture.

Jay Anderson
Tuesday, September 29, AD 2009 10:17am

John Henry said: “If you’re not interested in a subject, just don’t comment.”

One could hardly blame Paul for commenting when it was YOU who linked to his post and, unfairly in my view, accused him of offering “tepid support” for someone of whom he had been somewhat critical.

Paul said: “It’s all a matter of perspective I guess”

Paul,
It’s a matter of triangulation. If Tony A looks bad, and you, on the other end of the political spectrum, get compared to him (i.e. you also look bad), then guess who comes out smelling like a rose by comparison?

There are a lot of Douthat/Dreher/Brooks/Frum copycats popping up these days. They see the mileage that those guys have gotten from triangulating to make themselves look “reasonable” by comparison.

John Henry and I have discussed this before, and we’ve both made our positions on the matter clear. I certainly wish him no ill will, and we probably agree on far more than we disagree, but I disagree with him on how he chooses to handle these particular situations.

For the record, I didn’t even know what Beck looked like until I saw a photo of him on the internet a few weeks back. I don’t watch Fox News (or any TV news programming for that matter). And I don’t listen to (nor do I particularly care for) Rush Limbaugh. So, on that basis, I hope it is clear that I am not offering “tepid support” for any of them.

I agree with you, Paul, that this triangulation BS wherein a few self-appointed “reasonable” conservatives feel they must denounce “those people” in order to maintain some semblance of credibility (with whoever they’re trying to remain credible) is beyond wearying.

I have absolutely no connection to the afore-mentioned media personalities or organizations because they are not even on my radar screen. I don’t care for them, but neither do I feel particularly compelled to denounce them either. And those who act as though I have some such obligation are playing with a sick form of guilt by association. I won’t denounce Fox or Beck or Limbaugh, primarily, because I don’t dance to their drummer in the first place (so why should I feel so compelled since they’re no reflection upon me to begin with?) And I won’t denounce Fox or Beck or Limbaugh, secondarily, because neither do I dance to the drummer of their detractors.

I’m not playing that game.

Tito Edwards
Tuesday, September 29, AD 2009 10:25am

Jay Anderson,

You (and Donald) articulated my feelings exactly.

I’d like to throw in there Mark Shea who seems to get a lot of traction attacking traditional Catholics and conservatives on the most minuscule of issues.

TomSVDP
TomSVDP
Tuesday, September 29, AD 2009 10:34am

Awakaman can not argue, NSDAP stands for Nazi. I will not address you! But when you fly lies which is the reason for this person’s sordid and sorry personal attacks I will address it.

Anti-War Nuts say torture: Well, it would be torture to even go to a minimum security prison. I am sorry that you can not make any kind of argument without resorting to the most vile personal attacks.

And by the way, you take issue with my using the word “Unpatriotic Americans”, well you started it by saying “Bush’s War” when European Intelligence showed Saddam was trying to get everything to make Weapons of Mass Destruction. Likewise, is labelling torture the same kind of technique.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/morality-and-enhanced-interrogation-techniques-15125

The Washington Post indeed does represent a liberal view in this nation. If they see Enhanced Interogation as having thwarted terrorists attacks, it shows you really are digging to start hurling personal attacks at someone. Better to keep your closed and narrow mind to yourself.

TomSVDP
TomSVDP
Tuesday, September 29, AD 2009 10:37am

Awakaman: My heritage is Polish. There is no country that felt the wrath of the Nazis more and murdered many of on par with their other victims, Jews, Gypsies etc.

SVDP get it through your mind means St. Vincent De Paul of Charity.

You have no shame and you have no integrity.

Joe Hargrave
Tuesday, September 29, AD 2009 11:01am

John Henry,

I agree with you on this topic in full.

Glen Beck is an embarrassment. I dislike him for the same reason I dislike Sarah Palin: his appeal is to the mob, to the lower and baser instincts in man.

Appeals to man’s lower nature are almost always more profitable than any attempt to elevate or enlighten. Like Sarah Palin, Glen Beck doesn’t challenge you. If you agree with him, you’ll love him. If you don’t, you’ll hate him. But one thing you’ll probably never do with either of those two is say, “hmm, I never thought of it that way before”, or “hmm, now there’s an idea that, even though I am of the opposite political persuasion, I think I can accept”.

This I understand, for all movements need such types. The troops must be rallied. But as in all things, there is a hierarchy of priorities. When rallying the troops becomes of far greater importance than trying to build a broader tent, priorities are out of order.

Neither the Republican Party nor conservatism – in spite of whatever anger at Obama might be unleashed in 2010 (backlash is always out there) – will not survive in the long run if its public face is Palin/Beck. It will rightfully be regarded as a shrinking sect of angry, aging, white reactionaries who won’t surrender even an inch of ground for the sake of political progress.

Obama’s appeals to common ground might sound hollow to some, and he may not even take them that seriously himself, but they still need to be made. Political polarization is NOT something we want. As Catholics we cannot compromise on life issues – on everything else, we really must reject party lines and forge new solutions.

awakaman
awakaman
Tuesday, September 29, AD 2009 11:09am

Tom:

My grandparents came from Poland also. My grandfather fought in the anti-bolshevik wars after WWI. I agree that Poland suffered greatly under Nazism due to torture and war. But the lesson I learned from that was not to engage in such tactics with others no matter what the supposed justification.

Invoking the name of St. Vincent DePaul of Charity to advance war and torture? How can you seriously ask who lacks shame and intgrity here? May SVDP pray for you.

Well, I’ve sidetracked these comments enough. Back to work.

Matt
Matt
Tuesday, September 29, AD 2009 11:15am

Joe,

t will rightfully be regarded as a shrinking sect of angry, aging, white reactionaries who won’t surrender even an inch of ground for the sake of political progress.

tell it to the million or so people who marched on the Capitol a couple weeks ago.

You’re a thoughtful guy Joe, look beyond the emotion, and see what the underlying principles he’s putting out there are.

9 Principles, 12 Values

9 Principles, 12 Values

The 9 Principles
1. America Is Good.

2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
God “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.” from George Washington’s first Inaugural address.

3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
Honesty “I hope that I shall always possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider to be the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man.” George Washington

4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
Marriage/Family “It is in the love of one’s family only that heartfelt happiness is known. By a law of our nature, we cannot be happy without the endearing connections of a family.” Thomas Jefferson

5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
Justice “I deem one of the essential principles of our government… equal and exact justice to all men of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political.” Thomas Jefferson

6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
Life, Liberty, & The Pursuit of Happiness “Everyone has a natural right to choose that vocation in life which he thinks most likely to give him comfortable subsistence.” Thomas Jefferson

7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
Charity “It is not everyone who asketh that deserveth charity; all however, are worth of the inquiry or the deserving may suffer.” George Washington

8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
On your right to disagree “In a free and republican government, you cannot restrain the voice of the multitude; every man will speak as he thinks, or more properly without thinking.” George Washington

9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.
Who works for whom? “I consider the people who constitute a society or a nation as the source of all authority in that nation.” Thomas Jefferson

The 12 Values
* Honesty
* Reverence
* Hope
* Thrift
* Humility
* Charity
* Sincerity
* Moderation
* Hard Work
* Courage
* Personal Responsibility
* Gratitude

I’m not sure if you agree with all of them, but they’re worth discussing. It would be much better to look at this rationally then to just jump on the bandwagon of visceral reaction.

I started reading “The 5000 Year Leap”, while I am cautious about it, so far it’s very good, I’ll have more to say about that later.

For the record: I listen to Laura Ingraham, Bill Bennett, Michael Medved, Mike Gallagher, and Hugh Hewitt mostly, along with Praeger sometimes. I take each one with varying grains of salt. I don’t watch or listen to Beck’s show, nor Hannity very often. My interest is mainly about principles, not particular policies.

Joe Hargrave
Tuesday, September 29, AD 2009 11:49am

Ok, lets look at these nine principles.

1. It depends. To take that as axiomatic is simply impossible. America has done evil things – one can say that slavery wasn’t unique to America but what I think was unique was the Constitutional reduction of black people to something less than human, something no classical slave society ever did so formally. Then there is the treatment of Native Americans. And there are a few other issues. Point is – America is not built on goodness alone, and NO country is.

2. As far as I am concerned, it is idolatrous to have this as number 2 behind “America is good”. God is good – America is made up of human beings with free will who can and often have chosen evil, like all other peoples in all other countries.

3. Ok.

4. Ok – but society (meaning neighbors and extended family, if not the state as well) has a right to intervene in cases of manifest abuse and neglect.

5. Ok, provided only that the punishment is proportionate to the crime. Justice can be blind but it must also be, to what extent it can, merciful.

6. Of course. No one really wants equal results. Even Marxists don’t want equal results. What I want is an established minimum and maximum within which there can be variation.

7. Everyone has a moral obligation to contribute to the common good, including, but not limited to, the payment of taxes. That is in the Catechism and cannot be thrown aside.

Catholic social teaching has established that the state has a role to play in promoting the common good. Government cannot force you to be charitable in your heart, but it can morally compel you to contribute to the common good. HOW the money is spent, we can debate, yes – but NOT whether or not it is moral to collect and distribute it at all.

If you wish to have it out on this particular topic, my recommendation is that we do it on a new post that I will make upon your request.

8. Of course.

9. That sounds nice, but I don’t make any plan of action on that premise.

Jay Anderson
Tuesday, September 29, AD 2009 12:03pm

For me, it’s not about party. I’m a member of no political party. I denounce plenty of so-called “conservative” postitions on the issues when I disagree with them (which is a lot, by the way – see, e.g., immigration, waterboarding, war, etc.). But I denounce them on my own terms, not as part of someone else’s feeding frenzy.

I’m just not into playing the game, which, at its core, is a sort of guilt by association: you MUST denounce this person or else have the face of your entire movement tarnished (i.e. you don’t want to be one of the “other crazy people” alongside Beck/Limbaugh/Palin/etc., do you?). It’s Alinsky 101 (actually, it’s Alinky’s Rule 12):

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)”

Demonization. Sorry, not going there, whether it’s President Obama being demonized or Governor Palin being demonized. Or whether it’s Fox, Beck, and Limbaugh or MSNBC, Olbermann, and Maddow.

I don’t see the need to continue to denounce and demonize and disassociate. And I’m not going to do it. Or at least not on someone else’s terms and as part of someone else’s agenda because they think I need to speak up lest I be “tarnished” by association.

Joe Hargrave
Tuesday, September 29, AD 2009 12:07pm

“But I denounce them on my own terms, not as part of someone else’s feeding frenzy.”

I respect that fully. For my part I don’t demand denunciations of a person in order to befriend them or work with them. I don’t like Sarah Palin but there are plenty of people who like her that I do like.

So I’m with you on this 🙂

TomSVDP
TomSVDP
Tuesday, September 29, AD 2009 12:07pm

Beck certainly was not responsible for calling Obama a racist just for the remark of calling Police stupid, however, when you combine that with Obama making “Special Olympics” jokes on that one late night show, I definitely consider that a bigotted statement against challenged individuals. Likewise, sometimes bigotry is okay as the course, crude remarks Letterman made about Sarah Palin who to her credit, after Obama’s attack on handicapped children, Palin said how special her child was who was inflicted. Liberals tend to dislike someone who did not opt for their sacrament of abortion. She challenges their secular beliefs. Making jokes about mentally or physically challenged people just appeals to the lowest and most crude instincts of mob mentality.

Gerald Ford never was a stumbler in any way, yet, Saturday Night Live had no problem doing all of those skits and Chevy Chase himself said that was to help elect a new president. With the Mainstream Media so biased, Glenn Beck and his like offer a valid alternative. This is what the left does not like, counter opinions.

j. christian
j. christian
Tuesday, September 29, AD 2009 12:20pm

What Jay said.

Chip
Tuesday, September 29, AD 2009 12:39pm

John Henry:

I actually took the time to read *all* of the combox entries before I responded to your post, to ensure that I wasn’t merely parroting someone else’s much more sage rendition.

I have a problem with, not just you, but *anyone* criticizing a public figure like Beck or Limbaugh with no background for doing so. It’s as bad as the mischaracterization of the Church that goes on every day by folks who don’t know what we teach and believe (only what they’ve been told or *assume* we teach or believe).

I think it’s a good idea to listen to someone for a time before lambasting them as “crazy”. Does Beck have some “interesting” ways of presenting info? Sure. Does he employ theatrical devices to make his point(s)? Sure. But is he the political right’s equivalent of a 9-11 truther? I don’t think so.

Beck’s criticism of Vann Jones was, by all appearances, spot-on. His analysis of things that are going on in the Obama administration? At least plausible (I found this morning’s exposition of the relationship between the President and the head of the development organization responsible for Chicago’s Olympic bid interesting, to say the least).

Glenn Beck is a radio personality. He is not a mouthpiece for the Republican party, in my estimation, mainly because he criticizes them too much. But all of that falls into the realm of Personal Opinion, and is not germaine to the discussion.

What *is* germaine is this: how can we, as followers of Christ, publicly lambast even a *public* figure only on the basis of third-party testimony? I’m not sure, but it seems like that would be scandalous, at minimum.

Here’s my challenge: Listen to him for a week or two. Actually spend the time separating the things that are said for their comedic value, and things that are put forward seriously. The man’s show tag-line is “The fusion of information…and entertainment>” It is up to *us*, as listeners/viewers, to discern the line between the two. N’est-ce pas?

paul zummo
Admin
Tuesday, September 29, AD 2009 1:00pm

Ok…did you miss the part where Paul left three comments and wrote a post for two different blogs about a subject, then insulted me for talking about it?

I wrote one post, then simply put it on another blog. That’s not writing two posts. And I’m not insulting you for talking about it, I am criticizing you for harping on the evils of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh when there are other more important issues to tackle.

This is just b.s. I criticized Paul’s method of disputation – an ad hominem and a ‘let’s talk about something else’.

For someone trying not to support them, you sure are intent on attacking anyone who criticizes them.

You see, this is your problem, John. You express all this sanctimony about civility in discourse, and then you basically excoriate anyone who doesn’t feel exactly as passionately about the issue as you. Jay, myself, Donald and others have all said the same thing – we don’t much care for Beck, but we don’t think that he merits the derision thrown his way. And for that we’re labeled as defenders of Beck because we simply don’t hate him and think him as dangerous as you do. This is like all of the BDS-afflicted leftists who made it sound like anyone who didn’t hate Bush with as much passion as they did was a Bush sycophant.

the issue is that I find people like Beck repulsive.

That’s your prerogative. Where you go off the rails, again, is getting all huffy when we don’t exactly share your sentiment.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Tuesday, September 29, AD 2009 1:08pm

Well, I have read about Beck, but I have never watched his show. Too busy at the office when his show is being broadcast. This thread has awakened my curiosity. I guess if we are going to debate the man it might be a good idea to have a sample of his show. Here he is on Obama’s science czar.

paul zummo
Admin
Tuesday, September 29, AD 2009 1:32pm

But don’t accuse me of saying things I didn’t say about people I didn’t say them about.

Whatever John. You malign my motives, accuse me of not providing quite a Catholic enough critique of Beck, and generally distort what I have written, but far be it from me to accuse you of saying things you haven’t said. It’s getting cold here in the north, and I can use the warm glow of your sanctimony to keep me comfortable.

Gabriel Austin
Gabriel Austin
Tuesday, September 29, AD 2009 1:43pm

Joe Hargrave Tuesday, September 29, 2009 A.D. at 11:01 am
“John Henry,
“Glen Beck is an embarrassment. I dislike him for the same reason I dislike Sarah Palin: his appeal is to the mob, to the lower and baser instincts in man”.

Interesting. GKC remarked that it the mob – with its low and basic instincts – [lege human instincts] – which is the basis of democracy.

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top