I think the answer should be yes. I think few would argue that he is a powerful voice right now and claims to be more libertarian every day. But should all libertarians support him because of this apparent change of heart?
No. In my honest opinion, this is nothing more than a ploy for better ratings. My logic? Well -- and correct me if I'm wrong on this -- after everything he has said about the Republican party being broken, standing up against big government and progressivism, that the government should be limited to the Constitution, etc., and he has yet to mention Ron Paul or anyone like him (and even bashes former candidate Debra Medina, a firm libertarian). It's dumbfounding that he could be a "libertarian" but conveniently leave out mentions of those with years of advocacy for liberty under their belts.
But perhaps, an advocate for Beck might say, he wants to focus on philosophy, not politicians. That's a legitimate argument, but I would have to show you this (the important part is from 3:33 to 4:44):
Whaaaaat?! He looks for a fighter of liberty and a fighter against corruption and he finds it in MASSA?!
This was the final straw in my opinion. I had hoped that Glenn Beck could be a good voice for the liberty movement, but after this I am convinced this is simply more showmanship.
Beck isn't a libertarian. Honestly, I don't know what he is. He says one thing and does another-- so he's same-old, same-old in that respect, though a pundit instead of a politician. What is the point of saying one thing and doing another when all you can do is talk?
Don't get me wrong, the power of speech is a great one and the only actions Beck can give is what he talks about, but he continually talks about all of these libertarian ideas yet still refuses to mention the strongest advocate for them who is actually doing something about it in Washington and has been for decades. It can't be that he just doesn't know about him, he's talked to Ron Paul supporters on his radio program before and Ron Paul got more press coverage from CPAC than he did as keynote speaker...so what is it? I'm really asking, I feel like I'm in the twilight zone or something. Can anyone explain this to me in some other way?
Maybe he just doesn't like Ron Paul, but does like his movement. Then why does he bash Debra Medina? He doesn't mention Campaign for Liberty, YAL, etc., which are all legitimate grass roots organizations (and he claims to love the grass roots: Exhibit A: The 9/12 project). He doesn't mention how "Ron Paul people" started the TEA Party movement, though he jumped on and rode that gravy train as long as he could.
Can anyone help me out here? Or did I hit the nail on the head?
Hit the nail on the head. Glenn Beck is the gatekeeper for the "tea party" movement. His job is to redirect legitimate anger towards governement into votes and support for more-of-the-same Neo-con hacks. I thought he was going to wait until 2012 to herd the sheep-party into the Palin or Romney camp, but it looks like Medina forced his hand much sooner.
Simply, this actually gives us more time for them to realize that Romney or Palin are phonies.
If Beck is really diverting potential numbers now it only gives us more time to correct it, or allow it to correct itself, to some degree.
Good eye though dude, it's frustrating that they have a trick and cannon for everything that we do.
Take heart, my fellow men. It took these people their whole lives, hundreds of years, to set these things in place.
Ron Paul has been at it for 3 decades, yet it only took about 2 years in the spotlight to bring this to so many people's attention.
Don't stop spreading the word. There's victories everywhere. Whoever was voting for Romney or anyone else was going to vote for them anyway.
Drive on.
Beck is indeed a showman, and to use the word generously, an actor. He cannot be taken seriously by anyone who examines the range of what he says. People respond to emotional appeals more than to facts, and Beck well exploits this.
Beck is not a big-L Libertarian, but he has steadily evolved and become more-and-more libertarian for the last two or so years. Do you think Napolitano being his primary guest host is a coincidence or not of his doing? Do you think if he had a problem with anything the judge said he'd be on so often?
Every single person - including the Anonymous poster above - who claims he's just another neo-con isn't paying attention. He may not fit your definition of libertarian, but he's no neo-con. He rails against progressivism, especially in the republican party. Neo-cons are typically those progressives.
He's a fan of the Constitution, limited government, and fiscal responsibility. Also, I think he gave some love to Ron Paul in "Arguing with Idiots."
If you claim that even though he spends the majority of his time on these issues - on the radio, on TV, writing books - and he doesn't really believe it or he's doing it only for the money, then you are no better than the dismissive left. Even if, for the sake of argument, you're right, what then? If someone thinks about murder all the time, but instead his actions are always charitable and never violent - how do you judge him? If you walk down the path of mindcrimes, well that's not very libertarian of you, is it?
Libertarians need to stop fighting Beck. He's turning people on to ideas and concepts grounded in the thinking of our founders and at least leading them down a better path. Are there better, more pure voices for Libertarian principles? Sure. But he's the stepping stone, and he reaches a LOT of people.
Beck Is a fraud. He only wants to make money off the teaparty movement. He is a showman and nothing more.
He knows nothing about being grass-roots he's just a huge paycheck inflating his large ego.
I agree with Orlando.
Time to talk about how we can prmote our ideas through larger numbers.
I am by no means a fan of Beck, but I will credit him with this: Most of my relatives are proud to be neo-cons. They watch Fox News all the time. Now that Beck is on some liberty-loving high, they are more receptive to Schiff, Dr. Paul, Napolitano, etc. when I talk about them. Had Beck not "enlightened and inspired" them, many of my relatives would still be Romney supporters. He may have hurt Medina and he may not be a real libertarian, but he is helpful when groups like YAL want to reach more conservatives who are now panicking over the size of government.
I tend to agree more with Mikalya and with D. Milam when it comes to Beck. The reason that Beck doesn't spout off endlessly about Ron Paul is because they disagree on foreign policy, it's that simple. I am no fan of the tea party movement, and the movement has been largely co-opted by neo-conservatives who just want to maintain their foreign policy and don't really care about the rest of the talking points in the process. That much is true. Whatever candidate or infleunce the tea party has will ultimately have a neo-conservative view of foreign policy like Palin does, and I won't vote for them.
However, the promotion of smaller government and the exposure of how corrupt government is to more people are two things that I will rally behind. No, I'm not a fan of Beck. But at least he is turning more people on to the ideas of smaller government. You're not going to destroy the entire system at once, you've got to keep chipping away at it, and keep exposing the next layer and the next layer, and the next. If Beck is part of chipping away at this layer, so be it.
The problem with Harrington's piece is he seems to unapologetically love Ron Paul. I can sympathize with this, because I too love Dr. Paul, but it is the MESSAGE that is important, NOT THE MAN. Dr. Paul himself has frequently said or made reference to this fact as well. The end goal of YAL, CFL, Ron Paul, and all of it is not to promote some person above anything else, it is to promote the ideas of personal liberty, small-government, sound money, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. Beck promotes at least two of those ideas, and if he gets more people talking about those ideas, great. Keep chipping away at the different things wrong with the system and eventually we'll get to the others. I hate America's foreign policy right now as well, but those for a Ron Paul-type foreign policy are still a small minority amongst people who still have that "they hate us 'cuz we're free mentality" and they use that to discredit the entire Ron Paul message. In fact that is why his entire message *IS* ignored by everyone and everything: they use his foreign policy views against him.
I'm not suggesting one should go along with a neo-conservative foreign policy. By all means, all of the points of the freedom message are important, and should not be ignored. I frequently argue against it, and I am ridiculed for it. But to fight against someone who also believes in small government and personal liberty? I don't think that's a good idea, because all we do is divide ourselves. Sometimes you have to win a few battles before you can really win the war.
I'm not condemning the guy because he says good things, if there is only one thing I could like about him it would be him as a door of sorts towards libertarian ideals, but I just cannot trust this guy as far as I can throw him. There is just something shady about him. I don't think he is a neo-con, but I don't know what he is and, while he has said "I'm a libertarian", he just hasn't followed through with any substance. Yeah, he brings on the judge, but the judge is also a Fox News analyst (and that by no means discredits the judge, if anything it helps out Fox News a little).
So, I guess the only virtue I can see is a Fox News zealot might start asking about libertarians now and hopefully they see the light, but I think there is a strong danger in them just listening to Beck even if he changes his mind.
Nick, how can you agree with Mikalya and D. Milam when they are saying the exact opposite?
And i feared my piece would come off as a love note to Ron Paul. Yes it's the message the matters, but at the current time he is really the only one fighting for the cause in Washington DC and it just got under my skin that instead of bringing him on his program, Beck brings on Massa. So, while it shouldn't be about Paul the man, when Beck calls out to Washington "stand up against corruption and we'll stand beside you" and then lands on Massa...well, it's a little infuriating
So, simply put, I'm not condemning Beck for what he says, and people should hope some person who was a strict Bush republican starts asking questions about libertarianism because of Beck and the answer should be for places to turn for more information, C4L, YAL, and a the literature you can think of, but pray they aren't just doing it because Beck said so.
Creighton, he could have chosen a number of analysts to cover his show. Why not, say, Huckabee? Huckabee's sat in for O'Reilly. Huckabee has a show on the network.
Instead, it's Judge Napolitano - a serious (as opposed to Gutfeld, who's genuine but not 'serious') Big-L Libertarian.
Even assuming Beck does not have autonomy over his show (which, considering the tangents, visual aids, and chalkboards, it's clear he does), why would Fox News do this? Why choose a host who they haven't even given a real on-air time slot to? How does taking a relative nobody (in name recognition) with a semi-regular internet show and throwing him on as host of the highest rated daily Cable show help the network?
Ok, so he likes the Judge, I'll give you that. And, I'll agree that of all the pundits on Fox News, he says the best stuff, but am I alone in my distrust for the guy?
This is a very good question and I'll take a stab at answering it.
Glenn Beck is one of those folks I'd like to call a Neo-Con who has attempted a Conservative "AA" program. I guess this analogy works since he is a recovering alcoholic, of which I believe he is very admirable with the way he has changed his life. I respect Glenn Beck's business savy-ness and hope other people can pick themselves up by their bootstraps like he has done. He is very talented, self-motivated, and does care about this country. However, all good intentions do not always bear fruit. I believe he knows the path to truth, but is still "drunk" on the drink of neo-conservatism that he indulges while falling on and off the "Liberty" bandwagon. I believe he also has not very well read with the scholars of the Mises Institute, LRC crowd. He has been tainted by those of his bretheren in talk-radio land as well as Fox News (which I do watch) and it is evident whatever forces at work still spike his "drink" and taint his reason of what the truth is about real liberty versus faux liberty. I believe he is better than others (Hannity, et al), but people should still stick to what they believe into be truth which is founded in Natural Law, Austrian Economics, and the politics of real freedom that our founding fathers knew.
http://andykatherman.blogspot.com
sorry for the typo...
meant: "I believe he is NOT very well read when it comes to the wors of the scholars of the Mises Institute, LRC crowd."... which is unfortunate. I owe a bulk of my education from LRC, Mises, and C4L.
http://andykatherman.blogspot.com/
I you listen to the program on a regular basis, then you would know that Glenn has never said that he is a Libertarian. He has repeatedly stated he is more in line with SOME libertarian tendencies, than with others. And I'm not sure where you've been, but Ron Paul, who is still a Republican last time I checked, has been on Beck's radio and TV program. Medina screwed up on her own. All Beck did was ask a question which she answered poorly ( I couldn't care less about her circling around to correct her mistake...usually the first answer is the most honest). So lets all come off our collective high horses and recognize that while some may agree, some will not...or are there some here more interested in being the "pure" version of a Constitutionalist much in the same way that Communists fight each other on who has the purist form of communism.
@Matt. I'm not sure anyone is on a "high horse"... and I have heard Glenn Beck call himself "Libertarian." Off of the top of my head, when Katie Couric asked him to describe his politics, he responded "Libertarian" without hesitation. So, these are his words, not projection by anyone here. Obviously, there are some Libertarians that are more "statist" than others and it's a bit like herding cats since it's hard to get Libertarians to agree on anything and everything. However, a majority of the core principles Libertarians stand for (basics of non-aggression, personal liberties, etc) conflict with the principles Glenn Beck advocates, especially from a foreign policy standpoint. That is where you will find the most disagreement with Beck. I found it pretty interesting his view on holding up "Lincoln" as the "Father Abraham" idol that Tom DiLorenzo writes about in many of his books, which depicts this "Straussian" praise for someone who basically shredded the Constitution... kind of hard to love someone like Lincoln and then claim you are an Originalist/Constructionist. I think these are the items I find most contradictory with Glenn Beck. I think there are legitimate places to point out Beck's contradictions while still recognizing he does bring something of value to the table. But, people should do their own research and make up their own minds instead of taking every word/opinion he says as gospel.
So how do you contend with this: http://www.yaliberty.org/posts/glenn-beck-most-americans-are-libertarians
@Andy, I think you have a valid point. I disagree with Beck on some issues. I am more closely agree with him on foreign policy which I believe should simply state go hard or go home. Of course I got that from the Marines and I know that that is not a popular opinion. I do not advocate using the military as it has been used by President Bush or Chairman Obama. However, I am not in line with Ron Paul on foreign policy, as I support Israel whole-heartedly.
I do agree that anyone that takes Beck's words as gospel needs to reestablish or discover their own principles. The flip side of that is I don't take Ron Paul's word as gospel either. I fear that their are too many that are too lazy to research and form their own opinions.
The important thing to remember is that the "Glenn Beck" that we see on TV is not a real person. He is a fictional person on a TV show that has writers, producers, editors, and most importantly, advertising sponsors. I've watched a few of his shows and yes, about 80% of the time he says truthful things.
Does anyone remember at CPAC when he said Dick Cheney wasn't such a bad guy? Look up that YouTube if it's out there.
Beck may be opening up thousands of people to our ideas, but the problem is that those people become hardcore fans of his, almost like acolytes. If the day ever comes when the writers, producers, editors, and most importantly, advertising sponsors decide to change "Glenn Beck's" libertarian views, they will change them. Those ardent "Beck'ers" may not notice the deception.
It may not be so easy for us to see it coming either.
@Stephen: hmmmmmm acolytes, ya mean like those that worship Ron Paul? We who are Beck fans just gotta shake our head when we hear the assertion that we are mind numbed robots that can't make up our own minds.
Matt - of course, there's a difference between just being a fan and being a robot. I'm a Ron Paul fan, but I disagree with him on a few personal beliefs. I probably have a narrow view of Beck fans because the only ones I've ever met in real life are largely ignorant (in the strict definition, not derogatory) of the philosophies of liberty. For example, middle aged Republicans who are brand new to thinking outside of the box, so the only research they've done is watch Beck on Fox News. A lot of Tea Party people I've met fit this description. Once again, I am not trying to look down on these people. They are probably too busy with a 40+ a week job, raising kids, etc., to spend all day on Mises like some of us.
Maybe "acolytes" is the wrong word. I certainly wasn't trying to conjure up robots (though I happen to like robots - I have one staring at me right now. <YALBOT IS COMING>) I'm talking about those people who don't have the foundation of knowledge - Beck and other famous media personalities may be dangerous for them if that is their only source of knowledge.
As evidenced from the above posts from people I sort of know like Jared Fuller, I can plainly see that a well-informed person can appreciate what Beck is doing to open up people's eyes. Let's just hope the liberty newbie's continue to dig for info and not rely solely on Beck in the likely event that he sells us out. And let's definitely be the one's to extend a hand to these folks and say, "You like that stuff? You're gonna love this."
Post new comment