I’ve been having this running argument with one of my right leaning brothers over current political topics, and he accused me of making light of both Rush Limbaugh (aka Lard Ass) and Glenn Beck without actually ever listening to them. He was completely wrong about Lard-o, who has had ample opportunities to turn my head with his sweet talk, and failed miserably; but I have to confess that Beck is a different matter. I’d never actually seen his show, just miscellaneous clips on other media that, while outrageous (“President Obama hates white people.”) were certainly chosen to show what a nut job he is. So Monday I turned the telly to Fox at 5:00 and watched an entire Glenn Beck hour. Where to begin? Well, first of all, as someone who made a living for a long time by pitching ideas to people, I have to say this guy is impressive on his feet.
He opened the show with a thirty minute anti-Obama rant that was intellectual Swiss cheese, but he did it very, very deftly. He may have been using a teleprompter but it looked totally extemporaneous; and he used his trademarked chalkboard effectively to emphasize his points. It’s easy to see how he has built an audience.
Now, as for substance, that’s a different matter. The “facts” flew too fast to write many of them down, but he is very loose with them and accomplished at twisting small truths into big lies.
He sources almost nothing. He said the insurance industry had a net margin of 3.8% and ranked #88 among all industries. (His point being they should not be regulated.) No source and no year were offered. According to the FORTUNE 500 list for 2009 their actual margin was 4.6% and ranked #22. Not all that great either, but why not get it right?
More surprising to me was the tone. That opening half hour was an amazing cocktail of anger, sarcasm and distain directed at the President, Democrats, “progressives,” and even some Republicans. But these groups by-no-means received equal scorn. When he talked about Obama, Dems, liberals, or the new boogie-man, “progressives,” his tone of voice and facial expressions were what you might expect if he were lambasting pedophiles. It was highly bombastic. Opinions were presented as facts and given an air of believability through the use of PowerPoint charts and bullet points – but no sources.
One of his favorite rhetorical tricks is to say something like, “well Obama says he wants A, but what he really wants is A, B, and C and once he gets them he’ll take E, F, G, & H too! It’s obvious.” By the time he’s done you’re wondering how the hell we even got to talking about H – it certainly wasn’t because he presented any evidence to that effect.
He closed his anti-health-care-bill rant by daring the Democrats to pass the reconciled bill and “ruining the greatest health care system in the world.” He claimed that they won’t, because without Republican support they’d have to take all the blame themselves. I’m not sure that is false. One fact he is sure of is that the American people oppose this bill and he is right out in front of the parade.
He also caught Obama red-handed with two separate video clips declaring very different versions of his past involvement with ACORN, a particular Beck-noire.
On the “fair and balanced” side of the equation he took repeated shots at the GOP, calling them “unprincipled” and saying they are addicted to big government and big spending. He said there is a “tax and spend party” and a “no tax and spend party” and both are corrupt. Again, hard to argue with that and it is remarkably similar to Paul Krugman’s take earlier this week.
But for Beck there are Republicans and there are Republicans. He was very hard on both John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger because of their “progressive” tendencies. He even smeared Teddy Roosevelt. “Progressive” is the new “liberal” and Beck is hell-bent to make it just as pejorative a political term.
I’m torn about how to think about this guy. His views and style are obnoxious, but his waving of the bloody flag has clearly created a following. I doubt many of his fans have contemplated what Beck’s version of the Federal government would mean to them. He wasn’t specific the other day, but it seems he would limit it to the State and Defense Department -- and maybe not the latter. Everything else would be done (or more likely, not done) by the states. How many Americans would ever actually buy into that view -- 20-25% maybe?
I don’t know, but it would be a mistake to not take this guy seriously, and as Kurt Anderson recently posted, it is really important that everyone ask the right-wing of the GOP (which is rapidly becoming the only wing), as often and as loudly as possible, exactly what it is they plan to cut from the Federal budget once they pull their tea bag out of their cups.
Posts
22 comments:
This huckster is part Elmer Gantry and part Joe McCarthy with a healthy dollup of P.T. Barnum. His snearing contempt for anything that even hints of being different than what he fervently believes is impossible to take seriously.
He is, however, quite dangerous. He's beloved by small but fanatic fan base and he feeds their paranoia with his made up facts and gives his ideas the patina of legitimacy by using a black board and a power point presentation. "Just like a teacher".
His claim of tyrrany (which is simply what happens when you lose an election) gives voice to the people who are attempting to delegitimize a lawfully elected president and gives them liscense to do just about anything. And they use Glenn Beck as intellectual cover.
It's that old Goldwater chestnut. "Extremism is the defense of liberty is no vice". That just sends chills up my spine every time I here it.
Terrific post DB, and excellent comment from Birdman. The puppet master at work here is Roger Ailes and the evil genius behind all this is Rupert himself. Having this much control over the airwaves (and brainwaves) of the public is horrifying (and yes MSNBC isn't really that much better just a different POV). We can thank the Gipper for allowing this consolidation of media ownership to happen and enabling a dangerous fool like Glenn Beck the opportunity to influence the minds of the public. Disgraceful. Not what the Founding Fathers had in mind I dare say.
I like Jeff Beck and Beck's beer, but I find Glenn Beck to be too much Glengarry Glenross. Like you, I don't take his medicine directly. After watching a few Bill O'Reilly shows, I have found life too short to drink cheap wine.
That said, listening to only one side of rhetoric can be poison to almost any ear. Humans have a predilection for charisma. It probably has to do with survival skills. Facts are dry but sizzle sells the steak.
I am glad you took the time to actually watch and/or listen to the people you have been critical of. However, one show is not a true reflection of the total picture. I will mail you his book "Common Sense" for a better idea of his ideals.
You said that Beck wasn't specific about his vision of government. He doesn't have a vision. He is for less government...exactly how much less is murky because he doesn't have a clue either.
He is mainly against. I saw a segment of his show during our endless snowstorms. He must have called Obama's terrorist policy a "radical" change of course at least 5 times in one segment. He harped on his radical agenda.
He never once said how Obama's approach to terrorism was a radical shift from W's approach. He never once said what about Obama's approach to Wall Street was radical and he never said what about the health care legislation was radical...well he did say something vague about a public option which isn't in, but that is quibbling.
He is effective though and there are millions of Americans who are sure Obama is a radical who has already raised taxes. If you don't go out and "check the facts", you would sure walk away thinking that Obama is the reincarnation of Stalin and Mao.
A la radical right wing chic, I just heard a clip of an anti-McCain rant by his Republican primary rival, J D Hayworth: McCain is liberal because he doesn't approve of waterboarding. Thousands of GIs died on the beaches of Normandy and Pacific islands as liberals.
Thanks Dennis for your latest blog, it makes me feel as though I’m not a complete stranger to the family I grew up in.
To me Beck is a culmination of what I refer to as the Oprah-a-sa-tion of America and 12th step programs.
Oprah gave a voice to those in America that have an opinion, even if they lack any common sense (an oxymoron) or knowledge.
The 12th step programs give big mouths a soapbox and an environment the courage and freedom to rant their bullshit.
Beck has admitted that he is sober for a number of years. I’ve been for over 17 years.
It is common knowledge that someone get “a sponsor” when you get sober. However, I told a friend week ago that time means nothing, and that there are people I wouldn’t ask advice on buying toothpaste let alone getting advice from on living.
Beck is trying to be America’s sponsor and he is the last person I would consider any advice from on anything.
The friend I mentioned, grew up in San Francisco to Billionaire parents, and married a woman whose father is a Billionaire. His favorite comment is; if you want to live like a Republican vote for a Democrat.
Real d'b: enjoy that book The Other is sending you.
Well, I have never said this to you out loud but I always thought GB had a Blank family resemblance. Can you see it? Maybe that is why the other Blank brother is swayed by his rantings. Just guessing.
Now that I have that out of the way, Glenn is yet another example of the far right (although he calls himself a conservative with libertarian leanings whatever that means)who is trying to capture the hearts and minds of the politically lost through fear and confusion. He is a former entertainer and DJ whose ego has caught fire in a televised medium.
I remember watching him on CNN, where he was relatively unfocused but at least calm, and couldn't believe the difference once he moved over to Fox. There was a great impersonation done of him by John Stewart and it was so real that it was hard to laugh. I agree with birdman, Beck like others who have risen to make followers of the politically lost, is a dangerous fellow. Dangerous in the sense that while looking for something to believe in, these followers might actually take this guy seriously.
However, the comment about intellectual cover is dubious as the guy barely finished high school and had one course in college. According to one source, he is a self-taught genius.
I have listened against my better judgment to Beck and Rush and Palin and many of the Fox pundits and I wonder what the hell are they talking about? Seriously, who are these so called intellectuals and otherwise smart people who fall for this crap? (sorry little D)
But then again, I am weary of listening to all politicians at this point and am waiting for actions to speak louder than rhetoric.
When I first saw Glenn Beck I immediately thought that he looked like d'blank particularly when d'blank was in his buzzcut phase. We have to keep in mind that Beck and Limbaugh are entertainers whose success is measured by ratings and the ability to sell advertisements. If they did not appeal to a large audience they would be off the air quickly. The question is why they resonate with so many people. I could list many possible reasons but I put the blame on arrogant and dismissive politicians and media. Unfortunately, Beck and Limbaugh represent the voice of their listeners who feel left out of the political and social debate.
Oh God, well, I guess I'd rather resemble Beck than Lard-ass.
Who is Glenn Beck and why are you even thinking about him?
I once heard he smoked pot everyday for fifteen years - what an amatuer.
in fairness, he was an alcoholic and radio personality, too.
I think categorizing and therefore dismissing Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity and their ilk as simply entertainers underestimates their impact on the current political scene.
I don't think their fans are the disenfranchised. They are just the people that lost the last election. They are also the people whose candidate didn't get the Republican nomination.
Beck et. al. feed their fury by characterizing everything Obama does as "radical", "socialist" or "far left" in such a way as to imply that anybody who agrees with him is worse than a pedophile. Doing this is very clever because it gives aid, comfort and legitimacy to those that would question Obama's citizenship, religion and even the legality of his election. I think there is far greater danger of terrorist acts by far right, anti-government kooks than from any other group.
Fox News is unreal. Dont look for talking heads. Fox picks up where Mary Hart left off. Fox News is presented by the angry,opinionated, cinical, talking legs. News from a bar stool,opinions from their asses.
Now we're getting into it! Gaga and Birdman are correct and the danger from the right is palpable. Painting Obama as a socialist of dubious citizenship borders on sedition which is the crux of the story for tea baggers and their ilk. The last thing we need in our country now is further divisiveness when in fact the vast majority of Americans agree in principle about the most important issues: better education of our children, national security, health care for anyone in need of it, sustainable energy policy, and oh by the way really couldn't care less about who wants to get married to whom. Preying on the fears and insecurities of the electorate is what these guys are really, really good it. Just like Joe McCarthy..."Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?" Or when did you stop beating your wife? Or Willie Horton, or Swift Boats. Very difficult to defend oneself from innuendo and slander without sounding, well...defensive.
Let me help congress write a healthcare bill. Copy the policy you have.
Edward Everret gave the principle speech at Gettysburg. When asked for his advice about a slanderous newspaper article he replied, half the people who get that paper did not read it. Half that read it did not see the article. Half who read the article did not understand it and the other half are of no consequence....something like that.
The slanders and lies do matter though.
A relative of mine was going off the deep end over the policy that the US Government has to give money to foreigners to start their own businesses in the US.
He has heard that for so long that he believed it.
We all know for a fact that Gore said he invented the internet. He actually said nothing of the kind. In what Donald Trump said was the greatest marketing job he had ever witnessed, the swift boaters made a decorated veteran out to be a lying coward and the champion of the Champagne Air Force a war hero. George McGovern was painted as a man who was not strong enough to stand up to the commies and yet he was a decorated WWII bomber pilot who had landed a B-24 on one engine...but most thought he was something of a weakling.
This doesn't mean that either Kerry or McGovern would have been great presidents but neither of them should have been branded as cowards.
Hmm,
This guy missed his calling. He should have been a televangelist.
A good read, "Deer Hunting With Jesus," about the poor and their politics -- all of it coming from TV, mainly FOX, and, of course, Lard Ass.
Does the attraction to charismatic, flimflam artists say more about Americans, people in general, our economic times, big money manipulation of the public, something else, or a combination of the above?
How did the populist backlash buy the notion that Afghanistan can be won, supporting an unpopular, corrupt government? They anted up with their children, then see and raise the stakes with their first born.
Post a Comment