I'm not a close follower of Glenn Beck, but he sure is making waves and driving Liberals nuts. He makes their heads spin round and round almost as much as Sarah Palin does. I think they do for related but not quite the same reasons. The key is that they both are in-your-face challenges to everything Liberals believe in (or don't believe in maybe is a better phrase).
But what was this Restoring Honor rally all about? I've read a lot of comments on it, but the best comes from a Univ of Chicago associated blog called Chicago Boyz. Here is what someone named Lexington Green says,
The Glenn Beck rally is confusing people.
Why?
He is aiming far beyond what most people consider to be the goalposts.
Using Boyd’s continuum for war: Material, Intellectual, Moral.
Analogously for political change: Elections, Institutions, Culture.
Beck sees correctly that the Conservative movement had only limited success because it was good at level 1, for a while, weak on level 2, and barely touched level 3. Talk Radio and the Tea Party are level 3 phenomena, popular outbreaks, which are blowing back into politics.
This is just the beginning of a 'read the whole thing' post. I think the guy nails it. Critics tried like heck to find a blatant political angle in this, but couldn't. Yes, politicians were there, most notably Tea Party Heroine and candidate-backing juggernaut Sarah Palin (who just pulled out another in a long string of victories, giving the
This event may seem a little cornball, hackneyed to the urbane, cynical observer. I admit it does to me. But cynicism is for losers. The sense of moral mission Beck is trying with some success to instill in the country will pay dividends in many ways.
More from Lexington Green:
Beck is attacking the enemy at the foundations of their power, their claim to race as a permanent trump card, their claim to the Civil Rights movement as a permanent model to constantly be transforming a perpetually unjust society.Word.
I like Beck. He digs deeper than most journalists do. He digs almost as deep as Jeff. He talks about the transformation of America and all that. That's probably why he is so popular.
ReplyDeleteI just ordered the new Kindle from Amazon. It's for my birthday. I'm excited. I have a feeling that I'll have to start reading a lot more for school and this might make it cheaper.
I usually dvr his show and I usually watch the 1st half of the show. So I could be considered a close follower of his t.v. show. I think he has great points; but he does blow stuff out of proportions, at least I hope so. I do agree with him that there will be some major upheavals in our society coming our way. His show is very popular and somewhat powerful as shown in part by the fairly huge crow of people that showed up at his rally and his shedding some light on Van Jones who latter resigned.
ReplyDeleteHe is one of the main voices of opposition to the attempt by the current people in Washington to "fundamentally transform" America. The majority of Americans are conservative and are greatly opposed to what is going in our Country. It is only natural for there to be a backlash against this transformation. And Beck is one of the leaders of this backlash.
His show has been leaning more towards religion and some of the pastors on his show I disagree with and honestly there was one on there that I had no clue what he was saying because he was incoherent so I stopped watching it. His show is leading more into the end of the world and one world government type of stuff spoken of by religions. So his show is getting out there.
I think the rally's focus on God and culture was very necessary as the root cause of the destruction of our Country is culture, philosophy, and religious beliefs. The fact is that our Country was founded by a people that were very religious and religion is the foundation of our free society. This is why there have been many attacks on religion and traditional values by those who wish to transform our Country, Bloom's book discusses the philosophic side. Our culture has been rotting from within for around the last sixty years. (I think most of rock music is part of this.) The only way to get America back to where it should be will require a massive change in our culture that will take at least a generation to achieve. This won't happen. Check out what the average person believes.
I liked the quote from the blog above, "Beck is creating positive themes of unity and patriotism and freedom and independence which are above mere political or policy choices, but not irrelevant to them. Political and policy choices rest on a foundation of philosophy, culture, self-image, ideals, religion. Change the foundation, and the rest will flow from that. Defeat the enemy on that plane, and any merely tactical defeat will always be reversible." I don't see this fundamental shift happening.
There will be a major shift towards the Right in our Country coming soon and this won't change the direction our Country is headed.
I infrequently watch it, he's a little too emotional for me (and I'm forced to change the channel when he cries, it drives me nuts). But if he proves to be the lighting rod that drives the inertia of the tea party movement, than I wish him God Speed.
ReplyDeleteYou can tell how awesome that rally was for rattling the Demoncrats, by Obama's "I ignored that rally" comment. The press equivalent of, "I hope they all eat shit and die." I'm really proud of Boehner's economic speech and his hard hitting of Obama's lame excuse for a Iraq conclusion speech. I know Boehner seems like an emotionless dick (which makes him even more awesome in my opinion), but I think he would be a good Speaker. As long as people like Beck and Palin are the God fearing, awe inspiring, oratorial pitbulls for the GOP and keep up the Tea Party GOTV campaign, signs like this: http://www.gallup.com/poll/142880/Americans-Likely-Favor-GOP-Newcomers-Congress.aspx
will continue.
I, however, do think that the Republican party owes its reversal of fortune to the Tea Party movement and this will lead to a different GOP from the Bush generation: a) This isn't a short term incident, the Tea PArty has been going strong since Obama's inauguration and I think there's a good chance they'll be as strong if more so in 2012. b) Incumbent seats aren't sacrosanct. Moderation with democrats could spell disaster, if the Senate is as close as people are expecting it to be, I think Republican voting discipline will be more powerful. Bud-D's favorite Senator Olympia Snowe, won't change too much, but when key point issues like Health Care or Stimulus Spending come up again, it's going to be harder for her and Brown to side with the Dems. Plus, with a few center Left Senators, we might even get some things passed. c) Boehner has already shown that the GOP is attempting to craft a platform for 2012 (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/24/boehner-to-obama-fire-your-economic-team/). HE NEEDS to accomplish something during the next two years in order to give the GOP a coherent agenda for the Presidential election. It's obvious what the tea party wants him to do, bring down the deficit aka cut gov't spending and stave off tax increases. We even get bonus points now that Obama is reducing military spending for the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts. Just like how Democrats got credit for Nixon's massive defense reductions, so could Boehner capitalize on next year's reductions after the GOP has taken control of the purse strings.
I have hope this year. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to listen to "Right in Two" by Tool.
I infrequently watch it, he's a little too emotional for me (and I'm forced to change the channel when he cries, it drives me nuts). But if he proves to be the lighting rod that drives the inertia of the tea party movement, than I wish him God Speed.
ReplyDeleteYou can tell how awesome that rally was for rattling the Demoncrats, by Obama's "I ignored that rally" comment. The press equivalent of, "I hope they all eat shit and die." I'm really proud of Boehner's economic speech and his hard hitting of Obama's lame excuse for a Iraq conclusion speech. I know Boehner seems like an emotionless dick (which makes him even more awesome in my opinion), but I think he would be a good Speaker. As long as people like Beck and Palin are the God fearing, awe inspiring, oratorial pitbulls for the GOP and keep up the Tea Party GOTV campaign, signs like this: http://www.gallup.com/poll/142880/Americans-Likely-Favor-GOP-Newcomers-Congress.aspx
will continue.
I, however, do think that the Republican party owes its reversal of fortune to the Tea Party movement and this will lead to a different GOP from the Bush generation: a) This isn't a short term incident, the Tea PArty has been going strong since Obama's inauguration and I think there's a good chance they'll be as strong if more so in 2012. b) Incumbent seats aren't sacrosanct. Moderation with democrats could spell disaster, if the Senate is as close as people are expecting it to be, I think Republican voting discipline will be more powerful. Bud-D's favorite Senator Olympia Snowe, won't change too much, but when key point issues like Health Care or Stimulus Spending come up again, it's going to be harder for her and Brown to side with the Dems. Plus, with a few center Left Senators, we might even get some things passed. c) Boehner has already shown that the GOP is attempting to craft a platform for 2012 (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/24/boehner-to-obama-fire-your-economic-team/). HE NEEDS to accomplish something during the next two years in order to give the GOP a coherent agenda for the Presidential election. It's obvious what the tea party wants him to do, bring down the deficit aka cut gov't spending and stave off tax increases. We even get bonus points now that Obama is reducing military spending for the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts. Just like how Democrats got credit for Nixon's massive defense reductions, so could Boehner capitalize on next year's reductions after the GOP has taken control of the purse strings.
ReplyDeleteI have hope this year. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to listen to "Right in Two" by Tool.
Good points. I like Boehner too and agree with you on his approach. Unfortunately, I think humorless and ass-kicking doesn't go over too well generally though. He's scary! Scary!
ReplyDeleteHe could be easy for the media to caracature when he becomes Speaker, but I think he'll be able to get things done.
Regarding the Tea Party: I think the yearning for it was even happening under Bush, and a significant reason Republicans collapsed in '06 & '08 was because people who would later identify with the Tea Party were disenchanted with Republicans being too much a party of Big Government along with Democrats. This of course, has been Jeff's bugaboo for a long time. But like you, I think the Republican party is in a midst of a big change, just as the Democrats have lurched leftwards, the Republican party is lurching rightwards, and I mean that in a good way (small-goverment).
I also agree that if/when Republicans take over Congress, they then need to deliver the goods of small-government policies, otherwise Jeff will be proven right, and we'll be in need of a real revolution!
I also wanted to modify what I said in my article. After reading further I've found out that Murkowski isn't quite liberal enough to be considered a RINO, but she is quite moderate for Alaska. As Ace says, we need to have a big tent, but the RINOs need to come from places where they're the best you can expect (see Massechusetts/Scott Brown, California/Carly Fiorino). In bright red places like Alaska or South Carolina or Texas, there should be no RINOs. Particularly galling is Lindsay Graham in South Carolina. No way should possibly the reddest state in the Union be sending a guy like him to the Senate.
ReplyDeleteIt does look like the Republicans will win big in Nov and I think this will be a good thing. It does look like there is somewhat of a fundamental shift in the Republican party due to the Tea Party. This shift towards the Republicans is not anything new or surprising. Look at history. The country goes back and forth between Right and Left all the while the long term trend stays the same. So the short term looks good. The long term?
ReplyDeleteBud-d, if you look at history and more particular the history of the Republican party they have not been the party of small government. The government has expanded just as rapidly under Republican tutelage as under the Democrats--look at Teddy Roosevelt, Hoover, Nixon, Reagan, Bush W. to name a few. The Republicans are part of the ruling elite in Washington. http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the/1
This long piece gives an interesting perspective on the conserve party and politics. http://mises.org/daily/910
For there to be any real shift away from the direction our country is headed or in any party there needs to be a major and very fundamental change in the people that make up this country that would take at least a generation. In order to change the long term economic trend in our country will require very very very painful changes to the economy that will mean a depression. I don't see people accepting that are voting in people that will enact these policies. Beliefs that lead to excessive government run hidden very deep in people's belief structure and in the very fabric of our culture. I don't see a real fundamental shift in the Right even in Paul Ryan.
The Tea Party movement is the back lash against the major shift towards bigger government. It is probably the last great stand by the small vanguard against the trends that have been occurring for over 100 years. I think it is too late and too little and lacks serious fundamental changes in the very fabric of our society. Short of a MAJOR shift, America's long term destination is close to being set in stone: it has already received a mortal blow. The economy and the back lash by the TP is a death throe. Hopefully I am wrong and it will bring about a real change over time. My caution might be a "bugaboo", but one that is founded on facts and history and might still yet become a reality.
I thought Boner was pretty cool. He gave a good speech at the dawn of the new medical thing.
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree with Jeff on the whole "long term trend" thing. But I am young and haven't experienced much. Something tells me that we will be fine and we are just forecasting a doomed future that will never come. Kind of like hippies and global warming.
Jeff, my use of 'bugaboo' was not a slam at your worries. They're legitimate. It's just a word to mean 'pet peeve'. I'd quibble with this statement: "The government has expanded just as rapidly under Republican tutelage as under the Democrats--look at Teddy Roosevelt, Hoover, Nixon, Reagan, Bush W. to name a few." Yes it grew but not because many of them weren't fighting against it, and situations were different for each of them. Teddy Roosevelt of course became president at a time when the US was realizing it was a world power. Teddy was very happy to push that, but we needed a government to go along with that. No doubt he kicked off government expansion. But, I forgive him, because it was necessary if we were to be able to become a true power. Republicans fought tooth and nail against FDR and the New Deal. Republicans were very much for small government then. I agree with you with Nixon, but disagree with Reagan. It grew, but only because Congress was Democratic.
ReplyDeleteAs I've said many times, the difference between you and me is that I think times really have changed. I've never seen the attitude of the country as it is now. The percentages of people saying they would vote Republican are at all time record highs. This is driven by the need to get government under control. This has NEVER happened before. This is the time you've been waiting for. It can happen now.
But, there's no doubt they have to perform, and there's no doubt that if they don't perform then I'll say you are 100% right. They've got the people behind them for the first time EVER though.
I agree ToeJamm, that Jeff's long term trend statement is very valid. But trends don't necessarily go on forever.
ToeJamm, the hippie's global warming scare and hysteria involved the end of the world and millions of people dying due to global warming. I am not stating the same thing. I am stating that there is a dramatic change coming. Not necessarily a the end of the world. It won't be like ww II or even like it was under the Soviet Union. It will be a soft depotism. Although that is too strong of a word. The main point is that it will be very different from what we have to day.
ReplyDeleteBud-d, the government not only grew to deal with America's new role in the world under Roosevelt. He proposed a fundamental shift in the very nature of our government. http://robinsontalkingpoints.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-sarah-palin-shinning-beacon-of.html
"To hell with the constitution when people want coal." He also started the meat packing laws and other major domestic expansions that had nothing to do with America's new role in the world. He also changed the role of the Presidency to a more active role. http://mises.org/daily/4462
A very good read on Teddy's Presidency.
The President was never intended to be as active and powerful as he is today. This was a fundamental shift in the nature of government.
As long as people look to the government to solve inequalities and society's problem and many more basic beliefs that permeate our culture and people, I don't see a real change happening.
The government's of the world are becoming more powerful and active. This is probably necessary due to the real world we live in. When our economy collapses, I would support the government stepping in and taking control to help solve the problem as opposed to having our society be done away with. The world can't hash out its differences on the battle field as during WW I and II especially in the nuclear age. A new type of governments to include world government of some sort is needed for the time period we live in. This trend of bigger government won't be going away. And it can't and shouldn't. But it does lead to certain outcomes. That is the point I am making. Not that it is a big bad horrible thing to be worried about but what does it lead to?
Jeff, you misread the comparison I was trying to make with the hippie analogy. It was meant to say there is a feared doom that wont come.
ReplyDelete"This trend of bigger government won't be going away. And it can't and shouldn't"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this a 180 degree turn from your stance on this issue? Are we trying to say that more government is necessary for the different times that we live in today?
That is not what I am saying about bigger government. I would have to make a big comment or post to fully state what I mean. Basically, I believe in limited government and that bigger government is bad. But I also realize that it is not possible. I believe that central banking or at least the form of central banking we have is bad, but it can not be done away with all at one time. It would take a long time and it would cause a big disruption to the economy. This slow process would not be allowed to proceed over enough time as people won't accept the disruptions that it would cause. If the policies that would lead to smaller government that I think that should be enacted on a global scale were actually enacted over a fairly short period of time it would mean a very big disruption or depression. At this point that would lead to a situation that would be worse than the one we have now as that situation would lead to the disintergration of our society and probably lead to a situation that is worse than what we have now. It is like the basic transformation that Obama talks about that has been occurring in our Country for the last 100 or so years that had its roots in philosophic movements several hundreds of years before that has taken a lot of time to get us to the point we are at. To reverse this would take just as long and I believe that we are at the point were the momentum of the current trends cant be stopped, only slowed.
ReplyDeleteFrom my understanding of the global economy, culture, beliefs of the average person that are derived from philosophy that help lead to the current improvished state of our society and culture that is evident in the very words we use and our basic beliefs that we were raised to believe and don't realize that we hold and the effects that it has, and the nature of governments; the current trends are mostly set in stone. From my incomplete understanding, the structure of the global economy cant last as it, or its money, is built off of debt and is based on nothing and I believe that most of the heads of the various central banks of the world and the leaders of the world know this. The fact is that the economies of the world are interlinked and interdependent and the major economies of the world all follow the same policies and have the same structure. A very big shift in the global economy will occur sometime down the road.
I will use this quote to summarize what I see in our society, culture, economy.
"Human societies come under the influence of great tides of thought and appetite that run unseen deeply below the surface of society. After a while these powerful streams of opinion and desire move the whole social mass along with them without the individuals in the mass being aware of the direction in which they are going. Up to a certain point it is possible to resist these controlling tides and to reverse them, but a time comes when they are so strong that society loses its power of decision over
the direction in which it is going."
I believe in smaller government but realize that it is not possible or realistic. This is a very poor explanition of what I am trying to say.