Normally, I do not give a second thought to the rantings of Glenn Beck. I have always assumed that the man is an Elmer Gantry-like ranter, essentially an actor, who could not possibly believe what he says because no intelligent person could believe what he says. But, he spoke to the National Rifle Association this weekend and gave a speech that was met with thunderous applause. "I think he’s great," Sharon Browder of Port Orchard, Wash., told PoliticsDaily at the NRA convention. "He’s inspiring, he’s focused. We love him. We’re proud of him. We need him."
Mr. Beck compared the United States to the Titanic, although he was not clear if he meant before or after hitting the iceberg because he claimed there was still time to turn the country around, still time to save America. And what must America be saved from? The Obama administration, of course. "These are not Democrats," Beck thundered. "They are revolutionary Marxists."
Words have meanings. "Revolutionary" has a meaning, and the closest possible meaning Beck must intend is "a radical change." He points to the health care reform as exhibit A. But, the reform did not, in fact, dislodge the basic insurance system by which Americans procure health insurance. It remains in the hands of privately run companies, devoted to making a profit. Hospitals remain corporations, either for-profit or non-profit. Doctors remain independent agents, free to work for themselves, for a hospital or for the government. And, most health insurance will still be bought through one’s employer, a system that makes as much sense as the Austro-Hungarian empire, but there it is. "Radical change" would surely have altered one of these aspects of America’s health care delivery system. Instead, the reform that the Congress passed and the President signed tweaked the entire system, but it did not change, not at its radix or anywhere else. Single-payer? That would have been a radical change – and one I would have applauded. But, what we got is hardly "radical."
"Marxist" has a meaning too. It means a follower of Karl Marx’s theories, the most significant of which was the belief that the proletariat, through the party, should own all the means of production. Now, it is true that the U.S. bought a whole lot of Wall Street in the closing days of the Bush administration, and a bit more at the beginning of the Obama term, and that Detroit needed more than a little help too. It is also true that the administration of that well-known radical Marxist, Gerald Ford, had to bail out New York City in 1975. The administration’s efforts to keep the financial and automotive sectors of the economy solvent may have been misguided, they may have been foolish (although I think they were neither) and they certainly were not politically popular, but they do not constitute a fundamental expropriation of all the means of production by the party.
This is foolishness. I wish to God we could leave such foolishness to Comedy Central which, in the event, has done some fabulous takedowns of Beck. But, I worry that some people take Beck seriously, not just Ms. Browder quoted above, but the NRA, the Club for Growth, the Heritage Foundation and the whole network of right-wing organizations that live to frustrate the President’s modest and moderate attempts to extend basic ideas of social justice known throughout the rest of the industrialized world to a reluctant America. Of course, Beck has an issue with social justice too, and has recommended that parishioners whose priests invoke the idea flee for the exit signs. What does Mr. Beck make of Caritas in Veritate? One wonders.
The important question, however, is whether or not this is dangerous foolishness. Politically, I think there is no danger from Mr. Beck: To the extent he is the voice of conservatism, it will be a bad day for conservatism, but the dialectic quality of democracy seems to require an opposition party (oops- "Dialectic" has a Marxist pedigree!) and conservatism will recover, chastened and saner. The left took a long time to shed its devotion to the kookie left in the 1980s, but it did so. The danger is otherwise. It takes a majority to win an election, but it only takes one lone angry man to go ballistic and harm people. Given the horrible and horrific historic record of Marxism, it is not difficult to think that someone who believes Beck’s drivel might feel compelled to act on it, not with their ballot but with their bullets. After all "Lock and Load" has become a mantra with this crowd, encouraged by Beck’s forceful call for armed militia this weekend. Beck’s threat is not to democracy, still less to the Democrats. It is his capacity to radicalize the political debate in such a way that some people think they have his blessing to pursue extra-democratic methods. And, mainstream conservatives need to take on Beck and his recklessness or they risk losing their credibility too.
Perhaps Mr Beck is a radical and perhaps Mr Winters is also. Where is the civilized conversation that makes this country unique? Why do grown men resort to angry name calling. Where is the polite disagreement? And while everyone is so busy blogging, texting and using whatever form of communication there is to slander each other, has it helped any of the murdered unborn children or the abused-hungry- suffering humans of the world?
Mr. Winters also hints to his support of the Government taking over our car companies and health care system. Again, something not supported by church teaching, and the health care bill was not supported by a number of our bishops.
Mr. Winters also said we should adopt socialist measures like all the other inustrial countries. Which would lead us down the road to failure like Greece, Spain, and the UK.
Like most progressive Catholics Mr. Winters loves to mis-quote support for his ideaology by usining: Caritas in Veritate. Mr. Winters read all the other Encyclicals and you will see that our church says government should not turn into a welfare state, and how the church calls socialism and liberalism evil.
Guys like Beck serve a purpose. With mainstream media outlets enamored with President Obama, the only way for those who oppose Obama's agenda for (radical) change is to sound alarms so that people will listen. Look how it's worked on this blog.
To speak only about the health care bill as passed is just silly and short-sighted. Nancy Pelosi and the radical leftists in Congress have made it clear that the health care bill is a mere foot in the door to establish taxpayer-funded health care. Once the government controls your health care, it opens the door for government takeover of anything that has impact on your health: arguably anything.
There's nothing funny or outrageous about this administration's intent to create a nanny state.
Any church that teaches social justice (Marxism) and redistribution of wealth is not of God but rather His adversary Perhaps it is time for people to define their spiritual leaders and if necessary to recognize Mystery Babylon the Great and Her Harlot Daughters.
Normally, I do not give a second thought to the rantings of Glenn Beck. I have always assumed that the man is an Elmer Gantry-like ranter, essentially an actor, who could not possibly believe what he says because no intelligent person could believe what he says.
(Well, sure, this seems like an honest way of approaching the topic: begin with a personal attack. Assault Glenn Beck’s intentions as less than honorable. Oh, I am sure that your own intentions are honorable. And clearly, being that you are somehow an ubermensch, you deserve every right in your moral superiority to malign people without warrant on a website that claims to be Christian. I am glad that somehow you seem to possess the ability to look into this man’s heart. Whatever the case, obviously, anyone who disagrees with your position and speaks with boldness should be stomped out as the scum that they are, right?
And thanks for attacking me personally as not being intelligent with your “no intelligent person could believe what he says”. I have an IQ most likely greater than your own. I am well-read and well-informed. I have 7 college degrees including two master’s and a doctorate, but you, sir, are evidently competent in judging me as unintelligent because I agree with Mr. Beck on most things. Where did you acquire this special ability? Did it require an education or specialized training to produce such judgment, or just a strong delusion of superiority?)
But, he spoke to the National Rifle Association this weekend and gave a speech that was met with thunderous applause. ''I think he’s great,'' Sharon Browder of Port Orchard, Wash., told PoliticsDaily at the NRA convention. ''He’s inspiring, he’s focused. We love him. We’re proud of him. We need him.''
(Ms. Browder is correct. Many people, including myself, absolutely agree with Glenn Beck and see through connivers and deceivers such as yourself.)
Mr. Beck compared the United States to the Titanic, although he was not clear if he meant before or after hitting the iceberg because he claimed there was still time to turn the country around, still time to save America. And what must America be saved from? The Obama administration, of course. ''These are not Democrats,'' Beck thundered. ''They are revolutionary Marxists.''
(Amen. Glenn has it right.)
Words have meanings. ''Revolutionary'' has a meaning, and the closest possible meaning Beck must intend is ''a radical change.''
(No, he means revolutionary. See, when progressives with self-confirmation perceptual biases start jumping to false conclusions, $hit just starts breaking down. The arguments they present become intellectually dishonest. Mr. Winters, how many Marxists have been in the White House before the current administration? We have officials admitting to their love of Mao and Chavez on video. What are we to do: believe you or our lying eyes and ears? Well, you are a progressive, so it is not as if you deal in reality. You deal in the realm of deception in engineering the dystopia you see as earthly heaven.)
He points to the health care reform as exhibit A. – Blah, blah, blah– But, what we got is hardly ''radical.''
(Mr. Winters, did anyone expect a lightning bolt to strike the ground accompanied by a flash of light and then we would all awake to organ farms, soilent green factories, and sets out of the movie Brazil? No. The bill has not even gone into full effect. Horrible things await us. The real problem I have with people like you is the dishonesty in presenting this silly basis for your argument against Mr. Beck.)
''Marxist'' has a meaning too– Blah, blah, blah– they certainly were not politically popular, but they do not constitute a fundamental expropriation of all the means of production by the party.
(The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. However, I don’t think good intentions were ever involved. Anyone who actually takes the time to look at the video and audio available (which Mr. Beck has simply presented) will recognize the socialist roots of this administration. Only those who do not have ears to hear will be fooled.)
I will repeat the fact that since 1980 all the net jobs in the US were created by small businesses as they grew to large ones. Thus, social justice would be to do whatever is necessary to encourage this phenomena to continue. Large government debts inhibit such activity as do excessive regulation. If Mr. Winters was interested in social justice he would admit the sins of the past by his political fellow travelers and work for real love in truth. Over 20% unemployment for men in their 20's and 30's is not social justice and this is what Obama's economists are predicting for their policies.
This is foolishness– Blah, blah, blah– the President’s modest and moderate attempts to extend basic ideas of social justice known throughout the rest of the industrialized world to a reluctant America.
(No, we do not live to frustrate this administration. The problems with progressivism date back nearly a century, and George Bush was also guilty. The current administration has simply stepped on the accelerator. We no longer have any right to privacy. We have a supreme court nominee who believes government agencies should be a political arm of the president and that free speech should be “disappeared.” This administration has removed the sunsets from the Patriot Act thus making it permanent. It has stepped up the war in Afghanistan and now in Pakistan. It has tripled the deficit since coming into office. It has taken care of Wallstreet more than the Republicans, with Obama being the biggest receiver of campaign contributions from Goldman Sachs and Dems getting three times what Republicans received. Look it up.
We love this country. Unfortunately, most people are totally asleep and believe con artists like Mr. Winters. Most folks will wake up some day soon and say “what? When did this happen?!” After all, people who are just now waking up are saying the same thing about what is happening in Greece even though Mr. Beck warned that it would happen over a year ago, very specifically.)
Of course, Beck has an issue with social justice too, and has recommended that parishioners whose priests invoke the idea flee for the exit signs. What does Mr. Beck make of Caritas in Veritate? One wonders.
(Yes, Mr. Beck has a problem with social justice . . . at least as defined in such a way that certain groups deserve special treatment. Social justice is not equal justice. Look it up. No, Mr. Beck has no problem with helping the poor and needy. He has openly said so countless times. He does charity himself far more than Obama and Biden according to their tax records. Look it up.)
The important question, however, is whether or not this is dangerous foolishness– Blah, blah, blah– conservatism will recover, chastened and saner.
(Mr. Beck is not radical. He is not crazy. You are just attacking him to prevent people from actually listening.)
The left took a long time to shed its devotion to the kookie left in the 1980s, but it did so.
(Really?)
The danger is otherwise– Blah, blah, blah– mainstream conservatives need to take on Beck and his recklessness or they risk losing their credibility too.
(We support Mr. Beck. We understand that you are afraid of the truth. You are afraid for the rock to be lifted so we can see all of the insects scurrying about. Let this be a warning to the readers: if you believe the lies Mr. Winters spews and rely on him for the truth, you are in serious trouble. You are much better off not believing him, nor believing me. Go out and look for real answers. Seek new sources of information. And, as it concerns Mr. Beck, actually listen to him rather than judging him without hearing him. Listen to him, check out what he is saying, doubt him until he shows you that he is telling the truth, then you will not find yourself at the mercy of serpents.)
I think you should re-read Caritas In Veritate, slowly. Glenn Beck's views are exactly the same. Charity is love received and given by the Holy Spirit NOT the government.
Finally Mark221 talks about my foolish arguments, but doesn't address the links, which are real, between Beck and the Birchite Skousen, on the radical right-wng fringe.
Demagogues throughout history have always targeted Right-Wing Authoritarians, who by their very nature do not question authority, to be their followers. It doesn't matter if the demagogue's own ideology is left or right. The followers are always Right-Wing Authoritarian followers. The Glenn Becks of history never busied themselves trying to win over the hearts and minds of independent and critical thinkers. No, demagogues usually had something else in mind for independent and critical thinkers: extermination. And, throughout history, the worst atrocities were enabled by Right-Wing Authoritarian followers who were and are also highly susceptible to all forms of extreme intolerance, especially racial and religious.
So, old Glenn, he's just another in a long line of crackpots and despots who need to tap into that approximately 23% of the population who are Right-Wing Authoritarian followers, and who, in turn, need a Beck to inflame them against a convenient scapegoat by validating and stoking their irrational fears.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals
Apart from the spelling critique, you have not yet resorted to mockery, opting instead to polarize the debate with absolute terms and race baiting. The only race related topic I mentioned was in Beck's promotion of Martin Luther King's method of change, which, I might add, was more successful and peaceful than the revolutionary antics of the 1960's protesters who, to use your terms, ''went out of their way to shock as a way of gaining attention.''...but I digress.
The important issue to debate is the government’s ''fundamental change'' to our country. If, as Mr. McDermott writes, all of President Obama’s ''statements clearly support the free enterprise system'', why would he give a commencement speech declaring that ''information becomes a distraction, a diversion'' that places ''pressure on our country and on our democracy.''? Why would he allow the internet to become a public utility? Why did he grow the government by a 6th of the size of our economy through healthcare takeover? Why would he buy GM? Why does he support unions at the expense of business liquidity? Why would he allow Rep. Wiener to attack Goldline for sponsoring conservative commentators? None of this sounds very American to me.
(Remember Romans 8:28)
As for race-baiting - I wasn't refering to anyone here. I was talking generally about how the whole right-wing radio hall of shame use the issue in very clerverly coded terms. How else, for instance, to explain the racially demeaning posters seen at Tea Party rallies? And I've overheard the term "black agenda" from ordinary people. Where do they get this idea? What about the whole Acorn kerfuffle? The money they got from the Feds over 10 years to help poor people in 50 states - and they have done really good work, too - is the equivalent of Sean Hannity's salary for five years and it's a fraction of what's given to Blackwater and its paramilitaries. But listening to Hannity, you would thing this was a monstrous organization undermining America. Back in the day, the WASP bigots targeted the Irish who organized themselves politically. It's remarkable how some things never change.
Yes I admire "socialistic" ideas. If weren't for them, along with Christian ideals of social justice, there would be far greater levels of poverty and human suffering in Western societies. I believe in more government power not less - government for and by the people. The alternative increasingly is enhanced corporate power, which is entirely sociopathic in its value system and ruinous for democracy. That's where you'll find lucifer - in the boardroom. Sorry, Mr. Meade, if that sounds un-American.
As far as Acorn is concerned, well we could spend a lot of time on this organization but needless to say, if you can say they have done some good, well okay but many in that organization have also proven to be quite corrupt and down right evil. Recall the officials who were willing to set up loans for the couple posing as a pimp and prostitute KNOWING they were going to start up brothels for 13 year old girls in several offices around the country? There is no doubt about those cases, that's why they were DEFUNDED by congress! What about the voter fraud in numerous states (also proven and persons convicted) on so on?
Lastly (and I apologize if I haven't covered every point) you say that lucifer is found in the boardrooms. Sure he is, in boardrooms of businesses but also in boardrooms of unions and community activists groups, laymen and scientists, clergy and politicians. All I know is, NO country is without fault, great or small, but no country is as great as ours.
One of the bizarre things of the recent health care debate was the absolute refusal of sections of the news media (principally Fox News) to explore just why it is that the electorates of other countries are fundamentally happy with their health systems, though each of course is flawed in its own way. (The distortions were so absurd that the British ambassador was forced to intervene.) They would no more vote to desocialize it than people here would vote against Medicare, which is fundamentally socialist. And this went with the refusal to recognize that the system was broken. A Harvard U. study that said 44,000 Americans died prematurely in 2009, (or was it 2008?) because of the lack of universal health is disturbing, if true.
With regard to 85 percent of medical research being done here. I've no reason to doubt that. This country is a major center in that regard. But this is not hardly an argument for limited government. The National Institutes of Health pours $26 billion into universities and other research bodies annually.
I argued in my original comment (#27) that 13 didn't become 50 states using the principle of limited government (or severely limited government as jscottu calls it in comment 38). Libertarianism in this country has become pure dogma. The late, great Polish philosopher Leszek Kolakowski suggested that people could borrow much of value from socialism, liberalism and conservatism alike. The problem with the liberatarians, like the Soviet Marxist-Leninists before them, is they believe they have the answer. Ayn Rand was as fanatical as Lenin and some of her closest followers were nothing less than cultists.
I loved Europe when I traveled there but was too young to understand much about economics, or really care for that matter. I am very concerned about our financial ties with other countries (though good in some ways) may be very detrimental in our current state of affairs. I don't know. I would have to say however, that our forefathers did want more limited government,however they were not all in agreement with that. In the end (of the beginning of our country), limited government served us extremely well in terms of our meteoric climb to the greatest nation ever seen since the days of Rome. I do not subscribe to Libertarianism either however. The idea of legalized drugs in our country (as we had in the mid 1800's to early 1900's) has been tried and failed. Heck, because of the Qing Dynasty's trade restrictions in the late 1700's the British introduced opium to the chinese, which was a major cause for the collapse of their empire and the beginning of the Opium wars in 1839. The Chinese did not recover for nearly 200 years.
Regarding health care, well that's a tough nut to crack. I think we should have stated far smaller and attempted TRUE free trade solutions, such as portability, tort reform, etc. I would have rather seen each state or at least a number of states try different solutions. Massachusetts and Hawaii both have tried different systems and each are far more expensive than originally thought. I fear (again too big government)it will end like it has in Greece (and eventually other European countries perhaps) where the government in Greece is now looking to privatize health care. This is due to soring, out-of-control costs and the IMF is requiring that Greece seek privatization solutions.
Capitalism as I see it, is the truest form of NATURAL ECONOMY. Much like nature, it has its peaks and valleys, but always recycles and renews itself, because it is based on true demands of individuals within a society. Socialism seeks to control the nature of the economy and hence creates a false nature, prone to disease and weakness. It's like taking too many antibiotics. Eventually, you get a bug too big to stop. I do believe in some regulation however (just like thinning out the forests to stop catastrophic fires). Just how much, is the big question.
So let's keep ourselves all individualistic and separate, so that the big principalities and powers can eat us for breakfast. Some people want to keep government small. I'd settle for it representing the people and not the big corporations.
I wish we could have Theodore Roosevelt as president and Franklin Roosevelt as vice-president, or vice-versa, to clean up this mess made by thirty years of neoliberalism.
1)a healthcare plan that provided abortions of Your Blessings
2)manipulation of Gospel to disguise any government's redistribution of wealth as charity
3)manipulation of Gospel to permit a government's use of force in the name of chairty
4)setting forth plans in-debting our children to $115,000,000,000,000 of debt
5)the temptation to believe any man of power who will not say Your Name or sing of your GLORY with his people
I PRAY, Dear God, I pray that they may see to where they are being led.
Its funny, if the author watched Beck regularly, he would now he backs up everything he says with extensive refrences, usually video clips. No one seems to comment to this, just the standard Saul Alinsky tactic of Beck must be nuts, blah, blah, blah...
I really do have hope that America is starting to wake up and see what the progressive agenda is all about.
I am not ashamed to believe it is my Catholic Community that voluntarily provides food, shelter, clothes, teaching of life skills, teaching of Christ, and yes if required money to those in need. Our Founders, and for that matter I, do not believe it is our government's responsibility to “take care” of our struggling or lost brethren through countless social programs. But for the Grace of God we are the poor, struggling, or lost brethren.
Sorry Mr. Winter as it seems you are also very misinformed as the “Health Care” bill you write about is not fully engaged until 2014. One of hundreds of concerns I have this the bill; Please look back at your words in the year 2020 and ponder how the Catholic Hospitals where closed down or sold off. I as a Catholic do not believe in abortion, Plan Parent Hood Practices, or doctor-assisted suicide. Our “Health Care” bill eventually will require these practices in our hospitals and nursing homes.
You provide a great definition of “Marxist”. It is a shame that you are not look closer at our government’s recent activities. Why did Fannie Mae, a government entity, purchase a patent to sell Carbon Credits? If GM is pulling out of its financial crisis as they are publishing why are we not seeing immediate plans for the government to sell our 60% interest? Why is the Attorney General of the United State advocating the suspension of our United States citizen’s miranda rights? Who wrote the “Health Care” bill and how was this comprehensive document (a documents so big none of our voting Congress persons have read it completely) ready for debated less than a year after President Obama being sworn into office? Regarding "Wall Street" please allow us all to wake up and take a real look in the mirror of who we are. We are "Wall Street" as it our children that born the greed and lust we live among. It is our responsiblity to correct it. We The People have what is needed to right this ship. The first step is to admit the truth as it is written it will set us free.
Glenn Beck is a self-described "rodeo clown." You say messiah. I say nutjob. The guy is laughing at his misguided admirers and defenders all the way to the bank. But then, Right-Wing Authoritarian followers are always buying bridges.
Contrary to Beck's approach to effect change, the current progressive movement permeating our government leadership, via people like President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Cas Sunstein, and more, looks to revolutionaries like Saul Alinksi and Chairmen Mao who coincidently says, ''Power comes from the barrel of a gun.” To me, these leftist icons seem much more inclined to behave in the threatening manner that this author attributes to Mr. Beck.
In case you didn’t know what type of person Saul Alinski was, just read his dedication in his book, “Rules for Radicals”…
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152.html
If you simply take the time to investigate the source of Beck’s expressed concerns, you will find some very disquieting connections to the people currently making policy for America.
Mr. Meade's point about Beck's assertions are indeed with merit. Mr. McDermott instead of actually looking into the evidence presented by Mr. Meade, you instead set up foolish arguments, trying to make a point that anything you say about a person cannot be dis-proven. You have totally missed the point sir. You only have to look at the words from of the persons Mr. Meade has cited. Do you know who Saul Aklinski was? Saul Alinski DID dedicate his book ''Rules for Radicals'' to Lucifer. Are you okay with that? Are you okay that Hillary Clinton and Pres. Obama respecting and even in th case of Pres. Obama actually teaching the Alinski methods to college students? You need to understand one thing. Weather it is communism or socialism that is the threat, it makes no difference. Both ideoligies are born of humanism and are anti God. That is why the Catholic church denounces them BOTH!