Just in case you thought Glenn Beck would be the one to lead a restoration of the republic through a resurgence of the libertarian principles of America's founding...think again. Glenn Beck is a neo-con in libertarian clothes (see video below).
He's talented. He's a great actor. He has an unbelievable following. His 9/12 protest was a smashing success. And he talks the talk (for the past few months).
But one day he's saying that the military might need to be used against Ron Paul supporters, then the next day he sees the popularity of Ron Paul/libertarianism/alternative media and he becomes the new "leader" of these movements. Something doesn't smell right here. An actor who cries on cue...is he an authentic "born again" libertarian? Not until he disavows his neo-con positions on many issues. Watch:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
How would you know what a Libertarian is? Glenn Beck is the ultimate Libertarian: Fiscally Conservative, Socially Tolerant, Strong on Defense.
ReplyDeleteHe has virtually nothing in common with NeoCons like Bill Bennett, Fred Barnes, Bill Kristol, Pat Robertson, et.al. who are all strident Religious Rightists social conservatives.
Beck is a Rock 'n Rollin', fun-loving, live and let live sort of guy, exact opposite of a NeoCon.
Pro-Defense and Fighting Against the imposition of Sharia Law by Islamo-Fascists is NOT! NeoCon. It's called simply Strong on Defense.
ReplyDeleteActually, NeoCons are rather weak on defense compared to us Libertarians who see a huge threat from Islamo-Fascists. The socially conservative prudish NeoCons, half-way agree with Islamists on social matters, especially gay issues, sex issues, and modesty in dress.
Glenn Beck kept saying "was" not is. They only have excerpts without taking the whole thing in context. It would be like taking only parts of the Bible (just like the mormons and jehovah's witnesses do) without looking at the entire thing.
ReplyDeletePlease remove this video Scott and add something with a little more facts. I don't care if you are anti-Glenn Beck, but show entire clips of his inconsistencies.
Thanks for the input guys. Good discussion. I think the most important thing is to define our terms.
ReplyDeleteLet's define neo-con first of all. The neo-cons were and are driven by one issue above all else: the domination of the greater Middle East by the U.S. and Israel. So Bennett, Barnes, Robertson and especially Kristol all fit the bill there. But so does Beck! He was on board with Bush's wars from the start. You can call it "strong on defense" if you'd like (I'd call it offensive aggression, not defense), but let's be accurate and acknowledge that this is what marks a neo-con. I've never heard anybody make the claim that libertarians have a more aggressive foreign policy than neo-cons; you've got your facts wrong there. And you're mistaken that a neo-con is necessarily a social conservative. Neo-conservatism came out of the left, actually, and then later allied with apocalyptic Israel-centric social conservatives.
Now, what is a libertarian? Well, the definition that I work with is based upon the non-aggression axiom. An act of aggression is immoral and force is thus only permitted in defense of an actual act of aggression. So, the libertarian believes that the only legitimate purpose of a government is to protect the natural rights (life, liberty and property) of the citizens who are a part of the social contract within the jurisdiction of that government.
Putting this in practical terms, somebody is not a libertarian if they believe in "transforming the Middle East" (which includes a million innocent people dying) as Beck does.
Somebody is not a libertarian if they believe in Bush's surveillance and police state actions that came after 9/11 as Beck does; libertarianism includes being a defender of civil liberties.
Somebody is not a libertarian if they believe in printing money out of thin air and seizing hundreds of billions of dollars from productive people in order to bail out Wall Street.
Guys, face the facts. Glenn Beck supported these things. If his statements are taken out of context, show how/where. I'm happy to be corrected. This video sums up his beliefs on these issues with sound bites for the sake of brevity. But his statements seem pretty straightforward to me. Where has the video misrepresented his views? Help me out; be specific. Do you dispute that he supported a neo-con foreign policy, Bush's police state measures, and the bailout? Do you dispute that he said the military might need to be used against Ron Paul supporters? If he did say these things, then the verdict is in: these are not the principles of libertarianism by ANY definition.
The best way to measure whether somebody is a libertarian or not is to compare them to Thomas Jefferson. He believed that the 2 most dangerous threats to liberty were central banking and standing armies. Glenn Beck supported the bailout and supports the American empire abroad and the use of the military domestically. Wall Street cronyism is Hamiltonianism through and through, not Jeffersonianism. And militarism (even with the innocuous label "strong on defense") is the most profoundly UN-libertarian concept imaginable.
While Beck might have a few views that libertarians will agree with, he is not a libertarian any more than a social conservative or a liberal is. Everybody wants liberty in some areas and supports government force in other areas. But, libertarianism as a philosophy is necessarily consistent and true to the non-aggression axiom; it is a philosophy of peaceful coexistence and minimum government domestically and abroad. At best we could fallaciously say Glen Beck is “kind of a libertarian,” but you can't be "kind of" a libertarian. You have to be for limited government in EVERY area to be a libertarian.
Does this all make sense?
Scott:
ReplyDeleteYou are right. Beck is just jumping on whatever topic can pump up his ratings. I would actually go further than you: He is a tool... a clown at the head of a parade of the uneducated and unprincipled.