Glenn Beck Gets Progressively More Paranoid
Fox News’ lunatic fringe, now even loonier
By spinning out elaborate theories about the “progressive” assault on the Constitution and the country, hinting that the left’s disenchantment with Barack Obama could very easily manifest itself in violence—that’s how.
Beck’s ruminations make no logical sense, and the proposals he attacks do not bear even the faintest resemblance to the political agenda of the White House or congressional Democrats. But his rants do have the effect of scaring viewers into believing that a radical program to usher the United States into a totalitarian future is well underway. As Beck explained (1/11/10): “We are going to show you what the progressives are doing and how they’re slowly but surely robbing Americans of individual choices and liberties and quite honestly, robbing the bank as well.”
Much of Beck’s rhetoric is garden variety red-baiting. He tells viewers (1/4/10) that “officials in and around this White House” are “routinely praising radical leftists and Communist dictators and the wonders of socialism in spreading the wealth.” On January 11, Beck complained: “Why is it that nobody seems to be paying any attention to the similarities that we’re seeing now between what Hugo Chávez has been doing in Venezuela and what is happening here in America?”
Beck’s campaign against “progressivism” is in the same vein. Generally speaking, the Progressive movements of the early 20th century stressed government regulation and oversight of corporate power, workers’ rights and increased civic participation in local and national politics. In Beck’s case against progressivism, these strands are woven into a thread that ties together socialism, Communism, fascism and the supposedly far-left politics of the Obama administration.
“The enemy to our Constitution is the progressive movement,” Beck explained (2/9/10), which aims “to evolve the United States out of a republic.” On another program (1/20/10), he announced: “Progressives have been patient for decades, creeping their way into the system in the cover of darkness. And this is their opportunity. They’re going to deal a final death blow to the Constitution if they can.”
Progressives “started a 100-year time bomb. They planted it in the early 1900s, mainly with this guy, Woodrow Wilson—one evil SOB, bad dude.” And, naturally, the hundred years are nearly up: “The fundamental transformation of America. The progressive dream that began over 100 years ago. They need the structure to control every aspect of your life and they are just about finishing building it.”
The existential threat to the United States aside, Beck’s definition of progressivism is simple—and damning: They are the people responsible for the income tax, the Federal Reserve, Prohibition and the League of Nations. Because some progressives once supported the pseudo-science of eugenics, progressivism is also indirectly responsible for the Holocaust (1/8/10):
This was a progressive idea. Not the extermination camps, but eugenics, which led to the camps. You see, the progressives in America always thought they were superior. And it was the stupid people that were just slowing us down. Hitler just took that to the next level as did Stalin. The progressive tactics haven’t changed much since then.
Progressivism is “the philosophy that the ends justify the means and the elites can make a better choice than the individual,” Beck explained (1/7/10). Progressives “are the people that brought us the idea that the Constitution is fatally flawed.… They stopped teaching the constitutional law and they started teaching only case law in our universities around 1920.” That might come as a surprise to those who attended law school during the past 90 years.
In the space of a few minutes one night (1/5/10), Beck sought to explain, in great and mind-bending detail, how progressivism has taken over our political system. He started with professors Frances Fox Piven and the late Richard Cloward, “people who you would say are fundamentally responsible for the unsustainability and possible collapse of our economic system.” Cloward and Piven co-authored an article in the Nation (5/2/66) in the 1960s about fighting poverty by getting eligible people onto welfare rolls. That article caused, according to Beck, such a dramatic increase in the number of people on welfare that New York City went bankrupt. That was politically disastrous, so “Cloward and Piven and their devotees figured it out. They needed to be in the system,” rather than fighting it from the outside.
Beck then fingered financier George Soros “as a source of funding for many of these radical groups.” Soros and company even “went to one of the poorest sections in New York just recently and gave away hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of your tax dollars—stimulus money, gave it out”—an apparent reference to a $35 million gift from Soros so New York state could get federal matching funds for schools (New York Times, 8/8/09). From there, Beck moved to the Wall Street Temporary Assets Relief Program bailout: “This is not a Democratic Party thing. John McCain is a progressive. You had the Republicans and the Democrats to thank for TARP.”
So, somehow, a 40-year-old article in the Nation led to all manner of seemingly disconnected political events, involving a political alliance that spans from the far left to George W. Bush. Or, as Beck summed up: “So we just gave you the basics of Cloward and Piven. Well, maybe you can find some other rational explanation for what’s going on. I can’t.”
Logically, Beck should consider himself to be a right-wing progressive, since he too supported the TARP bailout—and actually thought it should be bigger (CNN Headline News, 9/22/08):
I thought about it an awful lot this weekend, and while it takes everything in me to say this, I think the bailout is the right thing do. The real story is the $700 billion that you’re hearing about now is not only, I believe, necessary, it is also not nearly enough, and all of the weasels in Washington know it.
While his own track record might not be something he wants to talk about, he maintains that revealing the hidden history of progressivism would strike a blow against his political enemies (1/22/10):
Progressives realized victory required changing history. To defeat them, we have to correct that. Progressives know how powerful history is. When these truths get told and the lies get corrected, the game is going to be on. It’s pulling the mask off the monster.
After Republican Scott Brown won a special U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts, Beck (1/20/10) spotted a new progressive danger, warning of “a revolution or a civil war in the Democratic Party. It’s progressives versus Democrats. It’s blue versus gray. And this is a war that I think could become dangerous—hopefully not.”
He explained: “Doesn’t it feel like now is a time that the Obama regime is in collapse? The most dangerous time in any regime, especially a revolutionary regime, is when it is on the verge of collapse. A regime with revolutionaries in it, it is trouble.” Beck told his audience there was a fundamental difference between them and the progressive enemy:
To you, a fight means educating people. It means mobilizing people to go out and vote. And you fight at the ballot box. But to these people, what does a fight mean to the uber left progressive? All bets are off. They will cheat. They will lie. They will steal. And they have, in the past, blown things up if it helps them win.
Beck declared that the “president is in danger.... He is surrounded by radicals, surrounded by radicals. Here is why the republic is in danger. And the president is in danger first, then the republic.” These radicals “will fight to change it in the cover of darkness. And they will become much more dangerous, as they realize their time to make this move is running out.” As Beck ominously declared: “Please pray for our Secret Service, make sure that they do their job. Dear God, protect our president.”
So a guy who spends several hours a day whipping up viewers and listeners into a frenzy over Barack Obama’s secret plan to destroy the country is worried that leftists might do him harm. It makes perfect sense—if you’re Glenn Beck.



something else
By notme, at Apr 09, 2010 14:19 PM
On this site, the reader only gets a quick glance at a short title before choosing to open an article to read. For this article, it was "Hart: Glenn Beck Paranoia".
What's interesting is what my brain made of that before I started to read the piece. For, when I saw 'Glen Beck Paranoia', I thought instead of the apparent liberal paranoia about Glen Beck.
Don't get me wrong. I don't like the guy. At least I don't think I do. In my home, I've used the parental blocking features of my TV system to completely block all th US corporate news channels from my home. No CNN, No Faux, No MSNBC. I get my news from other sources and I think I stay very well informed. And, a nice side effect is that I don't think I've even seen or heard more than a few seconds of Glen Beck, if even that.
Unfortunately, despite my efforts to block such junk from my home, the liberal media seems quite determined that I must read or hear every single ridiculous thing he says. There seems to be a considerable effort about this, as there are multiple sites I read regularaly who all seem to be very determined to make sure Mr. Beck's words get around my blocks and into my head.
So, when I read the short headline on the front page, my reaction from my no-CNN life is that this article might instead be about the apparent liberal paranoia to Glen Beck and the overreaction and republibcation by the liberal media of everything he says.
(BTW, I mean 'liberal media' very differently from how you've likely heard it. Remember, I don't listen to CNN or Faux. So, when I say liberal media, I mean the portion of the media that functions as the 'Democratic noise machine'. FAIR would be a contributor to that, as they are regularly pro-Democrat, anti-Republican. Websites and publications like Huffington Post and The Nation and Truthdig would all be included in this. Basically, I refer to the portion of the media that seems to regularly reflect the Democrat talking points and generally move in lock-step on stories like this.
From where I sit, its no surprise that the Democrat story after story on Glen Beck. This is the Democrat version of 'the politics of fear' at work. The Democrats use the politics of fear just as much as the Republicans. Just with a different tone and different bad guys. And Glen Beck is definitely one of the favorite bad guys of the Democrat spin machine.
No surprise at all that the Democrats want to talk about Glen Beck. After all, since the election they've continued the wars they inherited, and instead of scaling back the wars and bringing the troops home like their voters wanted, the wars have instead been escalated and expanded and while Mr. Hart is telling us all about Mr. Beck the Democrats are asking and getting another $30 billion supplemental for the wars. And, since the elections, the Democrats have bailed out wall street with billions of dollars, another move very unpopular with their voters. And the Democrats have worked hard to kill off the single-payer health care plan favored by Democrat voters in favor of a bill that blocks all reform for health insurance for the next four years and is so popular with corporate America that wall street soared on its passage.
Given that record, its no surprise that Mr. Hart and the rest of the Democrat noise machine seem to be so anxious to talk about Glen Beck. They sure as heck don't want to try to talk to Democrats about Obama's record so far as President. So, crank up the politics of fear with the Democrat spin machine and talk about how awful Glen Beck is. And get ready for more Sarah Palin stories. Anything to scare the Democratic voters into voting for the Democrats again. Anything to try to keep the Democratic voters from realizing they've elected a government that opposes everything they believe in. Isn't Glen Beck just horrible?
Reply this comment
Re: something else
By Eiden, Andy at Apr 10, 2010 05:53 AM
I whole heartedly agree with this comment. The dodging of many issues important to the public is a despicable characteristic of modern day US politics. And until we have a media that will actually air the issues and have honest commentary from both sides we cannot truly expect things to get better. And by getting better I simply mean that our government will become more responsive to the publics wishes. Mr. Schuler hit it on the head...these spineless politicians just want to get re-elected, no matter what their actual deeds while in office. Corporate funding of elections and campaigns will try and make sure that the benchmark for re-election remains just as watered down as it is.
I myself have had the unfortunate experience of seeing one or two of Mr. Beck's outrageous interviews on his show, and between all of the rants and shouting and half-truths, I honestly saw nothing there. It may be entertaining, if that is your cup of tea. Some people like this kind of show, this overblown dramatization and accusatory name calling. So be it. I second the message of the previous comment: let's stop talking about this spectacle and focus on real issues.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: something else
By Kane, John at Apr 11, 2010 08:11 AM
I also like this comment, especially the insight regarding Dems also using "the politics of fear." One does get the sense that the message becomes, "Disagree with Glenn Beck? That's why it's all the more important that you vote Democrat, and contribute to the DNC while you're at it!" This is the dichotomous politics that I've come to despise...
However, I do believe that there is something that the Left should be somewhat mindful of when talking about Glenn Beck: He's popular. Now, this popularity exists for a variety of reasons, but those who like him likely swallow his core message whole--namely, believe in the free market and distrust the government at all costs. Mr. Beck is just an overcharged, lowest-common-denominator caricature of currents which already existed in U.S. politics (see Ron Paul and his following, for example). They are the Libertarians who were willing to throw the Bush administration under the bus in exchange for the political capital to wage irrational, ahistorical arguments against Obama, the Dems, organized labor, progressives, socialists, and marxists alike (which, as Peter correctly alludes to, are effectively one and the same to the Libertarians). The reason we should care is because the message is so simple and dumb that it catches on like wildfire. 'What's the problem with the economy? Too much government. What's the problem with "health care reform?" Too much government. What's the problem with education? Too much government.' And so on. Nevermind that it might very well be that free market capitalism historically produced such abject inequality that it gave rise to social movements which demanded a greater role for government regulations and social provisions--an observable fact in nearly all "industrialized countries" and many more. None of that matters, they say. The solution is always less government, more "individualism." Pure and simple. The society for which they advocate so irately is a society from which we've already emerged (e.g., I don't see many people actually pining for the good ol' days of Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle"). Only in the U.S. could a message so dumb become so popular.
Mr. Beck is important only insofar as he is on the frontline of such silliness. Forget the Dems and their campaign strategies--the Left itself should be concerned with why this message has become so appealing, and what that might mean for us in the struggles ahead.
Reply this comment