Frank Rich did us all a favor by providing some historical perspective to the hysterical ramblings of Glenn Beck.
Glenn Beck, it seems, is playing the 1897 Game.
Much of what passes for the Right today is a reversed version of 1969. Haties are hippies, born followers of the previous thesis who, in the wake of a crisis for which they had no answers, are just taking their ideas to extremes.
Beck's nonsense has deeper historical roots. While we think of Populism in terms of William J. Bryan, even assigning it some liberal values because it opposed Wall Street and led to such innovations as the Income Tax and Federal Reserve, it was in fact a cross-partisan festival of hatred against "the other."
This is reflected best perhaps at the Georgia State Capitol. You won't find a statue of Jimmy Carter or Martin Luther King Jr. there. Instead you'll see this man, the Populist Thomas E. Watson.
Watson actually got a sniff of national power as a potential vice president to Bryan in 1896. His statue stands where it does, however, thanks to his later proclamations of racism and anti-semitism, which culminated in the lynching of Leo Frank and the second rising of the KKK. The statue's legend reads, "A champion of the right who never faltered in the cause."
Beck's nonsense is cut from the same cloth. Unlike Fox' other nutcases, Beck is virulently anti-Wall Street. He is also overtly religious, adding to its bigotry a hatred of black and brown people, all wrapped up in a "caring" attitude for The Little Guy.
That's Watson all over.
Keith Olbermann calls the result "Lonesome Rhodes," after the character Andy Griffith played in 1957's "A Face in the Crowd." Griffith's Rhodes was a bigoted, profane force of nature, an Arkansas con man whose act won him money, fame and power until he took himself too seriously.
Beck isn't as good an actor as Griffith. He's not as self-aware as Rhodes was. It's important that Watson did not become the man on the pedestal until his national flame had dimmed, when he became a hurricane for regional injustice, until his followers actually committed murder for him.
Beck''s probably not that strong, either.
If Democrats play this right they can use Beck to take power for a generation.
It was the marriage with populism that destroyed Democrats' chances between 1896 and 1932, so the strategy should be to use Beck's nonsense in order to pull Big Business support away from the Republicans permanently. This is precisely what the President is doing, offering the Progressive recipe of moderate change that doesn't rock the boat, much like Theodore Roosevelt did.
The problem lies in getting the balance right. Rich fears that Obama''s not being as hard on Wall Street as he should be. He should be thundering against the Trusts and demanding more transparency, Rich believes. Maybe.
What's most difficult for a smart analyst is to trust someone. No President — not even Lincoln or FDR — ever won the unaffected adoration of the Chattering Classes. Not when they were alive.
This transformative leader is no different. With Glenn Back, I think we've got the GOP right where we want it. Let them have the racists, the nativists, the conspiracy theorists, and the religious nuts. They will scare away just about everyone else.
It's the reflexive habit of business, created over generations, to always vote Republican that is the wild card here. If Obama speaks softly enough to them while carrying a big stick against the biggest cheaters, he'll win. If he speaks too loudly business might take Beck's bigotry the way Rhodes' sponsors did, as something they can easily control.
Good points. I think one of Olbermann’s guests labeled the GOP as the ‘Talk Radio Party.’ It’s effectively come to that, since not one single repub has publicly repudiated either Beck or Rush without quickly apologizing and begging forgiveness. Unfortunately, Beck doesn’t know which side he’s on. Much like Rupert Murdoch, I fear he would say anything for anyone willing to pay him. Beck was preaching the opposite of what on CNN than he is now on Fox.
Still, Obama does need to push for change. Given what the financial terrorists — and let’s just admit that’s what bankers and traders have become, holding the country, its citizenry, and its future in its hands — have wrought, giving into them and making deals as he did with Big Pharma is not who the majority voted for last November. Urgency is the word; there is no tomorrow; damn the torpedoes, whatever cliche gets you by, now is the time to act. You are president, you have majorities in Congress, and you’re losing votes everyday you’re in office. If Obama can’t do it, then perhaps we need to change the very structure of our democracy. The only thing we’re accomplishing is authorizing more wars.
Good points. I think one of Olbermann’s guests labeled the GOP as the ‘Talk Radio Party.’ It’s effectively come to that, since not one single repub has publicly repudiated either Beck or Rush without quickly apologizing and begging forgiveness. Unfortunately, Beck doesn’t know which side he’s on. Much like Rupert Murdoch, I fear he would say anything for anyone willing to pay him. Beck was preaching the opposite of what on CNN than he is now on Fox.
Still, Obama does need to push for change. Given what the financial terrorists — and let’s just admit that’s what bankers and traders have become, holding the country, its citizenry, and its future in its hands — have wrought, giving into them and making deals as he did with Big Pharma is not who the majority voted for last November. Urgency is the word; there is no tomorrow; damn the torpedoes, whatever cliche gets you by, now is the time to act. You are president, you have majorities in Congress, and you’re losing votes everyday you’re in office. If Obama can’t do it, then perhaps we need to change the very structure of our democracy. The only thing we’re accomplishing is authorizing more wars.
Dana,
This is called “demonizing”, i.e. not talking to someone, or discussing someone’s ideas, but instead attacking the messenger in a vile way.
Recap: the blog says of Beck:
hatie
populist
nutcase
overtly religious
bigot
hates blacks and browns
profane force of nature
racist
nativist
conspiracy theorist
relifgious nut
But does not address what he actually says.
That, my friend, is a recipy for hate, and worse – possibly violence. People who get demonized are eventually not seen as humans anymore, and there’s always a nutcase out there who takes things to the extreme – and does as such.
An example: In Holland someone ran for prime minister (believe it was in 2003/2004). He was about to get the most votes. One of his election issues was that Holland was too full to absorp additional immigration (which was a fact btw). Now the “left” started a vile demonizing campaign. Noone talked to him, noone discussed his ideas, of the facts he brought to the table. Like I said – he was about to get the most votes. Then some vegetarian blew his brains out, just days before the election. His reasoning: “I did the world a favour, Mr. Fortuyn was a bad man anyway”.
See what the end result is? Don’t demonize. Discuss ideas. That takes courage.
It’s easier to dismiss people, dismiss ideas, but that’s the wrong way to go.
Dana,
This is called “demonizing”, i.e. not talking to someone, or discussing someone’s ideas, but instead attacking the messenger in a vile way.
Recap: the blog says of Beck:
hatie
populist
nutcase
overtly religious
bigot
hates blacks and browns
profane force of nature
racist
nativist
conspiracy theorist
relifgious nut
But does not address what he actually says.
That, my friend, is a recipy for hate, and worse – possibly violence. People who get demonized are eventually not seen as humans anymore, and there’s always a nutcase out there who takes things to the extreme – and does as such.
An example: In Holland someone ran for prime minister (believe it was in 2003/2004). He was about to get the most votes. One of his election issues was that Holland was too full to absorp additional immigration (which was a fact btw). Now the “left” started a vile demonizing campaign. Noone talked to him, noone discussed his ideas, of the facts he brought to the table. Like I said – he was about to get the most votes. Then some vegetarian blew his brains out, just days before the election. His reasoning: “I did the world a favour, Mr. Fortuyn was a bad man anyway”.
See what the end result is? Don’t demonize. Discuss ideas. That takes courage.
It’s easier to dismiss people, dismiss ideas, but that’s the wrong way to go.
I have tried to engage with Beckites many times at my ZDNet blogs. They don’t engage. Instead I get hatred, projection, dehumanization, and all the rest of it.
Has Beck ever really engaged with his critics? Ever?
But if I treat him as he treats me I’m the unChristian?
At some point even Christians run out of cheeks. Beck’s a loony, and anyone who treats him seriously is as well.
Somewhere there is a boundary to civil discourse, and those who deliberately run about outside it must be called on it. As Beck does. Otherwise you enable violence.
I have tried to engage with Beckites many times at my ZDNet blogs. They don’t engage. Instead I get hatred, projection, dehumanization, and all the rest of it.
Has Beck ever really engaged with his critics? Ever?
But if I treat him as he treats me I’m the unChristian?
At some point even Christians run out of cheeks. Beck’s a loony, and anyone who treats him seriously is as well.
Somewhere there is a boundary to civil discourse, and those who deliberately run about outside it must be called on it. As Beck does. Otherwise you enable violence.
Dana,
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Still, using 11 derogatory words to describe a person in 1 blog, is demonizing. It has nothing to do with ideas, facts, impressions etc. anymore. It’s just bashing. Actually I find your blog content (this one) more offensive than any youtube video I’ve ever seen from Beck.
Then again, it’s a free world. Freedom of speech is extremely important. All I’m saying is that demonizing is a slippery slope. And that goes for both sides – that’s for sure.
Well, back to my regular news sources. I can’t say that this blog will be in ‘daily online news walk’. 🙂
CEC
Dana,
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Still, using 11 derogatory words to describe a person in 1 blog, is demonizing. It has nothing to do with ideas, facts, impressions etc. anymore. It’s just bashing. Actually I find your blog content (this one) more offensive than any youtube video I’ve ever seen from Beck.
Then again, it’s a free world. Freedom of speech is extremely important. All I’m saying is that demonizing is a slippery slope. And that goes for both sides – that’s for sure.
Well, back to my regular news sources. I can’t say that this blog will be in ‘daily online news walk’. 🙂
CEC
p.s. Interesting links you have on your blog. I’ll add some to my bookmarks.
p.s. Interesting links you have on your blog. I’ll add some to my bookmarks.
p.s.2 (and this is my last post here – promise!) What did you think of my moose-nose-soup recipy? Worth shooting one for! (sorry, a redneck thing; where I live 95% of the households have rifles) 🙂
p.s.2 (and this is my last post here – promise!) What did you think of my moose-nose-soup recipy? Worth shooting one for! (sorry, a redneck thing; where I live 95% of the households have rifles) 🙂