Leninism of the Right ...

[syrakusos]

When the Czar was overthrown, they cheered. When Lenin's Bolsheviks seized the state they saw a glorious new sunrise. Revolutions broke out in Europe. America suffered a "Red Scare." But the scariest thing about the Reds was not the strikes they failed to bring to fruition here, as it was the devastation to the Left in the USSR itself. Progressives, liberals, socialists, anarchists, syndicalists, all were swept away. The Spanish Civil War brought a resurgence as the worldwide Depression gave socialists hope that capitalism was fading. But what really faded was their dreams when Stalin signed the Pact with Hitler. By 1948, 1984 seemed all too likely. Even in 1969, Nixon delivered military secrets to China to maintain the three-way balance, of Oceania, Eurasia and East Asia. In Alduous Huxley's Brave New World, clones were named for famous collectivists: Benito, Lenin, and Hoover.

Then communism imploded, collapsed as the hollow sham it was had to do, as East Minus West Equals Zero.

Now, we have a new realpolitik.

Non-initiation of Force is a principle... but only among those who have principles. For those whose only reality is political power, force always is to be applied as necessary.

Glenn Beck takes ideas from Ayn Rand and you assume that he is a quasi hemi demi semi Objectivist who just happens to accidentally be a Latter Day Saint. He touts the Founders (like something from Deep Space Nine) and you have never asked how the Federalists so thoroughly managed the show that now their opponents are known only as "Anti-Federalists."

I am telling you here and now: You empower this guy and all you get is a free ride in a cattle car, specifically because you are an atheist, a gay, a feminist, an academic, an intellectual. These conservatives are not your friends.

Edited June 4, 2010 by Michael E. Marotta

[DavidMcK]

I agree and who was it that warned us about the conservatives most sincerely and astutely? Ayn Rand. Read the thread 'Rewrite Squad' and see how often the 'editing' is watering down Ayn Rand's critique of conservatism. Remember the title of her book on politics: "The Unknown Ideal" ? Like many of her titles there is irony in it; the irony is that Capitalism is unknown as an ideal by the very people claiming to be advocating Capitalism, i.e. the conservatives. I hope to god this website doesn't become the Glenn Beck Living website.

Edited June 5, 2010 by DavidMcK

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael,

I really could take your comments more seriously if only you would watch Beck more than once--and that one time at that was with a default prejudice to see what you could find to complain about after being caught with your pants down.

I guess it's cool to talk about the Spanish Civil War and Alduous Huxley and Deep Space Nine and cattle cars and stuff, but that doesn't do much to cover your lack of familiarity with Beck's work.

Not to someone familiar with it.

Michael

[syrakusos]

I really could take your comments more seriously if only you would watch Beck more than once--and that one time at that was with a default prejudice ...

I never knew anything about Glenn Beck until a few months ago as he was often touted on RoR and here. I do not watch television.

I watched him to see what was up. I do that. I watched "24" on that basis, and could not stand that, either. I watched NUMB3RS and could not get enough; I was sorry to see it go off the air. We are hacking our way through CSI now; and it is boring, pointless, stupid, and mindless. I was also disappointed by Rush Limbaugh when some engineers I worked with in 1994 were gushing over him. Obviously, I am out of step... instead of goosestepping along with the conservatives.

[Brant Gaede]

MM: I think Nixon delivered those secrets to China not in 1969 but on the occasion of his first visit there.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael,

Nothing at all wrong with being out of step.

Everything wrong with being out of touch, pretending you know enough to criticize, then pretending this is intellectual.

I take the out of step person seriously, even when I disagree. I don't take the out of touch dude seriously.

Michael

[Jerry Biggers]

Michael,

I have watched a number of Beck's shows, including some from this last week, and some earlier ones when he had Yaron Brook or other ARI spokesman. As I recall, Yaron could hardly get out a full sentence before Beck interrupted him. I got the impression that Brook, et al, were just there so they could agree with Glenn. Part of this is because of the rather excited and melodramatic method of presentation that Beck often uses.

On the plus side, he did have portions of several documentaries on the history of communism in Russia and some comparisons with almost identical propanganda from the German Nazis. Some of this was quite good, but Glenn presents much of his material in a breathless intensity and stating that all this is really NEW stuff "hidden" from the American people. It might be new to an average Oprah watcher, or maybe to Beck, himself, but most of it has been available and known to those on the right (or left) that takes ideas to be important.

Anyway, please correct me if I am misrepresenting him, but he emphatically has stated many times that the American concept of freedom and our political structure are all based on faith in God. That all the Founding Fathers based their beliefs on the Christian God, and that our freedom is dependent on that religious faith. On his show, he often stands in front of three huge portraits of the Founding Fathers. Under them, written in large bold letters are "FAITH, HOPE, and CHARITY." It is quite clear that he believes, and wants his viewers to believe, that those three concepts are the most important aspect of our lives and that we cannot have freedom without them. This sort of view is quite common among religious-oriented conservatives. It does not represent Objectivist ideals and it certainly is not an accurate description of the views of the Founding Fathers.

Either he does not understand, or does not know, the basic principles of Objectivism, and the profound clash that its views on liberty have with religious conservatisms. He has gushed over Rand, but has he actually read her? It's kinda hard to miss where she differs from conservatives.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jerry,

I am not presenting Beck or Fox News as an example of Objectivism. And I do believe that Beck is familiar with Objectivist ideas. Believe it or not, it is entirely possible for someone to be familiar with Rand, admire her ideas, and reject some of them.

Here's the crux. The Objectivist disagreements with Beck I have seen are from an end-point perspective. Those arguing against Beck (from what I have read so far) want a full convert to the fundamentals of Objectivism before they believe such a person can do any real good in the culture. And they believe that supporting the efforts of someone who disagrees with something like belief in God is sanctioning evil.

I disagree with this view.

Also, I don't see Beck or Fox as an end point in anything. They are communication source points where great ideas are reaching the mainstream--totally in a free-market way, I might add. Nobody forces anyone to watch them.

You mentioned that the ideas Beck presents are only hidden from "Oprah viewers." I'll take that to be a metaphor for the normal everyday schlub. Well, don't forget that Oprah viewers are in the vast majority and all of them can vote. They are the ones who allowed our choice to be between Obama and McCain--one flaming Progressive and one moderate Progressive. If someone who knows "the secrets" cannot reach these schlubs, who will?

You?

Me?

Rand?

One thing is for sure. That didn't work. We got Obama and McCain as a choice and the schlubs chose Obama.

On the minus side, there is Beck's religiosity. Yet most of Oprah's viewers are religious--of the typical middle-class Christian sort, so they will listen to him in a heartbeat, whereas they will politely dismiss Rand or you or me, if they even listen to us.

And Beck is telling them to think for themselves (and question even the very existence of God), to clearly see the difference between individual-versus-collective perspectives, to read original sources and then judge the views of others about those sources by making comparisons, to notice the inherent snobbishness in the Progressive attitude that the common man cannot think for himself--that he needs the ruling class to think for him (btw - I regrettably see this attitude a lot in our neck of the woods), in political terms, to see that the root of the issue is not Democrat versus Republican, but instead Progressive versus freedom and individual rights, to look at essentials when Progressive people and institutions change their names to things like liberal--or "stimulus" becomes "job-creation package," etc. (which they do frequently--and Beck shows who and where), etc., etc., etc.

On the faith, hope and charity thing, here is what I wrote earlier:

... I don't even think belief in God is a swamp, so long as it is not forced on others. And I don't find Beck's emphasis on Faith, Hope and Charity, within the context he presents it, offensive.

Beck's idea doesn't just come from the church. He holds that character is the backbone of our republic, and that government cannot legislate character, but we need to think about what good character means. In A Patriot's History of the United States by Schweikart and Allen, which he promotes, these authors hold that the USA has attained greatness because here, good character is the foundation of liberty, and liberty (based on good character) is the foundation of property. I basically agree with this approach (although on another thread, I have read some reservations of this book). Liberty without good character results in gang wars and property without liberty and good character results in dictatorships.

I think Schweikart and Allen's approach is where Beck got the idea to present 3 character virtues as a rallying point, even aligning them. In other words:

Faith, Hope and Charity = Good character,

... but...

Faith also corresponds to character,

Hope also corresponds to liberty, and

Charity also corresponds to property.

Although Beck is pumping these old-time Big Three, he also pumps the individual, self-reliance, integrity, and other major virtues, most of which are consonant with Objectivism.

Also, with the exception of faith in God, his focus is not the same as others. And even on God, his idea is that this is a personal issue, not a government-mandated one.

I have seen him several times ask a person about what they mean when they use the term charity--whether they mean taking something out of their own pocket and giving it of their own free will because they think it is good to do so, or whether they believe in taking stuff by force from one person and giving that to another because they think it is good to do so. He divides charity into the giver flavor and the taker flavor, and obviously he thinks the takers are evil.

I see nothing to disagree with there.

Also, about hope, his view of hope--with truth and the individual at the root--is vastly different than the audacity of hope proposed by Obama. Beck stresses over and over that we need equal justice (his basis of hope), not social justice (the Progressive basis of hope).

I agree with that, too.

To be honest, I'm not fully comfortable with the Faith, Hope and Charity thing. But then I look around me. Within the context of where we are right now, and considering the target audience needed to make small-government, low-tax, strong defense changes in our laws, I am not all that bothered.

The good Beck is doing, getting people interested in the Founding Fathers, getting people to discuss limited government as a viable option, getting people to act according to their own conscience and speak out, getting people to feel that it's OK to have good character and celebrate others who have the same, getting people to see what is behind the claims of politicians (and the government-protected part of big business) on all sides, getting people to adopt nonviolence as their proper expression of not remaining silent anymore, and on and on and on, far, far outweighs a disagreement over religion for me.

Our founders believed in Faith, Hope and Charity. It didn't kill them. I don't think Beck's version will kill anyone either. He holds--strongly--that people have a right to be atheists if they so choose. That means you and me, if we so choose.

I couldn't agree with him more.

To me Beck is a bridge--and a good one, not the destination.

Barbara's comparison of Beck to Paul Revere is quite apt. Except, unlike the British, the Progressives have been coming for a long time. He's just taking the covers off at this critical point in history and telling people to see and think for themselves before it's too late.

Michael

[Jerry Biggers]

Michael,

True enough, this country or any country cannot be expected to go from its current cultural blend of vaguely conservative and liberal values including its moral christian base to anything approaching a libertarian (not to say, Objectivist!) society. And that is a gross understatement! I have not seen any extended discussion as to exactly how that could be accomplished. The unstated premise is that, "somehow", this will happen after enough people read Ayn Rand, then more Objectivists write supporting materials or present the ideas in different mediums to different people. And then, gradually the society will become more free, more libertarian, and then finally Objectivist as the believers in various forms of collectivism and religion just "wither away." Nobody has stated how all these changes can or will come about. At least, I haven't seen it. The Objectivist theory of social change (speaking sociologese, historians call it, "the philosophy of history") needs to be spelled out.

I assume that very few people believe in a literal "Atlas Shrugged" scenario with all the creative people disappearing to Galt's Guch, or some such place. A tempting fantasy, but I believe even Rand was using it as a plot device, to illustrate her ideas, and was not expecting Objectivists to try it. I qualified this by saying "very few" believe in an AS scenario, because some people evidently do believe it can or will happen. For some individuals dropping-out may be practical. But causing a whole society to collapse, a la AS? Nope.

This is somewhat roundabout to get back to your point about utilizing Beck to educate the more religious, proto-conservative populace toward "libertarian" ideas. I don't think that O'ist critics of Beck expect him to present a consistently Objectivist point of view on his show. He is a Mormon, not an Objectivist! I do think trying to combine Objectivist ideas with religious conservative ideas is problematic at best, and constitute what Rand might call a "package deal" that will ultimately collapse under the weight of its own self-contradictions. But I am not sure that Beck understands this.

Then there is the problem, alluded to earlier in this thread, that some religious conservatives harbor an intolerant streak to any ideas that challenge their religion. On more than one occasion, I have heard religious conservatives state that atheism would not be tolerated in their ideal conservative society. In this context, they mean that they would approve using force to suppress "godless" views - and they don't exclude Objectivists from that category of those that ultimately must be "dealt with." In fact, Objectivism is doubly offensive to these people; it denies their God and has the effrontery to challenge Christian ethics.

In other words, inside some of the Christian conservatives lurks a "little Ayatollah," urging to be set free.

Edited June 6, 2010 by Jerry Biggers

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jerry,

I agree with you about the ham-handed conservatives. In fact, one of the things I worry about is that the reaction against Obama will be so strong that one of those conservative "little Ayatollahs" will become a "big Ayatollah." And continue the same crap as before, only worse.

The way I see it, Liberals (Progressives) make a big production about how righteous they are to spend us to death and remove more and more individual rights while they wage global wars on the sly. Conservatives make a big production about how righteous they are to wage different wars throughout the world while spending us to death and removing more and more individual rights on the sly. Both blatantly ask for more power and expansion of government.

I sincerely doubt a a "big Ayatollah" type will count Beck as one of his supporters. Beck was bashing Bush daily way back when because of his expansion of government and caving into the economic thing.

You might be surprised about something else. When that American, Faisal Shahzad, even though he had only been a USA citizen for a year, was arrested for the Times Square bombing attempt, Beck was the only one on the right (if you can say he is on the right) to say the guy needed to be read his Miranda rights--that being a USA citizen means something. The response on the left was funny. They all admitted--with stupefaction--that he was right, but basically said (in one form or another) that they still hated him.

When discussing this with O'Reilly, when O'Reilly mentioned trying to make some kind of provision to suspend the guys rights under exceptional circumstances like the bombing attempt, Beck responded clearly, "No more power for the government." He and O'Reilly practically fell out over this issue (although they won't ever really fall out). They did take pot shots at each other, though, on their respective show for days following that.

Beck doesn't believe that non-citizens should be read Miranda rights if caught performing enemy hostilities, but if you are an American, he believes you should enjoy equal justice with all other citizens. He makes a big deal out of "equal justice," which he says is good, and "social justice," which he says is evil--and I agree with that.

Michael

[Jerry Biggers]

Jerry,

I agree with you about the ham-handed conservatives. In fact, one of the things I worry about is that the reaction against Obama will be so strong that one of those conservative "little Ayatollahs" will become a "big Ayatollah." And continue the same crap as before, only worse.

The way I see it, Liberals (Progressives) make a big production about how righteous they are to spend us to death and remove more and more individual rights while they wage global wars on the sly. Conservatives make a big production about how righteous they are to wage different wars throughout the world while spending us to death and removing more and more individual rights on the sly. Both blatantly ask for more power and expansion of government.

I sincerely doubt a a "big Ayatollah" type will count Beck as one of his supporters. Beck was bashing Bush daily way back when because of his expansion of government and caving into the economic thing.

You might be surprised about something else. When that American, Faisal Shahzad, even though he had only been a USA citizen for a year, was arrested for the Times Square bombing attempt, Beck was the only one on the right (if you can say he is on the right) to say the guy needed to be read his Miranda rights--that being a USA citizen means something. The response on the left was funny. They all admitted--with stupefaction--that he was right, but basically said (in one form or another) that they still hated him.

When discussing this with O'Reilly, when O'Reilly mentioned trying to make some kind of provision to suspend the guys rights under exceptional circumstances like the bombing attempt, Beck responded clearly, "No more power for the government." He and O'Reilly practically fell out over this issue (although they won't ever really fall out). They did take pot shots at each other, though, on their respective show for days following that.

Beck doesn't believe that non-citizens should be read Miranda rights if caught performing enemy hostilities, but if you are an American, he believes you should enjoy equal justice with all other citizens. He makes a big deal out of "equal justice," which he says is good, and "social justice," which he says is evil--and I agree with that.

Michael

Michael,

I wasn't aware of Beck's stand on Americans having their Miranda rights. Interesting...

As soon as I wrote the earlier comment about a totalitarian streak (desire) harbored by some conservatives, it occured to me that someone might retort, "Well, so do some who call themseves Objectivists!" True enough, or at least they flaunt their intolerance of non-ARIans that could lead one to conclude that they may have more extreme measures in store for those who do not fall in line. But I think that there are some major differances both of degree and intent.

Some of the conservatives that have been associated with The National Review have stated their admiration for Franco's Spain. Among them was Buckley's brother-in-law, L. Brent Bozell (the reputed ghostwriter of Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative). Bozell ultimately left the U.S to live in Spain because he found Franco's suppression of the opposition more to his liking.

Other traditionalists have expressed their fondness for the political and cultural systems of pre-Rennaissance Europe.

On the non-Catholic side, we have the political views of Gary North (inexplicably, also a free market economist) and R. J. Rushdoonny, Christian Reconstructionism, also known as "Dominion theology." These gentlemen favor a return to Old Testament religious laws (as they interpret them) and the institution of a theocracy (literally). They have made quite clear what they would do to those they deem to have broken God's Law which would cover all of us and homosexuals and other "blasphemers:" execution.

As for Glenn Beck, I cannot say that he agrees with any of the above. It is possible that he could recruit some to the conservative cause. If his occasional enthusiasm for Ayn Rand leaves his adherents to actually read her books, it is likely that some will point-out the discrepancies to him. How he will respond, I do not know.

Going back to the attempt to meld these divergent rightwing strains (by Beck's or others, such as Rush), to make an all-too appropriate analogy: it is like trying to combine oil and water - you are likely to just end up with one big mess.

[syrakusos]

... it is entirely possible for someone to be familiar with Rand, admire her ideas, and reject some of them.... Those arguing against Beck (from what I have read so far) want a full convert to the fundamentals of Objectivism before they believe such a person can do any real good in the culture.

Baloney, Michael.

I am an anarchist. We all know that and we know that that is contrary to orthodox Rand-Objectivism. This is not about total agreement with Objectivism. It is not about whether all concepts as abstractions are necessarily without measurement. It is not about whether Rodin's The Thinker is anti-life or pro-life (read mine pro-life argument here).

This is about basic principles. Glenn Beck is the new William F. Buckley. God is just the beginng, but hardly the end. Faith, Hope and Charity as Federalist virtues.

Consider that even your crush on him is centered on his being able to influence millions of people. Have you never read The Fountainhead? Glenn Beck is a righwing Elseworth Toohey. He is after power.

When Yaron Brook appears on Glenn Beck's show, who benefits?

[DavidMcK]

Some of us here just want the assurance (see my previous post in this thread) that this isn't becoming the Glenn Beck Living website.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

David,

Nah.

Not even an anarchy site, despite there being plenty of anarchists here. (And imagine this. I have seen some look down their noses at the other posters.)

OL is a discussion site, not a social or religious movement. If we can discuss anarchy and have Corners of Insight devoted to a couple of very smart anarchists, we can certainly discuss Beck and have a section on him here in the Outer Limits.

I like Beck. I resonate with him. For instance, like Beck, I look people in the eye, not down my nose at them.

Beck knows how to get the word out--unlike some anarchists I know...

I once heard one tell me that violence is the last resort of the incompetent. Maybe not having an audience--ever--is a mark of great incompetence, whadya think?...

Looking down your nose is easy. (I don't mean you, David.) You don't have to look very far. You've got to look farther and pay closer attention to read a book or examine someone else's work correctly.

How you're supposed to get the word out without an audience is something I don't see addressed too often in these discussions of the world going to hell in a handbasket...

(How's that for a premise that needs checking?)

But I do see some people very much bothered about those who earn a vast audience doing what they--the anarchists (and Objectivists and libertarians)--are supposed to be doing--preaching Founding Fathers, individualism, capitalism, etc. And even getting common people to read and examine original source material before judging it--and serving by example. (How's that for an odd idea? Nah... some people think it's easier to look down your nose... )

Maybe bitching about all this, and not being bothered to examine it correctly, instead of growing an audience of your own is the last resort of the lazy and incompetent?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

When Yaron Brook appears on Glenn Beck's show, who benefits?

When Michael Marotta appears on OL, who benefits?

Michael

[John Day]

The Objectivist disagreements with Beck I have seen are from an end-point perspective.

I would say that the disagrees are very fundamental. The starting point of Objectivism is metaphysics, the nature of the universe. Objectivism hold that the physical world is all that exists, that all of physical world is subject to the law of causality and that the concept of infinity does not exist in nature. Therefore, Glenn Beck and Objectivists disagree on the most fundamental question of life: What is the nature of the universe? On epistemology, Objectivism holds that reason is an absolute and man's tool for survival. "Man's reason is his moral faculty." Glenn Beck believes that reason is not enough and we must have religious faith to survive as a society. On ethics, Objectivism "holds man’s life as the standard of value—and his own life as the ethical purpose of every individual man." While Beck would politically have no problem with allowing individuals to live for their own sake, I don't believe he holds it as moral ideal and his personal ethics would lie more in the camp of the altruists. Beck tithes 10% of his income as is required in the Church of LDS. For a man of Beck's means, giving away 10% of your income is perfectly fine, but idea of charity as a moral requirement is very much counter to Objectivism.

[syrakusos]

... I once heard one tell me that violence is the last resort of the incompetent. Maybe not having an audience--ever--is a mark of great incompetence, whadya think?...

... those who earn a vast audience ...

Like money, getting or earning or making or having an audience is a matter of context. Ayn Rand wrote fiction in order to create the kind of people she wanted to meet. As she was not unique, that resonated with other people who also enjoyed those characters. Consequently, she had an audience. So did Groucho Marx.

Having published over 300 newspaper and magazine articles, I can say that I had and have audiences. However, I am not so concerned with that as with the one reader who matters most, the editor. Once, an article was typeset -almost- perfectly but would not fit on one page and the editor asked me to cut a line and I told her to cut the by-line. She said that she never had an author do that. "As long as my name appears on the check," I said. I just don't live for other people's approval, Michael. I don't need an audience. I do need markets. As Howard Roark said, "I am not building mausoleums."

Ultimately, the audience, the client, the customer matters. We Objectivists care about whom we sanction, who benefits from our efforts.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Having published over 300 newspaper and magazine articles, I can say that I had and have audiences.

Michael,

That's great.

Have you made any impact on the world to counter the type of impact you criticize in Beck?

I don't need an audience. I do need markets. As Howard Roark said, "I am not building mausoleums."

Ultimately, the audience, the client, the customer matters.

You don't see the contradiction here?

How can a writer have a market without an audience?

Dayaamm!

Rand certainly understood that. She told Phil Donahue that he "earned his audience." She talked about herself having "acquired a public voice." I can come up with a gazillion more examples, if need be.

Being competent at gaining an audience is not becoming Peter Keating. Wholesale sneering at those who work at it is dumb since it ignores the context. It's a cop out. It's far easier to look down your nose at audiences than try to gain one.

It's safer, too. You can fail at gaining an audience, but you never fail when you look down your nose at something or someone.

We Objectivists care about whom we sanction, who benefits from our efforts.

And you let other people do your heavy lifting to ensure that you can have a market where you can spread to your select few those alleged "benefits."

But I tell ya, when I read things like what you just wrote, it makes me soooooooooooooooooooooooo glad I don't belong to any collectives, especially not ones called "We Objectivists."

Do you guys charge dues?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

John D,

It's a matter of context.

Let's use the analogy that Beck uses: the Titanic. If you see that the ship you are on is going to sink, at that moment, if someone is offering people lifeboats, you don't worry too much about his views on metaphysics. You get on the lifeboat. The only alternative is to sink. And that's reality, not anyone's opinion about what should be.

In another context, I doubt I would set up a Beck or Fox section. But our country really is going to hell in a handbasket and there is still time to stop it. I have lived under what the progressives are trying to do here. Wait until you cannot work at what you want to--or go where you want to go, etc.--because of some bureaucrat telling you it is not in the government's interest.

Over on another forum, Michael tried to present his same opinions of Beck as he did here. A guy, Steve Wolfer, who is far more "Objectivist movement" oriented than I am had this to say.

Glenn Beck is a libertarian, not a conservative. He is deeply religious and that is a problem. When one of his shows starts going that direction, I turn if off as soon as I see what the theme is. But despite his religious views, he is far closer to Objectivism's positions in politics than an anarchist (Sorry, Michael, I don't meant to pick on you, but this is fact, and this is the kind of area where your anarchy blinds you.)

The really important issues, is that his opposition to statism is primarily libertarian, not religious. He favors limited government for the sake of economic and political freedom, not as a means to force desired religious views. And unlike many conservatives, he sees the people as having the rights and government as their servant. Add to that, unlike most conservatives, he understands the constitution.

He has had Yaron Brook on his show several times, and went out to dinner with him. I heard that Yaron was unable to convince him that individual rights are logically derived from human nature as opposed to being a gift from God, but they still found one another as allies in opposing the view that government derives human rights. Beck has found some way, in his mind to marry Libertarianism and Christianity. I'm saddened that he doesn't see the flaws there, but I'm deeply impressed with his ability to see what the progressives are doing. His track record in finding out what they are going to do next, and often being the first to find out are unparalleled.

I basically agree with this. And Steve and I haven't talked in well over a year. So I'm certainly not the only one who sees these things in Beck. Even Yaron Brook and Barbara Branden have common ground here. How's them apples?

I suppose it's fun to play at being Ayn Rand, who decided that Ronald Reagan would be a terrible president--including in foreign policy--because of his views on abortion. But real thugs with real guns and bombs do organize and they do overrun your country if you let your guard down. Then it doesn't matter what you think about abortion.

On this respect, Rand was wrong. Fortunately, the nutcases and thugs ran into a hardass with Reagan (who was no saint, but was very good at keeping the bad guys under control).

Maybe the USA isn't perfect, but we can still improve it. If we don't stop the changes Obama (the front-man for a progressive gang) is making, we will not have that chance anymore. So I'll take the lifeboat right now. I've seen what it's like to sink. (Try Brazil during the military dictatorship, for instance, or during the largest monetary freeze in human history, or 80% per month inflation.)

Michael

[Jerry Biggers]

I have watched a sampling of Beck's TV programs (I haven't yet seen his magazine, Fusion, which apparently has had some articles extolling Rand and interviews or articles by Yaron Brook), but by no means all, so I can only judge by what I've seen. It may be a matter of personal preference, but I don't care for his manner of presentation, his schoolmarm blackboard and what appears to me to be, at times, a talking-down to his audience.

Parenthetically, I do wish that he would stop calling liberals, "progressives." Yes, I know that liberals have historically adopted that term to describe themselves since at least the time of Teddy Roosevelt. But "progressive" is a loaded value-laden term, that is not descriptive of their political position (after all, how many people are against "progress?"), and smuggles an evaluative meaning (progress = good) along with it. The opposition to these leftists should never have let them get away with that when they first tried it, and we should not let them get away with it now. It's what Rand would have called a "package deal."

Obviously, some people (a lot, according to the reputed size of his audience) like Beck's presentation methods. It is certainlny less irritating then the MSNBC types, such as Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow, who also only have guests on who agree with them (with the recent exception of Rand Paul, who naively let Maddow ambush him. If he did not know what Maddow was about, and his staff had not warned him, then he should replace them with people savvy to what the MSM is up to). I try to keep my viewing of MSNBC to an absolute minimum (usually, zero), not just because I find Olbermann, et al, demagogic, but also because I receive TV through a digital cablebox which also gives the provider (Verizon FIOS) precise "realtime" information on who is watching what,where, when, and how much. This is most likely used to estimate audience size, and I don't want MSNBC getting any more advertising support from ratings based on this.

As we know, the MSNBC radical left and Fox's rightist commentators are false alternatives. There is no libertarian/Objectivist media personality other than John Stossel. Being an LDS/"born again"/Christian evangelical, I don't expect Beck to spout a purely Objectivist message. However, it would be interesting to see what would happen if he did. His Christian conservative following would probably drop him; there would be a torrent of attacks against him pointing-out that not only does he advocate "selfishness," but he is also a "filthy atheist," etc, etc. So he would be attacked from the right and from the left, and most likely would be dropped from the Fox lineup.

I've been rambling on. What's the bottom line in all this? IMO, we are not going to convert Christian conservatives to Objectivism anytime soon, and in any appreciable numbers that would cause a significant change in American politics. The conservatives are by far larger than us and can carry a meaningful political clout. We cannot. Objectivists, libertarians, and conservatives have a lot of fundamental differences between us. These will not be bridged anytime soon, if all. However, we also hold a lot in common, such as a belief in limited government and in the free market, and opposition to socialism (yeah, I know, to varying degrees).

So what are Objectivists/libertarians to do? Among other things, continue to advocate for our positions and hopefully convince some from the opposing camps to join us (don't hold your breath). Those who oppose socialism need to make alliances on at least some political positions (those that we have reasonable agreement upon) or face being overwhelmed by the Left, who have found out that the more people that they can make dependent on government subsidies (to "help" them, of course), the larger their constituents grow to continue and expand more socialistic schemes.

[Greybird]

[...] I receive TV through a digital cablebox which also gives the provider (Verizon FIOS) precise "realtime" information on who is watching what, where, when, and how much.

This isn't accurate, though many assume this to be true. Digital cable receivers/descramblers provide no such information to the cable company, except for program feeds that one orders personally and individually from the company through Pay-Per-View or On Demand.

The boxes take in a coax or (in Jerry's case) fiber-optic signal that combines all the channels to which one subscribes. From this feed, the box lets through only the single channel that one selects. (Sometimes two, if one is going to a built-in digital video recorder and one to the screen.)

Cable companies won't have even the capability for such monitoring until channels can be summoned up through a fully addressable set-top box. It would have the particular channel one selects — and only that one — be fed at any one time to the box. This is not yet feasible, though it's being worked on as a new cable standard, because it would clearly free up transmission capacity a hundredfold.

Even when this becomes possible, the privacy-rights brouhaha involving such monitoring — by these government-regulated and franchise-granted oligopolies — will be impossible to miss. It won't be done casually or without your knowing about it and consenting to it.

So tune in what and when you want, Jerry. At least for now, apart from your On Demand shows, nobody is keeping track, and nobody has even the capability of keeping track. If you don't have a Nielsen meter or diary, for which you'd be paid to monitor your usage, no ratings service knows what you watch.

[DavidMcK]

To pursue the Titanic/lifeboat metaphor: What bothers me about Beck and other people who are so far from Objectivism is that ideas and values have consequences. There has to be some explanation why someone like Reagan goes to the White House telling us that 'Government is not the solution, it is the problem' and leaves the White House with massive spending increases and the government larger and more powerful than ever. That explanation is the Christian religion. It just isn't too Christian to cut people off welfare and housing and food stamps. So I pose the question, if someone was offering a lifeboat off of the Titantic that was as bad as the Titantic itself or worse would you get on board?

[John Day]

Let's use the analogy that Beck uses: the Titanic. If you see that the ship you are on is going to sink, at that moment, if someone is offering people lifeboats, you don't worry too much about his views on metaphysics. You get on the lifeboat. The only alternative is to sink. And that's reality, not anyone's opinion about what should be.

In another context, I doubt I would set up a Beck or Fox section. But our country really is going to hell in a handbasket and there is still time to stop it. I have lived under what the progressives are trying to do here. Wait until you cannot work at what you want to--or go where you want to go, etc.--because of some bureaucrat telling you it is not in the government's interest.

My assessment of Beck is somewhere between Michael's and yours and probably closer to yours. I believe Beck is a useful political ally, especially in these times. There are aspects of his show that I enjoy and other times I find him completely overbearing.

Your point about Ronald Reagan is an important. The difference is that Reagan was a politician and Beck is a broadcaster. To be successful in Reagan's world, you have to appeal to a majority. To be successful in Beck's world, you only have to appeal to a few million people. You can say that Beck has to say certain things to appeal to his audience, but that leads to the question of who's the real leader and who's the real follower. Someone earlier compared him to Ellsworth Toohey, but I think he's more like Gail Wynan, a talented individual who thinks he gains power by giving the audience what it wants.

Never forget that Glenn Beck is first and foremost an entertainer. He is not an activist, he is, in his word, a rodeo clown. If you take him in this spirit, you'll be amused and perhaps even pleasantly surprised. If you take him as America's last best hope, you will almost certainly be disappointed.

[Jerry Biggers]

[...] I receive TV through a digital cablebox which also gives the provider (Verizon FIOS) precise "realtime" information on who is watching what, where, when, and how much.

This isn't accurate, though many assume this to be true. Digital cable receivers/descramblers provide no such information to the cable company, except for program feeds that one orders personally and individually from the company through Pay-Per-View or On Demand.

The boxes take in a coax or (in Jerry's case) fiber-optic signal that combines all the channels to which one subscribes. From this feed, the box lets through only the single channel that one selects. (Sometimes two, if one is going to a built-in digital video recorder and one to the screen.)

Cable companies won't have even the capability for such monitoring until channels can be summoned up through a fully addressable set-top box. It would have the particular channel one selects — and only that one — be fed at any one time to the box. This is not yet feasible, though it's being worked on as a new cable standard, because it would clearly free up transmission capacity a hundredfold.

Even when this becomes possible, the privacy-rights brouhaha involving such monitoring — by these government-regulated and franchise-granted oligopolies — will be impossible to miss. It won't be done casually or without your knowing about it and consenting to it.

So tune in what and when you want, Jerry. At least for now, apart from your On Demand shows, nobody is keeping track, and nobody has even the capability of keeping track. If you don't have a Nielsen meter or diary, for which you'd be paid to monitor your usage, no ratings service knows what you watch.

"Just because you're paranoid does not mean that they are not out to get you!"

My concern was based on general comments that I had read about the addressable cable boxes that are now being used. The capabilities of the Verizon FIOS box keeps changing as apparently they can program in and out capabilities without physically changing the equipment. Verizon, at least, is doing this all the time because they keep sending system messages whenever the box is turned on. I had read somewhere that the new digitally addressable boxes give the provider the ability to know what each subscriber is watching. Obviously, they would know if the subscriber orders a pay-per-view movie, since that would necessary to bill the customer. But you are saying that they cannot otherwise monitor what the customer is watching. I am surprised that they aren't doing this if they have that capability in order to gauge customer demand for particular channels and to set advertising rates accordingly. You say they cannot do this technologically and cannot without informing the customer.

O.K., so if I secretly yearn for Keith, et al, to once again explain why just about everything needs to be closely regulated by our guardians in the government, and why Republicans, conservatives, and "Tea Baggers"(as he sneeringly calls them) are all just fascist scum and Ku-Kluxer wannabe's - I can now watch them for as long as I can stand them (assuming a keep taking my anti-emetic)? And black helicopters won't be circling my house if I watch Pajamas TV or Fox? Whew!, I feel better, already!

Edited June 6, 2010 by Jerry Biggers

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There has to be some explanation why someone like Reagan goes to the White House telling us that 'Government is not the solution, it is the problem' and leaves the White House with massive spending increases and the government larger and more powerful than ever. That explanation is the Christian religion.

David,

I don't think that is accurate. There might be some morals from Christianity that promote government expansion like caring for the poor, but I see the growth as the result of not having good constraints. Once you start spending money you don't have to pay back, you get really comfortable doing it.

The currency of a politician, even one preaching against the government like Reagan did, is votes, not money. If the people who vote are drunk on free money, you bankrupt yourself vote-wise if you cut off the spending.

That's why the message of self-reliance (like Beck preaches) for the constituencies is so important.

Michael