Beck says he is a libertarian

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Beck says he is a libertarian

He said it to Judge Napolitano on his Freedom Watch, June 18, 2010 show.

Beck said that he also understands--with all due respect--that not everyone in the movement is happy with him being on board.

Judge Napolitano said he strongly wants him on board.

Here it is from the horse's mouth (both horses):

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7iqTDn-_Ns&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7iqTDn-_Ns&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7iqTDn-_Ns&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Michael

[George H. Smith]

"Beck should abandon Ayn Rand's philosophies" , by conservative blogger Dan Glover.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

Dayaamm!

You beat me to it.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here are a few quotes:

He [beck] endorsed, apparently without qualification, the philosophy and writings of Rand, who is further to the right than Attilla the Hun.

Beck did more than move toward her. He devoted his hour-long program to her, praising her to high heaven. His two guests, one a writer and the other the head of the modern Ayn Rand establishment, joined him. They all were in ecstasy; I thought they were going to wet in their pants.

. . .

Blatant atheism, shrill self-interest, and overt arrogance dominate most of her writings. She gave capitalism a bad name: greedy and selfish.

. . .

May she rest in peace. Let her not be revived by the otherwise conservative Glenn Beck.

Don Glover of Monroe is minister emeritus of the Forsythe Avenue Church of Christ.

That can speak for itself.

At least Beck inspires equal-opportunity hate.

Michael

[Greybird]

[...] At least Beck inspires equal-opportunity hate.

A prime qualification for publicity-mongering, but not for persuasion.

Beck can call himself anything he wants. But in that famous aphorism about calling a dog's tail a leg, Lincoln (in about the only line I've ever endorsed from him) said that it still has four legs: "Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one."

[Brant Gaede]

Ministers are supposed to hate Ayn Rand. As de facto irrationalists they try to ensare people with faith and altruism. Some conservatives embrace Rand--sort of--and some just reject her completely. Beck will keep squeezing the Rand orange until the juice stops flowing. Then he'll go grab a bunch of grapes and repeat the process.

--Brant

[studiodekadent]

I agree with Brant.

Beck is no libertarian, no intellectual and has very little understanding of the intricacies of political philosophy. He, like the conservative movement generally, will use, abuse and exploit libertarian/classically liberal/enlightenment thinkers (categories which, yes, Rand falls into) and then discard them when the "base" (the uneducated rednecks) stops complaining about the size of government and starts complaining about the "fags" again.

Remember who discredited socialism in academic economics; libertarian economists Hayek and Mises. Remember who injected Libertarianism back into the cultural mainstream; libertarian authors like Rand and Heinlein. Who got all the power in government? Socially conservative governments that were, to varying degrees, selective in their implementation of libertarian ideas.

I'm with David Boaz of the Cato Institute; Fusionism must die. I refuse to be filed in the same category as a Conservative Moron (deliberate misspelling) like Beck.

(For the record, I actually respect some aspects of Mormon theology (their avoidance of the Omnipotence Paradox and The Problem Of Hell). But I loathe their value system).

Yes, I'm proud to be one of those stuck up intellectual elitists that eats arugula and looks down on people that cling to their Bibles (although I don't have a problem with clinging to guns).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Andrew,<br><br>You have a right to not like Beck for his religion or dislike of homosexuality*. <br><br>But it is unwise to refuse to look at the facts he presents. <br><br>Whether you like it or not, he is single-handedly doing more to advance libertarian political goals--especially small government and individual choice--than any other person in today's culture. Whether you wish to exclude religious people from being libertarians or not, there are many high-profile libertarians who include them. When I see people say that Beck is not a libertarian in any sense of the term, I can't help but think, "Who should I believe is the 'true libertarian,' you or those folks?"<br><br>Also, calling his base, "the uneducated rednecks," is inaccurate. That's what the left traditionally says about the Tea Party (Beck's real base). When you look at the people at rallies, you see a bunch of quite educated small business owners in the majority who are taking time off from their productive lives to further educate themselves on our history and out system of government. <br><br>With Beck's restoring history efforts, there is a even huge growing number of blacks and Hispanics becoming fans. They are learning pride-inducing things about their own culture in America from Beck that no one else ever taught them. <br><br>Watch him some time. You might get surprised when you see that the caricatures of Beck you read about are not accurate.<br><br>If you don't want to check sources or even look at his work, but you want to see what his true impact is on American culture right now, just watch the news that will come out covering the August 28 "Restoring Honor" rally he is staging in Washington DC on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Just from looking for hotel space, airline tickets, etc., you see that they are almost all filled up, so this is going to be a blow-out. Conservative estimates are at about 2 million people coming from all over the USA. I would not be surprised to see more.<br><br>And watch for the repercussions.<br><br>This will be all over the news for a while.<br><br>Michael<br><br><br>* EDIT: As a later thought, I want to mention that Beck does not oppose gay marriage.<br>

[Robert Campbell]

Andrew,

It is incorrect to call Glenn Beck's following a bunch of uneducated rednecks.

To the extent that his fans overlap with the Tea Party movement (and it's a safe bet that that the overlap is extensive), surveys show that the average Tea Partier is more highly educated than the average American.

Robert Campbell

[studiodekadent]

Andrew,

It is incorrect to call Glenn Beck's following a bunch of uneducated rednecks.

To the extent that his fans overlap with the Tea Party movement (and it's a safe bet that that the overlap is extensive), surveys show that the average Tea Partier is more highly educated than the average American.

Robert,

I am familiar with the surveys about the Tea Party, and yes, a significant number of them are indeed highly educated.

I am not against the whole of the Tea Party; I am, however, against Beck's "9/12" sub-movement within the Tea Party (which is based on religious principles). We both know that the Tea Party started out in response to Bush's bailouts and stimulus economics and at the start of its life was a highly libertarian movement. I am mostly uncomfortable with how, over time, the Conservatives began riding the coat-tails of it.

Michael,

I would like to clarify that I do accept religious libertarians as libertarians, politically speaking (i.e. they accept the proposition that the good society is one where the State plays a small role (at most)). As I said above, I also am aware that many Tea Partiers are anything but uneducated rednecks.

My issue is principally with Fusionism and ultimately a Sense Of Life issue; I hate when people with pre-Enlightenment value systems (i.e. faithists, religionists, mystics) claim to be libertarians for the same reason Ayn Rand hated the "argument from man's depravity" for free markets. I am aware plenty of libertarians with pre-Enlightenment Senses Of Life do indeed exist, but I find them very personally off-putting. I'd rather deal with a Friedman-level libertarian with Enlightenment values than a Mises/Hayek-level libertarian with pre-Enlightenment values.

We both know that ultimately, (most kinds of) Christianity is/are logically incompatible with classical liberalism and/or the values classical liberalism requires; Joseph Schumpeter praised the Entrepreneur's Promethean defiance of convention/tradition, Christianity says God was right to knock down the Tower of Babylon. I don't have to go on more, you already know these arguments. However, I find the Sense Of Life of those "Punishment Capitalists" to be truly toxic.

There's also a more concrete political reason for my disdain for religious libertarians (actually, there are two)-

1) History shows that Fusionism is mostly a political tactic and invocation of "leaving people alone" often ends up as empty rhetoric, especially on social issues. For instance, the Defense Of Marriage Act was justified by the libertarian-compatible principle of Federalism (for the record, by saying "libertarian-compatible" what I mean is that it is a principle that honest libertarians can advocate as a politically feasible way to increase liberty). However, DOMA's federalism was completely one-way and also federally-defined marriage in terms of one-man-one-woman (this latter portion of DOMA was, thankfully, struck down by a Republican-appointed Judge that was much more consistent on the principle of federalism than the Republicans that appointed him). Yes, there are sincere religious libertarians but there are also plenty of traitor religionist conservatives that happily use libertarian rhetoric and then backstab it. So forgive my pessimism.

2) The "free-markets = conservative therefore socially conservative" package-deal is the greatest weapon the Left have. When people like Beck claim to be libertarians (and I admit, it is quite possible Beck is sincere), this only strengthens the package-deal by associating a socially-conservative religion with an advocate of free markets. Yes, its true one can follow a religion that holds socially conservative values without enforcing them on the populace; but try telling that to the Roman Catholic Bishops that deny politicians in their congregation the Eucharist if said politician is pro-choice (it happens). Being able to culturally smear free markets as socially conservative is not only completely false but also the best way to turn young people, nonheterosexual people and other related constituencies against free markets.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Andrew,

How much Beck have you actually watched?

Just curious.

Michael

EDIT: Just for the record, I looked up some of these "isms" (including neoconservative and paleoconservative) to see if they actually apply to what Beck and the Tea Party are doing. While I can see a specific politician or other associated with Beck and/or the Tea Party going off in these directions, they do not represent the core of what is going on. Almost all "sims" (except libertarianism and Objectivism) have an expanding government at the core.

I know Beck's work better than others because I watch the show. (It is a hell of an interesting ride into the history of the USA.) So here is an overview of what he promotes:

POLITICALLY

• Small government
• Small taxes
• Republic of law with elected officials as government, not pure democracy
• Stop government spending on just about everything except core government services (like courts, military, etc.)
• Individual rights, which come from God, not man
• Get rid of all government-mandated "charity"
• Use the Constitution rather than case law as the legal guide and get rid of the idea of the Constitution as a living document that breathes through case law
• Strong separation of church and state, but without eliminating all references to God and/or Christian references in governmental traditions

SOCIALLY

• Restore the American history that Progressives have been erasing--which means restoring it to school textbooks and American culture--through reading and relying on original sources (i.e., things like evaluating George Washington's thought from George Washington's own writings rather than accepting the opinions put forth in 20th and 21st century history books)--with particular emphasis on the lives and heroism of the USA Founding Fathers
• Look at who associates with who in ideological/professional terms when analyzing institutions and think tanks, trace the sources of funding, and classify the people and organizations based on this knowledge--with strong focus on exposing progressive/socialist/communist ties
• Use people's own words through video, audio, and/or their original writings--in correct context--to evaluate their positions and contradictions
• Bring to light the Christian element that was present in the founding of the USA
• Make equal justice for all as opposed to social justice and other political principles very clear to the public by putting them in common language
• Social change through nonviolent means

PERSONALLY

• Personal responsibility for success and/or failure in life
• Return to God
• Become concerned with being a good person before thinking about politics and try to eliminate moral defects like dishonesty from your life
• Live according to moral principles that you choose
• Faith in God and faith in the basic goodness of most people
• Hope based on the truth (especially looking at original sources in history)
• Charity--freely given by individual choice--as an expression of benevolence of spirit
• Nonviolence as a virtue

There are more things, but this is a good overview of some of the core ideas that Beck promotes. This has led him to clash with conservatives over things like his view that it is appropriate to grant Miranda rights to the Times Square bomber (all American citizens have the same rights), his non-opposition to gay marriage, his view--early in the debate--that the Cordoba Ground Zero mosque project had all rights to proceed (although he has been reexamining that because he wants to see who is behind it and where the funding is coming from), etc. He has also been a strong critic of Bush and many other Republicans. He basically does not like any politician, right or left.

Taking his zealous preaching about God out of the equation, there is very little on which I disagree with him. Probably the greatest point I do not have in common with him is regarding the origin of individual rights. But his view is the same as what is on our founding documents.

After seeing what I have seen among Beck's audience and at Tea Parties, I am certain that politicians who think they will be able to use this stuff to gain and expand power will be sorely frustrated and disappointed in the results--at least for now. I can't say about later since mankind in general seems to have a hard time with memory of evil.

btw - I had a funny thought just now. I would wager that many present anti-religious libertarians and Objectivists would regard George Washington as a crackpot if time travel were possible, they got to meet him, and they did not know his importance to the founding of the USA.

Michael

[studiodekadent]

Andrew,

How much Beck have you actually watched?

Just curious.

Michael

I admit, I've only watched some segments of his show on YouTube, so I can't claim I have as much viewing experience with Beck as you do (for the record, I hate Bill O'Rielly, I think Kieth Olbermann is a chipmunk on amphetamines that fails economics forever, and I like Stossel).

I know Beck's work better than others because I watch the show. (It is a hell of an interesting ride into the history of the USA.) So here is an overview of what he promotes:

POLITICALLY

Individual rights, which come from God, not man

The problem is that Beck and Co. are convinced that individual rights come from the Christian/Jewish/Muslim god, a.k.a. Yahweh/Jehovah. I'll return to this point later...

Strong separation of church and state, but without eliminating all references to God and/or Christian references in governmental traditions

This is a contradiction (I should add, I know you aren't endorsing this, you're simply stating what Beck is promoting and have explicitly made clear you don't endorse his religionism). If the State is secular than all references to any specific God or religion must be removed from the State's observances.

SOCIALLY

Look at who associates with who in ideological/professional terms when analyzing institutions and think tanks, trace the sources of funding, and classify the people and organizations based on this knowledge--with strong focus on exposing progressive/socialist/communist ties

My problem is that Beck often fudges distinctions and misuses terminology. Beck would obliterate the division between, say, a social democrat and a Marxist. Contrary to some people these are different ideologies even if they are both forms of socialism (however there have been so many different forms of socialism that the concept is very broad... most people have frozen abstractions when dealing with socialism; i.e. they assume all socialists are State Socialists (conflating the subclass with the wider class)).

Bring to light the Christian element that was present in the founding of the USA

And further obscure the Enlightenment element? Both the left and the right have been working on shoving Enlightenment values out of the way (in order to create a pre-enlightenment (i.e. faith) vs. post-enlightenment (i.e. German-Idealist-derived philosophies) false dichotomy) in the same way that both the left and the right created their political spectrum false dichotomy to obliterate the concept of classical liberalism. Yes, many of the Founding Fathers were some variety of Christian, but...

1) Evangelicalism as we know it today didn't exist back then (and most of the religious right have a frozen abstraction of "Christian" as "Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Calvinist or something like that")

2) The word "God" does not appear in the US Constitution. Also, there is the small matter of the No Religious Test Clause, which does imply that the Founding Fathers did not consider any specific set of religious convictions to be essential in the founding of the US.

3) The "endowed by their creator" clause of the Declaration of Independence does neither specify nor imply anything about the type of creator invoked. After all, it was written by a Deist. There is no necessary implication that said creator is Jehovah/Yahweh, or the Triune God of Pauline Christianity, or the Mormon Godhead, or whatever.

There are more things, but this is a good overview of some of the core ideas that Beck promotes. This has led him to clash with conservatives over things like his view that it is appropriate to grant Miranda rights to the Times Square bomber (all American citizens have the same rights), his non-opposition to gay marriage, his view--early in the debate--that the Cordoba Ground Zero mosque project had all rights to proceed (although he has been reexamining that because he wants to see who is behind it and where the funding is coming from), etc. He has also been a strong critic of Bush and many other Republicans. He basically does not like any politician, right or left.

I agree. He isn't a Republican party stooge.

But his view is the same as what is on our founding documents.

Only on a very abstract level (there is some sort of creator-entity which endowed human beings with rights).

btw - I had a funny thought just now. I would wager that many present anti-religious libertarians and Objectivists would regard George Washington as a crackpot if time travel were possible, they got to meet him, and they did not know his importance to the founding of the USA.

You're probably correct. I'd expect Ayn Rand would probably feel the same. But knowledge expands over time; in context it was understandable that the majority of people back then would be some variant of theist (in the sense of believing in a God, which includes Deism). The Founders were still Enlightenment empiricists and thus their principles can lead to new conclusions as new information is discovered.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Andrew,

When you say "Beck would obliterate the division between, say, a social democrat and a Marxist," I know you haven't see much of his show. I won't even rebut that since all you have to do is watch the show.

As to the Christian thing, for an Objectivist or libertarian, simply identifying that the Founding Fathers were Christians does not mean anything more than identifying that they were Christians. There has been a revisionist history attempt to cast them as Deists (in the 20th century meaning of the term at that, not in the meaning of the times), but this is not reflected in their actual words. You can read a lot of their stuff at the link below. (One of the owners of this site, David Barton, is returning guest on Beck's show.)

WallBuilders

(Look in Library, then Historical Documents.)

For a short version, read this article by David Barton: A Few Declarations of Founding Fathers and Early Statesmen on Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible

Here's a good example of gross misrepresentation modern people have made about Thomas Jefferson, and this is only one example. There is an idea floating around that he was not religious, and specifically not Christian. But here is a copy of a document he signed while President of the USA where he signed with the phrase. "in the year of our Lord Christ."

Thomas Jefferson Document.

It was common back then to sign with "in the year of our Lord." Jefferson added "Christ."

The list goes on and on and on. On Googling this, I even found an interesting site. I cannot say anything about the accuracy like I can WallBuilders, but on a skim, it looks right:

Religious Affiliation of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America.

The falsification of history we have had about American history reminds me of how ARI people have tried to write the Brandens out of Objectivist history and ideas. I am of the opinion that if you falsify history, you cannot build anything credible. I know I don't trust anyone who does not trust me enough to give me correct information because he wants to control my mind. Anyone who tries to make me believe in a false reality by intentionally distorting what he knows to be true wants to control my mind.

Beck also has a saying from Jefferson (letter to his nephew Peter Carr from Paris, France, dated August 10, 1787) that he quotes constantly on his show: "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.”

(As an aside, if you feel that David Barton and WallBuilders is slanted towards promoting a strong Christian agenda, you would be correct. I could not find the above Jefferson quote on his site. That kind of ommission makes me take a person's facts when sourced in original documents, but leave their opinions behind.)

I also have learned some things from Beck that I did not know. For instance, have you ever heard of the "Black Robe Brigade"? These were the preacher who conveyed the ideas of freedom to colonists. This name was coined by the British, who feared them so much British soldiers used to burn their churches to the ground. Without these preachers, there would have been no American Revolution. They laid the groundwork for the ideas the Founding Fathers worked out to take hold.

(Much the same way Beck is laying the groundwork for the Tea Party and the awakening to freedom that is happening here.)

Another gem from Beck concerned the importance the preacher George Whitefield had on the spirit of the people at the time. I had never even heard of him before. There are some fascinating stories about him.

It is unreasonable to presume that a religious people would not be influenced by their preachers on such an important issue as going to war. That's just one of the reasons (but it is a strong reason) I feel cheated that this whole religious thing with the Founding Fathers has been airbrushed out by modern historians.

You said the word "God" is not in the Constitution. You will not find the word "church" in it either, as in "separation of church and state." You will find, in the First Amendment, that there is a prohibition to establishing a federal religion and a prohibition against prohibiting people from practicing the religion of their choice. The Constitution does not prohibit states from establishing a state religion, and in fact some states did have official religions at the time, and the official state religions were written in their state constitutions.

This is far different than what you said: "If the State is secular than all references to any specific God or religion must be removed from the State's observances." The Constitution of the USA does not say that "the State" is secular, merely that the federal government shall not have an official religion and shall not prohibit anyone from practicing the religion of his/her choice. That includes atheism, but this falls more under "freedom of speech" than the "free exercise thereof" with respect to religion (both quotes in this sentence are from the First Amendment), seeing that atheism is not a religion, but instead lack of religion.

This stuff is very important to get right if we are to truly establish separation of church and state. Once again, if a person falsifies--or incorrectly interprets--what is there in the founding docuemtns, this will only destroy the credibility of what he does later.

The progressives have had their shot at doing this. And they got away with it for a while. I think Beck's mainstream exposure of their rewriting of history will set them back more than anything else. They are screaming bloody murder right now, as they should. They know he is hitting them where it hurts.

If you look at Beck's shows in the same light I do, which is take his facts and look at his overviews (he is great at connecting dots), but treat his religious appeals as something particular to him and not me, you will find a wealth of information and original thinking you don't get anywhere else in the mainstream. And it's important stuff that's needed to get us out of the mess Obama and his administration are making of the USA and, as a result, the world.

Should one day an Objectivist or libertarian have the competence Beck has as a showman and goes after restoring history and taking on the bad guys with the same degree of impact Beck has on normal folks (the bulk of the voters), I will switch over. Until then, if this is what we've got to stop the collectivist mess, this is what we've got. At least it's working so far.

Michael

[studiodekadent]

As to the Christian thing, for an Objectivist or libertarian, simply identifying that the Founding Fathers were Christians does not mean anything more than identifying that they were Christians. There has been a revisionist history attempt to cast them as Deists (in the 20th century meaning of the term at that, not in the meaning of the times), but this is not reflected in their actual words. You can read a lot of their stuff at the link below. (One of the owners of this site, David Barton, is returning guest on Beck's show.)

WallBuilders

WallBuilders is a conservative Christian organization explicitly devoted to arguing that America was founded as a Christian nation. Quoting from their own site, their "About Us" section: WallBuilders' goal is to exert a direct and positive influence in government, education, and the family by (1) educating the nation concerning the Godly foundation of our country; (2) providing information to federal, state, and local officials as they develop public policies which reflect Biblical values; and (3) encouraging Christians to be involved in the civic arena. (See About Us, Our Goal).

This doesn't automatically disprove them, but it does cast some questions on their reliability (which you indeed concede).

Here's a good example of gross misrepresentation modern people have made about Thomas Jefferson, and this is only one example. There is an idea floating around that he was not religious, and specifically not Christian. But here is a copy of a document he signed while President of the USA where he signed with the phrase. "in the year of our Lord Christ."

Jefferson was raised Episcopalian/Anglican (see the Adherents page you linked to here Religious Affiliation of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America) and Anglicanism has always had a place for reason; their "three legged stool" model of theology. You are correct that it would be wrong to argue he was not Christian, and I am not saying he was not Christian (this doesn't mean he wasn't influenced by the English Deists either; Deism's emphasis on reason does have compatibilities with the Episcopalian approach). It is possible to be a Christian Deist, if one holds Deism to be a methodological position first and foremost.

Beck also has a saying from Jefferson (letter to his nephew Peter Carr from Paris, France, dated August 10, 1787) that he quotes constantly on his show: "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.”

I like that saying and I approve of it. Not only that but I congratulate Beck for quoting it. The sentiment expressed in that saying is characteristic of Deism (or a Deist influence at least).

However, I think you are a touch too charitable on the issue of "Christian" Founding Fathers. Surely the US Founding Fathers were indeed Christian as we use the term. But the Christian Right have a frozen abstraction of Christianity; to them, a Catholic isn't Christian, many would say a Mormon isn't a Christian (Beck obviously would not, being Mormon himself), and Episcopalians certainly are not. To them, by "Christian" they mean (generally) "Calvinist/Evangelical Protestant that accepts Biblical Innerrancy (or something along these lines)." The religious right move the goalposts; claiming the Founding Fathers were Christian (correct under the definition we used) and then tightening the definition of "Christian" when they attempt to justify their (the religious right's) policies as "Christian" (and the only Christian position). By the definition of "Christian" used by most of the religious right, Jefferson would NOT be a Christian (Episcopalian, Deist/Empiricist methodology, not a believer in Biblical Inerrancy).

The falsification of history we have had about American history reminds me of how ARI people have tried to write the Brandens out of Objectivist history and ideas. I am of the opinion that if you falsify history, you cannot build anything credible. I know I don't trust anyone who does not trust me enough to give me correct information because he wants to control my mind. Anyone who tries to make me believe in a false reality by intentionally distorting what he knows to be true wants to control my mind.

I agree with you entirely.

You said the word "God" is not in the Constitution. You will not find the word "church" in it either, as in "separation of church and state." You will find, in the First Amendment, that there is a prohibition to establishing a federal religion and a prohibition against prohibiting people from practicing the religion of their choice. The Constitution does not prohibit states from establishing a state religion, and in fact some states did have official religions at the time, and the official state religions were written in their state constitutions.

You are correct that "Separation of Church and State" is not in the Constitution; rather it is a quote from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. But this provides evidence as to the actual intent behind the First Ammendment and if one's jurisprudence is one of Originalism, then indeed "Separation of Church and State" is the correct interpretation of the First Ammendment's freedom of religion. I should add that the Establishment Clause has been incorporated against the States, and I believe this to be the correct logical consequence of the principles adopted by the Founding Fathers.

It is completely plausible that the Founding Fathers adopted principles that they did not see (or implement) every logical consequence of.

This is far different than what you said: "If the State is secular than all references to any specific God or religion must be removed from the State's observances." The Constitution of the USA does not say that "the State" is secular, merely that the federal government shall not have an official religion and shall not prohibit anyone from practicing the religion of his/her choice.

I believe that what I said is indeed the correct logical consequence of the principles adopted by the Founding Fathers. You are correct, my exact words are not in the US Constitution and it is possible that the Founding Fathers didn't grasp or, possibly, wouldn't even accept, my proposition about what the logical implications of their principles would entail. However, perhaps its best to look at the Founding Fathers in a similar way to how we look at Ayn Rand; if the philosopher incorrectly applies the philosophy, or applies the philosophy in a way that contradicts the underlying principles of the philosophy, then the application must be thrown out (assuming the underlying principles are correct).

This stuff is very important to get right if we are to truly establish separation of church and state. Once again, if a person falsifies--or incorrectly interprets--what is there in the founding docuemtns, this will only destroy the credibility of what he does later.

I agree with you.

Should one day an Objectivist or libertarian have the competence Beck has as a showman and goes after restoring history and taking on the bad guys with the same degree of impact Beck has on normal folks (the bulk of the voters), I will switch over. Until then, if this is what we've got to stop the collectivist mess, this is what we've got. At least it's working so far.

I just wish it were someone like Stossel or Penn Jilette (yes, I know about the recent episode of "Bullshit" and I think Penn didn't do the research... he's listed on Wikipedia as an Objectivist and he can't be a Peikoff-type because he works with Cato and said he's sympathetic to free-market Anarchism) that did it, rather than someone that appeals to populism, anti-intellectualism and religionism. I guess I'm putting metaphysics and epistemology first, and I should add that I don't think it is ALWAYS right to do that (matters of degree come into the equation)... but still, religious libertarians just grate against my sense of life.

I know that I'm making the ideal the enemy of the good, and as I said I think the Tea Party could indeed be a positive development. But I don't want a new fusionism, I don't want to swallow social conservatism as a package-deal to get economic sanity (I should also add, I think that as a matter of practical politics, I do think federalism is the best way to undermine social conservatism).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Andrew,

We see the same things in fundamentals. I think we differ a little in perception of what the practical implementations are.

If you want really practical advice on how to change the political landscape with nonviolence and democratically, I recently read an article by Gary North with one really good idea. (He had some other ideas there that were not as good or as practical, but this one was great and doable.)

His idea is to vote for the less squishy politician (right or left, it doesn't matter) and nail the other one at the following election. The problem with squishy politicians--and why you have to avoid them--is that they get entrenched and make deals all over the place, and they are hard to pin down on statements that could embarrass them. If you get an ideologue in office, you can start working on his credibility right at the start while positioning a free-market alternative and keep this running during his entire term of office. Then chances for the next election are drastically increased.

(I wonder if this kind of thinking has been used for Ron Paul...)

As far as the Christian far right is concerned, I agree with you. The only problem is that there are two problems right now, them and the far left--which is the one in currently in office.

If you see Beck's value, then you will see what a tragic tactical mistake it would be to leave his legacy to the Christian far right once the far left problem is resolved. If I know Beck, he won't go for Christian far right nonsense, but the restoring history and dot-connecting work he is doing will live on. Even if he stays in the public eye, I'm not so sure he would have the same enthusiasm for battling fellow Christians as he does godless left (or ones who he says pervert Christianity with the concept of collective salvation).

I think it is far, far better to have voices--ones who promote him now--who will speak out against the Christian far right's inevitable expanding government efforts and busybody crap when it starts once the left is out of office. Think about the newly elected politicians who are going to go in with the upcoming elections under Beck and Tea Party steam. They will have their heads full of freedom, small government, etc. But they will still be human and more and more vulnerable to temptation as they go along. Don't think both the far right and the far left will be working on tempting them, too, in addition to the trappings of power.

Keeping an active voice now--right where the audience is, i.e. Beck--and in the future will, I believe, help keep a lid on any noxious effects from "fusionism." I don't like that term, anyway. It came from "restoring" the Republican party. Beck and Tea Party lean toward identifying candidates of both parties who are for small government, etc., irrespective of party. I think this attitude will keep going, too. The reason there is a leaning toward Republicans is that not many Democrats believe in small government on principle. But there are some and I am sure they will get Tea Party support. I believe we will see more of them as events unfold.

I don't know how long the present growing public awareness atmosphere will last, but I have a feeling that the small-government/big-government issue is going to be on the table for a long time. I keep hearing normal people--not just public personalities--say they fell asleep at the wheel, but now they're awake. When it's on that level, something drastic and more lasting than just one election cycle is coming.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Andrew,

As a contrary view to David Barton, I tool a look at a lady, Chris Rodda, who has made debunking him her life's work:

Liars For Jesus

I watched the entire 90 minute video by her.

What I can say is that she distorts to the same extent and in the same manner that he does, and sometimes uses original sources. She reminds me a bit of James Valliant in the number of times she uses the word "lies" for things that are not lies. It is good, though, to have someone check Barton's footnotes and challenge them.

I think if you read something by him (Christian), then read her rebuttal (progressive), leaving your BS meter on for both, of course, then read the texts of the original documents surrounding the issue, you will get a fairly good overview of what really transpired and why.

Both are pretty good at pointing out the agenda of the other side and where evidence exists that debunks the agenda, but both are committed to their own strong irrational agendas.

Since they are both industrious, an exercise like I suggest would be profitable knowledge-wise.

Michael

[studiodekadent]

Andrew,

We see the same things in fundamentals. I think we differ a little in perception of what the practical implementations are.

If you want really practical advice on how to change the political landscape with nonviolence and democratically, I recently read an article by Gary North with one really good idea. (He had some other ideas there that were not as good or as practical, but this one was great and doable.)

His idea is to vote for the less squishy politician (right or left, it doesn't matter) and nail the other one at the following election. The problem with squishy politicians--and why you have to avoid them--is that they get entrenched and make deals all over the place, and they are hard to pin down on statements that could embarrass them. If you get an ideologue in office, you can start working on his credibility right at the start while positioning a free-market alternative and keep this running during his entire term of office. Then chances for the next election are drastically increased.

(I wonder if this kind of thinking has been used for Ron Paul...)

As far as the Christian far right is concerned, I agree with you. The only problem is that there are two problems right now, them and the far left--which is the one in currently in office.

If you see Beck's value, then you will see what a tragic tactical mistake it would be to leave his legacy to the Christian far right once the far left problem is resolved. If I know Beck, he won't go for Christian far right nonsense, but the restoring history and dot-connecting work he is doing will live on. Even if he stays in the public eye, I'm not so sure he would have the same enthusiasm for battling fellow Christians as he does godless left (or ones who he says pervert Christianity with the concept of collective salvation).

I think it is far, far better to have voices--ones who promote him now--who will speak out against the Christian far right's inevitable expanding government efforts and busybody crap when it starts once the left is out of office. Think about the newly elected politicians who are going to go in with the upcoming elections under Beck and Tea Party steam. They will have their heads full of freedom, small government, etc. But they will still be human and more and more vulnerable to temptation as they go along. Don't think both the far right and the far left will be working on tempting them, too, in addition to the trappings of power.

Keeping an active voice now--right where the audience is, i.e. Beck--and in the future will, I believe, help keep a lid on any noxious effects from "fusionism." I don't like that term, anyway. It came from "restoring" the Republican party. Beck and Tea Party lean toward identifying candidates of both parties who are for small government, etc., irrespective of party. I think this attitude will keep going, too. The reason there is a leaning toward Republicans is that not many Democrats believe in small government on principle. But there are some and I am sure they will get Tea Party support. I believe we will see more of them as events unfold.

I don't know how long the present growing public awareness atmosphere will last, but I have a feeling that the small-government/big-government issue is going to be on the table for a long time. I keep hearing normal people--not just public personalities--say they fell asleep at the wheel, but now they're awake. When it's on that level, something drastic and more lasting than just one election cycle is coming.

Michael

Michael,

I completely understand you are focussing on practical politics. And for that matter, I can see why you'd be positive about the Tea Party as a development in restraining the State (believe me, I share your optimism to some extent).

Where I do disagree is that I think it is a mistake to characterize Obama's current views as far left (I should add, I concede he was a radical leftist in college, but that isn't really an unprecedented thing; lots of people have political radicalism in their past). Obama is a social democrat (which is not the same thing as a democratic socialist), which makes him (in my judgment) center-left rather than far left. Indeed, the actual far left are disappointed with Obama over the Obamacare disaster (which, strangely, they hate for the same reason that the libertarians do (it is a corporatist bill), even if most of them still want single payer).

Regardless, I would like to thank you for the links. I'll check them out.

(P.S. Had the time to read my Master's Thesis yet?).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Andrew,

Thanks for reminding me. I'll get to it.

About Obama being far left, you need to see the programs to see how the dots connect. He is far more left than your run-of-the mill social democrat.

And it started in family. Beck talked about Obama's book, Dreams of My Father. The main dream of Obama's father was for a communist Kenya (and it finally came with the recent new constitution, which is practically a repurposing of the old Soviet constitution, if I remember what Beck said correctly--unfortunately Obama's father did not live to see it).

Anyway, what were the dreams of your father? I mean you, Andrew? To abandon his family to study communism-related issues at Harvard, then try to implement Soviet-style communism in an African country? Not socialism. Communism. My father didn't dream stuff like that. I don't know anyone whose father did.

Another point. The English colonists jailed and tortured Obama's grandfather. If anyone wonders about Obama's weird attitude toward England, that is probably a good part of it.

That's just for starters. There is a butt-load of stuff on Obama's mentors and his own declarations over the years. It's all on tape or documents. Beck is very careful only to present stuff in context. He says for every one thing he presents, he has a whole room full of other stuff. But he does not present it when other interpretations could apply.

The progressives nudge (and "progress" by baby-steps). Outright communists do it by violent revolution. Their means are different, but their destination is the same. Obama is a progressive.

Michael

[Backlighting]

Obama's Health Care Bill, by which he initiates the use of force (you must purchase health insurance)on all of us certainly qualifies him, in my opinion, as a far left radical.

[studiodekadent]

MSK,

The political orientations of one's parents prove nothing. Many people end up rejecting the politics of their families.

Again, one's philosophical mentors don't necessarily mean Obama hasn't moderated his views; David Kelley's PhD advisor was Sidney Hook (a Marxist) (at least I think so, please correct me if I'm wrong).

Obama is a Social Democrat, and Social Democracy is indeed a product of (broadly-speaking) Socialist ideology. But Obama wants to make the US like France, and France is a mixed economy. The means of production are only partially socialized. I don't deny Obama's moral beliefs or overall political philosophy come from a socialistic (in the broad sense) framework, but to argue he is a Socialist (with the implication that he ultimately seeks full state socialism) is false unless one only means "socialist" in a very broad sense.

I'm not defending Obama. I'm simply trying to include relevant matters of degree. Someone that wants to make the US like France or Sweden is less of a threat than someone that wants to make the US like the Soviet Union. Oskar Lange was less of a totalitarian than Kim Il Sung.

Las Vegas,

Obama's health care bill is certainly more Statist than what the US was before the bill, but it is anything but "far left." The far left wanted a single payer system (government monopoly on health insurance). Note that I am not defending Obamacare; I believe Obamacare will only make healthcare prices worse and will only exacerbate corporate consolidation within the healthcare market (by reducing competition). These effects have already been seen in Massachusetts (Obamacare after all was based on Romneycare). I know you said that he's a far left radical in your opinion but I am judging against a full ideological spectrum (which ranges from complete laissez-faire on one hand to state ownership of all means of production of healthcare services on the other).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Andrew,

Of course many kids change from what their parents were. But many kids don't. And even when they change, there are still many fundamental influences on how to look at things. You can usually tell those who go off in a different direction by the signs of rebellion in their early adult statements and acts, especially as they assume the new direction.

Where are they with Obama?

Anyway, that's just one piece of the puzzle. By itself, I would discard it. But it's there right in the middle of a hell of a lot more homogeneous far left stuff. I will grant you this. Between personal power and strict far left ideology, Obama opts for personal power. But he nudges the far left agenda as far as he can nudge it. And just as soon as he gets one thing done, he is right there doing another. Look at the chain of stimulus packages and regulatory structures he keeps on pumping out without time for catching a breath between them. Most of the stuff is passed without Congress even reading it anymore.

Also, it is a mistake to attribute one strategy only to the far left. They have several. When all else fails, they nudge the Cloward and Piven strategy (simply collapsing/bankrupting the current system by piling on entitlement demands, then, after the collapse, building a new system from the ashes).

As to Obamacare, Obama is on record saying he wants a single-payer system. He didn't do it because he couldn't, not because he didn't want to.

What he got was a step in that direction. If he can't have what he wants, he will take a small step in that direction.

It's the stealth creep of Progressivism. And it is an explicit policy. Progressives are taught to do that and you can confirm this through literature that anyone can obtain using a simple Google search.

Understand how the Progressive does it. He doesn't take things over by planting a flag on a situation and saying, "Now I rule here." He takes advantage of bad things that are in place, or sets up very difficult conditions to work under, or entraps people with set-ups, etc., then points to the inevitable shortcomings, indicates a scapegoat and turns the propaganda machine on to nonstop demonize the scapegoat, takes some poor sucker and holds him up as a victim to the cameras, and gradually expands government power by saying, "Unfortunately I have to take these measure to ensure accountability," or some other such euphemistic phrase that really means, "Now I rule here."

And when you look at the organizations and people backing the Progressives, it's pretty ugly. Some of them even take a public "fall" to allow the Progressive in power (Obama in this case) to keep up an image, and they put on a show as they are set out for the public to demonize them. But after a small amount of time for the dust to settle from their fall from grace, they reappear at the Tides Foundation, The Center for American Progress or some such place in a very cushy job. Old organizations are abandoned and new ones with new names and the exact same fundamental functions are set up with that person at the top.

It happens over and over. Van Jones is a very good example.

Michael

[Backlighting]

studiodekadent

It is a matter of degree. I believe the present Health Care Law IS far left. The single-payer option is more left, or "lefter", so to speak.

[studiodekadent]

studiodekadent

It is a matter of degree. I believe the present Health Care Law IS far left. The single-payer option is more left, or "lefter", so to speak.

I don't deny that Obamacare is a shift away from free markets; it clearly is. I just don't want to equate Obamacare with Single Payer with complete socialization of the means of production of healthcare.