No, he's not. He's channelling their (very justified) anger into fear and hysteria in a way that suits the political agenda of the right-wing of a section of the Republican party - the part that has always gone on about God, guns and low taxes, whilst blaming the liberals, immigrants and gays. His "articulation" is about as dishonest, ignorant and backwards as it's possible to be, but people are so disoriented that they're falling for it because it at least offers some answers. It's all very dangerous, and while recognising this, what others should be asking is why these people aren't hearing answers from anywhere else.
Part of the equation you're not getting is that all those people who want what Beck is selling want the low taxes, minimal government, illegals out, gun rights, and all of those other right wing ideals. What they consistantly have been given are Republican Candidates that talk a big game about those things and then fail to deliver when on Capitol Hill. We've fired them in 2004, 2006, and 2008, and then situation never gets better. Here comes Obama who says he's going to bring Hope and Change and he isn't going to play party politics and who immediately does so, dragging the country with him. People are sick and tired of the pilitical process in this country and are starting to realize that their vote doesn't count, that the Republicans are as worthless as the Democrats, and that something has to give. Beck is just saying what they already think.
There were a heckuva lot of people out there who were saying things like "Throw them all out!" The Tea Partiers are, indeed, coming from the Republican party but that's not a guarantee they're voting Republican. They're really looking for change.
I agree and I think in large part it's because the conservative voter base feels that the Republican party sells out those ideals every chance they get. Those Tea Party people are by and large conservatives that feel like they've been abandoned by the Republicans who forgot what they stood for. The Republican party want to capitolize on that momemntum, but instead of looking inward and saying "this is what we believe" and kicking those who don't toe the party line to the curb is just offering more of the same. The voters know that, they aren't as easily duped as Michael Steele would like, but there's no real opportunity for change in a two-party system. It's a big shit sandwich and we all have to take a bite, the only difference is which end we bite off of.
Yeah, not buying that. The hatred and fear had to be whipped up. It's not just Beck, and there were people doing it before him, but this lunatic fringe didn't always exist.
Get back to me when someone on the left - apart from donating from their personal fortune - raises a net $3+ million for such a worthy cause. in one day. Only time I know of is when you put multiple high profile celebrities on the same stage.
You're confusing the way socialists generally gain power with the way a populace generally used to freedom and a freer market works. These people may need a leader to motivate them but the distrust of big government has been there since before we kicked the Brits out and won our independence.
It's been building for years. You're not an American, you don't live here, you don't have conversations with us in diners and bars, you don't know what's being said around dinner tables or in coffee shops. You only know what the media tells you. This dissatisfaction was here long before Glenn Beck. Beck just gave people a nucleus to form around. People are sick of the situation at hand, see no way to fix it since neither party has any real interest in doing so. Turthfully, I'm surprised someone hasn't actually grabbed a congressman and tarred and feathered him yet.
Well, I think even that much makes someone a naive sucker. I contend that the ideals don't even exist to be sold out in the first place. They were made up propaganda from the very people the conservative base now hates. But people don't wanna hear that shit. Like how they don't want to hear that when you die, nothing else happens. Oh, well, it's all the myths that define people, innit?
Well, if i wanted my eyes to bleed, I'm pretty sure I could go to DU and mine pages and pages of pissed off rhetoric, almost all of it supported by claims which turn out not to be true. But between laziness and wishing to preserve my sanity, i'll have to let someone else do it.
I don't need to be an American to know the recent history of right-wing fanatic movements. It has indeed been building for a couple of decades or more, but that's because there have been people like Beck for precisely that long.
A) Theses aren't "right wing fanatics". The Tea Party isn't some KKK or John Birch meeting. It's normal, everyday people that want lower taxes, less government spending, and government out of our lives and pockets. B) When exactly is your cut off point for the media and these "right wing fanatics" anyways? Rush Limbaugh? FDR's Fireside Chats? Thomas Paine's Common Sense?
Just the first. And no, that's not an accurate description. These are the people who believe that Obama is a Muslim with a secret plan to turn the United States Marxist. But of course, no right-wing fanatic will ever admit to being that.
So, who exactly was the target of "hate" on Saturday? As far as I can see, the only targets were people who are (so the crowd believe) bankrupting the country. Should such people be embraced? On the subject of the thread - is Beck an entertainer? Oh yes. But entertainers can and do find a moment when they wish to go deeper than just entertaining (when it's done from the left left wingers defend the freedom of speech of Sean Penn or Natalie Maines and right wingers tend to bitch) and contrary to the standard meme, i think Beck sincerly believes the things he says. What's more, the great majority of the time he's right, whether you like the manner in which the truth is delivered or not. Now, if you think like Rick, Beck could be sober as a judge and you'd call him a retard because as you view the world, he's just WRONG. But, the false assumption is - whether you are a leftist like Rick, or a right winger who fears being soiled by association with Beck as in the column quoted above, is that Beck's comments represent the fringe. in truth, while not everyone likes his style or would admit to being a viewer, let alone a fan, when you strip away the showmanship - what Beck says is what a considerable plurality, if not a majority, of Americans think. And THAT is why those people were moved by him - it's the same reason Rush continues to dominate his field - these people hear their views given prominence in an appealing package. They hear something that gives them the sense that someone is putting a big enough megaphone to what they have to say that those in Washington CAN'T ignore it. They find out they are not, in fact, in the minority view. Why are so many of these poeple unwilling to call themselves Republicans? Because they are what Republican politicians, for the most part, CLAIM to be but ARE NOT. These people already know the Democrats are a lost cause, and the Republicans for the last decade have given EVERY indication that they are doing this: instead of listening to the people who voted for them. Beck, however imperfect a messenger he might be, gives voice to that frustration. As the boards most notorious Beck defender, I'll say frankly that I think he's going too far in the "turn back to God" vein for a non-preacher (even if it is an ecumenical call which it is) - i think he's going to lose some otherwise sympathetic listeners. but it does have the virtue of being an apolitical call, and that too appeals to the people who really wouldn't turn out like this for a Republican v. Democrat demonstration. As for taking Beck seriously, hell even Beck doesn't take Beck seriously - he's simply the right guy in the right place at the right time. But don't assume that just because he's an entertainer that he doesn't believe what he's saying or that his concerns are not justified. It's certainly possible he's playing a role he doesn't believe, but it's just as possible that he, like any number of politically active entertainers, simply sees the opportunity to use his platform to make a difference, not unlike Bono, for instance. I don't agree with every position bono takes, and i'm sure he's got more than a little problem with ego - but i respect the FUCK out of him not just simply taking the money and buying more toys instead of doing what, by his lights, is the right thing to do.
the fact that you consider those people lunatics is by itself proof you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. you want to see lunatics, check out pretty much any left-wing rally. Watch pretty much any video of Saturday's events and you might seem some dudes that look like bikers or hillbillies but you don't see any lunatics.
As I understand it, this rally was pretty big on the evangelical stuff, condemning the "turn away from God". So I'd say secularists, athiests and non-Christians generally.
Lunacy is the beliefs they hold. Which you've made clear you share. And as I've already pointed out, nobody self-identifies as a lunatic or fanatic.
Nova, Nova, Nova... You forget who you're talking to here. RD's the only one qualified to judge who the lunatics are.
Absolutely right. and here's the telling thing for those of us who feel that way - the history of American politics over the last 30+ years is gives indisputable proof that Republicans who run on AND govern towards what these so-called "lunatics" think is important enjoy marvelous political success, and those who run on it without governing that way invariably suffer politically BUT even faced with that obvious record, they do just that (not all, but most). if the evidence showed that softening your stand worked, it would at least be understandable - but it doesn't. Now, let me be clear, if you are Olympia Snowe, maybe you can't get by with being anything stronger than Democrat-lite because of the views in your state. everything I just said doesn't apply as broadly north and east of Pennsylvania or on the West coast. Or in some (most?) major cities. But otherwise, speaking broadly, a Republican is far more likely to lose power by moderating than by standing firm, yet they do it anyway. THAT is why people get so pissed at Republicans. The problem is, they don't have any other reasonable place to go without conceding a few elections to the left which most are not willing to do. Knowing this, the GOP continues to hold them in contempt. At least when the Dems disrespect the far left, they know they HAVE to in order to fool the sheeple into thinking they are "moderate" and retain power. When the Repubs scorn the conservative small government folk, they are flying in the face of what they have to know would deliver them political power. that's far less understandable. Finally, I could see defying their base on matters of real principle - say equal rights (which, of course, is the place too many of them toe the line) but the whole business of expanding government and bringing home pork and such...that's not principle. At least not the principles they ran on.
No, not the same. But it's implicit. A lot of this stuff is."Turn back to God" doesn't just mean to say your prayers at night and go to church more often. It blames secularism for some of the problems that are percieved and it's an advocacy of political action which necessarily infringes on the seperation of church and state, imposing whatever version of "Christian morality" they're pushing on those who do not share it.
