Glenn Beck has "had it up to here" with us (Ron Paul Supporters)

[LibertyEagle]

That's cool; I have no problem with your suggestions here.

Obviously, our common ground with Glenn Beck listeners is economic issues. But that is also true of just about every Republican running for anything at any point in time. GOP candidates always say they're for smaller government, reduced spending, yada yada. And when it's proven they didn't mean it, they can always find a Democrat to blame it on....and the wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round.

Until and unless Glenn Beck listeners are ready to hear what we have to say about foreign policy, they will always gravitate to Romney, Bachmann, Santorum, etc. Neocon Beck will make sure of that.

That is one of the spells I think Rand is trying to break.

 

[twomp]

I just wanted to chime in and say, FK YOU GLENN BECK!!

 

[twomp]

In 2009-2010, the Tea Party was making it's rise and garnering attention against BOTH parties. Glenn Beck stepped in and delivered them to the neo-cons and team red. Now he wants us to vote for Mitt Romney, some things never change.

 

[TheTexan]

Yeah, but you are looking past the fact that he does espouse some conservative talking points. More than most any other major media person. It's useful, because the people who listen to them are really looking for something true, like what Ron, Rand, Justin, and Thomas offer. Also don't forget that he has suggested several books to his listeners that are quite good. His listeners are low-hanging fruit. So, it doesn't make sense to me to make them out like they are our enemies.

That's just an unfortunate truth that many aren't ready to accept yet. Don't get me wrong, not all of his listeners are hopeless. I do believe there is something to gain by continuing to reach out to them. But anyone who expects a significant amount of these people to "get it," I'm afraid, will be sorely disappointed.

The vast majority of them are simply playing a different game than us. They are in it, literally for kicks. They just want to root for their team, beat the bad guy, and have a good time. Very few have any real motives about actually improving their country, and if they do have any real motivations, beyond just the sport of the game, then its purely individual financial gain.

I guess if you can convince those people that liberty is in their interests of individual financial gain, then perhaps you can get that segment on board... but it might be a harder sell than you might think. I also think this group of people is in the minority. Most of them are in it just for sport & entertainment.

 

[TheGrinch]

Not necessarily. From my experience the key to persuasion is first having some sort of relationship and/or credibility with the person you are trying to persuade. Then you begin with establishing the common ground that you have with the person - we agree on A, B, and C. Then you probe for their opinion on issue D where they may hold a different opinion. I always make it a point to validate their opinion, and never make them feel like they are wrong for holding that opinion, since I do not wish to put them on the defensive. I then will present my opinion on issue D, and show how the solution addresses the same concern, but provided a different solution to the concern.

This is the way I have done things for decades, and it seems to work in many cases. Where you have problems is with people who disagree with you on all issues, for example a socialist, because I would have few, if any areas to establish common ground with them.

One of the best examples from my memory was not with me, but was with a State Assembly candidate I saw speak back in the late 70's. It was not in my area, but I was upstate to help out a friend of mine who was the county coordinator for his campaign. Anyway this candidate was a rock solid conservative who was addressing a group at a union hall. All of the audience were blue collar union types. The candidate (and for the life of me I cannot remember his name), spent the first 10-15 minutes of the speech connecting with the audience on a variety of points. He then went on to share his own personal story of how he was a factory worker at a younger age, and then went into the most anti-union speech these folks probably ever heard, but all the while he empathized with the audience and showed them how he shared the same concerns, but had a much different solution. He got a standing ovation when it was all done.

Precisely correct. There are different elements of the liberty message that appeal to different groups, and so you absolutely have to start with common ground before you can even get them open to considering the parts that are harder to swallow.

As I always say, know your audience. If you do that, then you need not be dishonest to get their attention.

 

[PierzStyx]

LOL. Doesn't seem to be as many Beck fans on here now as there was in '07.

Beck hadn't lost it in '07. He still made good points and had pretty decent insights back then.

 

[PierzStyx]

Can't believe it took 59 posts before someone chastised us for criticizing Beck! There's hope for this place yet.

Most of these posts aren't criticisms. Most of them are just being assholes, emulating one of the things we hate most about Beck himself.

 

[jkr]

my response:



but then i was lyke,

 

[torchbearer]

Most of these posts aren't criticisms. Most of them are just being assholes, emulating one of the things we hate most about Beck himself.

way past the part...
i was critical during that time where it was sounding like he was starting to get it...
the he goes schizo- he is a traiter and a propagandist.
fuck him is where i'm at now.

 

[PierzStyx]

Precisely correct. There are different elements of the liberty message that appeal to different groups, and so you absolutely have to start with common ground before you can even get them open to considering the parts that are harder to swallow.

As I always say, know your audience. If you do that, then you need not be dishonest to get their attention.

I'll testify to this. When I first started listening to Ron Paul his approach to drug laws, foreign troop placements (not wars but just having troops stationed in other countries, and abortion were all stumbling blocks to me. But the longer I studied the Doctor's message and read about the philosophy of liberty the more I cam around to not just agreeing with his stances, but loudly lauding them. It took less time with me than it would others because of where I already was mentally and politically. But it will take longer with others. And that is okay. It takes time to break years (and in many cases-decades) of programming.

 

[torchbearer]

beck= honey, honey, poison.

 

[PierzStyx]

way past the part...
i was critical during that time where it was sounding like he was starting to get it...
the he goes schizo- he is a traiter and a propagandist.
fuck him is where i'm at now.

I agree with the general sentiment. For a time I think Beck did get it for the most part. Sadly he lost it, believed his own hype, and went over the deep end. And took the Tea Party with him, because people are sheep who love to be lead.

But that doesn't excuse hating him, or being an asshole back to him. You can't be "better" than someone by descending to their level.

 

[torchbearer]

I agree with the general sentiment. For a time I think Beck did get it for the most part. Sadly he lost it, believed his own hype, and went over the deep end. And took the Tea Party with him, because people are sheep who love to be lead.

But that doesn't excuse hating him, or being an asshole back to him. You can't be "better" than someone by descending to their level.

or i can speak my mind and be honest- fuck him. it will be a good day when he is no longer on the air.

 

[RickyJ]

Stick a fork in this buffoon Beck, he is done.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

That's cool; I have no problem with your suggestions here.

Obviously, our common ground with Glenn Beck listeners is economic issues. But that is also true of just about every Republican running for anything at any point in time. GOP candidates always say they're for smaller government, reduced spending, yada yada. And when it's proven they didn't mean it, they can always find a Democrat to blame it on....and the wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round.

Until and unless Glenn Beck listeners are ready to hear what we have to say about foreign policy, they will always gravitate to Romney, Bachmann, Santorum, etc. Neocon Beck will make sure of that.

I think the areas of common ground are on more than economic issues. I think we also have common ground on regulatory issues, entitlements, 2nd amendment rights, many 10th amendment issues, abortion, morality, health care, right to work issues, energy & environmental issues and a few others. Foreign policy and some individual liberty issues (Patriot Act, indefinite detention, etc) are the ones where we part company. So when I am conversing with someone who would have views like Beck, I can name 10-15 issues where we see eye to eye before we even touch on the differences.

One thing I will disagree with you on in your post is when you referred to Beck as a neocon. He is not a textbook neocon since for one, he is with us on those issues I listed above, where a neocon is going to hold a much more moderate position on many of them. Remember, neocons are essentially pre-Great Society Democrats, so they do not hold the same positions we do on a lot of those domestic issues. Neocons support the welfare state, maybe not the one we currently have today, but they aren't universally opposed to it like we are. Beck shares that disdain for the welfare state like many old school Republicans like myself do. Additionally, from what I heard from Beck (and granted it is bits an pieces here and there throughout the years), it seems to me his interventionism is driven by security issues and not a desire to see the US as the policeman of the world. The goal of the neocons is that one world order that we hear so much about. I don't see that desire from Beck. I think his concern is that we have radical Islamists over in the Middle East that want to kill us and our allies, and that we need to prevent that from happening by taking them on over there. I disagree that we need to be involved in their affairs, as I think that is part of the problem, as I am a very old school non-interventionist (hearkening back to the Taft era). So I think it is unfair that we label Beck a neocon, as from what I heard from him, he does not share that global order goal of the neocons. I am pretty sure I have heard Beck be critical of the UN. Again that is something that we wouldn't hear from a textbook neocon like Bill Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld, or Dick Cheney.

 

[TheGrinch]

I think the areas of common ground are on more than economic issues. I think we also have common ground on regulatory issues, entitlements, 2nd amendment rights, many 10th amendment issues, abortion, morality, health care, right to work issues, energy & environmental issues and a few others. Foreign policy and some individual liberty issues (Patriot Act, indefinite detention, etc) are the ones where we part company. So when I am conversing with someone who would have views like Beck, I can name 10-15 issues where we see eye to eye before we even touch on the differences.

One thing I will disagree with you on in your post is when you referred to Beck as a neocon. He is not a textbook neocon since for one, he is with us on those issues I listed above, where a neocon is going to hold a much more moderate position on many of them. Remember, neocons are essentially pre-Great Society Democrats, so they do not hold the same positions we do on a lot of those domestic issues. Neocons support the welfare state, maybe not the one we currently have today, but they aren't universally opposed to it like we are. Beck shares that disdain for the welfare state like many old school Republicans like myself do. Additionally, from what I heard from Beck (and granted it is bits an pieces here and there throughout the years), it seems to me his interventionism is driven by security issues and not a desire to see the US as the policeman of the world. The goal of the neocons is that one world order that we hear so much about. I don't see that desire from Beck. I think his concern is that we have radical Islamists over in the Middle East that want to kill us and our allies, and that we need to prevent that from happening by taking them on over there. I disagree that we need to be involved in their affairs, as I think that is part of the problem, as I am a very old school non-interventionist (hearkening back to the Taft era). So I think it is unfair that we label Beck a neocon, as from what I heard from him, he does not share that global order goal of the neocons. I am pretty sure I have heard Beck be critical of the UN. Again that is something that we wouldn't hear from a textbook neocon like Bill Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld, or Dick Cheney.

OK, how about neocon puppet then

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

OK, how about neocon puppet then

Not sure. I think the way to look at it best is where did someone stand on the Kosovo airstrikes in the late 90's. Luger, McCain, Chaffee, Lieberman - those were the guys that were supportive of that action - and those are the folks I label as having a neo-con foreign policy view. I think we have a tendency to label anyone who wants intervention in the Middle East as a neo-con and I think we are wrong when we do that. Basically, I see that there are essentially a handful of FP positions.

1) Those that view radical Islam as an excuse for war and want intervention because they believe the US needs to lead a world order, and they would intervene in other parts of the world that they feel need that intervention as well. (those are your textbook neocons: McCain, Cheney, et al.)
2) Those that view radical Islam as a legitimate threat and want intervention for the sake of our security & our allies. I.e. get them before they get us. (Beck, Limbaugh, etc fall in here)
3) Those that view radical Islam as a legitimate threat but feel non-interventionism, diplomacy, and a strong defense at home is the best way to protect us. (this is where I am)
4) Those that do not think that Islam is a threat, and believe in a non-interventionist FP (I think left-libertarians are here)
5) Those that think America is the cause of all the problems in the world, and believe if we disarm that there will be peace in the world. (I think the Code Pink crowd is here)

Of course I am generalizing, but the point being that FP positions are more than just us vs them.

 

[LibertyEagle]

That's just an unfortunate truth that many aren't ready to accept yet. Don't get me wrong, not all of his listeners are hopeless. I do believe there is something to gain by continuing to reach out to them. But anyone who expects a significant amount of these people to "get it," I'm afraid, will be sorely disappointed.

The vast majority of them are simply playing a different game than us. They are in it, literally for kicks. They just want to root for their team, beat the bad guy, and have a good time. Very few have any real motives about actually improving their country, and if they do have any real motivations, beyond just the sport of the game, then its purely individual financial gain.

I guess if you can convince those people that liberty is in their interests of individual financial gain, then perhaps you can get that segment on board... but it might be a harder sell than you might think. I also think this group of people is in the minority. Most of them are in it just for sport & entertainment.

I think that is much more true for Hannity listeners, than it is for Beck listeners.

 

[robert9712000]

How can you guys be so mean to this guy.Look how sad he is.

 

[LibertyEagle]

lolol. What an actor.