Glenn Beck: I'm Done With Establishment Republicans, I Support Constitutonalists Like Rand

[A Son of Liberty]

Makes perfect sense, and is evidenced on this site daily.

Uh, no. Nothing you're referring to (things said by those of us who prefer to stick to principles) suggests that we don't want Glenn or anyone else to have total freedom.

What is he, personally offended that we don't care for his offensive foreign policy views?

 

[Brett85]

That's a pretty wide range! "Somewhere in the middle" of such a wide range is about as vague as one can be. I have a feeling this "somewhere" point is closer to Ricky than to Ron. I still think Beck moves back into the Santorum camp if RS decides to run.

Well, he said that Ron doesn't support enough military intervention, and Santorum supports too much military intervention. It seems as though Beck is generally anti war except that he would go to war if Israel were attacked, and probably a few other situations. That makes him similar to Rand.

 

[Confederate]

Best line of the video was when Glenn referenced the purist element of libertarianism and said (paraphrasing) that they believe in maximum freedom, except when you disagree with them, then you cannot be part of the camp.

Yes, that seems to be the case in 90% of the threads here.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Well, he said that Ron doesn't support enough military intervention, and Santorum supports too much military intervention. It seems as though Beck is generally anti war except that he would go to war if Israel were attacked, and probably a few other situations. That makes him similar to Rand.

If that truly is Rand's official foreign policy stance, I cannot support him.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Uh, no. Nothing you're referring to (things said by those of us who prefer to stick to principles) suggests that we don't want Glenn or anyone else to have total freedom.

What is he, personally offended that we don't care for his offensive foreign policy views?

There is a tendency among Libertarians, and always has been, to desire a narrow, exclusive "club". Any divergence from a very rigid set of ideals is seen as being a traitor and people are then labeled as sell-outs, enemies of freedom, etc. I've seen it happen for decades now. Truth be told though, the only ones that lose in that are the purists since their numbers never grow and their effectiveness wanes. Just look at the 40+ year history of the LP for evidence of that.

The same can be said for hardcore paleo-cons. They act in much the very same way, with little tolerance for any views that don't meet their orthodoxy. That faction is honestly to the point where they hardly exist anymore. Look to the CP for the evidence of that.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Yes, that seems to be the case in 90% of the threads here.

LIBERTY!*

*Does not apply to 178 Pakistani children, 500,000 Iraqi children...


You can't be for an interventionist foreign policy AND be an advocate for liberty. Just like you can't be a little bit pregnant. You either are or you aren't.

 

[seraphson]

Double Agent Beck.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

You can't be for an interventionist foreign policy AND be an advocate for liberty. Just like you can't be a little bit pregnant. You either or, or you aren't.

Can you explain then why Ron Paul supported Goldwater and Reagan?

 

[acptulsa]

With all due respect, Captain, exclusion from debates and a sea of talking heads either ignoring everyone who doesn't fit into the Mainstream Orthodoxy well enough to get nominated by one of the Approved Parties, or talking ominously about Throwing Your Vote Away does factor in. Your recap is far, far too simplistic for serious consideration.

Can you explain then why Ron Paul supported Goldwater and Reagan?

Goldwater was arguably interested only in defense. And he turned on Reagan--a fact which you're too busy ignoring to explain.

 

[Brett85]

If that truly is Rand's official foreign policy stance, I cannot support him.

I think I'll support a limited interventionist (Rand) over an unlimited interventionist (Rubio).

 

[A Son of Liberty]

If that truly is Rand's official foreign policy stance, I cannot support him.

I'm with you. I CAN-NOT sanction that. I'm sorry if that makes me a purist. I'll have enough to answer for when my time comes to stand before the Almighty, but I won't be answering for the sanctioning of non-defensive violence.

 

[cajuncocoa]

There is a tendency among Libertarians, and always has been, to desire a narrow, exclusive "club". Any divergence from a very rigid set of ideals is seen as being a traitor and people are then labeled as sell-outs, enemies of freedom, etc. I've seen it happen for decades now. Truth be told though, the only ones that lose in that are the purists since their numbers never grow and their effectiveness wanes. Just look at the 40+ year history of the LP for evidence of that.

The same can be said for hardcore paleo-cons. They act in much the very same way, with little tolerance for any views that don't meet their orthodoxy. That faction is honestly to the point where the hardly exist anymore. Look to the CP for the evidence of that.

Words have meaning, and their meaning is not fluid. As I previously mentioned, the word "cow" is not used to describe a pig. "Libertarian" is not used to describe someone with Glenn Beck's political views. He may resent that, but he can pound sand as far as I'm concerned. Our numbers may be small (according to you) but I still believe we scare the daylights out of people like Beck. His strategy has been to hijack the word (just as he hijacked the Tea Party). I'll be damned if I stay silent about that, and if that frustrates him, too bad.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Can you explain then why Ron Paul supported Goldwater and Reagan?

No, I can't. I'm not Ron. I can explain to you why I won't support anyone who advocates an interventionist foreign policy, however.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

With all due respect, Captain, exclusion from debates and a sea of talking heads either ignoring everyone who doesn't fit into the Mainstream Orthodoxy well enough to get nominated by one of the Approved Parties, or talking ominously about Throwing Your Vote Away does factor in. Your recap is far, far too simplistic for serious consideration.



Goldwater was arguably interested only in defense. And he turned on Reagan--a fact which you're too busy ignoring to explain.

He turned on Reagan after his administration failed to deliver on its promises, and rightfully so. But in 76 and 80 Ron supported Reagan who was not a non-interventionist. The same for Goldwater. Both Reagan and Goldwater were Jacksonian.

 

[AuH20]

It's because Ron has some apprehension about bombing middle eastern countries. That is civility, to Glenn Beck.

I know I'm one who is considered to be too much of a purist for some around here, but on foreign policy, given the immediate life-and-death consequences, there can and should be no compromise. Believe it or not, I'm all for coalitions... just not with interventionists.

More like Ron Paul states that blowback is 100% responsible for Islamic extremism which isn't accurate or true.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

More like Ron Paul states that blowback is 100% responsible for Islamic extremism which isn't accurate or true.

Regardless of whether that is accurate of Ron's position, or why Beck "can't support him", it does not follow that an interventionist foreign policy should be preferred.

There are plenty of threats in the world, and plenty of causes. It is immoral and illogical to advocate going around and engaging them.

 

[cajuncocoa]

More like Ron Paul states that blowback is 100% responsible for Islamic extremism which isn't accurate or true.

Wasn't Ron specifically speaking of the attack on 9-11 when he talked about blowback, not for all of Islamic extremism?

 

[AuH20]

Regardless of whether that is accurate of Ron's position, or why Beck "can't support him", it does not follow that an interventionist foreign policy should be preferred.

There are plenty of threats in the world, and plenty of causes. It is immoral and illogical to advocate going around and engaging them.

I think it's illogical to be purely interventionist or purely noninterventionist without the facts at hand. Granted, I'm cut from the noninterventionist mold but I would never paint myself into such an isolated corner that my enemies could exploit.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Words have meaning, and their meaning is not fluid. As I previously mentioned, the word "cow" is not used to describe a pig. "Libertarian" is not used to describe someone with Glenn Beck's political views. He may resent that, but he can pound sand as far as I'm concerned. Our numbers may be small (according to you) but I still believe we scare the daylights out of people like Beck. His strategy has been to hijack the word (just as he hijacked the Tea Party). I'll be damned if I stay silent about that, and if that frustrates him, too bad.

"Libertarian" is a blanket term to describe several factions. One of which are libertarian Republicans, or libertarian-conservatives (choose your label they are interchangeable). That is what Rand, Amash, Massie, Labrador, Yoho, Cruz and others are. Ron is probably best described at a "paleolibertarian".

Add to the general "Libertarian" umbrella and you have left-libertarians, agorists, an-caps, neo-libertarians, and other groups. All of which may at times label themselves as "Libertarian". Believe it or not, there are some groups out there that say that Ron Paul is not a Libertarian based on some of the views he held. The left-libertarian camp ripped Paul for his views on abortion and gay rights. Of course, no one really heard much about that because they are such a very small group of people.

 

[thoughtomator]

Coming along nicely. I have watched him making progress for a long time.

It's a charade. We saw this before when he hijacked the original Tea Party. A prerequisite for treating him as anything other than an enemy agent in the future is having him come clean as to what he did to the Tea Party and why he did it.

I witnessed firsthand the TP transformation from "no bailouts/no Obamacare" to a bunch of flag-waving Romney-zombies, and Glenn Beck was the #1 guy in making that happen. He heavily promoted the Tea Party march on DC not to support it, but to undermine and neuter it.