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

[Article V]

Thanks for clearing the editing issue up. That said, I think you must be reading some other article because I'm not seeing anything to substantiate your position. When Beck,himself, claims to be becoming more libertarian it seems clear he doesn't think he has always been one. An independent is not the same as being a libertarian.

You're welcome. I respect and understand your view; I just don't see it that way. For me, a libertarian can still say "I'm becoming more libertarian" as they journey from, for example, support of gay marriage to abolishing government marriage altogether. So, in my view, the "becoming more libertarian" doesn't imply Beck was ever non-libertarian, just as becoming "more fat" doesn't imply someone isn't already fat (which Beck is). Furthermore--besides the fact that Beck didn't actually say in that article that he was an independent--being an independent is not actually anathema to being libertarian either. Many prominent libertarians consider themselves independent. Heck, look what libertarian Ayn Rand said about libertarianism: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ar_libertarianism_qa. Or, if you don't have time to read all her criticisms of libertarians on that page and elsewhere, here are some Cliff's Notes:

Q: Why don’t you approve of libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works?

AR: Because libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication when that fits their purpose. They’re lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They want an amoral political program. [FHF 81]


Q: Libertarians provide intermediate steps toward your goals. Why don’t you support them?

AR: Please don’t tell me they’re pursuing my goals. I have not asked for, nor do I accept, the help of intellectual cranks. I want philosophically educated people: those who understand ideas, care about ideas, and spread the right ideas. That’s how my philosophy will spread, just as philosophy has throughout history: by means of people who understand ideas and teach them to others. Further, it should be clear that I reject the filthy slogan “The end justifies the means.” That was originated by the Jesuits, and accepted enthusiastically by the Communists and the Nazis. The end does not justify the means; you cannot achieve anything good by evil means. Finally, libertarians aren’t worthy of being the means to any end, let alone the end of spreading Objectivism. [FHF 81]

Is there any doubt that Ayn Rand would have called herself an independent?

 

[Okie RP fan]

What exactly is the obsession with Beck? 515 responses to this thread?

Not sure what's going on here... Seems a lot of people are jumping on his bandwagon. There is plenty of reasons to not like the guy. I say let him advertise what he will, but, don't jump on his wagon for it. Beck isn't to be trusted, and it seems I had a couple comments deleted from this thread (?) or it may have been another one in which I was warning about Glenn Beck. I sure hope that isn't the case.

 

[cajuncocoa]

This is the problem with labels. Textbook definitions of "libertarian" or "neoconservative" (or even "Objectivism") help to set parameters, but that's as far as it goes. Purists may embrace 100% of a certain philosophy, while others adhere to only 70% or 80%. Thus, the purists reject the 70%-ers as not worthy of the label.

I don't think that's what's going on with Glenn Beck, however. I don't think purists are rejecting him because he's only 30% away from totally embracing libertarianism. I think he's being rejected because he's not consistent in his beliefs over the course of an entire election cycle. He starts out embracing libertarianism as soon as one election is over, only to endorse more neoconservative candidates when the next election approaches.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

Not sure what's going on here... Seems a lot of people are jumping on his bandwagon.

Probably some are giving him a very generous dose of the benefit of the doubt assuming he's someone who can see the light w/o being a staged plant to flip the script come the next prez election. I lean toward not trusting him yet his daily praise of Rand only makes my man more prominent in conservative circles, thus making it easier for me to convert and spread the issues on a regular republican peer-peer basis. As long as there's not this negative impression one has for some politician, it makes it a lot smoother of a transition from identifying conservative-libertarianism to the target of Rand. The positive impressions are currently being offered by most of the right wing hosts and Rand is allowed to make his case there and also on many Fox and CNN shows. Pretty sure Rand is on guard to make sure he stays out of the weeds and only sticks to common sense meat and potatoes issues that sound legit to the average regular guy and gal. This approach may appeal to Beck and/or make his audience endeared to him more because on virtually all key conservative issues, he can point to one major politician to prove his point. If he can see the writing on the republican/conservative wall, he'll keep going in his transition as our ideology is the future. $$$$$$$$

 

[Article V]

This is the problem with labels. Textbook definitions of "libertarian" or "neoconservative" (or even "Objectivism") help to set parameters, but that's as far as it goes. Purists may embrace 100% of a certain philosophy, while others adhere to only 70% or 80%. Thus, the purists reject the 70%-ers as not worthy of the label.

I don't think that's what's going on with Glenn Beck, however. I don't think purists are rejecting him because he's only 30% away from totally embracing libertarianism. I think he's being rejected because he's not consistent in his beliefs over the course of an entire election cycle. He starts out embracing libertarianism as soon as one election is over, only to endorse more neoconservative candidates when the next election approaches.

An undesirable endorsement is not a change in beliefs! Rand Paul did not become more authoritarian when he endorsed Mitt Romney! Could people please understand that political strategy and alliances have nothing to do with beliefs. Beck was never the kind of libertarian that would go as far over as Ron Paul (and Beck admitted as much), so he compromised his endorsement then ramped it up with rhetoric to defeat Obama; that's not a change in libertarian policy or philosophy, that's just crap political strategy. Somehow because Santorum is so repulsive to us, we imagine that Beck had to go further into libertarianism than he was comfortable to endorse Ron Paul rather than go with the more authoritarian politician that is Santorum. While that's what we would have preferred, Beck is under no obligation to do that. Moreover, he shouldn't do it if he isn't comfortable with it. If Beck honestly believed Ron Paul's Middle East policy (not his foreign policy at large) would potentially destroy America (as stupid as that is), then Beck does not become a flip-flopper by endorsing Santorum in an effort to block Obama until a better libertarian (in Beck's view) shows up. Seriously, Santorum/Romney endorsements were just bad political strategy decisions that we perpetually crucify Beck for as if we're the eagle eating Prometheus's liver each day. We also crucify him for his negative comments about Ron Paul and his intolerance of 9/11-truth-sympathizers. I understand all that, but Beck has always been consistent on those points. He never flip-flopped. He was openly never on Ron Paul's side even though he also openly agrees with almost all of Ron Paul's foreign, social, and economic policies. It's just that the Middle East is a non-negotiable for Beck. Lots of libertarians have non-negotiables: look how many libertarians here said they'd never vote for Gary Johnson because of his foreign policy.

 

[compromise]

Glenn Beck: 'Republicans Becoming Less and Less relevant'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/glenn-beck-republicans_n_2717719.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Real Clear Politics:

Glenn Beck opines on the potential GOP field in 2016 and the relevancy of the Republican party. Beck said he is done with the "big, government, establishment Republicans."

 

[A Son of Liberty]

MOAR BECK THREDZ PL0X

 

[compromise]

An undesirable endorsement is not a change in beliefs! Rand Paul did not become more authoritarian when he endorsed Mitt Romney! Could people please understand that political strategy and alliances have nothing to do with beliefs. Beck was never the kind of libertarian that would go as far over as Ron Paul (and Beck admitted as much), so he compromised his endorsement then ramped it up with rhetoric to defeat Obama; that's not a change in libertarian policy or philosophy, that's just crap political strategy. Somehow because Santorum is so repulsive to us, we imagine that Beck had to go further into libertarianism than he was comfortable to endorse Ron Paul rather than go with the more authoritarian politician that is Santorum. While that's what we would have preferred, Beck is under no obligation to do that. Moreover, he shouldn't do it if he isn't comfortable with it. If Beck honestly believed Ron Paul's Middle East policy (not his foreign policy at large) would potentially destroy America (as stupid as that is), then Beck does not become a flip-flopper by endorsing Santorum in an effort to block Obama until a better libertarian (in Beck's view) shows up. Seriously, Santorum/Romney endorsements were just bad political strategy decisions that we perpetually crucify Beck for as if we're the eagle eating Prometheus's liver each day. We also crucify him for his negative comments about Ron Paul and his intolerance of 9/11-truth-sympathizers. I understand all that, but Beck has always been consistent on those points. He never flip-flopped. He was openly never on Ron Paul's side even though he also openly agrees with almost all of Ron Paul's foreign, social, and economic policies. It's just that the Middle East is a non-negotiable for Beck. Lots of libertarians have non-negotiables: look how many libertarians here said they'd never vote for Gary Johnson because of his foreign policy.

+Rep

Rand Paul endorsed Romney to get a convention speech that boosted his political career and brought him to national prominence.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

Levin says the same thing and I don't doubt either of them. But, will they go with Rand because they trust and agree with him way more times than not or will they nitpick him to death like some do around here.

 

[S.Shorland]

I like his new 'Libertarian' glasses.Makes him look like a geeky,always thinking freedom through,harmless guy