Jack Hunter: "On Glenn Beck and the Liberty Movement"

[cajuncocoa]

Big Pharma loves that idea. People paying the bills, whether taxpayers through limited health care funds or otherwise, not so much.

Exactly. I didn't want to offer my opinion on it because I wanted to wait to see if anyone else would take it that way. I'm glad to know I'm not alone.

 

[TheGrinch]

Maybe. But I think no small part of our credibility comes from our ability to see through things. A lot of people came around to Ron Paul because he demonstrably predicted the 2008 crash while all the talking heads and all the Congressional tools were saying the whole notion was ridiculous.

Yes, we seem more populist when we get suckered same as everyone else. But the worse things get, the more Americans stop looking for someone who reminds them of themselves, and the more they look for someone who has more of a clue than they do. I think we're better off erring in the latter direction.

True dat, don't compromise where it counts (frankly I don't think it will hurt at all for us to criticize Rand even if we support him, that he's the best we got, but we can do better), but at the same point you don't want to come across as elitist against those claiming they want to join your ranks, as if they're not worthy. It only helps your credibility (and isn't even really dishonest) to welcome anyone who will listen with open arms, but then hold their feet to the fire if they go against their word.

Building coalitions begins with common ground, and that's where Beck can be very useful in building bridges between us and his viewers. The more he opens up people to our messages, the easier it will be later to show why he doesn't practice what he preaches, and that it is he, not us, who are standing in the way of working towards real progress.

 

[jcannon98188]

OK, I guess if Jack Hunter thinks Glenn Beck is coming around, then he's coming around.

Here's an example of how Beck is dealing with an issue near and dear to libertarian hearts.

Just yesterday, not long after Rand had been interviewed on Beck's show, Beck said he didn't agree with the drug legalization issue as presented on the previous day's show. Even on medical marijuana, he said he thought that was just an excuse for people to "get high". His idea of common ground on the drug issue would be to relax regulation on prescription drugs so that people with cancer (for example) would have certain drugs made available to them that are being held up in the FDA approval process.

Seriously? I remember back before he left fox and before I stopped listening he was talking about how in his view, drugs should be legal, and if people want to mess up their lives then they can. And he believed that people should help out those who needed help, and wanted out, but leave behind those who just want their next fix. Sounds like he has gotten more authoritarian to me.

 

[July]

As I've said before, I'm more than happy to have Beck spread libertarian ideas and Rand's name around in such an upscale fashion but it's up to him to prove himself to be trustworthy and not a conman. Hence, I digress from the name calling even tho I'm thoroughly skeptical of him. If he can truly help us build a bigger coalition of liberty supporters I'll be pleasantly surprised.

That is how I see it too. Whether he's trustworthy or not, clearly Jack and others do want to be able to be invited on his show, and on other similar media programs, so I won't work against their efforts. Beck isn't going to want to invite someone back on his show if all he gets in return is grief and negative publicity every time he does. So suppose Beck is being honest and really does want to outreach to libertarians. Then great. Or suppose he decides he's done with the libertarian thing a year from now, that's still a years worth of positive publicity and access to his audience and media platform....and who knows, maybe by then someone in the liberty movement lands some more interviews somewhere else, having gotten their name out there.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

Or suppose he decides he's done with the libertarian thing a year from now, that's still a years worth of positive publicity and access to his audience and media platform....and who knows, maybe by then someone in the liberty movement lands some more interviews somewhere else, having gotten their name out there.

And, if some in Beck's audience dig into the work that his guests have been doing they may begin to follow said guests more than him himself. Raising the profiles of Hornberger, Frazee, Napolitano, Woods and Hunter are only good things going forward. If we can keep picking up converts one by one as time goes by then the inevitable backlash on libertarianism won't be as prolific as it would be if they're all Beck drones.

 

[jbauer]

I've expressed before that I like the coverage. I know of the past with Beck but you should never turn down good coverage to a wide base. Take it while we can get it. At some point when the rubber meets the road if we're going to win and we're going to make all the donations of time talent and treasure count. We're going to have to get +50% of the vote to win. Thats going to require building bridges with people we can't stand today.

At a MINIMUM Beck is talking a good game. Its quite possible that he'll do a Lucy and pull the football away as soon as Charlie Brown goes to kick it. But enjoy the coverage....to win its going to take a lot more then just Beck embracing our cause.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Just yesterday, not long after Rand had been interviewed on Beck's show, Beck said he didn't agree with the drug legalization issue as presented on the previous day's show. Even on medical marijuana, he said he thought that was just an excuse for people to "get high". His idea of common ground on the drug issue would be to relax regulation on prescription drugs so that people with cancer (for example) would have certain drugs made available to them that are being held up in the FDA approval process.

Very good point.

Which is a damn good reason why he isn't libertarian and isn't even close. He is fundamentally authoritarian. In just that opinion Glenn Beck embraced and demanded:

- the FDA
- the state-licensed medical cartel
- the DEA
- big pharma (who else can wrangle past the FDA/DEA?)

You can't be a little bit pregnant and you can't be a little bit libertarian. Beck doesn't seek common ground but capitulation of the liberty movement. The authoritarians have nothing to offer. Their very best - in a good year - is a "decrease in the increase" of spending, thuggery, warmongering, et cetera.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

You can't be a little bit pregnant and you can't be a little bit libertarian. Beck doesn't seek common ground but capitulation of the liberty movement. The authoritarians have nothing to offer. Their very best - in a good year - is a "decrease in the increase" of spending, thuggery, warmongering, et cetera.

In this day and age, in order to actually have sense enough to think that actually cutting govt spending one has libertarian leaning. Surely conservatives and run-of-the-mill republicans are cool with the small increase approach as sufficient means to address the debt problem but only those with fiscal libertarian leanings are willing to actually do anything substantive to tackle the issue. Therefor, if someone is at least rational enough to realize the cuts have to be made now, then they're worth working with as inevitably they won't be able to not discuss military spending as well.

 

[Maximus]

I don't see the point and shooting a flame thrower at people who are shifting the "narrative" in our direction and making many of our ideas more palatable to the mainstream. The Beck vitriol has got to be toned down.

 

[Brett85]

I agree with what Jack said about most of us not being Constitutionalists or libertarians before we found out about Ron Paul. It still embarrases me that I constantly defended the war in Iraq on various message boards and when talking to liberal friends during the Bush years. Many of my college friends who I've lost touched with would be very surprised at how much I've changed politically since that time.

 

[TheGrinch]

I don't see the point and shooting a flame thrower at people who are shifting the "narrative" in our direction and making many of our ideas more palatable to the mainstream. The Beck vitriol has got to be toned down.

That is how co-option works. You get yourself on the inside and then tear it apart like they did the Tea Party, until it doesn't even stand for anything anyone wants to be a part of anymore.

See this thread that just popped up: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ans-are-quot-Nazis-quot-and-quot-Facists-quot

I don't think he's trying to bring our ideas to the mainstream, he's trying to inject the mainstream into our ideas.

 

[thoughtomator]

But I’ve met very few who were libertarians or constitutionalists before Ron Paul.

It was being libertarian/constitutionalist which led me to find Ron Paul. As great a messenger as RP is, he is not the sole fount of these philosophies.

 

[AuH20]

I don't see the point and shooting a flame thrower at people who are shifting the "narrative" in our direction and making many of our ideas more palatable to the mainstream. The Beck vitriol has got to be toned down.

It's amusing though. Beck's critics are proving him to be right. Go figure.

 

[dinosaur]

It's amusing though. Beck's critics are proving him to be right. Go figure.

Right about what? Most of the people cricizing Beck are being very civil....can't say the same for him.

 

[thoughtomator]

It's amusing though. Beck's critics are proving him to be right. Go figure.

Proving him right on what? Seems to me that Beck has already proved his critics right, with the stunt he pulled to derail the Tea Party.

 

[AuH20]

Right about what?

Rigid inflexibility and paranoid gatekeeping.

 

[dinosaur]

Rigid inflexibility and paranoid gatekeeping.

What should we be more flexible about? Do you believe that I am paranoid for thinking that he is playing a role?

 

[TheGrinch]

Rigid inflexibility and paranoid gatekeeping.

It is not paranoia when the person has proven to be untrustworthy.

Moreover, even the ones who've opposed the way Rand is being flexible (and according to polls here this appears to be a minority) at least realize what he's likely trying to do. We've grown numbers tremendously over the last few years, so don't act like there aren't tons of us who are building common ground with everyone from tea-partiers to liberals.

 

[AuH20]

What should we be more flexible about? Do you believe that I am paranoid for thinking that he is playing a role?

You don't have to like him. You don't have to respect him. But the insinuations about Beck, placing him in the category of Satan are illogical and not rooted in reality. That's all. The treatment he receives reinforces what he said the other day. And this isn't about rolling up the red carpet and welcoming him as an equal peer. I don't think that extreme would be justified either.

 

[Cowlesy]

I hope Jack and team noticed when Rand had his interview about Hagel with Beck, Rand's point about making sure drone strikes couldn't happen in the USA went over like a lead balloon with Glenn, Pat and Stu. I am fairly certain this is because they think it's crackpot thinking that drones will be shooting hellfire missiles at people in San Diego.

WHILE I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND RAND'S POINT, you can easily see in the video of the 3 amigos listening to him, that they want no part of that argument or to even acknowledge that it is a real issue (Pat is holding his head in his hands like "wtf is this nut talking about....").

He'll be mocked for it someday unless it's re-framed about Americans, on their own soil, not receiving judicial review before a sentence (ie a drone strike) is carried out.