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

[CPUd]

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Beck has said that he supports withdrawing from Afghanistan and closing down foreign bases all around the world, so it's not like he's some kind of warmongering neo-conservative. He's basically a non interventionist who makes an exception for Israel. That still isn't acceptable to some people here, but it seems to me like a limited interventionist like Beck is better than the unlimited interventionists who run the GOP today.

"who makes an exception for Israel"

That is the key, isn't it?

Except for the hardest core neo-conservatives like Kristol and Krauthammer, getting out of Afghanistan has been supported (or paid lip-service to) by teo-cons for a decade now. If Beck just came on board with that, he's way behind the curve. True neo-conservatives hardly ever had an interest in Afghanistan, except as a way to set precedences and justify other actions.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Yeah, even that's frustrating though. I know we can't give up, but I'm so damned tired of people who don't get it...doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. My in-laws are all of the Santorum-supporter type, so you can see what I'm up against there.

Maybe they don't "get it" because your approach in reaching them is flawed. It's always good to step back and reevaluate your tactics. Socialists and Social Conservatives are the hardest nuts to crack.

Look how reasonable, intelligent, and persuasive Tom Woods can be and he ultimately failed to get Steve Deace to endorse Ron Paul. He got him awful close though and made great headway that could pay dividends later. I like the ice cream analogy someone used above. Everyone loves ice cream, but people usually don't eat a gallon of it in one sitting. Over time though that gallon will disappear. We have to be more sensitive of other people's sensitivity when we're tempted to shove that gallon down their throat. The "trust me you'll love it and proceed to shovel feed it to them" approach doesn't work on most people. Using breadcrumbs while holding their hand might.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Well you seem to be a more hardcore type based on what I read here: we are currently involved in three main projects here locally: voter registration, canvassing for Mark Sanford, and fundraising. Additionally, we are looking for new precinct committee persons to fill some vacant slots. Would you be one of the first in line to sign up for those? Are you willing to work alongside someone who may not see eye to eye with you on all the issues?

I never understood the dogmatism some libertarians embody. I don't mind working with someone I don't see eye to eye with. When I see a new person at a political event I go out of my way to see how I could include this person in the liberty movement instead of nick-picking things to exclude them. Successful political movements are about addition, not subtraction.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

I never understood the dogmatism some libertarians embody. I don't mind working with someone I don't see eye to eye with. When I see a new person at a political event I go out of my way to see how I could include this person in the liberty movement instead of nick-picking things to exclude them. Successful political movements are about addition, not subtraction.

Totally agree. I think the libertarian purist crowd (for lack of a better term) wants their own little exclusive club more so than being a successful political movement. I mean it is evidenced from history, 40+ years of the LP (and its various offshoots) and have they really grown at all?

 

[sailingaway]

Totally agree. I think the libertarian purist crowd (for lack of a better term) wants their own little exclusive club more so than being a successful political movement. I mean it is evidenced from history, 40+ years of the LP (and its various offshoots) and have they really grown at all?

Yes, clearly, seeing how Ron got 20 something % in both Iowa and NH, and was over 20% nationally in Feb of 2012, and that was with GOP ONLY.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Yes, clearly, seeing how Ron got 20 something % in both Iowa and NH, and was over 20% nationally in Feb of 2012, and that was with GOP ONLY.

Ron pulled in votes from purist libertarians, libertarian conservatives, tea party folks and run of the mill average mom and pop conservatives. The point I made is that the purists really haven't grown in their 40+ year effort, and even with the Paul campaigns of 08 and 12, they still will not grown in any vast numbers. The reason behind this is two fold: one, because after toiling away in obscurity some people eventually give up; and two because at different points in time issues come up that divide the camp and produce offshoot groups that further negates the effectiveness.

Ron Paul was a one time thing, because he got support from guys like myself who are libertarian conservatives and the hardcore type. Rand on the other hand won't get the support from the purist crowd to the same degree (just look how the antiwar.com crowd is bashing him already). The same can be said for a lot of the politicians/candidates that I would include under the bigger tent version of the liberty movement (Amash, Massie, Cruz, Stockman, Bentivolio, Labrador, Schweikert, et al). Most, if not all, of those guys aren't "pure" enough for some folks.

 

[sailingaway]

Ron pulled in votes from purist libertarians, libertarian conservatives, tea party folks and run of the mill average mom and pop conservatives. The point I made is that the purists really haven't grown in their 40+ year effort, and even with the Paul campaigns of 08 and 12, they still will not grown in any vast numbers. The reason behind this is two fold: one, because after toiling away in obscurity some people eventually give up; and two because at different points in time issues come up that divide the camp and produce offshoot groups that further negates the effectiveness.

I know you are wrong because I am now what you call a 'purist', and I've been GOP since I could vote. Brushfires don't start with ambiguous positions.

 

[acptulsa]

Totally agree. I think the libertarian purist crowd (for lack of a better term) wants their own little exclusive club more so than being a successful political movement. I mean it is evidenced from history, 40+ years of the LP (and its various offshoots) and have they really grown at all?

And of course it has nothing at all to do with first the Luce, then the Murdoch media repeating over and over and over again that third parties are 'throwing your vote away', and everything to do with libertarians driving people away with whips and cattle prods.

Keep repeating and repeating it; maybe if you say it often enough someone somewhere will actually be silly enough to believe you.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

I know you are wrong because I am now what you call a 'purist', and I've been GOP since I could vote. Brushfires don't start with ambiguous positions.

And for everyone they have gained like yourself, how many have become frustrated and walked away from it all. Or worse yet, how many were shunned by the purists because they differed on an issue or two?

But you can have your own little club. You are free to do so. It really has little, to any, bearing on what the rest of us are doing.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

And of course it has nothing at all to do with first the Luce, then the Murdoch media repeating over and over and over again that third parties are 'throwing your vote away', and everything to do with libertarians driving people away with whips and cattle prods.

Keep repeating and repeating it; maybe if you say it often enough someone somewhere will actually be silly enough to believe you.

Honestly, it is a wasted vote because the LP really is not a genuine political party. Sure they run candidates in 1000's of races every year, but they have never done what it takes to truly organize a party from the ground up and establish itself as a viable alternative.

 

[acptulsa]

Honestly, it is a wasted vote because the LP really is not a genuine political party. Sure they run candidates in 1000's of races every year, but they have never done what it takes to truly organize a party from the ground up and establish itself as a viable alternative.

Fair enough.

Now admit that this just might have more to do with their complete lack of popularity than your silly and utterly repetitious assertions that libertarians keep people at bay with whips and chairs.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Trust is earned, not given, and once revoked well..good luck ever getting it back. Jack needs to learn a thing or two. If anyone thinks Beck is sincere in whatever terrible form of 'libertarianism' he claims to espouse, I have the Brooklyn Bridge to sell you.

Now, you want someone sincere in their beliefs? Try Glenn Greenwald..., but oh no, he's a civil liberties and anti-war guy. can't be seen with him!

 

[Brett85]

"who makes an exception for Israel"

That is the key, isn't it?

Except for the hardest core neo-conservatives like Kristol and Krauthammer, getting out of Afghanistan has been supported (or paid lip-service to) by teo-cons for a decade now. If Beck just came on board with that, he's way behind the curve. True neo-conservatives hardly ever had an interest in Afghanistan, except as a way to set precedences and justify other actions.

Marco Rubio supports staying in Afghanistan indefinitely even now.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Maybe they don't "get it" because your approach in reaching them is flawed. It's always good to step back and reevaluate your tactics. Socialists and Social Conservatives are the hardest nuts to crack.

Look how reasonable, intelligent, and persuasive Tom Woods can be and he ultimately failed to get Steve Deace to endorse Ron Paul. He got him awful close though and made great headway that could pay dividends later. I like the ice cream analogy someone used above. Everyone loves ice cream, but people usually don't eat a gallon of it in one sitting. Over time though that gallon will disappear. We have to be more sensitive of other people's sensitivity when we're tempted to shove that gallon down their throat. The "trust me you'll love it and proceed to shovel feed it to them" approach doesn't work on most people. Using breadcrumbs while holding their hand might.

I appreciate the advice...I've been in sales for 25+ years. Hitting people over the head to convince them to buy what I'm selling isn't my style!

 

[GunnyFreedom]

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.

Jack may or may not think Beck is coming around, but when evidence comes forward that it may be happening, then it's just good politics to leave the light on and the door open. For all we know, Beck may actually decide to come in through that door and surprise us all. I wouldn't advise anybody hold their breath, obviously, but this is just good politics, and furthermore it may even work one day.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

I never understood the dogmatism some libertarians embody. I don't mind working with someone I don't see eye to eye with. When I see a new person at a political event I go out of my way to see how I could include this person in the liberty movement instead of nick-picking things to exclude them. Successful political movements are about addition, not subtraction.

I don't mind working with people with whom I don't entirely agree. I do have a problem, however, with modifying my philosophy to line up with what they consider acceptable. While that person bashes me for being fringe or extreme.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Trust is earned, not given, and once revoked well..good luck ever getting it back. Jack needs to learn a thing or two. If anyone thinks Beck is sincere in whatever terrible form of 'libertarianism' he claims to espouse, I have the Brooklyn Bridge to sell you.

Now, you want someone sincere in their beliefs? Try Glenn Greenwald..., but oh no, he's a civil liberties and anti-war guy. can't be seen with him!

Meh, this is why philosophy and politics are two entirely different disciplines. In philosophy it is a cardinal sin to make a pretense of acceptance for someone that holds incompatible beliefs, but in politics it is absolutely required for any kind of victory. While I prefer philosophy over politics by a long way, I recognize that our current fight is in the political realm, and I'm willing to operate there -- distasteful as it is -- because it's either that or stand by helpless and watch the whole thing implode (and taking us smart people with it).

What Jack did was make a political statement that allows for enough commonality that will allow Beck to come on board IF HE EVER SHOULD decide to have a genuine conversion. I don't see what Hunter said as though it were the kind of blanket acceptance that violates philosophical debate, but more as a political structure designed in a strategic fashion that allows for future coalitions as people wake up without offending them so badly that they will hate us even if they DO wake up one day.

It becomes a lot easier to operate in the filthy corrupt and disgusting realm of politics when you can make a real dichotomy between 'philosophical,' and 'political.' What Jack said was political and strategic. Even more, it wasn't even false, it just leaves the light on and the door open if Beck should choose to step through it one day.

Bottom line is, if you want to win the political struggle, then you have to play the political game. There is a place for philosophers, of course, to refine the vision and postulate frameworks for how to implement it, but without political action we'll never be able to obtain a position where the general public can be exposed to the philosophy in a way they can accept.

You need both. Either one hating on the other is counter-productive to all of our goals.

 

[fr33]

Glenn Beck is a MSM shill that will only steal a liberty audience away in order to lead them astray.

 

[KurtBoyer25L]

You obviously put a lot of work into that post, so I'll comment here. I am a big tent, build-coalitions type person, so I agree with most of what you said.

But what if we turn around what you said above? Is it only the libertarians who are no compromise? I would point out that many teo-con pundits on the right (including Beck, Levin, Savage, Hannity to a certain extent) agree with Ron Paul on nearly every issue. But when their number one issue, Israel, comes up, directly or indirectly, they will vehemently denounce someone they agree with 90% of the time. And they will do that based on a completely irrational paranoia that the government of the US would somehow allow their favorite nation to be "wiped off the pages of history". Neutrality is a crime worthy of defamation and destruction. There are some no compromise libertarians, but their damn sure are a lot of no compromise sheep of every other persuasion out there too. This is not isolated to libertarians.

Very true. But Republicans and Democrats seem to be able to get behind candidates and media personages they see as flawed, whereas we cast people out for their transgressions and refuse any help they offer after that. I mean, I don't see a lot of people in the Christian Coalition refusing to participate in the Sean Hannity show because he said xyz about Mike Huckabee in 2006.