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

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Rigid inflexibility and paranoid gatekeeping.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." - The guy you claim to admire.

 

[AuH20]

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." - The guy you claim to admire.

Yes, but I don't push this exclusive club nonsense.

 

[TheGrinch]

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.

What part of "he's repeatedly fucked us over, called us terrorists, nazis and fascists, while calling on his viewers to turn their back on his previous views and support establishment hacks" don't you understand.

 

[July]

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.

The tea party was co-opted, but even so, Rand still won his senate seat on that wave. What if he just decided he didn't want to be associated with it, and didn't participate?

The liberty movement worries so much over things we cannot control. If Beck is an establishment shill, then he's going to undermine whoever the non establishment choice is in 2016 no matter what. We cannot control who others endorse, or how they choose to define and label themselves. We can choose to be a part of the debate and have a stake in defining the brand.

 

[dinosaur]

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.

But I never name-called or said that he was evil. I meant to insinuate nothing other, than "dont trust him, he isn't sincere". How can it be illogical for me to come to the conclusion that he must not be sincere?

Your reaction to my opinions about Beck seem to me to be illogical.

 

[TheGrinch]

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.

As a side note, when faced with someone who rolls their eyes as if the government wouldn't do this, remind them that it's not just a concern that "their" guy would do it, but the precedent that someone in the future would be afforded the power to.

I mean, just look at all the precedents for the executive branch Bush allowed for, that the Obama adminsitration is only building on.... Tyranny happens incrementally.

 

[dinosaur]

Yes, but I don't push this exclusive club nonsense.

Neither do I, by the way.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Yes, but I don't push this exclusive club nonsense.

No one here to my knowledge is arguing for exclusivity. But if someone is going to call themselves a libertarian (a la Beck), they had better understand the definition of rights. Yes, he may talk a good game when it comes to the FED but he can't champion libertarianism while being inconsistent when it comes to non-interventionism. I think what annoys his libertarian critics the most is him acting as if we should automatically embrace him because he's playing the part of Frank Luntz and using libertarian-friendly language when he has yet to prove himself or earn our trust.

 

[TheGrinch]

The tea party was co-opted, but even so, Rand still won his senate seat on that wave. What if he just decided he didn't want to be associated with it, and didn't participate?

The liberty movement worries so much over things we cannot control. If Beck is an establishment shill, then he's going to undermine whoever the non establishment choice is in 2016 no matter what. We cannot control who others endorse, or how they choose to define and label themselves. We can choose to be a part of the debate and have a stake in defining the brand.

I never implied that we can't use Beck like he's trying to use us... Might as well since as you said, we can't control what he'll inevitably do, we can only try to show more the light by building off his rhetoric.

 

[AuH20]

But I never name-called or said that he was evil. I meant to insinuate nothing other, than "dont trust him, he isn't sincere". How can it be illogical for me to come to the conclusion that he must not be sincere?

Your reaction to my opinions about Beck seem to me to be illogical.

That's fine. You should have hesistations trusting him, because he isn't a libertarian. He's close but he isn't a libertarian.

 

[TheGrinch]

That's fine. You should have hesistations trusting him, because he isn't a libertarian. He's close but he isn't a libertarian.

No, he's not close, he's a spin-master like the rest of the media whores... The more we can get the public to understand that the establishment and media do not stand for their interests (even though their rhetoric claims to), the better...

In other words, there is nothing wrong with agreeing with what Beck says, while holding his feet to the fire for what he does... Most people already have a distrust of the media in general nowadays anyway, so it's not like it will be a big stretch to convince them that Beck does not practice what he preaches (if what he preaches is even right).

 

[Jon311]

As other have pointed out, we all come from different "backgrounds" before our eyes were opened and we joined the "Liberty Movement", Ron Paul etc.

Before I found out about Ron Paul, I was a "Bush" Republican and had no problem with the war in Iraq and big government. A lot has changed since then. People CAN change.

I'm neutral with Glenn Beck. I watched a little bit of him back in the day, and I though he was a bit "over the top". Yet, he has given our movement some broad coverage lately. Some of you may hate to hear this, but if Rand is to become president, we need some of the millions of people that listen to Beck. If someone listening to Beck hears Rand Paul, gets interested, and becomes a potential voter for Rand, then I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. Beck is far from perfect ( yet these days it seems that only Ron Paul is "perfect" in the eyes of some in our movement), yet I will take his "free publicity". People need to start looking at the bigger picture. This constant "inner-fighting" is not going to help either.

 

[Jon311]

No, he's not close, he's a spin-master like the rest of the media whores... The more we can get the public to understand that the establishment and media do not stand for their interests (even though their rhetoric claims to), the better...

In other words, there is nothing wrong with agreeing with what Beck says, while holding his feet to the fire for what he does... Most people already have a distrust of the media in general nowadays anyway, so it's not like it will be a big stretch to convince them that Beck does not practice what he preaches (if what he preaches is even right).

Most people already have a distrust of the media? Are you sure about that? Maybe in our movement, but there are millions of others that rely solely on CNN, MSNBC and the other BS for their news.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

What part of "he's repeatedly fucked us over, called us terrorists, nazis and fascists, while calling on his viewers to turn their back on his previous views and support establishment hacks" don't you understand.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you've probably had an argument with someone close to you, perhaps even a family member you love dearly. Hateful things can be said on both sides, but time heals all wounds. When it's become water under the bridge do you continually harp about the time that person transgressed against you whenever you see that person? If we're going to be successful we have to be more constructive than wanting to constantly spew venom at the people that slighted us. It's not an endearing personality trait for a person or a movement.

For a movement so tied to peace, we surely don't have many peace makers.

 

[TheGrinch]

Most people already have a distrust of the media? Are you sure about that? Maybe in our movement, but there are millions of others that rely solely on CNN, MSNBC and the other BS for their news.

I believe it's actually significantly higher now (can't find the documentation yet), but just a quick search reveals a host of articles from last September, such as this one: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81504.html

Sixty percent of Americans have little or no faith in the media to report the news accurately and fairly, according to a Gallup Poll, and 40 percent trust them a fair amount or a great deal.

There’s a sharp partisan divide as well: 58 percent of Democrats trust the press, compared with 26 percent of Republicans and 31 percent of independents.

Now of course there is still the partisan issue of many only distrusting those on the other side of the aisle, and thinking those on their side actually speak for their interests, but there's no doubt that there's an increasing amount who realize the way the media creates false narratives, so I don't think calling Beck out when warranted will backfire as much as some claim.

You would be very surprised the number who are waking up to what's happening in this country, there's just far more work to be done on banding together towards effective solutions.... But make no mistake, people are getting fed up, and increasingly looking for new solutions.

 

[dinosaur]

As other have pointed out, we all come from different "backgrounds" before our eyes were opened and we joined the "Liberty Movement", Ron Paul etc.

Before I found out about Ron Paul, I was a "Bush" Republican and had no problem with the war in Iraq and big government. A lot has changed since then. People CAN change.

I'm neutral with Glenn Beck. I watched a little bit of him back in the day, and I though he was a bit "over the top". Yet, he has given our movement some broad coverage lately. Some of you may hate to hear this, but if Rand is to become president, we need some of the millions of people that listen to Beck. If someone listening to Beck hears Rand Paul, gets interested, and becomes a potential voter for Rand, then I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. Beck is far from perfect ( yet these days it seems that only Ron Paul is "perfect" in the eyes of some in our movement), yet I will take his "free publicity". People need to start looking at the bigger picture. This constant "inner-fighting" is not going to help either.

We need to play nice with him. I'm glad that Rand is. I'm glad that Hunter went on his show and was civil.

We need to play nice, but we can not add to their credibility. If past behavior can predict future behavior, Beck will likely tell people that he suggests voting for someone other than Rand. When that time comes, my hope is that the credibility of Rush, and Beck , and all of those who try to line people up behind establishment candidates, has been weakened.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

For a movement so tied to peace, we surely don't have many peace makers.

For a movement so tied to peace, it seems as though there is a growing number of people here who are ready to water down that message and settle for people like Beck who don't give a damn about peace, just to gain some spotlight.

 

[TheGrinch]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you've probably had an argument with someone close to you, perhaps even a family member you love dearly. Hateful things can be said on both sides, but time heals all wounds. When it's become water under the bridge do you continually harp about the time that person transgressed against you whenever you see that person? If we're going to be successful we have to be more constructive than wanting to constantly spew venom at the people that slighted us. It's not an endearing personality trait for a person or a movement.

For a movement so tied to peace, we surely don't have many peace makers.

Sorry, comparing Beck being a lying weasel to respectful disagreements with family and friends is not an apt analogy.

If one of my family or friends proved to me that they couldn't be trusted, no I would have a very had time being for them when they asked for something from me later.

If Beck wants to make his living by claiming to champion our ideals, then he's going to have to do far more than lip service to gain our support in this uphill battle... All he's done so far is undermine our efforts, the tea party being the best example.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

For a movement so tied to peace, it seems as though there is a growing number of people here who are ready to water down that message and settle for people like Beck who don't give a damn about peace, just to gain some spotlight.

Dude said that "when it becomes water under the bridge" it pays to be civil and peaceful in forward interactions rather than keep harping on some past transgression that we've supposedly moved on from. It has nothing to do with watering down the liberty message, Beck is entitled to run with whatever views he wants to. However, if he's showcasing pro-liberty spokespeople that only brings more exposure of said people to his viewers. The more some of them come our way, the more they can understand a more fine-tuned liberty message. We can't stay in our own little world and hope to grow the movement, we need to reach more eyes and ears to educate and spread the message and mobilize the new people to join us in our political mission to reverse the role of govt in our lives.

 

[cajuncocoa]

For a movement so tied to peace, it seems as though there is a growing number of people here who are ready to water down that message and settle for people like Beck who don't give a damn about peace, just to gain some spotlight.

+rep