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

[sailingaway]

Beck's real questions about "libertarianism" most likely boil down to s single concern: Israel. Building alliances is great, but never forget what his true agenda is. This means that he will stab a "liberty minded" candidate in the back every time if they are coming close to winning, and if he has a perception (real or imagined) that they are not 1000% willing to do whatever the neo-conservative collective decides is in the best interest of Israel.

We should also remember that this is a business for Beck. He found that doing a Pastor Hagee imitation didn't gain him any audience. He is most likely sincere when he wants to know what he can do or say to make libertarians "accepting of him".

Calling it like it is:

Why is Jack talking about 'his impressions from Wednesday' if he knows Beck well enough that he ghosted a BOOK for him 'Conscience of a Libertarian'? Or was that a joke?

 

[acptulsa]

Essentially, the big tent group looks at someone like Beck and focuses primarily on the areas of agreement, where the small tent group focuses almost exclusively on the areas of disagreement.

And since then, the movement has grown exponentially. And since the new converts that are causing our ranks to burgeon and strain the seams are, in fact, all new converts, they tend to be of the 'big tent' camp. And since there are now so many in that camp, if a third of us cough at the same time we can drown the exclusivitists completely out.

Doesn't mean we need to recommend people listen to Glenn Beck without warning them to tune back out when the even numbered years roll around.

There's a mouse in the corner! Burn the building down! Jeeeeez....

 

[cajuncocoa]

-This just in-

Jack Hunter to co-author Glenn Beck's new book entitled, "The Conscience of a Libertarian"

Oh boy, I can't wait!

Why is Jack talking about 'his impressions from Wednesday' if he knows Beck well enough that he ghosted a BOOK for him 'Conscience of a Libertarian'? Or was that a joke?

I certainly hope mac_hine is joking!! I almost ruined my keyboard when I read that! Nothing turns up on Google about it (except for another book by the same name written by Wayne Allyn Root)

 

[sailingaway]

I certainly hope mac_hine is joking!! I almost ruined my keyboard when I read that! Nothing turns up on Google about it (except for another book by the same name written by Wayne Allyn Root)

Well that's a joke right there, WAR taking the title. OK, well if it is just a joke... good.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

And since then, the movement has grown exponentially. And since the new converts that are causing our ranks to burgeon and strain the seams are, in fact, all new converts, they tend to be of the 'big tent' camp. And since there are now so many in that camp, if a third of us cough at the same time we can drown the exclusivitists completely out.

Doesn't mean we need to recommend people listen to Glenn Beck without warning them to tune back out when the even numbered years roll around.

There's a mouse in the corner! Burn the building down! Jeeeeez....

Agree with the bolded type. On the ground here we are seeing a lot of new people wanting to get involved, as well as people who disengaged for a number of years that are returning to involvement. I am talking about dozens and dozens of new folks coming out to meetings, volunteering for activities, etc. I have yet to meet any new people who are hardcore libertarian purists.

 

[acptulsa]

I have yet to meet any new people who are hardcore libertarian purists.

It does seem a mite hard to imagine...

 

[mac_hine]

-This just in-

Jack Hunter to co-author Glenn Beck's new book entitled, "The Conscience of a Libertarian"

Oh boy, I can't wait!

YES that was a joke. Sorry, I should have added an /s

 

[sailingaway]

It does seem a mite hard to imagine...

I've met tons of new people drawn in by the specific points of libertarianism avoided by the non purists, though.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

It does seem a mite hard to imagine...

Well by nature, the hardcore types really do not get involved much in projects like we are doing. They generally tend to prefer to congregate among themselves, hence the "circle jerk" term that is used often.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

I've met tons of new people drawn in by the specific points of libertarianism avoided by the non purists, though.

I'd have to ask in what capacity. Are these people that are involved in political activism like voter registration, fund raising, canvassing, etc?

 

[mac_hine]

I certainly hope mac_hine is joking!! I almost ruined my keyboard when I read that! Nothing turns up on Google about it (except for another book by the same name written by Wayne Allyn Root)

I played off Goldwater's "Conscience of a Conservative". Had no idea the phony libertarian WAR actually used that title, lol

 

[cajuncocoa]

Well by nature, the hardcore types really do not get involved much in projects like we are doing. They generally tend to prefer to congregate among themselves, hence the "circle jerk" term that is used often.

You certainly like to stereotype people.

 

[sailingaway]

I'd have to ask in what capacity. Are these people that are involved in political activism like voter registration, fund raising, canvassing, etc?

Yes, actually. During the last campaign and some are County GOP central committee members now.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

You certainly like to stereotype people.

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?

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Yes, actually. During the last campaign and some are L.A. GOP central committee members now.

Well that's good then. Not seeing that here in my area at all.

 

[sailingaway]

Well that's good then. Not seeing that here in my area at all.

Regional differences are nothing new, and they definitely exist. That is one of the problems I see with the absolutist sounding rhetoric of some of the 'compromise' to attract others, it may play well in some regions but be poison in others.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Regional differences are nothing new, and they definitely exist. That is one of the problems I see with the absolutist sounding rhetoric of some of the 'compromise' to attract others, it may play well in some regions but be poison in others.

Again, though you keep saying "compromise" when none of us are saying we should do so. Or perhaps you define tolerance of other view points as being compromise.

Basically, folks in my camp see it this way: take someone like DeMint, Cruz, Flake, or even Beck. Do I agree with them on 100% of the issues? Not at all, in fact, I am a lot more radical in some of my views than some of the RPF crowd. But I see that with a DeMint, Flake, Cruz, Beck, et al that there are major areas of agreement on a whole host of issues. I see them as an ally, not always, but 90% of the time. I see the value in their opinions on issues where we might disagree, say FP for example. I respect them for having their opinions, and although I disagree with them on some issues, I still see much value in them and do not see a need to demonize them because they are not with me 100%. I tend to focus my criticism on the people that truly stand in opposition to what I stand for: the Reids, Peloisis, Obamas, et al

Honestly, there are more forums and threads on here bashing Glenn Beck then there are pointing out the lies of Obama regarding the sequestration, and how we as a movement can counter those falsehoods with the average voter.

 

[sailingaway]

I don't demonize De Mint. He has integrity, even if I don't agree with him on some fairly key issues. I'd rather him for Senator, for example, than all but maybe two or three of those we have. I sent money to his PAC for a couple of people.

I bash Beck because he is slime, that is different..

 

[KurtBoyer25L]

Common Sense on Glenn Beck & Media Courtship of Libertarians

I don't really know the proper forum to post this on -- mods, feel free to move it. However, in my current mood I'm feeling skeptical of the Witch Trials that a lot of Libertarian groups are fostering, so if this is flagged, or deleted, or universally mocked/flamed, I'll unfortunately have to conclude that my fears weren't unfounded.

One of my favorite scenes in Mad Men involves Peter Campbell (a character who many feel is modeled after Peter Keating from The Fountainhead) discovering that Don Draper, the advertising genius who brought fame & riches to the Sterling-Cooper ad agency, is actually Dick Whitman. He discovers that Draper/Whitmnan is a fraud who lied to the government to avoid a court-martial and lives on under the alias of his dead Army compadre. Ever the opportunist, Campbell confronts Bert Cooper with his discovery while the three men are in Cooper's office. Cooper, a classicist who reads Ayn Rand and other free-market philosophers, stares thoughtfully at both men for a few moments, then slowly rises and says, "Mister Campbell, who cares?"

I consider myself a very libertarian individual, if not a member of the libertarian Orthodoxy. I have come to know the liberty movement as being generally different from the tribal, ignorant, myopic members of most other political groups. When neoliberals call us "babies" and compete with one another to be more derogatory towards our intelligence/morals, we fight back with reason and argument. When neoconservatives say that we're isolationists who will cause Iran to invade and conquer the United States, we respond by saying that ridiculous things aren't true just because John McCain said them. Though our movement has been ideologically libertarian, it is politically independent. When a politician or pundit does something right, we applaud it, regardless of the "tribe" they (or we) belong to. While supporters of the two major parties make fun of each other with 3rd-grade level demonizing campaigns, we have historical perspective about the destructiveness of false choices and shallow politics. Other political movements are based on tribalism, dogma and personality cults. Ours is based on reason and common sense.

Lately, I'm not so sure.

In the past few months we have seen an astounding explosion of libertarian sympathy from right-wing media. Sean Hannity and Bill 'O Reilly have given sympathetic interviews to Rand Paul, Hannity calling him a "star" of the Senate. More interestingly, Glenn Beck has been describing himself as all but a born-again libertarian, who has "learned" from our side. He has brought libertarians like Jack Hunter on his show to discuss weening Americans back into true capitalism and civil liberty -- the marriage of the best parts of conservative and liberal thought, the discarding of the rest -- with millions of Christian/Republican voters listening in. Recently, he sat with Penn Jillette, a socially liberal polyamorist/atheist, and discussed libertarianism for an hour, verbally agreeing on almost every point (the one disagreement was whether Presidents described themselves as "Christians" before the 70s) while elderly members of the Christian Right nodded along fiercely in the studio audience.

My reaction to this has been one of amused joy and disbelief. I never thought I would see anything like that happen.

The reaction of the libertarian orthodoxy, however, seems to be that it would be better if it didn't.

I get it. Glenn Beck is a liar, a fraud, a horrible person who secretly hates everybody. And Rand Paul is a sold-out, power-mad corrupt closet neoconservative who only wants to be President and use his father's libertarian message to gain profit and influence.

Ladies and gentlemen, who cares?

I could care less whether Glenn Beck is a good guy or not. He's not my friend. He's a talk show host. If he spends the next three years continuing to preach libertarianism on his show to millions of Christians, all who vote, how is this bad exactly? Because he doesn't "mean it"? Or because he might also, at some point, endorse candidates we don't like? I suppose it would be better if he simply laughed off libertarians and talked about how stupid we all are, like hundreds and hundreds of influential media members have done for decades? Who in the media is currently persuading more Republican voters to look at libertarian-leaning candidates than Glenn Beck?

Moreover, does anyone really believe that there are 100 million individualist, intellectual giants in America who will elect libertarians based on 100% sound understanding of every issue? Ron Paul understood that there are not. He didn't just run as a Republican to get more media attention and institutional favor for his candidacy, though that was a big part of it. He also ran Republican because he recognizes that there are more stupid voters than smart voters, and most stupid voters are Republicans or Democrats and would never change their labels under any circumstances.

The way libertarians are reacting to this Paul/Beck/Jillette/Hunter consortium of ideas and discussion, it's as if you would rather less smart individuals don't vote for libertarian candidates, since these "dumb votes" will contaminate our perfect, holy movement.

Perhaps Rand Paul is secretly bitter about having to be a classicist on most issues in order to keep the support of his father's base and match the rising trend of current politics. Perhaps he goes home and sadly laments to his wife that Communism isn't the rising trend among young people, because wouldn't it be great to become President & impose a Communist regime on the public. Again, frankly, I DON'T CARE. I don't understand why a lot of libertarians care, either. As long as Rand gets into office and does what he says he's going to do (which he has so far), I understand that he is going to promote dozens and dozens of libertarian causes from inside DC as long as he's there. Since I'm very libertarian, I see this is a great positive. I feel like I could teach this point to a little kid, but many adult libertarians are incapable of grasping it.

Other political movements have advantages over libertarians that have helped them dominate the public sphere for so long. For one, they seem to understand that a politician who gives you 90% of what you want but fucks up 10% of the time is better than someone who is opposed to you on 90% of the issues. Liberals elected Jimmy Carter knowing full well that he was against centralized education, that he would probably ramp up the Cold War (which he did) and so on. But they also understood that his 90% agreement with their platform in 1976 made him a vast improvement (from the liberal perspective) over what came before. Similarly, Goldwater conservatives worked to elect and re-elect Ronald Reagan despite his expansion of government and rejection of civil liberties. They felt that despite his obvious flaws, he was a better politician and a better guy than Walter Mondale, which was probably true. But libertarians are seemingly incapable of grasping this concept. They seem to be waiting for a perfect deity to arrive at our doorstep and for the public to unconditionally fall in love with them...which is such a perversion of the 3rd party skepticism of all political figures which we have espoused all along. Jesus doesn't live in American, just fallible human beings who would change things for the better or the worse.

The only coherent argument in favor of rejecting Rand Paul and his new media friends is that a "counterfeit" libertarian President would ultimately be bad for the movement, like Reagan or Bush were ultimately bad for conservatism. But those were Presidents who *pushed* in neoconservative and neoliberal directions. Paul has never advocated starting a new federal education program or starting three new wars in the Middle East. He has, instead, appeased & agreed with neocons wherever possible while carefully toeing the Constitutional line on each issue. That is important, because Americans understand incremental change much more than libertarians seem to be able to. If Rand is elected, he won't be seen an an anti-weed President just because he doesn't pardon all nonviolent smokers immediately. He'll be seen as a pro-weed, pro-hippie President because less smokers and hippies will be thrown in jail, for less time, during his term. It's still a shame that he won't pardon them, but he's not going to undermine the socially liberal wing of the libertarian movement unless he pushes hard in a fascist direction.

Sure, Rand could turn out to be Genghis Khan in disguise, and Beck could turn out to be subliminally manipulating everyone into voting for Socialist liberals with sub-vocal or backwards speech experiments, while he says "libertarians are great" on the air. But common sense and history tell us otherwise. Where there's smoke, there's fire. Beck didn't like Ron Paul personally but he likes Rand and Rand's friends. His entire listening audience consists of "bonus" voters for libertarians to potentially pick up.

What's next? Should we all shun Jack Hunter because he talks to Glenn Beck on TV? Remember folks (parodying the party line here) Hunter is now WRITING ARTICLES IN DEFENSE of Glenn Beck, the HORRIBLE TREACHEROUS LUNATIC who is secretly, somehow turning millions of people against us while he tells them to be for us! That makes Hunter a SELLOUT too! BURN THEM ALL! JACK HUNTER IS ANOTHER TRAITOR!

Or, look on the bright side and take your megalomaniac caps off. This is all a great positive.

 

[TheGrinch]

I don't demonize De Mint. He has integrity, even if I don't agree with him on some fairly key issues. I'd rather him for Senator, for example, than all but maybe two or three of those we have. I sent money to his PAC for a couple of people.

I bash Beck because he is slime, that is different..

Exactly.

Someone said here recently that 1/2 the reason we band together is ideology, but the other 1/2 is for integrity, which to me is just as, if not more important.

If we had more Ron Pauls, Denis Kuciniches and Cynthia McKinneys banding together despite their differences on important matters like foreign policy, the Fed, the drug war, etc., then maybe we'd actually get something good accomplished. It's the establishments that are the problem, and Beck has proven again and again that he's willing to throw away all the ideals he professes to help them beat the blue team, and continue the corrupt two-party system that shoves awful candidates down our throats under the guise of "lesser of two evils" and "electability" (which is completely devoid of meaning after they declared Dr. Paul unelectable from the get-go).

Difference in ideology isn't so much a problem in Washington, and really neither is bipartisanship. As Rand recently pointed out, they're remarkably bipartisan on the things we don't like, but what needs to be restored is honesty, accountability, and in his words, reason.

Beck loves to pay lip service to that reason, but when it comes time to be a good soldier, he'll be waiting to undermine us and prop up the establishment to maintain this gravy train they all enjoy (if he hasn't completely undermined and co-opted our message before then that is).