One of my sons, the more conservative one, and I have been having a continuing "dialogue" about conservative vs liberal issues, politicians and pundits. He's been trying to get me to be less exclusive in my reading and listening and Glenn Beck has become a particular sticking point. So I decided to finally start listening to him. Here's my take.
OK, he has my attention. He's been saying a lot of the right things at other venues lately and now this at CPAC. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... I admit, this speech got to me. Captured his audience too. Best speaker they had there after days of speakers that presented every nasty snarky one liner and unconscionable innuendo they could think of when they weren't directly insulting President Obama or blatantly lying. It was a snarkfest unworthy of a serious political gathering and unworthy of America. Worse even than last year's bouncing egotistical Limbaugh.
Beck changed the tone, to his credit. One would be hard pressed and disingenuous to be critical of most of it. Nearly everything he said is right and good. The operational word there is "nearly". If one reads and listens more carefully, one finds red flags sprinkled among the platitudes. Progressives "eating the Constitution"? (Who does he think was taking huge bites during the Bush admin?!!!) Liberals being the bad guys controlling the agenda? (Catchy line but what did he mean by it? That liberals are bad and everyone else is good? And anyway, just saying something doesn't make it so.) Suggesting that Republicans should not have a "big tent"? (Ah, the "purity" agenda. Who is to be excluded? No doubt I, a gay man would be somewhere near the top of the list. A list is implied by the concept, so who else?) I'm sure I could cite more but those stood out to me.
One of the biggest problems with our politics today is that political philosophical categories are bandied about carelessly without any real definitions. Progressive? Liberal? Conservative? What do they mean? Can anyone really define them? Bout the only one anyone might have some real concept of is Moderate. But that has its negatives also. To too many, that would mean "neutral" or taking no stand. So ok, many might say, forget the categories and just work with Right and Wrong, and right and wrong for the country (first problem there is that there is a distinction many would not make). But such absolutes present immediately obvious problems too. Right and Wrong for who, by who's definitions? The only solution is what we already have. A messy national dialogue that will hopefully resolve into something that works WHILE REMAINING CIVIL IN THE PROCESS, realizing that no one can have everything the way they want it.
So, Beck got to me. I was nearly in tears. Really!! I think I would have been standing at the end there too. He said all the right things....almost. But I have a Speech degree and it's the almost that bothers me. The red flags. The subtleties that the average listener will miss. It was masterful. Too masterful. We know the old saying, "If something seems too good to be true, it probably is"
I'm listening, but I'll be doing it very carefully. Some of his other stuff has been so off the wall and/or demonstrably false that I have to wonder at the validity of his opposite "common sense" philosophical displays.
This was Beck's game changing moment and he pulled if off brilliantly. There is no doubt he will become even more influential as a result. But Hitler was masterful and captured his audiences too and while there is no currently valid comparison with Beck, it is wise to remain alert. The very fact that he had me, a skeptic nearly in tears, is disturbing. I didn't get that far along even with Obama.....until the nite he won.