Monday, November 29, 2010

A Rightist Criticism of Glenn Beck

Radosh has a short piece (which seems to beg for expansion) connecting Glenn Beck to W. Cleon Skousen. Skousen was a radical conspiracy-theory guy who viewed the Constitution as a divinely-written document, and Mormonism as the only salvation of the Constitution.


But the most telling remark from Radosh is this:

Beck seems to change course and move in a new direction each week. One does not know where he will end up and what he will say next.

Outside of Beck's luminous and revealing tracing of the Progressive movement in America and its not-always-beneficial positions, Beck is, indeed, erratic. There is no 'center' to his philosophy, and his code-numbering of every date on the calendar is.........ahhh.........odd, to be kind.

And Beck's not-very-hidden assumption of the role of "prophet" could be viewed as mirroring Teh Won's very own self-description. Radosh comments on that, too:

Americans, Beck says, need God in their lives. Many will say “Amen.” But that does not mean we, and conservatives, need Glenn Beck.



Badger Catholic said...

YupYup another Joey Smith

Neo-Con Tastic said...

I'll take Beck over a Neocon any day.

neomom said...

Meh.... Give Beck's fans some credit. He is always asking people to do more research on their own - and a good chunk do. People see him as a "prophet" - just an ameteur professor.

Based on what Beck has compelled millions to do in educating themselves and creating their own networks... I would say that a Beck was exactly what the US needed at this point in time of the next "Great Awakening".

Some of Beck's harshest critics are far too wigged out over his mormonism...

I'd take a Beck and his fans over 90% of the Ron Paul supporters any day... you want conspiracy theories - take a peek into the Campaign for Liberty websites and message boards... There are some complete whackos there. The term "Paul-Nut" is pretty close to the target.

Dad29 said...

Well, I'd given Beck his credit, and I think Ron Paul is nuts, too.

Having said that, re-read my post. IMHO, Beck lacks a 'center' in his overall philosophy, which is (to me, anyway) important.

And it's not the Mormon thing, although that may play a part. It's Skousen. (Skousen's son, by the way, writes for Human Events.)

And I happen to know a conspiracy-theory guy. Trust me, they are several cans short of a case of beer.

neomom said...

I guess I don't mind the whiplash that much, because when the man is on, he is on... like the days-long exposure of Soros a couple weeks ago...

As far as Skousen? I still say Meh... I read the 5000 Year Leap. It has some good stuff in it, but it isn't the new gospel anymore than any other book I've read from any other author on the founders or progressivism.

And since the dude is dead, it ain't exactly like they are best friends or anything. I really don't find any of this that troubling.

Beck is what he is and its mostly helpful.

I barely catch the TV show, but I listen to his radio show sometimes at work, when I can. He can be quite funny as well as informative. Its all about discernment.

He just doesn't fit a mold like Rush or Hannity (whom I find shallow, boring, and slow to the point of being unable to refute claims by his lefty guests). Some find that more uncomfortable than others I guess.

Dad29 said...

Well, yah...

I've NEVER understood Hannity's popularity; perhaps it's that he's a nice guy and handsome. It ain't IQ firepower.

Limbaugh is useful for his insight into political machinations; his near-doctinaire materialism is off-putting (balanced nicely by his charitable works, btw.)

Savage is more fun to listen to. He's crazy, but like a fox.