Beck's brutal vision of the perfect society

by: Mike Lux

Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 11:44


Glenn Beck's CPAC speech was a rare gem of political discourse. I encourage everyone to read it so that they really understand where modern conservatism is going. Some of my friends are quite accurately comparing his "progressivism is cancer" screed to fascist rhetoric by people like Mussolini and Franco, because the parallels are striking, but I want to focus more on how the speech's philosophy is a template for the conservative cause right now.

Beck's essential message was that I crawled my way from the dung pile without any help, and that's what makes America great ,so we shouldn't help anyone in trouble. From his twisted personal story to his twisted vision of American history, Beck took rapturous CPACers on a classic tour of American conservative ideology. From his paranoid delusional ranting about how liberals hate anyone successful to his Social Darwinist view of society and nature, he laid out the conservative line and took it to its logical conclusion. And the audience loved it. The quintessential moment in the speech? When Beck explained why we shouldn't be helping anyone in need: "There's some sort of element of competition to life. Oh that's not natural. Really? Go watch the lions eat the weakest." And the audience burst into laughter and applause- as I wrote the other day, these conservatives really are into cruelty, so the idea of lions eating the weak got them going.

Beyond the celebration of eating the weakest, they money paragraph on the speech was this classic rendition of conservative thought:

We believe in the right of the individual. We believe in the right of the individual. We believe in the right, you can speak out, you can disagree with me, you can make your own path. But I'm not going to pay for your mistakes, and I don't expect you to pay for my mistakes. We're all going to make them, but we all have the right to move down that road. What we don't have a right to is: health care, housing, or handouts. We don't have those rights. Every time the government grows we lose more of who we are. When you give up your right to struggle... you're giving more of your freedom away.

In the conservative world view, each individual is on their own. The best society will be created if each of us goes our own way, with absolutely no help from anyone, and does exactly what we want to do, no matter who it hurts. Because that invisible hand of the marketplace makes individual greed a  source of strength, and because if the weak are not "eaten", society itself becomes weaker. Like the Social Darwinists of the post-Civil War era, conservatives such as Beck clearly believe, as William Graham Sumner put it back in 1893, that every society faces only two alternatives: "liberty, survival of the fittest" or "liberty, equality, survival of the unfittest." Beck said, "As I read the Constitution...the only job of the United States government is to save us from bad guys." The way Sumner put it was that government had only one purpose, which was to protect "the property of men and the honor of women."

Conservatives' answer to the question "Am I my brother's keeper?" is a resounding Hell NO. And that is the essential divide between them and the progressivism which Beck describes as a cancer: progressives believe that all of us are in this together. When our child is weakened by a chronic illness, or our parent by old age, we don't abandon them in the wilderness so that the lion can eat them up (and then laugh about it). When our brother stumbles and hits bottom, we don't stand back and see if he can pull himself up by his own bootstraps, we lend him a helping hand. When our sister is abused and treated unfairly by an employer, we don't tell her she's on her own, we work with her to make things fairer. We believe in a community that helps each other survive and prosper, because we don't want to live in a world where only the strongest and wealthiest and - yes - luckiest survive. We don't have fantasies that all our success is of our own making because we know that without good families, good neighbors, good school and libraries and roads and bridges paid for by public dollars, that without all that, we'd be much less likely to make it on our own. In spite of Beck's paranoia, we have no problem with people being successful. I have never once heard any progressive attack Steve Jobs or Eric Schmidt for their success, or attack the local small businessperson making a good living because he or she is supplying products a community wants. But what we do believe is that those lucky enough to be successful have a responsibility to give something back to their fellow citizens.

I will choose the "weakness" of a compassionate society over the brutal kind of "let the lions eat the weak" vision of Glenn Beck's perfect society any day of the week. Am I my brother's keeper? My answer is yes.

Mike Lux :: Beck's brutal vision of the perfect society

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Reading Comprehension Problems (4.00 / 8)
[Emphasis added for the reading-impaired.]

Beck said, "As I read the Constitution...the only job of the United States government is to save us from bad guys."

Constitution said:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Homer said:



"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

"Close your eyes to pity! Act brutally!" (0.00 / 0)
A gold star to anyone who names the source of that quote.

I guessed it (0.00 / 0)
although in the age of Google, I didn't have to.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

[ Parent ]
here you go, as promised: (4.00 / 1)
gold star

[ Parent ]
A gentle manifesto (4.00 / 7)
Glenn Beck. Caught in one of those traps which destiny often prepares for assholes, I've no doubt that Glenn triumphans would become Glenn-the-whiner in an instant. In fact, he vacillates between cruel egotist and simpering victim like a metronome. It's the core of his appeal.

Disgusting. Even his supporters know that it's disgusting. Republicans need to decide whether Herbert Spencer and Ayn Rand are their role models, or Jesus is. If the latter, they've got some 'splaining to do. How Christianity managed to twist itself into this narcissistic pretzel may be interesting, in a purely sociological sense, but the amount of energy they expend in covering up the paradox at the heart of their philosophy must ultimately make them vulnerable. We should be patient. Not silent, but patient.

Nice work, Mike.


Are you? (0.00 / 0)
I am not much on children's stories, but my memory is that God, knowing Cain has killed Abel, asks Cain where Abel is. Then Cain, in the most lippy/bratty of answers, replies to God with the question in answer to a question: Am I my brother's keeper? I don't remember that God endorses either yes or no as the always correct answer. It is one of those questions that strike me like it should be answered only if you can refuse yes or no and be allowed to explain whatever you want as your reply.

There's an implied wrong answer (4.00 / 4)
Cain's question is set up in such a way that his answer is presumptively not only no, but a thumping, 'how dare you, sir!' It's asked as though the premise is laughable.

As a series of parables with a heaping share of cautionary tales, there's a definite moral judgment considered to be made against people whose behavior the deity demonstrably disapproves of. As Cain's tale falls in the cautionary category, imitation of his attitudes is not to be encouraged within the context of using the Bible as a guide to correct behavior. And this isn't the only passage that harshes on acting as though people aren't responsible for each other's well-being, including New Testament references, such as Jesus' injunction that what's done to the "least of these" is done to him, personally.


[ Parent ]
I Don't Think You're Supposed To Know How To Read The Bible, Natasha (4.00 / 1)
You're supposed to read it the way you're TOLD to read it!

Especially the parts in invisible ink!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
a rhetorical question, if ever there was one! (4.00 / 1)
The implied answer is most certainly yes.

[ Parent ]
one of the main successes of the conservative movement (4.00 / 7)
was to destroy the very conception of the public good. That we could have a common interest, the preservation of which would require common sacrifices.

After Reagan, we no longer have the language to even talk about such things. Pure selfishness rules. The best the Democrats of today can do is plaster on a veneer of hope and good feelings onto this cold ethic of pure self-interest. But no more than that.

Orwell saw that once language was put under political control then thought would eventually come under political control, and then finally action. This was the impetus behind his fictional language, "Newspeak," which sought to limit the very scope of thought by limiting language.

The conservative movement has put Orwell's insights into practice with brilliant success.

Beck is simply taking conservative ideas to their logical conclusion. What he is calling for is a society of sociopaths, which is a contradiction in terms and doomed to fail.

But that won't stop them from trying to realize their twisted ideal.


That May Be True About Versailles Discourse (4.00 / 3)
But when folks are asked point-blank, they still support government programs to fix social problems.

The number of folks who would reduce spending for an entire panel of 6 or 7 programs--I've used both in the past few years--has not changed much over time & is under 1%.  The number of folks who would eliminate them entirely wasn't asked, but presumably would be even less.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
groups vs. the state (0.00 / 0)
common interest doesn't necessarily mean a national interest and doesnt' necessarily require the state as an intermediary.

Let's have that debate.  


[ Parent ]
So, Beck is promoting cannibalism? (4.00 / 3)
There's some sort of element of competition to life. Oh that's not natural. Really? Go watch the lions eat the weakest.

Lions don't generally eat the weakest of their own species.  

"We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada" --Sarah Palin


Human beings are not animals (4.00 / 1)
Simple really.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


Even animals don't behave this way. (0.00 / 0)
Cooperation is a well-documented trait in the animal kingdom.

[ Parent ]
You are right (0.00 / 0)


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


[ Parent ]
Repulicans and Right Wingers are very very good (4.00 / 5)
at undermining language and our frames.  They made liberal a dirty word and were able to link it to weakness and being un-american, so the Center-Left and liberal-left began using the word progressive.

Now they are going after the word progressive even though in American History the concept of progressivism is usually associated with good government and reform movements.

Communism/Communist is outdated so now they go after the word socialism -- even though the U.S. does have a tradition of municipal ownership of regulated industries like utilities and public transit and many successful advanced industrial democracies have a tradition of socialism themselves.

And in case you haven't noticed they are in the midst of a major project to link socialism to nazism  -- driven in part I think by their initial misharacterization of the nature of both socialism and fascism.  


Very well written piece, Mike (4.00 / 3)
None of this should need to be said, but it's a hallmark of this debased age that it does.  Good job!

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

Except that William Graham Sumner died in 1910 (0.00 / 0)
So I think he must have said the quote in 1893.

But a very good piece. I loved Jon Stewart's takedown of Beck's statement that he educated himself from books that he got "free" at the Library.  Jon ripped him for ignoring that tax dollars build and support libraries and schools.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
Beck's "free" education -- from library books. I guess (4.00 / 6)
no one paid for those books. They were just free.

I went and I read. I educated myself, I went to the library - books are free..... I educated myself. My education was free, and I'm proud of that.


Yeah, That Was Really Wierd (4.00 / 4)
It's like he has this strange compulsion to go out of his way to add unnecessary levels of contradiction to his delusional rants.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
i think it's because he knows he's full of shit (4.00 / 1)
so he has to sort of emit the truth sometimes to release the pressure valve.  but possibly not consciously.

anyway, it would be interesting to be his therapist if the idea wasn't so terrifying.  i think it would be a bit like The Cell in there.


[ Parent ]
Libraries, As In Public Library? (4.00 / 3)
Governmental institutions, staffed by government employees, funded by money confiscated by governmental legislative bodies, from freedom loving taxpayers who mostly vote in favor of library levies.

[ Parent ]
How do the Democrats translate this into a political argument? (0.00 / 0)
And no, "Poorly" isn't an answer.

Seriously... Is this what people want?

Man, playing Bioshock never seemed so relevant... =)


And by Democrats... (0.00 / 0)
I actually mean "Progressives", but yes, obviously a difference... Progressive would've been the more appropriate word above.

Two things (4.00 / 6)
First: you mean 1893, not 1993 on the William Graham Sumner quote.

Second: I don't like focusing on the frame of compassion vs cruelty. I think it makes us weak, and that it's essentially an ineffective guilt trip that hasn't and won't work to persuade people.

I think there's a powerful argument to be made about the effectiveness and fitness of a civilization that can appeal strongly to those who are offended by guilt trips. It's quite difficult for anyone to thrive in a dog eat dog world. Widespread literacy, open transportation, open communications, and dependable low-cost utilities are essential for economic innovation and growth. Healthcare will be cheaper and more effective (and we won't be so at risk for epidemic events/bioterrorism) when we stop having a massive underclass of emergency-room users.

There are bareknuckled pragmatic arguments to be made all up and down the progressive line all the sorts of "brothers keeper" programs that are essentially still appeals to self-interest. To a very real degree, the Public interest underpins our individual futures.

Me | My Work | Future Majority


I Don't Think It's Either/Or, Josh (4.00 / 1)
Both need to be addressed.
 

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
It is both (0.00 / 0)
but it's also a question of dealing with the frames you have and learning to better articulate the values that a road or a school, or a park, or a highway brings to your ability to make a living and raise your kids.  

[ Parent ]
Of course it is self interest.... (4.00 / 3)
Beck talked about lions eating the weakest? I suppose you thought that was funny, too? Because everyone was thinking: we are the lions...

You may have seen a lion dash into a herd of zebras and pull down the slowest to rip apart? If not, you can see it on the Nature channel.

Ever think that, collectively, the zebras are far stonger than the lion and they could kick the living shit out of him, if they could only get together? The zebras scatter because they can only think of survival as individuals .. but extracting a high price from the lion for it to get a single zebra would improve the survival chances of all. African buffalo (humble herbivores) have been filmed ganging up and defending their young from predatory lions. The "brave" lions beat a hasty retreat.

I thought being human meant knowing when it was the right thing to act collectively, and when to act as individuals. It is not always the best outcome to put your individual advantage before the collective ... that is why democracies have been more effective and fit for purpose that monarchies and dictatorships, and why social democracy will always be superior to bare "democracy".


[ Parent ]
I like it! (0.00 / 0)
Focusing on Effectiveness & Fitness as you suggest is intellectually defensible and correct, while also working within the frames that our mass culture has established at this time. And it doesn't take away anything from our desire for a just and compassionate world.

I'd like to hear more about this!


[ Parent ]
Man is a social creature (4.00 / 2)
If the individualist premise that we are all on our own is false, then all of the rest of it falls. No need to appeal to discuss compassion vs cruelty if that makes you uncomfortable (though I'd say compassion is a highly pro-survival trait in a social animal).

The very fact that we use language should be sufficient to settle the question. Language only works for groups.  It's wildly collectivist to agree to use the same words for things.  

One of the things that makes us unique as a species is our ability to coordinate our activity.  Cooperation is a competitive advantage. The cavemen who decided that it wasn't too collectivist to work together to bring down a mastodon ate a lot better than their rugged individualist cousins (and guess which tribe we're descended from).  

The idea of all those individualists coming together at CPAC for a shared purpose is the height of irony.

So if we can see that individuals are by nature parts of larger groups, then it becomes entirely legitimate to figure out what kinds of groups work best, and how best to coordinate and cooperate for maximum species success.

Of course the individualists really do have a blueprint for how we should act collectively, and it involves minimal horizontal coordination and maximum vertical coordination. Scratch a rugged individualist and you find an authoritarian lurking underneath.

They don't make sense economically either. In their obsession with the cost side of their balance sheets, they constantly miss out on the benefits side. Lions eating weak zebras is one thing, but what if some loser human is so crippled that he can't talk without a sophisticated computer and get get around without a wheelchair and needs constant human care and feeding just to survive? (I saw a movie once where some Indian tribe tossed out an old woman who was too sick to pull her weight anymore.  When did we lose that?) Clearly we'd all be better off if we didn't have to waste so much precious human energy keeping Stephen Hawking alive.

Individualism is the the ultimate divide-to-conquer scheme, and the powerful will work collectively to sell it to the masses for the same reason they advance all other divide-to-conquer schemes.  


[ Parent ]
Correction (0.00 / 0)
I previewed my comment three times and still messed up this sentence:

No need to appeal to discuss compassion vs cruelty if that makes you uncomfortable (though I'd say compassion is a highly pro-survival trait in a social animal).

Since it sounds needlessly dismissive, I think I'll just retract it.


[ Parent ]
Is this a surprise? (4.00 / 4)
Beck is nothing more than warmed-over Ayn Rand - and that was nothing more than a celebration of sociopathy!

What I find interesting, however, is the conjunction between this tough-it-out, self-sufficiency hoo-hah with the opposing conservative propensity for victimization.

Both of these trends have been well-detailed on this site. Now if someone can find a way to put those two concepts together (without their head exploding) in a way that we can use to beat back the rising tide of fascism, I would really appreciate that.


really good analysis (4.00 / 1)
i think what you're describing basically resembles a kind of masculinism (emotions bad, sense of entitlement, don't ask for help, never question my authority, man flu, etc.).  It would be interesting to see if it could be addressed in similar ways.


[ Parent ]
Some of the real right-wingers (4.00 / 1)
Really fear annihilation, both on a personality and an actual level.  They have to hold to their tribal mindset and not let anything contrary in or they can't hold it together.  This comes from early trauma.  It isn't just that they can't let Obama win anything for electoral purposes.  Some of them can't allow any contrary opinions in lest the whole edifice fall and they will have to confront things they don't want to confront.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Note (0.00 / 0)
I don't mean to discredit in any way your work in this article, Mike. I hope you've got it cross-posted at HuffPost!

David Weigel, on Fresh Air Yesterday (0.00 / 0)
His takedown of the wingers is brutal and scary.  Terry Gross and her guest make one of the best Fresh Air interviews ever:
http://www.npr.org/templates/s...

civilization (4.00 / 1)
What the fascist Beck correctly refers to as society is the definition of nature....survival of the fittest. And societies exist in nature, ie. ants, lions, wolves some rodents, etc.

The difference between that and civilization is intelligence; reasoning, learning, grasping facts, relationships, truth, compassion, etc. The very qualities that separate humans from animals; the same ones the creator urges us to practice and refine.

This approach only seems acceptable as long as the individual is in the strong position. As more and more of the "lions" get eaten by bigger lions, fewer conservatives will pretend to believe this vile, immoral lie.

As with the board game "monopoly", unregulated capitalism can only lead to one winner, and a nation/world of losers.

Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob..... FDR


I'm not going to dabble in what beck says (4.00 / 1)
Because hes an extremist, but the real question I think most pertinent is:

"Is government my brother's keeper?"

I think this is where most sensible people diverge.


Not Really (4.00 / 2)
Less than 1% of people say we are spending too much on all six of the following:

NATCITY: SOLVING PROBLEMS OF BIG CITIES
NATEDUC: IMPROVING NATIONS EDUCATION SYSTEM
NATENVIR: IMPROVING & PROTECTING ENVIRONMENT
NATFARE: WELFARE
NATHEAL: IMPROVING & PROTECTING NATIONS HEALTH
NATRACE: IMPROVING THE CONDITIONS OF BLACKS

Plus, the Preamble of the Constitution makes it explicit--one of the reasons it was written, and the United States replaced the Confederacy was to "promote the general welfare."

So that tiny minority that doesn't agree can leave any time they like, actually.

They won't be missed.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
do you think (0.00 / 0)
the government is "We the People".

or can function that way in any situation?  Or is it too corruptible/intrinsically tied to failure and misrepresentation?

I am not sure of any other model of organization that would work, besides government.  And I am not entirely sure that we can't have a well-run government that sincerely attempts to represent us all.  

Do you think it is a lost cause?


[ Parent ]
brother keeping (0.00 / 0)
Beck is so wrong about so much that it feels good to take the opposite side of anything that he says. But Mike takes a wrong step to make use of this question, and I do not see that your answer solves the problem. To achieve all around better results, try using "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" in place of "am I my brother's keeper?" It is enough to notice that when Beck can be put in a picture as having asked "am I my brother's keeper", he is already depicted as Cain--the original murderer.

So, we would want the government to do unto others as we would have it do unto ourself? That seems an easy answer: yes.

It feels right to say that I want to speak freely; so, others should also speak freely. I want to be protected from others violence; so others should also be protected from violence. I would want care when sick, and others should have care when sick.

Do I want to be kept? Not so much. So I don't see that the goverment should keep my brother, and certainly not keep anyone in GITMO.


[ Parent ]
Beck the Entertainer (4.00 / 1)
The problem with Glenn Beck is much less with what he says and with the fact that lots of people believe him.  History is full of windbags as well as entertainers.  Today however many people are willing to buy into a constructed reality where we reject health care reform and defend medicare and medicaid at the same time.  Where we decry progressive programs and still check out books at the local library.  Beck is an entertainer plain and simple.  The only problem is that his "show" is taken as the gospel truth in a world where the lines between your own personal reality and empirical reality are being blurred.

Actually, this isn't completely fair to conservatives (4.00 / 2)
Conservatism has always had a lot of communitarianism to it, and it continues to. Churches, for example. Volunteering and charity. The strong emphasis on families. Militrarism. And so on. The brutal social-Darwinist world that Beck describes is only one iteration of conservatism and, in fact, its not even really clear that it is properly lumped in the same camp as other strands. After all, social Darwinism cut across ideological lines well into the 1950s, and it was strongly opposed by people and institutions that are probably properly characterized as conservative -- the Catholic church, for example, in the 1920s. It was also deeply intertwined with the ideology of eugenics, which was a progressive movement if there ever was one. So... I think its probably best to just call Beck and his followers cruel protofascists without trying to characterize conservatism as a whole in this way. Doing so is sort of intellectually sloppy.

He's like Nietzsche on Dumb (0.00 / 0)


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox