Glenn Beck's world

by: Mike Lux

Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 13:30

One interesting thing about the trip was that I heard not a single word about the Glenn Beck rally in his political heartland down south. I like to chat people up on all my trips in the convenience stores and small-town cafes, hear what's on everyone's minds. Everyone is talking about how tough the economy is, and of course I heard some random comments about government and deficits being a problem. I heard some random comments about health care with some folks leery of the new bill. But the only people the whole trip who mentioned Beck's rally were a couple of liberal family members who came in for the wedding and were being driven nuts by it. That's not to suggest Beck doesn't have his disciples here, of course he does, and I'm sure I would have found more of them if I'd stopped at those gun shops we drove by, or went to the Church of Christ my sister's family goes to in Tennessee. For most of the folks I was talking to, though, politics is a worry and an irritant, far less important in their daily lives than just trying to make it in this distressed economy. They feel like politics and politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, have let them down and don't care very much about them. They think, with some reason, that Washington cares a lot more about the wealthy and powerful special interests than it does them.

That is not to say that the rabid right-wing leaders such as Beck aren't important. They are on a mission to define the terms of our political debate, and shape how people view our politics, culture and history- and that is big stuff. Who controls and shapes the contours of our country's debate and dialogue usually wins most of the nation's political battles. Beck is an interesting figure because in spite of his over-the-top emotional appeals and his playing to the anti-intellectual crowd, he totally gets how important it is to create a historical narrative, to have a political philosophy that transcends whatever the battle of the moment is. I have been struck by his willingness to attack historically well-regarded people like Teddy Roosevelt, and to lift up obscure and even widely discredited figures like Calvin Coolidge. Getting the history defined through his ideological prism is a major priority for him.

Added to that is his obsession with defining the Christian religion in the "right" way for his purposes. His depiction of Obama as believing in liberation theology is of course very politically convenient, as it sounds vaguely Communistic and people-of-color oriented, but it also speaks to Beck's bigger obsession: Beck understands that if all those church-going conservatives actually read the Bible and take it so seriously, or read their history and think about its lessons, it will be impossible to keep them in the conservative fold. All the folks that Beck quotes with such fervor- Paine, Jefferson, Lincoln, King, and the Jesus of the Gospels- believed in the opposite of what he is advocating, and I think he knows it. Beck's philosophy celebrates the Ayn Rand belief that selfishness is a positive good and compassion is a leech on society. He happily promotes the idea that the "lions eat the weak" and is not only comfortable with but delights in the idea that the "undeserving" poor will suffer. That is not what Paine, Jefferson, Lincoln, King, and Jesus believed, and I suspect that Beck actually knows that, and associates himself all the tighter with them to distract people from reading their actual words. Beck attacks poor immigrants, and Jesus said we should welcome the stranger. Jefferson and Lincoln believed our country should be founded on the cornerstone of equality, Beck says we need to reclaim our country from civil rights supporters. Over two hundred years ago, Paine proposed a social security system, progressive taxation, and a safety net for the poor, while Beck wants to roll back everything we have achieved on those issues. King said that our fates are "inextricably linked in a garment of destiny" and said one of our worst sins is when we fail to realize our dependence on others, while Beck rails against collectivism and community. Jesus said we would be judged on how we treated the least of these, Beck says we should let the least of these suffer because they aren't deserving.

King believed that not only the civil rights movement but the broader progressive movement as well had as its mission to "save the soul of America". Today, the soul of America is very much in a pitched battle. If Beck's philosophy prevails, a country founded in the ideals of equality and community will become a country that cheers the cruelty of the lions eating the weak. Progressives need to understand the stakes of this battle.  

Whistling Past Bush Dog Democrats

by: Matt Stoller

Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 09:00

As the campaign to reform "Bush Dogs" led by Matt Stoller and the Open Left team moves forward, I wanted to pause a moment to point out something that, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I couldn't help but notice: Of the 40 Bush Dogs, fully half of them are southern white Democrats. (The "South" defined here as the 11 Confederate states.)

Presently, Speaker Nancy Pelosi leads a 230-member Democratic House majority. Of those 230, just 32 are white southerners. That leaves 198 non-southern or minority (black, Hispanic) southern Democrats. And that means the splits for Bush Dog coalition are as follows: About 10% (20 of 198) of the non-southern or minority southern Democrats are Bush Dogs, but a striking 63% (20 of 32) of southern white Democrats made the list. (See chart.)

As I argued in Whistling Past Dixie, this is one of the painful tradeoffs of trying to be a "national" party. Liberals should keep that in mind the next time somebody spews feels-nice, but strategically empty phrases like "Democrats need to compete everywhere"-a "strategy" that is, in fact, the very absence of strategy. Not all Democrats vote the same way- and there are often very clear voting patterns by region. The South/non-South disparity should also be kept in mind when the inevitable arguments arise as to whether 2008 dollars and other resources should be directed toward trying to defeat or replace Republicans like, say, Randy Kuhl or Ray LaHood, or keeping the seats of Democrats Jim Marshall or Gene Taylor. Though Democrats may prefer to do both, politics is often about economics-the need to make decisions about scarce resources-and every seat is clearly not qualitatively the same when it comes time for floor votes in Congress.

Right now, Pelosi has those 198 non-southern and minority southern seats in her delegation; on the Senate side, Harry Reid already has 46 non-southern Senators in his, with upcoming opportunities in CO, MN, NH, OR and elsewhere outside the South. Say what you want about what Freedom's Watch is doing to moderate Republicans on behalf of the White House and the war, but as Eve Fairbanks compellingly argues in The New Republic, it is exactly this sort of clamping down on Republicans that has kept the Democrats from achieving much in the 110th Congress thus far. There's a lesson in that, as there is in the geography of the "Bush Dog" coalition.