9.23.2009

Glenn Beck, Post-Modern Conservative

Buried in the cross-tabs of the new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll is a question that takes a temperature reading of Glenn Beck. Beck actually makes out pretty well. While just 24 percent of Americans have a favorable view of him (13 percent strongly so), only 19 percent have an unfavorable one (14 percent strongly). That leaves 57 percent who either don't know Beck or are indifferent toward him.

This compares quite favorably to, for example, Rush Limbaugh, who was the subject of a similar question in the NBC/WSJ poll in June. Limbaugh was regarded favorably by 23 percent of Americans, but unfavorably by 50 percent -- including 37 percent who held a strongly negative view. This is not a new problem for Limbaugh, incidentally, who has been roughly this unpopular since at least 1995.



The difference between Beck and Limbaugh is that Beck is much more of an anti-establishment figure. I have posited before that running perpendicular to the traditional liberal-conservative spectrum is an establishment/anti-establishment spectrum; Beck is conservative but anti-establishment. And that may be working out pretty well for him, since the country seems to be becoming more anti-establishment too.

Of course, as Glenn Greenwald points out, Beck's philosophy is neither particularly self-consistent nor particularly intellectually coherent. But since when, exactly, did that matter in American politics? Most voters, whether they consider themselves liberal or conservative, have a haphazard, inconsistent, and somewhat fluid set of views, which are not so easy to reconcile with the tenets of political orthodoxy. Nor is it so clear that traditional (circa 1980-2006) American conservativism is particularly more self-consistent -- why, for instance, does it tolerate government intervention in the bedroom, if it considers it so imperative that government stay out of the boardroom?

Beck is a PoMoCon -- a post-modern conservative. And his philosophy is not all that difficult to articulate. It borrows a couple of things from traditional American conservatism:

-- It shares an extreme distrust for government, particularly the Federal Government.
-- It shares the notion that American society is in some sort of state of existential decline.

On the other hand, it also features some important differences:

-- It is much more distrustful of non-governmental institutions, such as labor unions, corporations, political parties, community groups, the media, and scientific institutions.
-- It is largely indifferent toward 'social issues'.
-- It is much less explicitly aligned with the Republican Party.
-- It has much less use for elites, which it also distrusts.

The PoMoCons are not so much less self-consistent as they are less concerned with consistency, as compared with traditional conservatives. Theirs is a bric-a-brac, skeptical (sometimes to the point of paranoid), play-it-by-ear, relatively spontaneous reaction to the here-and-now -- not something cooked up by a K Street thinktank. There is no future, no past -- there is only today. And today is a pretty good day to be Glenn Beck.

108 comments

NJ_Moderate said...

Beck is just in the right place at the right time. With the additional NEA and ACORN scandals and the big healthcare fight upcoming, his ratings are only going to increase. Under Clinton, Beck wouldn't even merit a second look but the Obama administration and its allies have provided a plethora of pinatas for him to bash.

In terms of viewpoints, Beck is more libertarian than anything else.

markymark said...

I wonder if comparing Beck to Limbaugh is fair really. Beck is a TV creature, so how many people are going to know him? (A cable TV creature at that!) Limbaugh has a captive audience often on drive time radio, and even in 1995 had been around bashing Clinton for a couple of years. You are either going to completely ignore him, and therefore your negative view will hardly change, or sign on completely to him.

Beck is more of an unknown figure one because he hasn't been around for as long, but also because he has only just broken through, to the extent that he has at all. When he is on some rant that you don't agree with, you can just flip channels. Its an interesting poll in as much as its probably bad for someone like Beck to not get a big emotional response. Guys like him and Limbaugh WANT the negative reactiona as much as they want the positive reaction.

shiloh said...

Beck & Limbo, the "future" of the party of No! ;)

Praise the Lord!

and NJ_Moderate, just go ahead and change your name to NJ_winger. Really, it's ok.

... and the truth shall set you free!

again, how did the Dems get so damn lucky to have their country bumpkin', pathetic opposition led by (2) racist, clueless clowns.

Manna from heaven!

Juris said...

@Nate -- a side note. You wrote an interesting article on gambling revenues and Las Vegas in Esquire.

bleepul said...

Beck is a nimcompoop but your characterization of pomocon is silly. Democrats/progressives/liberals aren't particularly coherent, intellectually honest, and self-consistent either so ascribing it just to this group doesn't make much sense. If we analyzed the progressive mindset based upon the personal quirks of Maddow and Olberman I'd say that PoMoLib is characterized by hystronics and bitterness and just as much conspiracy (9/11, insurance companies, corporate boardrooms). It is mostly a revenge fantasy fueled by pseudo-intellectual reasoning with claims to the contrary. It is self-aggrandizing claiming the intellectual high ground over the other political groups. It is more influenced by oratory than logic and is punctuated by acceptance of the hero myth ... that a great ruler can lead us to the promise land.

My guess is most pomolibs have never listened to either Beck or Rush anyway and just are repeating what their buddies think. The comments here are probably hugely uninformed ... consistent with the PoMoLib way of thinking.

Jesse Radin said...

Glenn Beck annoys me more than Rush Limbaugh because he's practically as crazy, but people take him seriously and/or respect him.

He's no better than any of the other talk show hosts.

shiloh said...

btw, July 2, 2008, Limbo signed a contract extension through 2016 worth over $400 million!

and Nov. 4, 2008 a young, relatively inexperienced African/American Socialist, Marxist, Fascist, wealth distributor, community organizer from hell er Chicago, Satan, the Anti-Christ, the Devil Incarnate, Arab, Muslim born in Kenya who is also a racist and hates white people whose name is Barack Hussein Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States of America by 9.5 million votes. The biggest Dem victory for president since LBJ in 1964.

Sooo, as I keep stating the obvious. One of the best things that has happened to the Dem party over the last few years is the total domination of talk radio by the party of No! wingers w/their nonsensical hate speak and racism.

All part of the Reps plan to win over African/Americans, Hispanics, Asians, the youth vote, moderate independents, the well educated, the upper class, the Jewish vote, union voters, Catholics, teachers, etc. etc.

but, but, but Beck/fixednoise has captured the imagination of southern white guys, congrats! Although he's lost half his advertisers lol he still has his dignity. ;)

bleepul said...

Thanks for bringing home my point Shiloh. Enjoy your day.

shiloh said...

bleepul said...
~~~~~~~~~~


Didn't read your post, but thanx for reading mine ...

take care

Edward Gaffney said...

Sigh. Why do progressives tolerate government intervention in the boardroom, if it considers it so imperative that government stay out of the bedroom?

If the answer is normative, then the conservatives will come back with a normative answer. But Nate's logic is dangerously close to hard-line libertarians'.

shiloh said...

Edward Gaffney said...
~~~~~~~~~~


Maybe because the bedroom is private, whereas the boardroom is usually public, especially when the govt. has to bail them out to prevent a depression.

take care

shiloh said...

btw blee, just read your post and our posts are totally different. Sooo no, didn't bring home your point, whatever point one was trying to make ...

Quixote said...

The amoral spew of political wingnuts I'm used to, but from what I've seen of him Beck seems less coherent and emotionally stable than the typical street-corner madman with doomsaying sandwich board. He strikes me as having some serious mental health issues and it seems a bit cruel to put him on display as entertainment.

akuma_river said...

I like the poll is schewed.

The reason, I most certainly don't like the guy...nor can I really hate him. I just want him gone. The guy is off his freaking rocker, he has no consistency in anything he does or says, it's insane the way he acts and behaves. He cries out for people to act up to stand for what they believe, he spouts out about fema camps and other insane conspiracies and yet when crazies take him at his word and act on these beliefs of theirs, he denies all culpability.

He needs some professional help.

bleepul said...

Glad you figured it out Shiloh ... it's important we know who's in who's tribe so we can continue to fight each other.

The point was that the analysis that Nate offered is shallow. With a few minor tweaks it can apply similarly to the left (or whatever group really) with no real insight gained. Each group has crazies (or at least people playing the part) that just spew. It reflects feelings rather than coherent philosophy and the phenomenon is ubiquitous.

You came along and just spewed which demonstrates the point perfectly. You followed it thinking that I had complimented you or something which illustrates a lack of depth and thought (or at least effort).

It's not your fault ... everyone is like this these days.

HelenSouth said...

Maybe we all should catch up on this interesting, if worrying, article from one of my favorite thinkers in the USA - Frank Schaeffer.

I believe there is now a lot of solid evidence to support his theory of theocracy as the cause of the neo-con madness (as it seems to be be to more sane people!)

http://frank-schaeffer.blogspot.com/2009/09/912-marchers-and-far-right-subversives.html

Helen

shiloh said...

Again blee no, whereas in part "we" were both stating the obvious, the left has no one to compare to Beck or Limbaugh, who are truly unique in the way yahoo/uneducated lemmings flock to be spoon fed by them, especially when the winger media keeps telling us how popular/important Beck/Limbaugh are by pointing out their vast viewership.

ie fixed w/their daily average viewership of 1.4 million continually points out how they crush their competition.

And again the obvious, America loves a train wreck, especially uneducated conservative yahoos.

The previous Rep meme of hate speak, racism, scorched earth tactics, national security, putting hate/wedge issues on the ballot can no longer win national elections after cheney/bush.

This is not rocket science as the Reps continue to preach division to their dwindling choir ...

take care

Zac said...

Interesting post, although I never thought I'd see 'Glenn Beck' and 'philosophy' in the same paragraph.

bleepul said...

Shiloh ...

Al Gore comes awfully close preaching environmental armageddemon; Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton on racial divisions; Michael Moore on social and economic issues. These are not people open to discourse and other ways of thinking and command just as large audiences.

joel said...

This is comparing apples and oranges. The majority of people have no idea who Glen Beck is while Rush is universally known.
A better poll may be just polling people who have an opinion of both.
I suppose Beck would come out better than Rush because he pretends to dislike both parties while basically being a GOP hack.
Rush is an admitted GOP hack and a known racist. The guy is disliked by most people except the hard right.
Beck seems more dangerous to me because he seems to be a true believer in the garbage he spouts.
I figure Rush would turn into a liberal if there was more money in it for him.

shiloh said...

Again the obvious blee, whereas Gore, Jackson, Sharpton and yes Virginia, John Edwards are not the leaders of the the Dem party, Obama is, they aren't even politicians.

but, but, but Reps lacking coherent rational leadership ie palin, mittens, Huckabee, Gingrich, Jindal, Perry, Bachmann, Blackburn, Steele, Boehner, Cantor, Joe Wilson, Sanford, Ensign, Vitter etc. etc.

out of this laughable, party of No! vacuum extreme blowhards Beck/Limbaugh become the titular heads of the Rep party.

Again, most Americans don't know who the heck Nancy Pelosi is, whereas Chucky T pointed out yesterday Obama still has an 80% likability rating, Beck/Limbaugh, not so much ...

blee, this is your current political reality!

know it, live it, believe it.

take care

p.s. Al Gore lol btw, Bill Clinton is more popular than ever which has to be drivin' the wingers bat shit crazy, eh.

Mike B said...

If the PoMoCons are so distrustful of government, organizations and "elites" who the hell do they trust??? It seems that Glen Beck's America is one where every family lives in their own bunker with a sizable arms cache to ward off elites who might try to tax their recently killed Elk.

Jesus, if people want to return to tribalism they should move to Afghanistan. I mean it seems to be working great over there.

nominalize said...

@Nate:

I think the point on distrust of non-governmental institutions is insightful, but you left out one major non-governmental institution: churches. I don't think very many conservatives distrust churches, and indeed much of the mob-fomenting lies have been actively disseminated by religious organizations. Why are churches exempt from the hypothesis on distrust of organizations?

Also, I take issue with the use of the term Post-modern to describe this coherently incoherent worldview. One of the hallmarks of postmodernism is the refusal of the notion that objective truth even exists; I seriously doubt Beck would subscribe to that.

Lord Calvert said...

Nate, I disagree with the characterization of Beck as an anti-establishment figure. As we found out from 2001-2006, modern "conservatives" are fanatically pro-big-government when their party is in power and is in a position where they don't have to compromise with their political opposition. Beck is no different. Should the Republicans gain the White House and Congress once again he, like Limbaugh and many other pseudo-conservative media figures, will once again be one of big-government's staunchest defenders.

The Republicans of today have one, and only one platform: "Oppose anything the Democrats do even if we were doing it ourselves a year ago." Genuine anti-establishment figures oppose the expansion of government power regardless of which party is in power. If Beck were truly an anti-establishment figure, he would have been screaming at the right wing for the last eight years.

Beck is no conservative. He's just another in a long line of commies in choir robes pretending to be conservative.

shiloh said...

Yes LC, the current Rep meme: We suck the big one! but we're not as bad as the other guy and pay no attention to the previous (8) years lol

pay no attention to the wizard er darth behind the curtain ...

Inferno said...

Interesting point entirely unrelated to Nate's post: On the front page of yesterday's Newark Star-Ledger was an article about John Adler (D-NJ3), one of New Jersey's freshman congressmen. (The other is Leonard Lance, a Republican.) He represents a South Jersey district that went for a Republican for many years, but just flipped in 2008.

He considers himself "the most conservative Democrat in the delegation," which - since New Jersey has an 8-5 split between D and R representation, would make him somewhat moderate by NJ standards.

He isn't even a Blue Dog, choosing instead to label himself a "Main Street Democrat" - i.e., not as conservative as the centrist/center-right Blue Dogs, though not as far left as someone like Donald Payne (D-NJ10, who I believe is NJ's only CPC member).

All of this is a roundabout way of saying NJ may - in fact, be a bit further left than you think. Or someone may be a bit further right than they think. ;)

Back on topic: I don't know if it's THAT good to be Glenn Beck. At the risk of pulling a Bart, by Nate's own admission more than half of those polled have no opinion of Beck or a neutral one. After all, it's only been fairly recently that Beck's become a fairly well-known name; before, he was stewing over at Headline News.

Even now, how much of an impact do you think the 9/12 march had? How many people do you think KNOW about it, compared to - say - how many people know that Kanye West got drunk at the VMAs and interrupted Taylor Swift's acceptance speech to say that Beyonce's (imo, lame) video should have won "Best Female Video?"

That means he's largely an unknown quantity, and public opinion has a long way to move on him. It'd be interesting to see polling on Rush in 1994 and 1993 (his show started in 1992, right?) to compare, as that's probably more relevant.

Inferno said...

@nominalize: Fairly easy to answer - churches aren't really seen as "establishment" institutions.

Using Glenn Beck himself, he's a Mormon - and outside of Utah and parts of Idaho and Nevada, Mormonism doesn't have much of an institutional hold. As for Protestants (namely Baptists, Pentecostals, etc., etc.), most Protestant denominations don't have a strict hierarchy like the Roman Catholic Church does. In fact, quite a few churches are nondenominational.

Plus, the Moral Majority feels like a lot of things are against them. Which isn't entirely unfounded - see: existential decline - but it helps to frame themselves as being assaulted by The Establishment.

markymark said...

Mike B, the easy answer is that they don't trust anyone. They are as close to anarchists as the US has had for a while.

Except most of it is for show. Who they trust, one might cynically say, is there paymasters.

liberal_defender_of_freedom said...

Beck's a corporate mouthpiece like the rest of those frauds on Fixed Noise.

Rudy said...

Beck has many good instincts, but he is also prone to missing the point because he is nowhere near as well-grounded in conservative philosophy as Limbaugh. But he is a better emoter, and it's his heart-on-his-sleeve passion that is resonating with a lot of people.

There was an article in Politico last week about him, and the talk of competition between Beck and Limbaugh was amply dismissed by Mark Levin, who was quoted saying, "Comparing Rush Limbaugh to Glenn Beck is like comparing George Washington to George Jefferson. Beck can be very entertaining and even informative, but he is neither the face nor the voice of the conservative movement. He is one of many."

That's a fair assessment, in my view.

Peter said...

I disagree that Glenn Beck is "a true believer in the garbage he spouts." Even if he's always been a right-winger of a type, since he made the jump from CNN to Fox, he's completely embraced this hysterical, anti-government persona, and I don't think it's hard to see why. He recognized that he had the opportunity to crank up the volume to 11 and in the process, out-Hannity Hannity, and that's exactly what he's done. I mean, the reason you have trouble reconciling his views is because there's very little substance there. He's a sensationalist, first and foremost, and he's very good at it. His goal isn't to present a coherent ideology. It's to find issues that he can exploit, stirring his audience into a fever pitch and earning himself bajillions of dollars in the process. Which is fine, I guess, but you shouldn't mistake him for a serious thinker. His political ideology and theories of governance are about as sophisticated as Marilyn Manson's.

Mad Joy said...

Interesting categorization of Beck, Nate, and one I agree with.

However, I don't think your treatment of the polls is at all fair. Both Beck and Limbaugh have a core audience that knows them, listens to them, and loves them - that's the 24% and 23% favorable, pretty similar and probably within error range. But of the rest of the population, everyone's heard of Rush Limbaugh - he's been around for so long, and thus more of the non-core-audience knows him well enough to have an [unfavorable] opinion. Get Glenn Beck some more exposure (as he has been in the past month or so) and I expect his unfavorable ratings will climb just like Limbaugh's.

Bart DePalma said...

Post modern Conservative?

Beck is a frigging comedian who has now found a lucrative niche as an earnest populist muckraker because the Dem press is ignoring the target rich investigative journalism environment the Obama Administration presents and Beck has a very large pissed off audience to whom to report this news.

Populist muckraking tweaking the powerful is as old as the Republic and is hardly post modern.

Also, Beck is only conservative when compared to full blown communists like Van Jones and the other administration leftwingnuts he has been outing. Beck just told Couric that he would have voted for Hillary if she had been nominated, upsetting the conservative purists who thought that Beck was one of their's.

What is it with the left that they think entertainers like Limbaugh, Hannity and now Beck actually run the GOP. They simply fill an entertainment niche that the Dem media ignore. The folks who think that these three personalities are GOP mouth pieces cannot be listening to them. All three have savaged McCain, Bush and the GOP repeatedly over the past few years for their center-left policies.

harold said...

Once again, the real explanation is patently obvious.

Glen Beck is massively less famous than Limbaugh. Not only do less people know he exists, but among those who know he exists, many fewer know what he actually does.

If the 57% with "no opinion" knew who he was, he would poll like Limbaugh.

But the only people who know who he is are the Glox News viewers. The wingnuts who love it and the few liberals who keep up with it to see what the wingnuts are up to.

I think there is a grain of truth to the "post modern" blather. Beck ALSO manages to confuse people - it's hard to tell what he's talking about.

But mainly, the average person just isn't very aware of him.

Obliterati said...

Tell you what...when Glenn Beck can get higher Nielsen ratings that The Young and the Restless, and Hannah Montana, and Spongebob Squarepants, and WWE Raw, and those nightly Family Guy reruns on TBS that we've all seen ten-thousand times, then I'll care.

Until then? Not so much.

Fred said...

Nate,
Read "Moral Politics" by George Lakoff to see that Americans political identities are not at all haphazard and completely self-consistent. They follow logically from the two dominant styles of morality that exist in this country.

ggghhhh said...

This is one of the only good posts and apt analysis in the past year - every other post is desperate to throw bouquets at the administration, or rosy predictions about the movement of American people towards blue-y-ness.

E.g., articles about Obama as a "clean-up hitter", fanciful notions of Republican "death spirals", ignorance of Acorn, or Obama's choices of czars/administration

Stick to this stuff. Softer, less secretly hopeful partisanship, like articles.

mein2008 said...

This article spoke about the things/people Glenn Beck dislikes but mentions nothing of who/what he likes. Is he a misanthrope? If so, what does the size of his following say about society in general?

stewarjt said...

Slow day in the statistics field, eh?

Jeffrey said...

I won't get into the merits of the arguments but it sounds to me like Nate is saying:
Traditional American Conservative=Libertarian,
Modern American Conservative=Traditional European Conservative,
and Post-Modern Conservative=Anarchist.

Daniel said...

Saying Glenn Beck's philosophy isn't "intellectually coherent" is yet another example of the liberal tendency to be overly nice. The first time I saw his show, I seriously thought it was a parody, a la "The Colbert Report." I was in stitches, it was so funny. Especially when he whipped out a sharpie and started connecting various pieces of paper lying around the studio. Here he was, connecting ACORN, Van Jones, the ACLU, the Black Panthers and the UN into some vast leftist conspiracy where blacks would take over the world. I thought it was pretty risky for a portly white guy to make such a racist-sounding "joke," but since it was on Fox News, I figured he could get away with it because Comedy Central is a little more beholden to political correctness. Then I found out he was serious. Wow, just, wow.
See, I'm fairly conservative, and I work in a rather diverse environment (both politically and racially) but this guy was whackier than the guy who sits in a corner and mumbles to himself.
Is Glenn Beck actually serious or is his whole schtick a joke?

Wayward Son said...

As the conservative movement ages ungracefully, it was bound to migrate from an activist, politically-interested focus to a 'get off my lawn!' anti-everything mentality. It is much easier to yell incoherently at everything than it is to attempt to understand a situation well enough to pick a side.

In the words of Grampa Simpson.. "Dear Mr. President, there are too many states nowadays. Please eliminate three. I am not a crackpot."

Richard said...

To Bart:

"All three have savaged McCain, Bush and the GOP repeatedly over the past few years for their center-left policies."

Center-LEFT? They espouse traditional conservative positions--big moralistic government, no protection from the judiciary against the legislature and executive, expansion of government surveillance and police state powers, militarism. These are the hallmark of conservatives and the right, have been for centuries, and just because you keep saying they aren't doesn't make it so. Even if you are a member of Red Sox nation.

Bart DePalma said...

Daniel:

The layer of Obama political appointees just below the high profile positions is like a Who's Who of hard left NGOs and community organizing groups.

I first started unearthing these folks when doing research on the Obama Auto Task Force. The primary members were high profile cabinet members nominally led by a Wall Street trader who got the left blogosphere all upset. In reality, the high profile members never went to ATF meetings because they had departments to run. Instead, each official member had 1-2 "assistants" who actually ran the ATF. The actual leader of the ATF was United Steel Worker operative named Ron Bloom who specialized in union takeovers of troubled companies. The rest were largely green radicals. These were the folks who nationalized GM and Chrysler rather than simply subsidizing them as they went through bankruptcy.

Van Jones occupied a similar second tier position as Green Jobs Adviser/Czar and wielded substantial influence in steering a couple hundred billion dollars of Porkulus money to "green jobs projects." No one in Congress had even heard of Jones, nevertheless vetted and confirmed him. Jones is an unapologetic communist who learned that communism does not sell and helped form the Apollo Alliance, which pitched green socialism as a jobs program. The Apollo Alliance website and various news reports indicate that that this green socialist organization was heavily involved in lobbying for (and Beck alleges writing) the Porkulus provisions for massive government subsidy of unprofitable green industries. The groundwork was being laid to make this subsidy permanent.

What eventually tripped Jones up was the disclosure that he was a 9/11 truther. This disclosure misrepresented Jones as a nutjob, when in fact he is a very intelligent and effective communist. It was the latter that upset Beck and should have upset his audience.

Bart DePalma said...

Richard said...

To Bart: "All three have savaged McCain, Bush and the GOP repeatedly over the past few years for their center-left policies."

Center-LEFT?


Yes, center-left.

Bush: Medicare drug entitlement, NCLB with Ted Kennedy, and increasing domestic spending by nearly a third.

McCain: McCain/Feingold, carbon caps, votes against tax relief.

All of this nonsense was to the left of Clinton.

Ben said...

Glenn Beck is a Pokemon? At least he probably didn't rape and murder that girl in 1990. (http://gb1990.com)

Obligatory references aside, PoMoCons sound like confused Libertarians. It's like they were conservatives who stumbled onto Libertarian ideas without any of its founding philosophies.

Goreshade said...

I've been listening to Beck for years now. What he's saying is scary enough until you realize people believe him. Today it's the idea that climate change initaitives are meant to de-develop our country for the socialists take over. Why socialists would rather rule a third world country instead of a super power isn't really explained, but "trust him" it's all about power. He's seen it coming. And people believed him.

A few years ago he was convinced there was a plan to merge all of North America into one country. He called it MexiCanAmerica. Everybody was in on it. It was all there, if you just knew where to look. And people believed him.

I'm not convinced he believes the stuff he comes up with, but the troubling thing is his listeners do.

deoksu [덕수] said...

the difference between beck and limbaugh is about 20 years. given beck 20 more years to inflict himself on the culture and more people will learn who he is and dislike him as much as they dislike limbaugh.

Gunnery Sergeant Chimichanga said...

NJ - excellent reference. Would you say I have a plethora of piñatas?

I don't suppose there's anyway to have a tiered comment system on blogger, is there? It would be nice to have threads and replies close to their comments of origin.

Lord Calvert said...

@Goreshade - Are you sure you're not confusing Beck with Hal Turner, the man who was fooled by Daniel Carr's parody coins and claimed that Carr created his business overnight in a deliberate attempt to discredit him when it had actually been running since 2000? I know it is often difficult to tell the conspiracy-theorist wacko fundies apart at times.

loner said...

Who is this Glen Beck character and why should I care?

I accidentally watched one YouTube clip where he blithely misspelled OLIGARCHY while talking gibberish and scribbling. Now that was entertainment.

Bart—

How is the Park Service coming with that estimate? I'm betting on 75,000. Were you there?

Pan said...

Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann are just the Bart DePalmas and shilohs of the media world. Unfortunately, this is a base part of what the human race is. It actually isn't really about party, but about mindset. Yes, currently the two "sides" take on different faces - the right with a more angry populist side and the left with a more disgusted intellectual side. In another couple of decades that may be the opposite. It's like monopoly - doesn't matter which game pieces you play with, the rules are still the same.

Bart DePalma said...

loner said...

Bart—How is the Park Service coming with that estimate? I'm betting on 75,000.

I have been wondering about that myself. USA Today made it sound like the Park Service was excited about checking to see if the record had been broken, then nothing but silence.

Maybe you can email Glenn Beck and have him check on it. Conspiracies to keep information from the public would appear to up his latest career path.

FWIW, based on the Park Service rules of thumb and the photos and time lapsed photography, my humble wild ass guess is between 800,000 and 1 million. They did not fill the 1.5 million person space from the mall to the Washington Monument, but got close.

The football stadium analogy is ludicrous unless your stadium is miles long.

Eli Blake said...

Limbaugh is the establishment conservative, that is true.

The problem with being the anti-establishment talk radio conservative is that sooner or later you become the establisment and conservatives gravitate to somebody else.

For awhile it was Michael Reagan. Then it was Sean Hannity. Then it was Michael Savage. Now it's Beck.

Oh, yeah. Those other guys are still out there someplace but trust me, in a year or two there will be some new anti-establishment conservative and Beck will be just 'one of the crowd.'

And not a moment too soon, either.

Superflyneo said...

I have read a little about authoritarian personalities and I can see a correlation with these numbers. Beck and Limbaugh’s and his followers fit nicely into the authoritarian personality model. Authoritarian followers are most likely to be drawn to figures like Beck and Limbaugh during period of perceived crisis or in Beck’s case, a prefabricated one.
The percentage of people estimated to fall into the category of an authoritarian personality was around 24% of the population. It is no coincidence that this percentage matches fairly closely with the Limbaugh and Becks popularity numbers. Twenty-four percent is also close to what Bush’s popularity rating was at its lowest. These are the people who are die hard zealots.
The most relevant question is how this translates into political actions. Beck carries more of the Ron Paul crowd who wouldn’t normally identify themselves as Republicans. This is good for the Democrats as such a person is less likely to participate as Republican regularly. This diffuses the effectiveness of Beck as a Republican voting tool. These groups are more likely to participate in large scale demonstrations like the tea baggers because it allows them to keep their sense of individuality while being part of a movement. These rallies are, after all, not a discussion of the finer details of a person political belief
Another thing to consider is that Limbaugh has been around much longer than Beck and has developed a stigma that might make fans reconsider acknowledging they are fans of Beck.

Nick said...

It just may be a good day to be Glen Beck. The mayor of his hometown, Mount Vernon, WA, is giving him the key to the city and September 26th will hence forth be known as Glen Beck Day. Apparently it doesn't take much to get your own day.

via Seattle Times http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009796296_beck03m.html

GROG said...

Let me get this straight. More than half (57%) of the people basically don’t know who Glen Beck is or have no opinion of him. That leaves less than 43% who have an opinion.

Everything he says pisses off about half of the remaining 43%. So he doesn’t piss off 21.5% of the people and that’s about what his favorable is. So his favorable among the people he doesn't piss off is over 100%. That's pretty darn good.

Dwight said...

>> They did not fill the 1.5 million person space from the mall to the Washington Monument, but got close.

No they didn't come "close". If you chose to only look at one picture taken at a very oblique angle, not know that the group wasn't alone there, and ignore the gaps that still show up then maybe you could imagine it being half full.

These are Beck's audience and Fox News still isn't claiming any more than 75,000. Unlike what some here may claim, the actual "news" programs on Fox (as opposed say Beck's show) still would like to claim at least a modicrum of credibility.

Obviously you have no such desire.

Dwight said...

Everything he says pisses off about half of the remaining 43%. So he doesn’t piss off 21.5% of the people and that’s about what his favorable is. So his favorable among the people he doesn't piss off is over 100%. That's pretty darn good.

WTF? GROG, did you actually read and then think about that paragraph before you posted it? Besides the people that don't like me and the people that don't know me or don't have an opinion either way, 100% like me.

Woot?

I could say that about me, you, and well...it's really kinda redundant. Ya know? :)

waciiimoto said...

I have paused on Beck's show intermittantly since he started on Headline News. At first he seemed interested in politics only insofar as it helped move his show along. It seemed liked he talked about entertainment and non-strictly-political news even more than he talked about politics. For me, the show was really not so bad.

When I see him crying and de-crying the state of America now, I am really not sure he is the same person he used to be. Nonetheless, he has found an audience, which is what I think matters to him more than any of view he is advocating.

Nate, to the extent that he has a political philosphy, I think you nailed it. At the very least, the people who subscribe to the PoMoCon philosophy are those most likely to enjoy his show.

Davy said...

Like Daniel, I first thought Beck was a farce until it dawned on me he's for real. I liken him to the tragic court jester; an incoherent boob. It's sad, really, to know that even that small percentage follow him. I think that he's effective because he seems passionate about what he's saying. But even idiots can be passionate about something.

He sheds crocodile tears and says he wants his country back. He does have that right. The times are changing and his whitebread vision of America is outdated.

I kinda feel the same way about Bachmann Moron Overdrive. I hope she sticks around because I can't wait to see what Kristin Wiig does with her character on SNL.

GROG said...

Dwight,

My last sentence may have been a poor attempt at a little humor, but the point is this.

50% don't know who his is. Of the 50% who know who he is, half like him and half don't. That's a hell of a lot better than say, Congress.

artboy811 said...

Beck is not even consistent in his anti-establishmentism. Apparently, he would have voted for Hillary, the Democratic establishment figure, over Mr. Change (Obama) and even Mr. Maverick (McCain).

On another note, Nate, it isn't inconsistent to favor government intervention in the bedroom or boardroom and oppose the other. This is by definition what differentiates liberals and conservatives according to Nolan's 2-D political spectrum. They hold different views on both the economic and personal freedom variables. It is basic political theory.

Bart DePalma said...

Dwight said...

BD: They did not fill the 1.5 million person space from the mall to the Washington Monument, but got close.

No they didn't come "close". If you chose to only look at one picture taken at a very oblique angle, not know that the group wasn't alone there, and ignore the gaps that still show up then maybe you could imagine it being half full.


There are multiple photos of the crowd in that space, albeit not aerial photos. There are no gaps. However, close up photos of the crowd also show that they are not packed like sardines. That is what I based my WAG upon.

I would note that even at 50% density (half full), there would be a 750,000 person crowd.

BTW, the Park Service would not be telling the press that they were curious if the 9/12 crowd broke the prior 1.2 million record if there were only 75,000.

Dwight said...

There are no gaps

LOL, as I said "..and ignore the gaps that still show up..". Yes, I understand you clearly are deciding, whether consciously or not, to ignore them. :)

BTW, the Park Service would not be telling the press that they were curious if the 9/12 crowd broke the prior 1.2 million record if there were only 75,000.

Playing the Telephone Game with yourself now?

From your prior post: "USA Today made it sound like the Park Service was excited about checking to see if the record had been broken"

"USA Today made it sound [to Bart DePalma] like the Park Service was excited" is certainly something very different than the Park Service being excited. :) You know how it is, that darn liberal media always slanting things towards the center-left that is the agenda of the Teabag attendees.

Or something. O_o

loner said...

Bart—

The USA Today article you linked on 9/13 was from Inauguration Day 2009. That was 1/20/09. Please let me know though if you do find a Park Service estimate for the size of the crowd down at the Grant Memorial end of the Mall on 9/12.

Davy said...

it isn't inconsistent to favor government intervention in the bedroom or boardroom and oppose the other

I don't know. These days it seems like you can get screwed in either one.

shiloh said...

Rudy said...

Beck has many good instincts, but he is also prone to missing the point because he is nowhere near as well-grounded in conservative philosophy as Limbaugh. But he is a better emoter, and it's his heart-on-his-sleeve passion that is resonating with a lot of people.
~~~~~~~~~~


Beck is a pedestrian charlatan and that's being generous who is out to make a buck and has a big effect on the Rep party partly because of its current discombobulation and he's their latest celebrity on their echo chamber, fixednoise.

Bart DePalma said...

What is it with the left that they think entertainers like Limbaugh, Hannity and now Beck actually run the GOP.
~~~~~~~~~~


hmm, maybe because Rep politicians er sheep are constantly apologizing to Limbo right after they tell the truth re: his hate speak and racism!

and maybe because he gave the headline, much ballyhooed, speech at CPAC's annual meeting in Washington, March 2009. Bart, you may have seen it, CNN broadcast it live and fixed promoted it for a couple wks, much like the 9/12 farce, and damn his Rep lemmings were clapping and screamin', they love them some McCarthyism, eh.

btw BDP, keep doing your research on the Dems as it worked out well last year for Reps. Maybe you can come up w/a few original ad hominems to yell at Obama and the Dems ...

Keep hope alive!

take care

shiloh said...

BDP, re: fixednoise 9/12 hate rally and how many lemmings attended. Bottom line, nobody is gonna remember it Nov. of next year.

Let's move on, shall we ...

take care

G Ray R said...

Excellent article on Glen Beck in Salon.com two part

He always wanted to be a Am radio announcer, and got into the morning ZOO type when it started in the 80" and I think that is big part of his real story.

Persuter said...

I have been wondering about that myself. USA Today made it sound like the Park Service was excited about checking to see if the record had been broken, then nothing but silence.

Did they ACTUALLY say this, or did you simply make this up in your own head? Can you quote anything where they said this? Honestly, I don't understand how you can expect to be taken seriously when you simply make up your points like this.

It's an odd thing - conservatives keep on talking about how the National Park Service provides crowd estimates when they don't. There is a very clear statute preventing the National Park Service from spending money making any estimate on the size of gatherings held on federal land. And no, despite poor reporting from USA Today and the Washington Times, they didn't estimate the inauguration size.

Carlos Curtis said...

"Most voters, whether they consider themselves liberal or conservative, have a haphazard, inconsistent, and somewhat fluid set of views, which are not so easy to reconcile with the tenets of political orthodoxy."

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. My question is, why it is so difficult for so many talking heads to understand this?? How quick we are to label 9/12 protestors as racist, or Obama supporters as Socialist!!

Persuter said...

50% don't know who his is. Of the 50% who know who he is, half like him and half don't. That's a hell of a lot better than say, Congress.

Apples to oranges. Congress as an INSTITUTION has a pretty low approval rating. However, when you ask people how their individual representative is, it's generally an average (across all representatives) of 50-60% approve, 20-30% disapprove, 20% unsure.

So of the people who know their Congressman, it's typically about a 2-1 ratio of approve to disapprove, much better than Mr. Beck.

Lidian & Mike said...

I'm shocked that you would say Glenn Beck and his followers are "largely indifferent toward 'social issues'".

Mark said...

Most politics are post-modern.

For example, the notion that a certain policy should be supported merely because it polls well is post-modern. The merits of the policy is not at issue, but whatever the subjective truth of the sample is. There are of course other reasons to support a policy, but often the data is used for just an argument.

I understand that popularity is key to politics, but by focusing the public's perception of a policy that doesn't exist yet, rather than the reality of that policy (i.e. its actual outcomes) it creates a post-modern political atmosphere broadly speaking.

A thought experiment. The ERA polled very poorly, yet it was passed. Now similar ideals poll quite well. According to much (not all) of the logic used in interpreting opinion polling the ERA should never have passed, regardless of its moral and practical truths.

Adam said...

Nate, you should have put the "very"s at the extremes of the graph, not in the middle.

Chris said...

Richard Hofstader's "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" describes Beck's philosophy nicely. It's not exactly a new phenomenon.

Nils said...

I've heard some say that Beck raped and murdered someone in 1990.

When will the MSM start asking the questions?

Mike in Maryland said...

I see that Bart who is dumber than a Palmetto posted today. Did anyone read what he mumbled today?

Mike in Maryland

kankan said...

Just as pollsters really mess up polling on public option by simply mis-leading or inaccruate terms to describe, I think we are often not askign the right questions and have a real media problem with what I see as shifting sands in public sentiment, and frankly most people are still confused themselves by historic partisan opinions.

Its a shift from left/right to, for a lack of a better word, populism. I know populism has been lurking around forever, but I think people are missing its growing challenge to traditional politcal groupings. I think the thing that confuses those tracking us, is the long history of everything being Repub and Dems...but that is evolving. Yes we have had cultural conservatives, neo-cons, isolationists, fiscal conservative, pro-business conservatives, libertarians etc...but what is being emphasized and how it is coalescing political leanings of progressives, liberals is changing in degree.

It seem the corruption in our system thrives best as we split on both solutions. We all know our govt has been hijacked, corrupted, some just think that started Jan of 09, or maybe 06 when Dems got congress but many conservatives also were deeply critical of Bush admin also. Both liberals and conservatives tend to ascribe corruption to the other guys.

However confused on this we, or Glenn Beck, we are startign to get clearer...it takes time, but it would be nice of media did a betting job at takign our pulse

Gotalife said...

I suspect the wrong questions were asked, as usual on polls. People just feel sorry for Beck.

Regarding the idea the Glenn Beck is a Libertarian!??! Yeah, right. He's a sad, cynical monkey (no offense to monkeys!) who knows he's lying and does it anyway just to get his ratings. He doesn't care if his soapbox position allows him to wreck a career or even throw a wrench into anything that might work in our country. It doesn't take a human to throw a wrench- a monkey can do that just fine. Shame on Fox for allowing him the time of day.

Cassandra said...

i seriously doubt that 57% of people dont know who he is when he has the #1 show on cable news in his time slot and the #3 talk radio show and was the one who organized the 9/12 project! that poll has no credibility when you look at the facts! horrible article !

Mark said...

I’m a conservative, and Democrats love Glenn Beck, in a sick, twisted way.
Democrats would be happy if the face of the Republicans is a rodeo clown
who is not well-grounded in conservative principles, who would have voted for
Obama or Clinton over John McCain, who is all over the map.
Democrats would be ecstatic if he steered a big segment of frustrated
Republicans away from the party to form a third party. A third party would
be assured Democrat victory in upcoming elections. Third parties have never
worked; even Teddy Roosevelt couldn’t pull it off. Many Democrats I know
are secretly, in a sick and twisted way, saying “Keep it up, Beck!”
Mark Davis Tulsa, OK

LifeTrek said...

Really, these beliefs are what you have gotten out of watching or listening to Beck?

Do you really watch him?

If you really want to know his philosophy go to his 9/12 project page -- 9 principles 12 values.

Why make stuff up when it is all there for you to read!
David

Trevor said...

Nate, maybe stick to the statistics. You strike out in your analysis of what kind of a conservative Mr. Beck might be.

Mark said...

The problem with following Mr. Beck, is that he is a late-comer to the
conservative movement, and thus his responses are idiosyncratic and
not well-grounded. I’m a conservative, and understand that conservatism
is the framework the Founders developed for our constitution; I understand that
conservatism, when represented accurately, is humane and compassionate.
Liberalism, when explained accurately, is dehumanizing and non-compassionate.
The irony of liberalism is that it is practiced in the name of compassion,
but the compassion of liberalism is paternalistic and anti-freedom. What
do we have in the U.S. when all our freedom is lost. Mr. Beck is scattered
and incoherent at times; he is impassioned, but undisciplined as a
thinking conservative. Also, it seems it’s all about him. Rather than
encouraging the citizens to talk to their representatives, his appeal
seems to be “follow me”. This is a cult of personality. Isn’t that what
we are tired of? Mark Tulsa, OK

slasher14 said...

We don't really know, yet, what Beck really believes. Because the position of the Republican Party is to reflexively oppose anything Obama proposes, it's entirely possible that Beck might simply be a shill for Republican interests. Obama is, at the moment, the face of government power in this country. So when you say you're against Big Government, it is quite possible that you're simply against it when a Democrat is wielding it. There is no lack, after all, of Republicans who voted for Bush's deficits without a qualm, and who are screaming today about Obama's. Beck could simply be one of them, with a more populist rhetoric.

Limbaugh faced such a moment of truth over NAFTA, which many conservatives whose base of support was populist vehemently opposed -- Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot, to name two. Limbaugh spent Clinton's eight years in office in full denunciation mode, EXCEPT over NAFTA. And there can be little question as to why -- when the issue was corporate profits, Rush was quite ready to lie down with the devil if it put money into the pockets of those who wrote his paychecks.

Beck, I suspect, will do the same. So far, he hasn't had to.

Mike in Maryland said...

Mark said...
. . . I . . .understand that conservatism is the framework the Founders developed for our constitution

Sorry Conservatard Mark, but when the Constitution was created, it was considered one of the most LIBERAL of documents ever propagated in the recorded history of mankind. The common person ruled the country (at least in theory) ??? There were checks and balances on the power of the ruler ???

I understand that conservatism, when represented accurately, is humane and compassionate.

You can make up all kinds of descriptions of conservatism being 'compassionate', but when that 'compassionate conservatism' is put into actual practice, it is found to be an attempt to go back to the pre-18th century political theory of royal prerogative.

Liberalism, when explained accurately, is dehumanizing and non-compassionate.

'Explained' by whom? 'Accuracy' as determined by whom? Your definition of Liberalism certainly is not accepted by anyone who actually understands what Liberalism actually is. And you don't even have to be a liberal to have a accurate understanding of what liberalism actually is.

I could very easily and accurately say that Hitler, by building the autobahns, made Germany an extremely efficient post-war economic superpower. Want to dispute that statement? It is factual. Hitler DID cause the autobahns to be built. It is accurate. Germany didn't have to spend billions of marks after the war to create an extraordinary transportation system. After all, the autobahns extended from border to border to border in Germany, making the transportation of goods and persons extremely efficient.

The irony of liberalism is that it is practiced in the name of compassion, but the compassion of liberalism is paternalistic and anti-freedom.

So you really want to argue that Hitler was a liberal? After all, he was paternalistic, and very anti-freedom. Maybe you don't think Hitler was a liberal? Why not? After all, most Conservatards think he was a liberal, since the dictatorial party he led was named the 'National Socialist German Workers' Party', and if the Nazi Party wasn't 'socialist', then why did it have the word 'socialist in it's name?

If that's the case, how about Mussolini? Would you consider him a liberal?

Franco in Spain? Would you consider him a liberal?

Salazar in Portugal? Would you consider him a liberal?

What do we have in the U.S. when all our freedom is lost.

And what did you do when you found out that the cheney/shrub administration was trampling on the US Constitution (according to many report, in November, 2005. shrub told Congressional Republicans that the Constitution was “just a goddamned piece of paper”), including just about all of the first 10 Amendments (commonly known as the Bill of Rights)? Or were you leading the cheers for the cheney/shrub administration?

This is a cult of personality. Isn’t that what we are tired of?

Taking a tangential swipe at President Obama with that 'sult of personality' comment? After all, I'm sure you would consider him as the leader and the center of a 'cult of personality,' and a liberal. If so, you would consider him as leading the citizens of the US in a 'dehumanizing and non-compassionate' direction.

You know, now that I think about it, you sound like a reincarnation of the idiot Pete Kent, who seems to have been missing from these pages for a few days.

Mike in Maryland

shiloh said...

Mark said...
~~~~~~~~~~


hmm, conservatism vs. liberalism, a debate for the ages.

Without going into specifics, because hey "absolutes" are never practiced on either side ie the National Debt!

How the National Debt Confused Reagan

Presidents and the Federal Debt

One should not say when explained but, but, but when practiced and when of course was the last time conservatives practiced their ideology whatever the hell the definition "is" of that ideology.

and no the irony is the party of No! wants to get rid of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the prescription drug program but, but, but then they would totally lose the senior vote and that's all they have left besides southern white guys.

yes indeed, form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

and Mark from Tulsa, please feel free at any time to give your definition of conservatism and liberalism and then maybe "we" can have a debate, eh.

take care

shiloh said...

btw Mark, Beck is just an extreme nutcase that unfortunately for Reps, your side is stuck w/for the foreseeable future, congrats!

Quite the poster child to bring the Reps back from the dead ...

ciao

Milltycoon said...

@Cassandra--
Just because you have an interest in politics (or whatever lunatic nonsense Beck dances around about) doesn't mean the majority of the country does.
Ok, so he has the #1 cable news show in his time slot. How many people watch any hour of any network of cable news? Somewhere around 8 million. That is less than 3% of the country. How many people listen to his radio show that are not already counted in the number that watch his TV show? Maybe another couple million.
How many people knew about or attended either this 9/12 abomination or any of the Tea Parties over the course of this year? Even by FOX's preposterously high delusions, maybe 3 million people in total. And most of them are the same people who watch or listen to Beck.
Total amount of people who actively listen to him, watch him or hear word of mouth about him (including those in the rest of the media or the blogosphere who keep up with him so that they can comment on his paranoid racist fundie poison?) Probably between 8 and 15 million people. 6% of the adult population of America. I am _astonished_ that it isn't over 80% of the people who don't know who he is. 57% of people probably don't even know who Dan Rather is, and his audience was 20 million people for over 20 years.

hsenpfeffer said...

Why has glenn beck not responded even yet to the serious charges against him? Google glenn beck allegations or glenn beck rumors to get more information. He has hired legal counsel to gag these questioners reather than respond to the allegations. If he has nothing to hide he should provide full and honest proof that these charges are not true. A police report has even been posted on the web. C'mon glenn, it is time for you to stand up and tell the truth.

wayne said...

You know what I like about Glenn Beck?

He reminds of another Great American -

John Brown.

We really need another John Brown right now.

Dwight said...

Mark said...

The problem with following Mr. Beck, is that he is a late-comer to the conservative movement, and thus his responses are idiosyncratic and not well-grounded.


No, it's just that he constitutes a larger chunk of what remains so now his innane babble sticks out. :)

IMO Fox News doesn't even particularly aim at "conservative" per say, it just aims lowbrow, anti-intellectual with a big dollop of nostalgic reactionary on top. Which is what apparently passes for "conservative" these days.

It's been a while since the war was lost in academia, it's slowly trickling down. The real world has a slight liberal bias. That was true when those crazy, radical liberals drafted the Constitution. Still holds true now...as long as we keep learning new things, better understanding our selves and the world around us. That "conservative" lost the academic war is actually a very good sign.

Progress. Onward and upward.

OHIO CITIZEN said...

I would take Nate's argument a bit further here and suggest that while Beck's rather inchoate philosophy is not truly conservative, it is basically that of a libertarian reactionary. Conservatives traditionally value social order, authority and preservation of societal norms and institutions.

Apart from his apparent yearning for a halcyon, simple "America" of the past thereby clearly defining himself as a reactionary, Beck is not a conservative. His anti-establishmentarianism in and of itself disqualifies him from being conservative.

I view Beck as essentially a 19th- century man in a 21st-century world. He was born two centuries too late.

Rum Runner said...

Beck is nothing more than a glorified shock jock who will say anything to gain attention and make money. He's a master at keeping everybody guessing as to what his political positions are, simply because he doesn't have any. He's been making fools of bloggers and media types for months now.

Davy said...

Wow, Olbermann just destroyed Beck.

shiloh said...

Every time Beck opens his mouth, he destroys himself. Olbermann was just having fun w/Lonesome Rhodes as he is an uneducated buffoon trying to explain the U.S. Constitution, too funny!

And although we all know fixednoise bottom line is the bottom line, wouldn't be surprised if fixed cans Lonesome in the near future as he continues to lose advertisers.

Fixed, already the cable news media laughing stock, has now crossed over to Sat morning cartoon humor and logic.

apologies to uneducated buffoons and Sat morning cartoon humor/logic ...

carry on

slasher14 said...

@Mike-in-Maryland: The Right will tell you that Hitler was a liberal (or a socialist_ because he led a party which had the words
"socialist" and "workers" in its title. Not only morons like Pete Kent but people who are published in the papers every day like Jonah Goldberg. The proper response to them is:

If Hitler was a socialist, please explain why:

1. When the Nazis were unable to win a Bundestag majority in the 1933 elections, they came to power in coalition with CONSERVATIVE parties, not liberal or socialist ones. In point of fact, when Hitler became chancellor there were almost no Nazis in his Cabinet -- they were all from traditional German right and center-right parties.

2. Hitler never closed or even placed any serious limits on the stock market, which operated every business day of his reign. With the exception of businesses owned by Jews, most German corporations were permitted to operate more or less as they had before, with the notable exception that they no longer had to deal with unions because the Nazis outlawed them.

3. The first people placed in concentration camps by the Nazis were NOT Jews -- they were labor leaders, socialists, and communists, followed by liberals who didn't get their heads 'way down low.

The Nazis put the words
"socialist" and "workers" into their party's name because there was a Depression on, and nobody would have voted for them if they hadn't. But everybody in Germany knew that they were a right-wing party, had financing from large corporations who saw them as a way to block Communism, and could be counted upon to do something about the left-wing parties' strength in German political life.

JimCA said...

A nit about presentation:

It's somewhat confusing to order the data as somewhat negative, very negative, very positive, somewhat positive.

A better order would be very negative, somewhat negative, somewhat positive, very positive.

I have the same complaint when data is presented as Yes, No, Maybe as opposed to Yes, Maybe, No.

John said...

Sounds good to me, Nate. Because by your definition "PoMo conservativism" is just conservativism flailing in its death throes--dwindled to the last (extra) irrational dead-enders who neither have nor want nor are probably capable of any coherent political program. Most of whom probably don't bother to vote anyway.

Limbaugh, a modern media conservative, is a brown shirt in a clown's costume with an agenda and politically-motivated followers --most of whom, happily, are White men over 60. Time will take care of him (and them).

Beck is even less consequential-- just a side-show patent medicine salesman appealing only to the very easily distracted. Great--a thankless if lucrative job; better him than me. This is not a movement--it's the end of a movement.

M.E. said...

I'm fairly confident that this has more to do with the fact that most people have no clue who this guy is. Unless you watch Fox or read political blogs, you really won't have encountered Glenn Beck. I'm pretty sure my parents (who get most of their news from newspapers) wouldn't know him from Adam.

Timothy Morton said...

Very well argued. I've been arguing for a while that Beck et al. practice a postmodern form of racism--"I'm not a racist, those others are racist..." or "I'm just joking, why can't you take a joke?"

Mike in Maryland said...

Anyone who reads Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution is not connected to slavery is STOOOOOOPID.

Anyone who thinks that Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution is discussing voluntary immigration, not discussing slavery, is STOOOOOOPID.

Glenn Beck doesn't know what Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution is about, nor why it was written. Does that mean that Glenn Beck is double STOOOOOOPID?

Or just that the people who tune into his freak show are STOOOOOOPID?

Any of the resident TROLLs want to defend Glenn Beck on his interpretation of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution?

Mike in Maryland

John said...

How come no one ever takes liberals to task for the inconsistency that they want government to get into everything except the "bedroom"?

shiloh said...

John said...

How come no one ever takes liberals to task for the inconsistency that they want government to get into everything except the "bedroom"?
~~~~~~~~~~


Because, as Lincoln said quite eloquently, it's govt. of the people, by the people, for the people ...

and not, as Bush said, You're either w/us or against us!

rumor has it we're all in this experiment called Democracy together.

Ask not what your govt. can do for you, but what you can do for your govt.!

Blind faith will get you killed ie Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina or cause you to go broke ie deregulation, incompetence, corruption, fraud, waste and abuse ... Which is why, the founding fathers put in the U.S. Constitution checks and balances as they knew men and govts. are fallible, go figure!

Especially recent Rep led govt., eh.

take care

p.s. Reagan, who said: Govt. is not the solution, govt. is the problem and then promptly went out and proved it ;) for the next (8) years as he increased the national debt and deficit, Oliver North and the Iran-Contra scandal, the U.S. Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, the Savings and Loan bailout because of deregulation, etc. etc.

did I mention men are fallible, especially Rep politicians.

but, but, but Reagan kicked butt in Grenada ...

laughingtompaine said...

Nate,

If by postmodern you mean anti-intellectual, then why not just call Beck as such? Anti-intellectualism has a long history in America: think of the Know-nothings with their anti-popery ideology. Also think of the xenophobic nativists (e.g. Bill the Butcher in Gangs of New York) as well as the John Birch Society, of course.

Beckism does constitute a new phenomena in conservatism. Perhaps he will replace Rush Limbaugh as the face of conservatism. Limbaugh calls himself the doctor of democracy, but Beck likes to claim that he would prefer to lead life as a humble radio jockey, but fate has called him to serve his country as an opinionator.

In my opinion, Beck is just an arrogant demagogue who casts himself as a modern day Tom Paine speaking "common sense" to ordinary folk. Postmodernism relies on counter-intuitive thinking, irony and multiculturalism, and Glenn Beck is too much of a televangelist for that.

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,