Blogs and Stories
Glenn Beck's Creator
Courtesy of AEI; Getty Images
The late Irving Kristol was hailed as the father of neoconservatism. But The Daily Beast’s Lee Siegel argues he paved the way for the cranks who have taken over the GOP.
Irving Kristol, who died last week at the age of 89, is routinely described as the “godfather of modern conservatism”—though why he is called godfather rather than father is a mystery: He created neoconservatism, he didn’t watch over it. But the description is imprecise in a deeper sense. Kristol was the father of modern conservative nihilism.
More than one of Kristol’s eulogists has contrasted him with Beck, Limbaugh et al. as a cosmopolitan and “humane” intellectual who had—though no one can say for sure—no truck with irrational extremists. This is nonsense. Kristol created Beck, Limbaugh et al.
More than one of Kristol’s eulogists has contrasted him with Beck, Limbaugh et al. as a cosmopolitan and “humane” intellectual who had—though no one can say for sure—no truck with irrational extremists. This is nonsense. He created Beck, Limbaugh et al.
An intellectual who constantly put down the vocation of being an intellectual, a gifted wisecracker who reduced complex social problems to glib one-liners—“a neoconservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality”—a circular reasoner who seemed to care more about the motions of his mind than the moral or political conclusions he reached, Kristol used thinking to discredit the act of thinking.
It’s not just that he elaborately argued in June 1968 that Hubert Humphrey should be president, and then just several years later capitalized on his abrupt turn to the right and enjoyed Nixon’s hospitality and attention at the White House. It’s the ease with which Kristol came to a conclusion that was the moral antithesis of his argument for what he referred to as Humphrey’s superior “liberal pragmatism.” In the 1968 Humphrey essay, he wrote:
“The prospect of electing Mr. Nixon depresses me. Suffice it to say that he appeals to the wrong majority to govern the United States in these times—a majority whose dominant temper will be sullenly resentful of the social changes we have been experiencing and impulsively reactionary toward the crises we shall inevitably be enduring.“
• The Daily Beast’s Samuel P. Jacobs: Morning Joe vs. Glenn BeckFour years later, Nixon’s landslide victory perhaps convinced Kristol that this sullenly resentful majority had much to recommend it—principally the fact that they held all the power. It was perhaps the same practical consideration that impelled him to defend McCarthy in 1952, at the height of HUAC’s persecutions, when intellectuals, and especially Jewish intellectuals, were generally vilified. For all his caustic polemics, Kristol had an abhorrence of finding himself in the minority. His definition of pragmatism turned out to be “liberal” in the extreme.
Power, not ideology or creed, was what Kristol respected above all. In a brilliant essay that he published on Nazism in 1948—Kristol was indeed brilliant, and his pellucid prose style was on par with Orwell’s—he eloquently despaired of the workings of the human mind itself.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Obama, the Un-decider
Lee Siegel has written about culture and politics and is the author of three books: Falling Upwards: Essays in Defense of the Imagination; Not Remotely Controlled: Notes on Television; and, most recently, Against the Machine: Being Human in the Age of the Electronic Mob. In 2002, he received a National Magazine Award for reviews and criticism.
Leave Palin Alone
Lee Siegel has written about culture and politics and is the author of three books: Falling Upwards: Essays in Defense of the Imagination; Not Remotely Controlled: Notes on Television; and, most recently, Against the Machine: Being Human in the Age of the Electronic Mob. In 2002, he received a National Magazine Award for reviews and criticism.
Obama's Dangerous Obsession
Lee Siegel has written about culture and politics and is the author of three books: Falling Upwards: Essays in Defense of the Imagination; Not Remotely Controlled: Notes on Television; and, most recently, Against the Machine: Being Human in the Age of the Electronic Mob. In 2002, he received a National Magazine Award for reviews and criticism.
I find it pathetic that the Left have to attack Glenn beck because they fear him so much. I'd like to see Olbermann organize a march on Washington.....oh yeah, he can't because not a soul in America believes the fringe garbage on his show and actually believes it.
The cool thing about this whole left-right political model is that there are two fringes. The left fringe and the right fringe.
Sure. Olbermann could be considered to be a part of the radically left fringe (I wouldn't be so bold, I think he's somewhere between moderate left and fringe left).
However, Beck is a perfect example of the right fringe. He completely mistrusts the Democrats in power regardless of what they're saying. He cites himself and other radical right thinkers as sources in his batty arguments.
Your argument that Glenn Beck is valid because Keith Olbermann isn't represents the baseless shouting matches that fill these forums and comment boards. It's sad.
And just to underline: the Left isn't afraid of Glenn Beck. He is a semi-educated, mentally undisciplined pissant. What we're afraid of is the people who listen to that ludicrous ranting and believe what he says.
If people are really that gullible, then this country is always on the brink of descending to a personality-based dictatorship (wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross, as Menken predicted).
READ THIS AND LEARN SOMETHING...
I took a political science class in college with a professor who postulated that the left and the right does not follow along a straight line but along a horseshoe. The far left and the far right are in some respects closer than those who lean one way or another but cannot bridge the horseshoe gap... the must travel all the way around the curve.
He pointed out there was exceptions and it was Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol... the liberals who started the Neoconservative movement he cited. I read their readings and was taken with them in first but that waned when I saw the theory put into action. Too many absolutes, too ideologically driven and too reliant on military power. But these were smart men with good intentions.
The world does not need more commentary on Beck, Olbermann, Limbaugh, and the like. I am sorry to say that the sycophants for either side offer no benefit to the public conversation.
I have noticed one pattern arising out of the Obama administration that seems to be neither left nor right. I guess you could simply call it analysis or scoring. Given the complexity of the world, I see a tendency to sift through issues and determine whether it is a real and imminent threat, a perceived threat, a political threat, a waning 20th Century threat or an incisive vision of a future 21st Century threat. I like this approach.
AGREE OR DISAGREE, SAY SOMETHING THOUGHTFULL IF YOU ARE OF A MIND TO RESPOND.
there's a simple but enormous difference between the right fringe and left so-called fringe. two words. fact check.
olbermann takes care to actually show or replay statements/videos that demonstrate what he says. beck just says stuff in the alice in wonderland mode of 'because i say it, it must be true'.
show one, just one, truthful demonstration of fact or evidence that backs up any one of beck's outlandish and pathetic statements. you can't do it. the best that beck can do is organize a rally of the uneducated who can't spell moron correctly.
kewe65: Absolutely right. Keith even apologizes on-air when he makes a mistake in his reporting.
Has anybody ever heard Beck apologize?
I sorta quote ole Jack Nickolson in a "A Few Good Men".
...YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH ! ! !
Glenn Beck "can't handle the truth" and would not recognize it if it bit him in the face.
Glenn Beck does the exact same thing that you claim Olbermann does. He shows video that backs up all the stuff he talks about. You obviously haven't watched his show. I don't know how one would show a "truthful demonstration of fact or evidence that backs up any one of beck's ... statements" using this comment section. If you watched his show, you would know he questions things/people, he doesn't make unfounded declarations. If you want to bring up the 'Obama is a racist' quote, what Beck actually said was that he FEARS that Obama has a deep-seated hatred for white people/white culture. And looking at his background of close associations with black nationalists and separatists, I can see where that fear comes from. For God's sake, he sat in Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years listening to his 'white man trying to poison/oppress/kill the black man' diatribes. Then he claims he wasn't there when Wright gave those kinds of sermons. And you believe that?!
I'm not sure that either side has a good handle on the facts - whatever that is. Facts, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder. Yesterday, I heard Mike Church say that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution support a state's right to secede. That is a fact; both documents do not restrict a state from seceding. The Civil War and the ensuing legislation and court rulings afterward removed the "right" of a state to secede.
Problem is that most of the people who listen to this political shock jock (and I really think that's all these people are), because he uses big words, and can quote at length from the Constitution, believe his vitriol and act on it. The recent murder of the census worker is possible example. I have no way of knowing for sure if any of these pol-shock-jocks' rants had anything directly to do with the death of the census worker, but I believe they have created an undercurrent of fear and loathing of anything or anyone who thinks or believes different than what real Patriots believe. This is dangerous and must be addressed. Reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would be a good start.
kewe65
You're so right. Weepy Glenn Beck is still an alcoholic and drug addict. He has never had any treatment- kinf of a dry drunk personality like dumbya.
Beckster
You're brain dead. I saw weepy glenn call President Obama a racist-
you can try to downplay it by stating he added "I think" before saying it- how is that different from saying he's a racist? It just changes it to his opinion which we all know is worthless- all dry drunks have invalid opinions.
I think sometimes Olbermann could ba a bit snippy at George Bush but since Obama has been elected Olbermann has been a model newscaster I challenge you to name my atleast one chage at Olbermann. I could go on and on about Glenn Beck all night, and don't come back at me with his towering ratings I am confident that Olbermann ( just like Cronkite, Murrow, and Russert) will stand the test of time, while the Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaughs of the world can appeal to the publics crudeness and fear and general disdain for journalism.
and althought ACORN is a black eye to us democrats they are talking there case to court, and I won't be surprised if ACORN pokes a few holes in their case ( just like the Van Jones charge), and also for a peon non-for profit as ACORN, I will Point out multi-, muti- million doller company lie Halliburton and parent company KBR.
I wonder if a right wing talk show host asked Pres Obama to resign every month, if you would refer to them as "snippy".The fact that Olberman refuses to have any guest that disagrees with him should speak to his intellectual honesty. The problem with all of these guys, left and right, is their constant hypocrisy. Can we at least agree on that?
In your dreams, you put Olbermann in the same sentence as Cronkite, Murrow and Russert? This is why the Left is clueless. He is perfect in the role of Ugly American, his whole show is dedicated to hate and trashing conservatives. As you can see, the ratings prove it consistently.
Ireyn84702
Why would Olberman want to have a patholgical liar on as a guest? If you watch Fox- as I'm sure you must- when they have someone on who disagrees with them there is nothing but shouting- usually by the guy from Fox- or else he just shuts the guest's milke off. Olberman doesn't do that- maybe you think he's never had anyone on who disagrees with him because there is no shouting.
You are obviously an evil person or extremely ignorant- those are the only types that watch Fox.
The left does not fear Glen Beck, at least I don't. His nonsense helps drive sensible people away from the GOP. Let a hundred Glenn Becks bloom. Of course Democrats cannot see him as an undiluted blessing, since history shows that in the right circumstances people like him can become dangerous.
As for attacking him, one cannot, for example, let his suggestion that FEMA is preparing concentration camps go unchallenged. Besides, it is so much fun. Who can hear Beck say that he is glad McCain lost because he too much like Teddy Roosevelt without a chuckle? Watch the Daily Show to keep up to date with his inanities.
It wasn't fun for the poor deranged woman who took Beck's mischievous musings on the FEMA camps seriously. She posted it on her website and then showed up at one of the 'camps' armed with semi-automatic weapons, presumably to 'liberate' the 'prisoners.' Thankfully she was arrested before any harm was done, but I'm sure she will be facing a long prison term. Beck will say or do anything to get ratings and doesn't care what happens when one of the fringe takes him seriously.
Chuckv--You should fear Glenn Beck. His followers take without question his word as "gospel." They are either too lazy, too stupid or both to question the validity of the hate and fear he spews. And they are so out of touch with reality they think they are justified in using guns to back up their point of view.
Glenn Beck isn't some benign clown whose outlandish statements simply provide amusement to the uninformed. He is a dangerous man. And when some nutter finally commits an act of violence incited by his venom, he will disavow any responsibility, because he is clearly a man with no conscience.
Glenn Beck DEBUNKED the claims about FEMA preparing concentration camps. He freakin' DISPROVED IT!!! Get your facts straight, idiot.
beckster
Glenn Beck DEBUNKED the claims about FEMA preparing concentration camps. He freakin' DISPROVED IT!!!
That was after the woman was arrested.
Redlotus2 provides an excellent example of the psyche of today's lunatic right. He/she can't appreciate that -- in the reality-based community -- a glorified radio DJ with a national TV "news" megaphone mobilizing an army of disgruntled "low information" kooks into the streets based on nothing more than said DJ's "feelings" might not necessarily be considered a good thing.
Redlotus2 also can't comprehend that the majority doesn't feel the need for protest, and that Olbermann doesn't have the colossal ego to proclaim himself the leader of a putative political movement.
Glenn Becks "followers" simply have nothing better to do. Anybody with half a brain isn't going to waste their time 'descending on Washington" for some lame ass gathering of kooks.
You are wrong, hasbro. He did mobilize a gathering of 'lame ass kooks' which is easy to do with wingnuts.
Anyone that thinks for one minute that I fear Beck is seriously dilussional.
Beck is just a major hater who spews his vile crap that the righties eat up like its filet mignon.
I'm not afraid of Glenn Beck at all - I think he's ridiculous. I'm worried that there are actually people out there dumb enough to buy into some of his bull. Take the 9/12 project - it's a great idea in theory, but in practice, it's total bull. He's highjacked one of the country's greatest tragedies to further his own agenda and get ratings.
You don't fear stupid people, you fear their followers, because stupid of stupid is VERY stupid.
Beck didn't organize shit, and you are sad.
Do you not think it strange that no one agrees with beck except for limbaugh.
No one on fox even agrees with him. (they know he's nuts) except maybe hanity who is just stupid.
Beck is certifiably nuts. The scary thing is that people like you believe him withoutour doing your own research.
redlotus2; I, not being the left, but one who respects rational opinion, I don't fear glenn beck. beck is a dweeb. his intellectualism -- a nasty elitist word in some parts -- couldn't bent a grape. its the perception of glen beck that troubles me. as Howard Zenn says, the bitch that birthed hitler and mccarthy is still wet. so to me gb like joesph mccarthy is one of her misanthropic pups and its this perception of him that gives me pause.
Mormon Downey, Jr.
Olbermann is partisan hack, but respectable and intelligent. Beck is in a fruit-cake. The right wing has been taken over by crazy people. The conservatives are supposed to be the old, callous but intellectual hardliners! The left are supposed to be the young fringe experimentalists! Instead, there are no more respectable conservatives, and this is a really bad thing for America. I love Obama but somebody needs to keep him in check responsibly, i.e. not by getting people to buy more ammo at Wal-Mart. Beck is the laughing stock of the world, and nobody will ever respect this country until those clowns go away.
I find it interesting that one of the people who didn't show up at Glenn Beck's march was, um, Glenn Beck. Why wasn't he there cheering on his followers? Even he doesn't have respect for these people.
redlotus
You are what's wrong with America. Morons like you are allowed to run loose
without the benefit of medications that you obviously need.
I haven't actually listened to Glen Beck but what I have heard of him makes me think that people who come to Washington because he asks them to are the pathetic ones. I don't follow Mr. Olbermann either but have watched his show. He is definitely a progressive liberal (he says so proudly) and he does present a slanted view - BUT I, for one, actually do believe him. The reason I read/watch other programs/papers/magazines and find the proof for myself. Olbermann is definitely on the left - but he is NOT fringe. Beck IS.
The Crazy Circus Clown exposed ACORN,
saving taxpayers $8.2 Billion in stimulus money.
Where were the "journalists" on this story ?
Busy filling their columns and obsessing
over the Crazy Circus Clown ?
You know what sophia, the 8 billion that you continue to quote irresponsibly was not issued to Acorn. You know nothing about the process of applying for funds from the Federal Gov't , and you don't care to post responsibly. So you really should be silent if you are adverse to facts.
You are so right, cbeenthere. They would have been eligible for 5.2 billion in NSP and CDBG funds, had Congress not barred them last week from receiving any funds in the future. Alas, they screwed up and will be receiving nada...........
Carole65: There are hundreds (if not thousands) of charities across the country that are competing for the $5.2 billion you mention.
With ACORN having only gotten $53 million of government funds in the last 15 years (a little over $3 million a year), I hardly think they would have gotten the entire $5.2 billion.
With ACORN's 2008 budget an estimated $110 million, losing $3 million a year will not be a big deal.
There you are Carole big talking about where funds go, and you mislead deliberately. Good for you and what you add in "your special" sn*tty fashion as only you and sophia can do.
Yet another low-information voter speaks
The Crazy Circus Clown called our black President a racist. When a real journalist asked him to explain his statement, he refused to, and accused her of soundbite journalism (a favorite tact of other right wing nuts, ala Sarah Palin, to avoid answering questions).
senorpastry: Commentators who live by sound bites die by sound bites.
Beck said "I believe Obama has a deep hatred for whites". Technically it is an opinion. Such as this opinion, I believe Obama has no real skills to lead the nation. Socialist yes, racist no; however, he didn't do himself any good with the Gates incident. And that was when the comment was made. There are plenty of racists out there in the liberal party. I've never seen such a group accuse so many people of racism (actually using the word) because they disagree with our President's policies. So to use Nancy Pelosi's words, maybe Beck "misspoke". You know, not calling the Cia liars just not telling the truth.
This user is no longer registered.
americanworkhorse
like many righties you are confusing hatred with racism/. I hate righties but I'm white like ALL of them so it's not racism. Weepy Glenn never misspoke- he's just a dry drunk with a microphone- a terrible thing for America.
Sophia, there are assistance programs available for you if you really can't afford your psych meds.
It's not really much of a story. First off, your number is ridiculously off. Second, ACORN only received a few million a year, which is only a small fraction of its operating budget. Now if we look at other government fraud, like KBR and Halliburton - they "lost" billions and cost billions in fraudulent charges. ACORN is a group that helps poor people get food, housing, and jobs and helps them register to vote. Those same people are exponentially more likely to vote Democrat. There's your problem.
Go Beck! Finally, a real journalist who researches his information before letting it out for public consumption. ACORN! When a number of states are investigating them for Voter Fraud and then, caught on tape by amatuers. They should be investigated and defunded. Catch a crook redhanded they usually go to jail. Thank you Beck. Liberals have a ridiculous view of conservatives. Find out by talking rather than doing the usual. Ratings don't lie you guys. His show has huge numbers more than most prime time news. Have any of you ever listened to him? Probably not - just puppets repeating what you hear.
What the hell are you talking about? Where exactly does Glenn Beck do his research that says FEMA camps are really concentration camps? When does he EVER state a source?
That's the problem with Fox "News." They spout unverified crap (or in Hannity's case, improperly edited crap that's out of context) and people who are too lazy to think believe everything they say. Take a class in Critical Thinking 101, why don't you?
Roger37, Beck DEBUNKED the FEMA 'concentration camp' claims! Of course you and the others commenting here wouldn't know that because you've never actually listened to him. Talk about too lazy to think!
Beck's source is frequently himself as on many occasions he has called himself something along the lines as.....
"A drug addict, uneducated media clown"
He uses it pretty frequently right before/after he so callously spews one of his "facts" that are just conspiracy theories to get people thinking.... as he himself has so delicately stated.
americanworkhorse
." Have any of you ever listened to him? Probably not - just puppets repeating what you hear"
And there we have what Freud would call a perfect example of projection.
Get some help buddy your views are totally distorted. Up is not down in the real world.
Yo, Beckster (your screenname says a whole lot about you):
I listen to Beck fairly often, but I'll admit it's only for about 5 minutes at a time, until I start to barf up the back of my throat.
It's important to keep track of what the fringes are saying.
At first, I thought you were parodying the typical 9/12er nutjobs, but I think you might be drinking the Glenn Berry Kool-Aid... I have watched Glenn Beck, I've listened to him, it's painful. Not everything he does is bad, but he takes a lot of liberties with objective reality and he's often selective with the facts.
Acorn was 'crooked' in some areas, but they are small potatoes. Why doesn't the right go after the really big crooks, like big pharma, insurance companies, etc. who screw the American people much more than Acorn. I notice, the right always seems to pick on black groups. That is a suble racism that is not lost on the Rep party members. Their seeming hatred of President Obama is also coded racial behavior.
For the second time, sophia5, Beck did not expose ACORN. He rode the coattails of the reporters who did.
sophia
ACORM did not get $8.2 billion- and weepy glenn did nothing except stir up street people like yourself- are you on the library computer? Do some reading loonie bin and you'll see that weepy glenn is just a dry drunk like dumbya.
ACORN got a total of $53 mil over about 15 years. Yes, they are undisciplined and have gotten into trouble, but the facts are:
There is not ONE documented case of voter fraud that leads back to ACORN. Not one. They, themselves, got screwed by their own bad hires who handed in phony registration forms because they got paid via quotas.
That creepy-looking little film dork and the fake hooker did indeed catch the Baltimore office of ACORN talking about evading taxes and tacitly condoning hookers and brothels. But what the little film dork forgot to mention is that they went to a bunch of other ACORN offices and got thrown out in many instances. But of course the Wingers are generalizing from that Baltimore experience and spreading the propaganda that the whole ACORN organization is like that. Typical.
Excuses, excuses, excuses.
An essay as nearly perfect as can be hoped. Power for the sake of power and gamesmanship without regard for consequences: the draft of the living death that has killed American politics and the American economy. Glen Beck considers himself to be a rodeo clown. William Kristol, on the other hand, appears to believe he's a serious thinker.
Beck isn't even a conservative. He's just a paranoid reactionary who's trying to wring money out of the scared and under-educated. Honestly, there's no way he even believes half of what he says on-air, or he wouldn't be able to function on any sort of interpersonal level.
Really, i think this whole red-blue divide is just a new incarnation of nationalism... stupid people are always comforted by an "our team vs. theirs" scenario. it helps them make [a warped] sense of the world.
dee... this kind of fighting amongst the natives is EXACTLY what every government wants. It's a game.
What do you do with a people who will never be satisfied with anything? Dissatisfy the hell out of them, keep them jumping... fighting with each other... never able to achieve a common goal of throwing out the people out that made the mess... letting them think, "I don't really like this guy, but if I don't vote for him, the OTHER guy will win... and I HATE him!"
Games. We are put pawns. Hell... we aren't even pawns. We are the game board being tread on by the players. The board with the black and white pieces... no grays... because, in this country, it's either black/white, do/die, yes/no, killer/hero.
We have become a pathetic society.
...and we haven't even really addressed the problem with climate change. There's no effing way this country can think far enough ahead to save ourselves from having beachfront property in Omaha. We're too bloody stupid and shortsighted.
"We're too bloody stupid and shortsighted."
Well roger, you finally got something right. Although, Lord Monckton has another name for you: "bed wetter".
Reardong:
Up yours.
deegeezee,
You are using words that are unknown to the common dip-stick on this website.
Those suffering myopia don't understand that there are varying degrees of political ideology any more than they appreciate varying intensities of chocolate; much less do they know that there is a specific, political meaning of the word reactionary. To the myopics everything is binary.
Kudos for your effort but there is a lot more work on the basics that needs to be accomplished before you launch into sophisticated concepts like reactionism.
By the way, I agree with your assessment of neo-Nationalism.
PRoche,
While I suspect I'd probably agree with your opinions, I'd be careful about lumping everyone together too quickly. Yes, there clearly is an element of irrational crusaders (both right and left) who post their gibberish here, as well as elsewhere; but there are also plenty of intelligent posts as well. And, it's not surprising that an article entitled "Glenn Beck's Creator" would attract more of the former.
Maybe I just grew up in an unusually sophisticated household, but I, for one, am well aware of what a "reactionary" is and have never condsidered this to be an illusory concept - it's what most, if not all, so-called "neo-conservative" leaders really are; they just won't say it because "reactionary" frightens people, while "conservative" lulls them into thinking they're supporting someone who just wants to put the brakes on change - and, as becomes painfully evident from the hoopla over health care reform, it is fear of change that is the primary motivation for many of the right-wing's supporters.
As for the assessement of neo-nationalism, I think the inciting of nationalist sentiment is a predictable ploy historically used by right-wing populist movements to gain legitimacy.
And, as for those who defiantly say they're not afraid of the likes of Glenn Beck, I suggest they read up on some history, starting with Nazi Germany - they should be afraid.
nysecjd,
You, evidently, are not among the common dip-sticks I referred to. In re-reading my post I don't think I lumped everyone together. At least, that's not the way I read it.
Thanks for the response. There are few intelligent life forms that orbit this site but not very many.
My objective was to goad a few of the dip-sticks to do something totally alien to their nature, consult a dictionary.
PRoche
You got it right. Those on the right always have an either/or argument.
If we don't torture all terrorists we're all going to die. I would hope that if I thought like that I would do the right thing and kill myself.
Alderman your the proof to the point both PRoche and nysecjd were trying to make.
Neoconservative is very different from Conservative. Neoconservatism is dead, but some people just aren't ready to let it go.
Beck doesn't have a "philosophy," he has "feelings" (such as "something's not right") that are impossible to refute.
This is an amazingly written essay...stylistically, one of the best I've ever read.
And the content wasn't half bad.
""""The rules of the universal human unconscious." The phrase might smack of naïve Freudianism, but Kristol seemed never to stop believing that an implacable chaos lay behind the intellect's most rational and ethically sophisticated constructions. As a result, he gave up on principled thinking and became a kind of intellectual tummler-the Yiddish term for a mischief-maker, whose power lies in creating prankish distractions. But Kristol had a motive for his tummling: the acquisition of power unavailable to intellectuals."""
==================================================
Wow. Unbelievably spot on assessment.
JDK-JDK
I agree with everything you say except I believe the phrase you mentioned might be Jungian rather that Freudian.
Wonderful article that gets at the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of today's conservative movement. I think perhaps the main difference is the sheer craven shamelessness of today's practitioners. But the self-same intellectual shorthand is still in evidence. I remember once hearing William F. Buckley expound on the quality of culture in the US (this was the mid-70s) and his reaction was (I'm paraphrasing), " I think that the state of culture is quite good when one considers that you can purchase a complete collection of Beethoven Sonatas for $10.00", thus reducing the whole notion of cultural literacy and quality of life to a mere utilitarian function of the market place. Good one. But totally dishonest as a statement of ideas or philosophy. Of course it was delivered with that very east coast patrician sneer that gave it the veneer of respectability.
I should add that today's clowns when not willingly disingenuous tools (Hannity)
or preposterous ego-driven demagogues (Limbaugh), simply dispense with the notion of respectability and civility altogether and go for the phony down-to-earth populism of a Palin or Beck.
JohnnyCakes: I would be even more crude and say "... and go for the lies of a Palin or Beck."
JohnnyCakes
That had to be sarcasm- that something he valued so much was being thrown away in this country for $10.
William F. Buckley was a conservative and being proudly liberal myself, I would probably disagree with much of what Mr. Buckley espoused. Still, he was the kind of conservative that I could respect. More than I can say for what we have left. Mr. Buckley is probably turning over in his grave listening to them and what they have made of Conservatism.
In some respects, he sounds like a burned out Leftist who just accommodated to the Second Gilded Age of the last 30 years--in a somewhat cynical and nihilistic way, probably not really believing half of the conservative bromides he was uttering. They were paying his salary, after all, giving him talking head time on Firing Line and other TV programs, although conservative media was not nearly as influential as it later became thanks to Rupert Murdoch.
It's easy enough to see why he concluded that the Left, intellectuals and the working class were becoming more and more powerless in America, while the big money interests behind both parties went from success to success, thanks in part to their low information foot soldiers in the Confederate-evangelical wing of the party.
More and more, it looks like that wing has taken over the Republican Party, led by the C Street Boys, and with beck, Limbaugh and the rest as mouthpieces to rile up the ignoramus base.
Why would a Nice Jewish Boy feel comfortable around a bunch of fascist thugs and bullies like that? No doubt, he could only take some comfort in that sense of ironic and nihilistic attachment, in the face of historical and economic forces that he could not control, or even influence very much.
What's with the "Nice Jewish Boy"? Are you referring to Beck or someone unidentified in your post?
"nice Jewish boy" is Irving Kristol, the subject of the essay. Thanks for reading.
Carole65 doesn't like to clutter her mind with facts.
mcmchugh99; news flash. Irving's pragmatism, vetting what was necessary to win, wasn't that of the nice Jewish Boy, but that of a protracted class whose dagger was sharpened always to cut two ways, dependent on the political tide.
God was a subtext, Judaism, and religion was a subtext, a noble truth, to wield or control those who intellectually couldn't dispense with its hocuspocus. His intellectualism was a Godless clarity for those who had eyes to see, and a God fearing myth to control those who couldn't. This kind of nihilism is Dostoyevskian and reminds me of G Gordon Liddy and what he wrote at the conclusion to every letter to his children; WIN. Which to Leo Strauss and Irving Kristol was of greater value than; being a good Jewish boy
. Boys who according to the direction of the wind might even break bread with a couple of fascist or the other.
Lee Siegel; great article. definitelydeeperthanateaspoon.
This might be the worst argument against conservatism that I have EVER read. To say that a quip about the minimum wage and pornography are completely unrelated shows that this author has no connection with real society. Perhaps if he stepped out of his ivory tower for a few minutes he might be able to competently debate conservatism. Obviously, that won't be happening anytime in the near future.
If anyone is going to argue about what neo-conservatism really is, an understanding of what it actually is would help. By reading this, it is obvious to me that the author is throwing it around hoping that people bash it as bad, but has absolutely no idea what it means or stands for. Before you publish an article about it, perhaps you should do some more research on what it really means to be a neo-conservative. Let me know if you need an explanation, I would be happy to help.
You could've explained "what it really means to be a neo-conservative" in your comment, instead of just blathering on about why he's wrong without giving any rationale for your disagreement.
In other words, I need an explanation. Lay it on me.
Thanks for the condescending lecture. Was that a hit-and-run? You seem to be MIA
meiggsmt; please give me an explanation. throw down a quick quip on the invisible hand of the market. or your support for supply side economics, or hayekian economics vs. keynesian economics when faced with a depression.
tell me why Irving Kristol as a trotskyite wasn't brought up on charges by the HUAC. why people -- actors -- like lionel stander had to march before them and give answer to their crap, when people like Kristol got a pass. was it that Irving Kristol was a Remoras or Pilot fish to the HUAC's school of Sharks and got a pass go card. meiggsnt get a clue. there are about 6 billion people give or take a billion or two on this planet. do you think as a culture we can march into the future without paying taxes. ayn rand is dead, and we've got to put bumpers on the market or we're doomed. unless you think gods at the last minutes is going to listen to Lucifer and his rebels and save us.
I'm not familar with this Kristol's work but, from the article, it sounds like he went slowly nuts, not unlike most nuevo neo-cons.
Reagan did raise taxes, not just by increasing the payroll deduction taxes. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 also stopped all deductions for interest payments except for home mortgages.
Prior to that you could deduct taxes on car loans, credit cards, etc., from your income. Tell me that's not raising taxes.
Woops---The last two sentences should read, "Prior to that you could deduct INTEREST (not taxes) on car loans, credit cards, etc., from your income. Tell me that's not raising taxes."
Very, very deep.
Almost as much as Tim Robbins talking about philosophy and Leo Strauss.
Maybe in all places must appear some stupidity but, why in the DB they always point in the same direction? When some affirmative action in favour of right wing nuts?
Lee Siegel is a bitter, resentful little man. I was foolish enough to buy one of his books. Here's a tip: Don't.
Hmmm, so far I've read several well-reasoned essays written with a certain amount of passion about subjects he feels strongly about. You may disagree with his premise but calling him bitter and resentful because he dares criticize something you feel the need to cling to just makes you sound petty (read: bitter and resentful). The neo-con brain trust has long held sway over the public discourse and punditry for too long and deserve to be taken apart and held up for scrutiny and accountability. Amen.
FreeDumb,
Isn't that what you are doing as well? Because aperturemad doesn't like the guy you criticize and insult. I find you to be fairly typical of most of the bloggers here.
Very nice article and quite well written. Sometimes speaking ill of the recently dead is less poor form than moral imperative. I would, however, have liked some more content on Leo Strauss and William Kristol which might have given more context to the uninitiated. May I suggest a rewrite with the title, "The Father, The Son, and the Holy War."
Keep your eye on William. He is a dangerous man with the gift of being consistently wrong without suffering any apparent consequences. He has bought into his father's philosophy wholesale and is continuing his father's work today. He was instrumental in starting the Iraq war with Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney and the most he ever suffered for this colossal mistake was a brief falling out of favor at court. He intends to ascend to power again by being the puppeteer behind Sarah Palin. I believe that he is backing her not because he thinks she can be an effective president, but because he thinks she can win. He is an intelligent man who can no doubt see her for the empty vessel that she is. In the nightmare scenario where she does win, he hopes to effectively control her foreign policy. It really is that vacuous. There is no grand vision beyond achieving and holding power.
If any of the rest of us were as bad at our job as Kristol is at influencing national action we'd be forced into a different career. If a school bus driver keeps crashing and burning buses and killing all of the children onboard you don't give him another bus to drive hoping that he's finally got the hang of it. It's high time that this family realized that it simply has no talent for the actual work of leading the nation. I just don't hold out much hope that William suffers from this level of self-awareness.
You're exactly correct, of course. William Kristol evidently has Teflon coating, because nobody could be as wrong as often (he gave us Palin, for example) and still get off scot free.
As a matter of fact the NYTimes gave him a friggin' COLUMN until somebody over there finally saw the light.
Unlike what a lot of right wingers would love to believe. Most liberals are not afraid of Beck. The only thing that they fear is the bad effect he seems to have on people who listen to his hate daily. Beck and his ilk turns them into snarling animal's willing to get violent at the drop of a hat. He plays to the worst instincts in all humans. The misinformation people like him spread has brought this country to the brink of disaster. The population gets more ignorant by the year thanks to people like Beck. We believe in freedom of speech. But, along with the speech goes a few responsibilities. Which people like Beck are unwilling to take responsibility for. The Republican's are always great at preaching to others to take responsibility for their actions. But, they have on no occasion accepted theirs in the deaths of several abortion doctors and the lies they spread. The hatred they deliberate try and foment with lies.
Indeed, the effect on people of listening to hate mongers like Beck is so dangerous that I've seen it lead to fistfights, permanent estrangement of family members, & even psychiatric hospitalizations. One of the patients' daughters (with whom the patient resides) actually had to disconnect the TV & take the radios out of the house any time she leaves home. These right-wing know-nothing media thugs are a menace to society!
DoctorB: If people remembered that Bill O'Reilly's demonization of "Tiller the Baby Killer" was likely a major contributing factor to Dr. Tiller's assassination, they would have a better idea of what this hate speech can lead to.
Really? Can you elaborate on your information? As it stands here it is nothing more than someone making up stuff to talk about? How about it DoctorB?
tumbleweed & DoctorB: YES, which is why we SHOULD be afraid of Glenn Beck.
AlanD2, DoctorB and mysecjd;
What do you call Dr. Tiller? He did kill unborn babies? Does that not make him a murderer and a killer?
americanworkhorse
What do you call Dr. Tiller? He did kill unborn babies.
You can't kill something that isn't alive. Your calling it a baby doesn't make it one. Your religion is not universal so stop acting as though it is.
Please tell me which abortion doctors were killed by the republican party. It is ridiculous to say republicans as a party should take responsibility for an obviously deranged person who commits a murder. Why on earth would anyone be afraid of Beck? Unless it is the truth that makes them afraid.
How many times do we have to tell you? We're NOT afraid of Beck. We're afraid of the people who listen to him and believe what he says without considering it.
And as to the murder of abortionists: Pensacola, North Carolina, and Wichita, to name a few locations--can't remember names. Did the Republicans pull the trigger? No. But you can bet they had a hand in legitimizing the violent wackos. Source material? Just listen to a right wing meeting on most any subject, and specifically listen to the rhetoric of that clown who heads up Operation Rescue.
americanworkhorse
It is ridiculous to say republicans as a party should take responsibility for an obviously deranged person who commits a murder.
Every murder has been by a righty- why not blame the party? The same righties killed JFK, RFK. MLK, Evers, Till, who did I leave out? Righties are evil violent people who should be deported for the good of the country..
In the late 50's and early 60's, the U.S. Government instructed our educational system to teach the youth everything we needed to know to be the best, brightest and most innovative country on the globe. Advanced math, science, philosophy and literature were given an esteemed place in the circulum, thusly helping to propel us forward as the greatest nation on earth.
The unforeseen downside (from the perspective of the Establishment) was that were became more perceptive and initiated than the then-current political system. This caused the sexual, racial and peace movements that changed so much in so short of a time.
The Establishment has since put education in the gutter for fear that people might remember they don't need government permission to live their lives in a manner of their own choosing.
Lives are defined by families and communities, not from far-away announcements from media centers or governments. These politicos are not actually part of our lives but thrive on the illusion that they are somehow imperative to the functioning of our culture.
Nothing could be further than the truth. The only thing that will save us is a person's realization that they are responsible for themselves and by measure, responsible for the welfare of their community.
This is, of course, an oversimplification as this is a response to a response to blog. But I hope the point is not lost.
I hope prosperity and love to everyone, at any place, on the "horseshoe" of political life. I'm gonna go back to work and make money for my family as that is the only thing that makes any sense at all. xo
Excellent article. Very revealing and insightful. I usually respect the principle of avoiding saying overly negative things about the dead, but this man had a negative and debilitating impact on American politics. And for the most part he's been hailed as a major innovative thinker.
Kristol and his ilk are geniuses of a sort. They realize that the average person is a dolt. The average member of the population doesn't have the time or the intellect to reason out difficult, complex problems so they cling to catch-phrases and prejudice. Beck and Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Hannigan all know that. Kristol and Kristol the lesser (his son, Bill) with all their pretend intellectualism are only miniature potentates, striving to conquer the masses. They find success and enjoy idolatry by preaching bumper-sticker philosophy. That's why they fear Obama so much. He has achieved the status they crave with honor, dignity, and education in spite of their perception of his shortcomings of poverty, parentage and race.
Apparently it's working. Look at how many people watch FOX news.
I think the average American cannot tolerate nuance. Most (if not all) major issues are not black and white, but shades of gray. Average Joe and Jane want simple, digestible thoughts without deeper considerations; e.g. "Fire bad!", not "We need to let some forest fires burn to prevent larger firestorms."
Nuanced issues make their heads hurt and that sentiment manifests as anti-intellectualism. Limbaugh and Beck are contra-intellectuals, intent on keeping their flocks as ignorant as possible.
I think that was Sarah Palin's great appeal: "Death panel bad!"
spotted: Right. If a problem can't be solved by a sound-bite, it is too boring. On to something else.
An excellent comment on an excellent comment. H. L. Mencken's conservatism (and anti-populism) were based on his understanding of the Booboisie--he simply felt that they did not have the mental equipment for self government. This social Darwinism led to the anti-New Deal sentiment that diminished his influence and probably contributed to his being portrayed as a villain in "Inherit the Wind." He was wonderfully perceptive, though, and said many things one cannot imagine being said today. In the age of Beck, his analysis of the vast American citizenry is very hard to dispute. Sarah Palin and he fans are the Booboisie incarnate.
Booboisie, indeed. Read the following post from reardong alt for a great example.
"I think that was Sarah Palin's great appeal: "Death panel bad!""
Which Death Panels are you talking about? The ones that weren't in the bill, or the ones that were taken out later that week?
WOO HOO!
spotted
The black/white crowd are almost exclusively righties and/or cops. Cops go into that job because they won't have to deal with grey. That and the fact that they can release their anger on others and get away with it.
Definition:
Democrat: The average Democrat is a dolt. The average member of this part of the population doesn't have the time or the intellect to reason out difficult, complex problems so they cling to catch-phrases and prejudice. They know nothing about research, facts, personal responsibility, hard work, or striving to succeed. They feel they've been wronged. They are highly emotional, and don't do well using reason. If presented with a fact that contradicts their belief system, they blank-out. There's no feedback mechanism in their minds, so they can only go back to see what Jon Stewart is saying for comfort. They are the missing link. They don't watch Fox news or listen to talk radio, but hate it. Why? "Why" is a concept unfamiliar to them, they hate it because they are dolts getting their info from other dolts.
As if "Drill, baby, drill!" as a thoughtful, well-conceived policy.
It occurs on both sides of the aisle, but occurs most among the so-called "independents", who identify as such because they cannot comprehend either party's policies.
If you watch, Fox all you have is a feedback loop- in YOUR BRAIN! and please; "highly emotional"?!
- Ever watched video of a tea party or a town hall filled with raving no-minds screaming "Socialism! Communism! Fascism!", like they were interchangeable concepts? The conservative ethos has been reduced to a few bumper sticker slogans and knee-jerk talking points and spouted by people who feel vindicated when being cheered on by Steve Doocy and Gretchen Carlson. I think you've got the dolt population on your side, bud.
reardongalt: If the 9-12 protesters are any indication, the average conservative is worse than a dolt.
Those at town hall meetings didn't advance your cause much either.
Conservatives: Not the Brightest Lights in the Chandelier.
Sotted, "Drill baby drill" is brilliant! If I was President, I would institute a draft. But not into the Military or the Youth Corps or anything like that. I'd draft them to the oil fields to "drill baby drill".
Gas would be 20 cents a gallon within a few years.
reardongalt - You made a funny!
I think I shall get sotted after reading your remarks. Cheers!
Yeah, reardong, gas would be 20 cents a gallon assuming that all that extra drilling discovered unknown reserves that took our percentage of world supply of oil from about 5% to about 40%.
Duh?
Well put, reardongalt! I heartily agree!
I'm sure you would agree, Beckster, because facts don't mean diddly to the Right Wing.
Guys like Kristol (and Limbaugh and Beck) who "use intellect aganst the intellect" are nothing but warmed-over Sophists -- who will argue a point even they can't even seriously believe.
But the pay is good.
You all are mad because Kristol changed from Democrat to Republican, he realized the Dem. party were a bunch of losers. Glen Beck I bet does not even know who Kristol is; Glen is a Libertarian not a Conservative.
Another common characteristic of the Vast Unwashed: They are on a first name basis with their idols, be they professional wrestlers or political "personalities."
winston1: We weren't mad when the Dixiecrats left the Democratic party in 1965. Why should we be mad to lose an idiot like Kristol?
And in case you were wondering, no, we don't want Bill either, thank you very much.
By the way, Winnie - what does it say about you that you can't even spell Glenn's name right?
"Glen is a Libertarian not a Conservative" ...this has to be one of my all-time favorite quotes!
WTF? winston1, are you really that naive?
"Kristol changed from Democrat to Republican"
In other words, he grew up. Look at David Horowitz. He's one of the brightest conservatives alive. He started out as a radical leftist like Bill Ayers and is now as far right as he used to be left. That's the natural progression. When you're in College and are not out in the real world making a living, supporting a family, fixing your kids cars, saving for a rainy day, it's easy to believe in Communism. As you start to take responsibility for your life and the life of your family, you become a Conservative.
god, what mindless bullshit.
I came from the working class and became a democratic socialist in my early-20s. Nothing I have see in the three decades since has changed my mind. Just the opposite, I have seen the wheels finally come off the whole capitalist system, which would be out of business right now if the government hadn't propped it up with trillions of dollars.
That's just a fact. It collapsed like in the 1930s, which make sit very hard for anyone in the "real world" to make a living now, or even survive at all. This is no longer a matter of 1960s radical chic and college boy leftism of people like Horowitz; things are a lot more serious now.
hate to torpedo your crazy boat there, mcmchugh, but we're in a recession. no economic system looks good during a recession.
for its weaknesses and flaws, capitalism is still the free-est form of economy available to us. if you believe in liberty, you should believe in capitalism.
Did Ayn Rand tell you that?I've seen it go the opposite direction just as often as your fantasy scenario, in that actually caring for your family causes you to be more mindful of and caring for people outside your own life. A concept I know is difficult for the typical conservative, and impossiblre for the mindless wannabe objectivist.
I believe in democracy, but have no faith in capitalism. All I ever hear from the Republicans is how they want to do more of the sames things they have been doing for the last 100 years: cut taxes for the rich, let big business do whatever it wants, spend a lot of money on the military, and let the common people sink or swim as best they can. That's the kind of "thinking" that got us into this mess we're in now.
If they keep trying to sell that, they won't elect another president until 2052, which would be fine with me.
Lassez faire Capitalism has never been tried. But even semi-capitalism is better than Socialism/Communism/Marxism or any other ism. How much proof do you people need?
All collapses in the Economy are caused by Governments, which create bubbles, distort the free markets, and rape the taxpayer.
ayn rand was a smart lady. i'm no objectivist or liberatrian, however.
people who make comments about this subject just don't understand the implications of what they're saying. we've been hearing a lot of "well, capitalism is clearly failing"-type comments from people who are angry about corruption and cannot disassociate the recession from their views of what constitutes a superior economic system.
let me tell you something right now. top-down regulation is absolutely necessary. despite what someone above says, this country DID try what amounts to unbridled capitalism around the turn of the century and that experiment failed abysmally, setting the stage for america's first federal laws relating to corporate corruption and antitrust. the great depression demonstrated how detrimental AND helpful government regulation of the economy could be, depending on which year of FDR's presidency you were looking at.
the nature of the argument is not whether we should scrap capitalism -- but how and how *intensely* it should be regulated.
what we have is some idiotic "discussion" right now, fomented and propagated by our media, that democrats are socialists and republicans are for laissez-faire. nice, stark categories that idiot americans can understand, right? a lot easier to grasp nuances and shades of grey.
as ridiculous as those fringe elements calling for less regulation are those who think capitalism is a failure, despite the fact that our country has enjoyed decades of prosperity thanks to a liberal political and economic framework.
furthermore, more regulation by society means less freedom for you. therefore we need to strike a very careful balance between a free market and regulations that are putatively in the social interest.
oh and donquijoterocket, your reply is hilarious in its obliviousness, for adam smith, one of capitalism's progenitors, coined the very "invisible hand" you describe!
reardongalt.
"Lassez faire Capitalism has never been tried." Are you insane?
PRoche, am I insane? No, I don't think so.
Although, now that I think about it, my fundamental investment philosophy has always been "I could be wrong".
Hmmm, now that I think about it, I guess I could be insane.
Reardong, OK, we see the light. You're really just a little polemicist in you Mom's basement who is really a liberal voter.
You really went too far with the "Lasseiz faire capitalism has never been tried" line. You and I know that about 100 to 120 years ago was about as lasseiz faire as you could get, and it resulted in the Sherman Antitrust Act, The Clayton Antitrust Act, the Union movement and a bunch of financial Panics culminating in the Great Depression.
You really had me going, buddy. But you really need to find a new hobby.
It's my experience that most "libertarians" and a lot of "independents" these days are nothing more than unreconstructed wingnut republicans who look at the parade of losers the Guardians of Privilege have become and lack the intestinal fortitude to admit to their actual beliefs.Beck's a clown, he even admits to being a clown, but that won't stop the demented from acting on his apophenic delusions just as Jim D. Adkisson the guy who shot up a Unitarian church in Tennesee out of a desire to "kill liberal" and was later found to be a big fan of fux noise stalwarts blowhardbillowlielly and his sometime sidekick bernie Goldberg.It doesn't take much to stir the already unhinged to irrational behavior and glennda the beckerhead is proficient at it being mostly unhinged himself.Eventually glennda is going to hoist himself on one of his own petards.It will be funny to watch.
It sometimes amuses me and sometimes make me very sad to read some of the comments here. The truth is that both Beck and Olbermann are the same side of the coin just in different corners. Beck would never say anything negative about most of the GOP and Olbermann the same for the Dems. It also really has nothing to do witht the right or left or anything in between. It is about ratings and money period.
Skyway: Beck and Olbermann are the same side of the coin? You've got to be kidding.
Beck lies ("Obama hates whites") and eggs on his viewers toward violence.
Olbermann is partisan, but he doesn't lie, and he abhors violence.
They are as different as night and day.
By the way, Keith has been quite critical of Obama and many Democrats, as you would know if you had ever bothered to watch his show.
Another very obvious difference between Beck and Olbermann to anyone who watches and compares their shows . . . about 50 IQ points.
Very inciteful article - esecially the observation that Kristol was an intellectual who "discredited" intellectuals and gave up the pursuit of thought and truth in favor of the pursuit of power and, in that regard, exemplified how some form of self-loathing so often underlies egomania.
I'm assuming the use of "inciteful" rather than "insightful" by nysecjd is deliberate; or perhaps, tongue-in-cheek. A little mischievous perhaps.
At any rate, I concur w/ your conclusions.
"You all are mad because Kristol changed from Democrat to Republican, he realized the Dem."
More than a little simplistic but, if you prefer to believe that, knock yourself out.
"Glen Beck I bet does not even know who Kristol is..."
I'd give him more credit than that, he *is* a high-school graduate.
"...Glen is a Libertarian not a Conservative."
So you are saying he has convictions? The evidence suggests otherwise.
Again, I ask - what do you think a libertarian is and what "evidence" suggests he does not have convictions?
Glen's greater ability to conduct his March in Washington DC only show's that, you can rile up the poorly educated, biased losers on the fringes to show up and agitate much more readily than the more intelligent informed people in the middle or the non conservatives who can think clearly for themselves. The moderate conservatives and the liberals cannot be stirred up by any less than truthful talk show host who preaches hate.
So, you think everyone in Washington were dumb and biased. What exactly do you base your information on and where, pray tell, did you get it? Also, explain your version of "dumb" and "biased". I don't believe you'll answer. Everytime I ask a question on this site, none of you actually answer. You guys are scary. Lots of namecalling hate but no answers.
If a senator or congressman believes that the world is 6,000 years old, and all that other creationist crap, then yes, they are dumb as posts, and their greatest talent is the art of self-deception. Either that, or like Kristol, they are cynical hucksters.
The placards and the behavior of the participants speak volumes about the participants. The instigator who is an ex alcoholic, drug user and dropped out of college before the first semester also says a lot about his followers.
A lot of them looked like the cousin of Joe the Plumber or Michele Bachman.
I'm not mad that he switched from the Left to the Right. It's not as if it never happened before and never will again.
I am a little mystified at why he would seriously want to embrace capitalism in this country at the very time when it was at its most dysfunctional, and finally just crashed. It would hardly exist at all today if the government hadn't bailed it out with trillions of dollars.
The progressives and Leftists of the 1930s had it right after all, but these things go in cycles in America. Every 30-40 years, we always have another era of reform, and a new one has just started.
idicula1979
and althought ACORN is a black eye to us democrats they are talking there case to court, and I won't be surprised if ACORN pokes a few holes in their case ( just like the Van Jones charge), and also for a peon non-for profit as ACORN, I will Point out multi-, muti- million doller company lie Halliburton and parent company KBR.
You might be interested in this link.
http://www.pdamerica.org/articles/news/2009-09-19-11-10-04-news.php
: The GOP's Blame-ACORN Game - Progressive Democrats of America
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.