The Devil in Glenn Beck

Jesse Walker | June 19, 2009

More on the does-extreme-rhetoric-cause-terror question: Over at The Daily Beast, Reihan Salam argues that cable shouters like Glenn Beck do more to reduce the threat of violence than to enhance it:

Remember that political violence runs deep in the American tradition....The question is how we can keep this violent streak under wraps.

One approach is epidemiological. Like the swine flu, extremism should be subject to quarantine. Hateful sentiments should be suppressed to the extent possible, the better to prevent their spread. In Western Europe, neofascist political symbols and rhetoric are tightly regulated on the theory that violent extremism is a bacillus that must be contained. The end result, ironically enough, is that neofascist political movements, ranging from France's National Front to Britain's obnoxiously racist BNP, have had shockingly high levels of electoral success. By marginalizing certain political tendencies, the European approach makes it harder to domesticate them.

A healthier approach is to allow a wide array of screamers to soak up the angry energy of alienated citizens. Following the 2004 presidential election, a number of enraged lefties believed that George W. Bush's presidential campaign had stolen the presidential election by manipulating the vote count in Ohio through the misuse of electronic voting machines. In years past, this might have been ignored as a fringe belief. But it so happens that MSNBC's Keith Olbermann was willing to give the story considerable attention. Because Olbermann was willing to lend credence to the Ohio story, true believers treated him as an honest broker. And when Olbermann eventually moved on, they did too, for the most part.

I don't know to what extent I buy the theory, though it doesn't strike me as any less plausible than the blame-Beck thesis. What's interesting to me is how closely this debate is starting to resemble the old arguments about the effects of pornography, when the censors claimed that porn produces sex crimes while their critics sometimes suggested that it more frequently serves as a release valve. I get the impression some people have shifted their assumptions now that the context is political rather than sexual.

Comments

Satan|6.19.09 @ 12:28PM|#

"The Devil in Glenn Beck"

I wouldn't possess that piece of shit if you offered me ten million souls to do it.

|6.19.09 @ 12:37PM|#

I don't think porn prevents any sex crimes - but it keeps my hands full...
But I don't think porn causes any sex crimes either. The political theatre on TV neither prevents or causes anything...except political contributions by true believers. People who are really going to take action have a much more defined, consistent theory for their beliefs. I don't think these beliefs are necessary a reflection of reality, but Osama bin Laden doesn't fraught at the mouth to whip up his supporters.

|6.19.09 @ 12:41PM|#

I think Glenn Beck provides a useful service. Most people, on the verge of making some wild They-Really-Are-Out-to-Git-Us claim, will pause, and think to themselves, "Shit- if I say that out loud, I'll sound just like that fucking cretin Beck."

And they'll hold their tongues.

That's what I tell myself, anyway.

ck|6.19.09 @ 12:42PM|#

Jesse, your analogy is a good one but I think you're missing a key difference. Wrt pornography, everyone agrees that sexual desires are inherent, which is why porn can serve as a "release valve". Porn doesn't create the desires. Wrt right-wing extremism, the argument is that the demagoguery creates the anger, which otherwise would be less intense. I don't know if that's empirically right or wrong, but it's a different argument.

Paul|6.19.09 @ 12:44PM|#

In Western Europe, neofascist political symbols and rhetoric are tightly regulated on the theory that violent extremism is a bacillus that must be contained.

A car bomb exploded in Spain this morning, killing the policeman driving it.

bloodstar|6.19.09 @ 12:47PM|#

Not to mention exhorting people to do something, to have constant outrage(!) thrown at you tends to make people think they need to ... 'do something!' And when you have inflammatory language used calling people killers, and murderers and evil and what not... People are going to react and act.

Mike in PA|6.19.09 @ 12:47PM|#

I used to listen to Beck all the time on the radio years ago. He was great entertainment then and he knew what he was. He had the humility of a reformed alcoholic and lots of humor.

Now he seems to believe his new-found fame is some sort of calling from the almighty that he must unite and create an army for his beliefs. It's kind of sad, because I used to enjoy his program. He's still pretty on target with much of his analysis, but I wish he'd drop the whole "follow me" thing. It makes it too easy for those idiots to use the "blame-Beck" thesis when people who agree with him on one hand commit egregious acts on the other.

Jesse Walker|6.19.09 @ 12:49PM|#

ck: That's a reasonable point. But there's also an argument floating around that doesn't blame Beck et al for creating the anger; it blames them for legitimizing angry ideas that were already circulating on the fringe. Not exactly the same as the inherent sex drive, but closer to it.

Tricky Prickears|6.19.09 @ 12:52PM|#

I'm beginning to think people like Beck do more for the liberals, than conservatives. I know several "liberals" that listen to these people just to get "fired up". Forcing people like Beck underground, would do far more for the conservative movement simply, because the liberals wouldn't know what they were up to. It's much easier to snuff out some of the shit, and temper it with logic and reason, when you know what the fuck it is in the first place.

anon|6.19.09 @ 12:53PM|#

Fun fact: watch Glenn Beck with the volume off and you'll see that his hand motions, his head and body motions, his aw-shucks dumber-n-shit double-takes, etc are almost EXACTLY like those of a 1980's WWF wrestler - like for example Macho Man:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQxyD0Q7GtU

Bill|6.19.09 @ 1:00PM|#

One problem with the proposition is that I don't see Glenn Beck as advocating violence or hate. He gets agitated and expresses anger, frustration and disbelief, yes, but I've never heard him exhort destructive or violent action or express hateful opinions.

I'm actually surprised he has become as divisive as he apparently has, because I don't see a lot of what he says as terribly controversial or outrageous - not like Mike Savage, who often seems to say stuff for effect, trying to make sure people keep listening to him.

Robert|6.19.09 @ 1:07PM|#

I've been listening to Glenn Beck on the radio for a few weeks, and he strikes me as thoughtful compared to most emcees. He's no David Brudnoy, but he's far out ahead of the pack.

|6.19.09 @ 1:21PM|#

Our society has developed the unfortunate belief that every bad occurrence can be prevented if we would only put the "correct" set of rules in place and had the "right" people enforcing them.

The belief is deluded, and the attempt to make it come true does immense damage.

Jesse Walker|6.19.09 @ 1:47PM|#

One problem with the proposition is that I don't see Glenn Beck as advocating violence or hate.

That's part of Salam's argument, actually, though I didn't quote that part of his article.

hmm|6.19.09 @ 1:50PM|#

Is it wrong to use Glenn Beck as a sexual release valve?

This whole discussion and the arguments surrounding it are as absurd as the Daily Show John Stewart crap. People are going rave, rant, cheer, and blame no matter what. Mickey mouse could proclaim he hates cats and someone, PETA, would turn it into Mickey is advocating violence against cats. Next up would be calling the Humane Society the Auschwitz of felinedom and a puppet of Mickey supporters.

|6.19.09 @ 2:10PM|#

Wrt pornography, everyone agrees that sexual desires are inherent, which is why porn can serve as a "release valve". Porn doesn't create the desires.

That's not necessarily true. The inherent sexual desires we have are quite vaguely defined, and tend to latch on to what our environment exposes us to. (Note that men from different cultures tend to find different parts of women's bodies to be especially arousing). So it is reasonable to assume that different styles of porn (as opposed to some Platonic Form of Porn) will indeed give rise to different types of sexual desire in the individuals who indulge in tit.

Likewise, a person who listens to Glenn Beck or Michael Savage or whatnot is likely to be conservative already, so he didn't create that particular opinion in them. However, he may funnel their conservatism into different intensities and actions than would otherwise be present.

Telly|6.19.09 @ 2:13PM|#

Goodness knows we'd never want to actually discuss the way the government angers us and how it tramples on the Constitution. That would be as bad as talking to your kids about sex! It makes them want go out and actually DO something! Best to just ignore it and not bring that stuff out in the open. Don't rock the boat, people. Just keep quiet.

|6.19.09 @ 2:17PM|#

Glenn's radio program is much more subdued and thoughtful than the Fox television show. I used to watch the show regularly when it was on CNN, but the Fox show isn't the same.

Listen to the radio program before you pass judgment.

Bill - I agree, I have never heard Glenn Beck advocate physical harm or violence, but rather the exact opposite.

|6.19.09 @ 2:24PM|#

Robert-

Although I loved David Brudnoy(god rest his soul), and was a frequent caller to his show, he did support the Iraq war and he got it from folks like me-for advocating state sponsored violence.

Dribbles|6.19.09 @ 2:25PM|#

" will indeed give rise to different types of sexual desire in the individuals who indulge in tit."

I indulge in tit every chance I get.

|6.19.09 @ 2:26PM|#

What is absolutely goofy, flaky and truly nutjobbish, is the notion that pornography causes sex crimes. Absolute rubbish. Utterly groundless.

|6.19.09 @ 2:26PM|#

What I find lacking in all of the recent criticism of Mr. Beck is this:

In addition to his long-running radio show, he was on CNN for two years griping about the previous administration. Because he is now going against the media darling, he is suddenly some nutcase.

And oh, by the by, in addition to exposing the donkeys, he is still sticking it to the elephants too.

Sioux: get serious, man. He used to have pitchforks over at CNN. Part of the reason I love him. He's "just folks" - and he's studied history. If his tv show were as long as his radio show, maybe more people would "get" Mr. Beck.

|6.19.09 @ 2:36PM|#

What is absolutely goofy, flaky and truly nutjobbish, is the notion that pornography causes sex crimes. Absolute rubbish. Utterly groundless.

Many couples will watch porn together to "get in the mood", so I find it hard to accept the dogma that porn doesn't cause anyone to want to do the things that are done in the porn.

Chances are the cases where someone is influenced to commit actual sex crimes are rare, and there are probably as many cases where someone who would have otherwise commited such crimes was prevented from doing attempting them by porn. But it's ludicrous to say it can influence behavior only one way.

|6.19.09 @ 2:39PM|#

I should add that the vast majority of porn out there does not depict sex crimes, so it's hard to see how it could influence someone into committing such. I'm talking about the rape-porn and the like produced by Reason's pals at Extreme Associates and such.

|6.19.09 @ 2:39PM|#

I'm surprised at the hostility to Beck. He's like a mega-preacher compared to the cloistered monks of Reason. He may not be saying quite what we want, but for the most part he's getting the libertarian message out.

Disclaimer: I've only read his articles, not heard or seen him, so I don't know how obnoxious he might be.

Tomcat1066|6.19.09 @ 2:58PM|#

Glenn Beck is one of the few pundits on TV who actually gives to Republicans and Democrats. I don't agree with him on everything, and get a little sick of his "see? I told you this would happen years ago" thing, but he's consistent in his beliefs and he's the closest thing we've got to an ally in a lot of ways with the mainstream media.

All in all, let's cut him a little slack ;)

|6.19.09 @ 2:58PM|#

"What I find lacking in all of the recent criticism of Mr. Beck is this:

In addition to his long-running radio show, he was on CNN for two years griping about the previous administration. Because he is now going against the media darling, he is suddenly some nutcase.

And oh, by the by, in addition to exposing the donkeys, he is still sticking it to the elephants too."

The problem I as a generally liberal fellow has nothing to do with Beck ragging on Obama, because he doesn't. He attacks the government at large - which is cool and has value. But he attacks it like... like a crazy person.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM4xqnukQrM&feature=related

Weeping on air? Calling on people to act like it is 9/12/2001? It's schlock and it's ridiculous. Add on top of that a nice dose of pro-conspiracy-nutjobbery (buying into FEMA death camps? What?) and pro-militia nutjobbery, and yeah. He's insane.

Robert|6.19.09 @ 3:04PM|#

Although I loved David Brudnoy(god rest his soul), and was a frequent caller to his show, he did support the Iraq war and he got it from folks like me-for advocating state sponsored violence.

What's that got to do with the quality of his programs?

Feministing Regular|6.19.09 @ 3:20PM|#

"I should add that the vast majority of porn out there does not depict sex crimes"

All sex is a criminal act.

Stormy Dragon|6.19.09 @ 3:40PM|#

I don't think Beck is driven by hate so much as hysteria. If you watch/hear his shows, he spends as much time crying as he does shouting.

|6.19.09 @ 3:45PM|#

Robert-

My comment was directed at the issue of talk show host support of violence. The quality of David Brudnoy's programs was top-notch.

|6.19.09 @ 4:18PM|#

Christian~

We know that it's a "show". Cheese and crackers, it's on the boob tube. Part of his appeal is his schlockiness. It's entertaining, without all the leg thrills and starry eyes.

If you bothered to watch his program, you would have seen that he DEBUNKED the FEMA camps...in addition to calling people to band together in the spirit of the day after 9/11...when we were Americans, not left or right.

I kind of admire those people that we were for a brief moment in time. And you know what? When I see idiots in this country wearing Che shirts, celebrating Chavez or waving Hammer and Sickle flags who have no real idea of what they stand for, well, sir, I cry too.

Mr. Beck also does not believe in militias. *sigh*

Peace. Out.

LibertyMark|6.19.09 @ 4:29PM|#

I think Glenn Beck is pretty groovy.

What's wrong with a little anger? We should be angry, goddammit!

He's one of the first guys of his type that seems to have finally abstracted the problem to government itself, and not some childish team-membership blue/red thing.

|6.19.09 @ 4:30PM|#

Clowns like Beck obviously have an impact. It would be strange to argue that right-wing demagoguery doesn't influence people, otherwise you're saying that talk doesn't ever influence people's opinions, and that propaganda never works. Beck and his elder comrades keep the "mainstream" political dialog in this country tilted to the right, if nothing else.

I think I read that a lot of moderates voted for Obama despite believing he was a socialist. Sure the election was not won by right-wing blowhards, but they did get their message out. It just so happened that the country hated Republicans more than socialists at the time.

It is an interesting thing to think about though. Free speech has a pragmatic purpose; the goal of fascist propagandists like Beck is counter to that purpose. I would hope that in the so-called marketplace of ideas they would be exposed and discredited, but in this country (like pretty much everywhere I think) they are successful at winning moderates over. That is their purpose, after all.

hmm|6.19.09 @ 4:31PM|#

The world needs turd kickers on every side of the argument to keep the discussion going. Beck fills the role in an entertaining fashion. The lack of vitriolic hate spewing is something I like about him. A lot of other pundits like Olberman, O'Riely, Hannity and so on spend so much time getting angry and spitting venom any message is lost. Beck just plays the fool with his funny hat, belled shoes, and crying eyes and presents an opinion. To me that has an appeal to it. It doesn't mean I swallow what he espouses hook, line, and sinker.

|6.19.09 @ 4:50PM|#

Tony: "the goal of fascist propagandists like Beck is counter to that purpose."

Another classic from you. Thanks Tony. Freedom equals fascism now guys. It's a new era!

Someone else|6.19.09 @ 5:09PM|#

What is absolutely goofy, flaky and truly nutjobbish, is the notion that pornography causes sex crimes. Absolute rubbish. Utterly groundless.

Exactly

|6.19.09 @ 5:21PM|#

the does-extreme-rhetoric-cause-terror question

Ask Naomi Klein and Noam Chomsky.

Robert|6.19.09 @ 8:22PM|#

Glenn's radio program is much more subdued and thoughtful than the Fox television show.

The radio program is all I have to judge him by; I don't get cable TV. I gather that more know him via TV, then? I hadn't even realized he was on TV, just assumed he was a radio guy, even before I heard him. Does TV give wider exposure to people than radio?

JB|6.21.09 @ 6:30PM|#

If you suppress political speech, you encourage political violence.

People need outlets for their anger. Better for someone to rant online than park truck bombs.