Was Glenn Beck's History Correct?

Over at Pajamas Media, historian Ronald Radosh reviews Glenn Beck's The Revolutionary Holocaust documentary, which aired last Friday on Fox News Channel. The hour-long show took a long look at 20th century left-wing totalitarianism, focusing on the cults of Stalin, Che, and Mao (I was one of the talking heads in the Che segment).

From Radosh's piece:

[In a Politico story about the special, Georgetown's Michael Kazin] is quoted as saying that he saw the documentary as “a classic piece of anti-Communist propaganda,” which from my point of view, does not make it inaccurate and is not necessarily a bad thing. Kazin then points to a major element of the story that Glenn Beck’s film leaves out. He writes, accurately, that “‘the first anti-Communists were democratic socialists and anarchists like Emma Goldman’ or that ‘socialists in Europe after 1945 were allies of the U.S. against the USSR.’”

Kazin is correct. His point is further illustrated by the following. A major anti-Communist operative during the years of the Cold War was Jay Lovestone, head of the AFL-CIO’s international apparatus, which he singlehandedly transformed into an active organization fighting the Communists in Italy, Germany, Japan and elsewhere. When some supporters of Senator Joe McCarthy attacked his outfit as working with leftists, Lovestone responded that “they don’t understand that the Social-Democrats are our best allies in the fight against the Communists.” Beck does not seem to comprehend that the socialists were in fact our most dependable friends in the worldwide fight against the Soviet Union and Europe’s Communists. He may disagree with those who want America to move towards a European style social-democratic welfare state. But his viewers would not comprehend how these same socialists were our allies, if they ever came across this fact elsewhere.

It would have helped give more perspective and understanding to the story if Beck had in fact showed just that point, and perhaps obtained interviews with surviving participants of the old anti-Communist wars from people active in the labor and social-democratic movements. As for Kazin’s claim that Beck only wants to expose “inhumanity on the left,” why then did the film deal with Hitler and Nazism, which certainly Kazin does not see as a force on the Left?

More here.

Watch the Che segment here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Pol Pot||

    I didn't even get an honorable mention?

  • Noam||

    You are just a peaceful agrarian reformer. Why would you?

  • Old Mexican||

    Kazin then points to a major element of the story that Glenn Beck’s film leaves out[...]

    ... and that I would have loved Glenn went totally out of his way to show it inside the 1-hour show that was already too tightly packed. Just to make me happy.

    As for Kazin’s claim that Beck only wants to expose “inhumanity on the left,” why then did the film deal with Hitler and Nazism, which certainly Kazin does not see as a force on the Left?

    Because deep inside Kazin *knows* that Nazism was a leftist movement - he just had a lapsus mentis.

  • Meh||

    Maybe he could have made it a two part series. The subject seems important enough to warrant it.

  • ||

    "Because deep inside Kazin *knows* that Nazism was a leftist movement "

    Yeah, that's why the industrialists ate that shit up.

    Fuck off, revisionist tool.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Jon H,

    Yeah, that's why the industrialists ate that shit up.

    What, Industrialists cannot be leftists all of a sudden?

  • ||

    I've never understood that logic. I think Nazism had a lot of leftist features. The fact that businesses played ball to (1) initially avoid the apparently more scary communists and (2) stay in business later on says little about the system except that it was willing to control things by diktat rather than by seizing direct control of everything.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Pro Libertate,

    I've never understood that logic.

    It's called Marxism, P.L. Jon H demonstrated he's quite proficient in it - which should NOT be taken as a compliment to his intelligence, quite the contrary.

  • ||

    Either Hitler let the industrialists keep their businesses because he was a nice guy, or his ideology didn't particularly mind the idea of private enterprise. Ergo, it wasn't particularly leftist.

    What's the Soviet version of Krupp? Why wasn't Messerschmitt nationalized simply to keep in line with socialist ideology? Hitler signed a law to transfer shares of Krupp to his preferred, Nazi-friendly guy: he didn't mind that the guy had shares in a business or made buckets of cash.

  • BakedPenguin||

    "Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on other what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for food- stuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism." - Time Magazine; Jaunuary 2, 1938

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Jon H,

    Either Hitler let the industrialists keep their businesses because he was a nice guy, or his ideology didn't particularly mind the idea of private enterprise.

    That's a false dichotomy. He perfectly tolerated them because of the tax money they provided.

    Ergo, it wasn't particularly leftist.

    For some queer reason, you seem to think that being leftist means one has to be an absolute purist - you seem to forget that lefty ideology is pretty opportunistic, in an ends-justify-means kind of way.

    What's the Soviet version of Krupp? Why wasn't Messerschmitt nationalized simply to keep in line with socialist ideology?

    Hey, idiot - Messerschmitt could not build a SINGLE plane without the authorization of Milch's OKM - nor could Junkers (which was intervened by the government) or Arado or Focke-Wulf or Blom und Voss or Gotha or Siebert or Fieseler, etc.

    Hitler signed a law to transfer shares of Krupp to his preferred, Nazi-friendly guy: he didn't mind that the guy had shares in a business or made buckets of cash.

    And that is supposed to be evidence of a preference for free market capitalism?

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Hitler wasn't interested in letting anyone keep their private property - it's just an issue of how the control is organized. The communists believed that you need to actually have the state own everything and eliminate private ownership. Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, etc. realized that the state didn't actually need to "own" anything, they just needed the power to control what everyone does with their businesses.

    Our current politicians are quite aware of this interesting trick as well. I don't really care what you want to consider as "right" or "left", because honestly, those terms are meaningless and once you get towards the bottom of the nolan chart, they are completely interchangeable.

  • ||

    Agreed. Leftists support republicanism whilst rightists support monarchism. The bearing this has on 20th century totalitarian regimes is a mystery to me. Let's just say they were evilfuckists.

  • ||

    How many private companies survived under Stalin?

    Was Hitler-fan Henry Ford much of a lefty?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Jon H,

    How many private companies survived under Stalin?

    Plenty - it was a quiet secret that many things in the USSR were manufactured privately by politically well-connected party members in highly-regulated and taxed industries.


    Was Hitler-fan Henry Ford much of a lefty?

    No, but he DID send parts and jigs to Soviet Russia to build trucks and cars, in the 20s and 30s.

  • ||

    "No, but he DID send parts and jigs to Soviet Russia to build trucks and cars, in the 20s and 30s."

    I bet he made a profit on it.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Jon H,

    I bet he made a profit on it.

    Ooooohhhh, and that's baaaaaaaaad.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Good lord I hope so! If he didn't, then he really wouldn't have been very bright, huh?

  • Abdul||

    "Henry Ford's brother, Eugene, never became as wealthy or famous despite giving away all of his innovations without making a profit. Some biographers have suggested it was because he gave all his shit away for free."

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Jon H,

    How many private companies survived under Stalin?

    You will have to explain just how do you expect to help your case by what you are implying with this question: That private industry disappeared under Stalin, as if that were something to extol.

    Because that would give the impression that Nazism was a much better ideology than communism when it comes to keeping some of your property. How does that help the case against the left?

  • Old Mexican||

    Sorry - how does that help the case for the left?

  • ||

    Who said I'm making a case for the left? I'm making a case against rightwing revisionism.

    Hitler was right wing. He's your guy.

    What next, "Pinochet was a socialist"? "Franco was a socialist"?

  • ||

    Who said I'm making a case for the left? I'm making a case against rightwing revisionism.

    Do you get pinged every time someone on the interweb dares to disparrage El Che or is it just your day on call? Seriously, what could lead you to believe that coming here and sputtering about how terrible the right is makes you appear anything other than completely over your head? Forget it, Donny, you're out of your element!

  • Sudden||

    A command and control/centrally-planned economy is a feature of the political left, whether private ownership of those means is retained or not distinguishes only between communism/maxism and corporatism/fascism. Quite simply, the modern American left supports many an effort to dictate corporate/industrial policy (typically with collusion from the marketshare leaders within an industry) while not outright socializing it (although they have done that too in several cases, notably automakers).

  • OMG||

    Statist, Fascist - two sides of the same coin. The bottom line is that the state needs to take care of you and is in bed with the corporations that it has brought to heel and bought off (can anyone say "GE"). The only real difference between the modern statist and the classic fascist (in the Mussolini vein) is one of degree.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Jon H,

    Who said I'm making a case for the left? I'm making a case against rightwing revisionism.

    Where's the "rightwing" revisionism?

    Hitler was right wing.

    That's meaningless - he was a Statist, a collectivist.


    What next, "Pinochet was a socialist"? "Franco was a socialist"?

    They both were. Pinochet was a socialist, just not an Allendista. Franco nationalized many industries and imposed protectionist schemes, just like Chavez is doing right now - he was no free market libertarian.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    Realistically, Nazi fascism had characteristics of both of what we call leftwing and rightwing ideology. On the one hand, like the left, the Nazis believed the individual was subordinate to the collective.

    On the other hand, Hitler's rants about nationalism and cultural decay would be familiar to anyone who's ever been in the presence of three or more Republicans.

    Anyway, you don't have to guess at Hitler's opinions. You can get them right from the horse's mouth.

  • Old Mexican||

    On the other hand, Hitler's rants about nationalism and cultural decay would be familiar to anyone who's ever been in the presence of three or more Republicans.

    Hey, Slap - communists ideologues and tyrants ALSO ranted about moral decay and nationalism. The only difference between the different brands of collectivism is that Nazism placed the emphasis on race, whereas communists placed the emphasis on class; the fascists on nation.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    "YOUR GUY"!??

    Who the fuck do you think you're talking to?

  • Sean W. Malone||

    How the hell are you going to define either "right" or "left" and squeeze Hitler & Stalin into them?

    If you define "right" as favoring economic liberty & social control, then Hitler, Franco, Pinochet, Mussolini, etc. fail miserably to fit that category as none of those folks allowed any meaningful economic freedom.

    If you define the "left" as favoring free speech, and social liberalism, with controls on the economy - then I would think Pravda would disillusion you of the idea that Stalin (or Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin, Castro, etc.) qualifies as a leftist...

    "Left" and "Right" is a completely idiotic false dichotomy that simply has not possibly meaningful definition, except in the most moderate of cases. The only meaningful political dichotomy is Liberty vs. Control.

    Libertarians & Anarchists are all the way over on the "Liberty" side, while Totalitarians are all the way on the other end, favoring "Control". So no, Hitler is not "our guy" because we're (libertarians) neither totalitarians nor rightists or leftists!

    Put another way:
    http://www.sean-malone.com/media/SWM Nolan Chart.jpg

  • brotherben||

    I think that General Motors production plants in Germany during WW2 are a much more interesting story.

  • I Heart Capitalisms||

    Lenin tolerated some private enterprise, particularly under the New Economic Policy. Also keep in mind that Hitler was a Nationalist Socialist.
    If we're defining the Left as encompassing the collectivist movements that saw the individual as the property of the collective (whether the collective was the state, the Aryan race, the Proletariat, or the religious community/God) then people like Lenin, Stalin, Che, Hitler, Mussolini, and Khomeini were leftists.

  • ||

    Democrats are a leftist movement....why do they help green industrialists?

  • max||

    I would contend that the Peoples Republic of China is a modern day example of fascism. While, there are some private ownership of property and industry, the economy is still largely controlled and directed by the central government. In a sense, it has moved rightward from communism to fascism, though it is certainly still to the left of social or liberal democracy.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    I would contend that the People's Republic of California is also a fine example of modern-day fascism.

  • Johnny Longtorso||

    Beck constantly differentiates between "Progressives" and "Democrats", presumably even the liberal Democrats. Stalinism is the logical conclusion of progressiveism.

  • ¢||

    I caught the Beck show (for you, Jacket), my first venture into Fox News land in many years, and only my second ever. Production-wise, I didn't like it. Too 700 Club. That works on YouTube, but on TV, it's shitty. And the quick-hit runthrough style made it seem kind of crazy, if you don't know the story already. There's nothing wrong with the story itself, though.

    The "Social-Democrats," like fascists (and like fascists), were competitors to communism, not its enemies. To non-leftists, the story of 20th Century totalitarianism is, on the political level, a story of lefty infighting. Leftists, of course, don't like people saying that.

    Fuck them.

  • Sudden||

    The "Social-Democrats," like fascists (and like fascists), were competitors to communism, not its enemies

    This comment is full of awesome and win.

  • Hank||

    You had me at: Fuck them!

    Beck's totally worth watching. Crazy - fuck yeah he is! But, he has the Judge on quite a bit (and the Jacket, Paul, Schiff) and actually talks about crazy topics...like the economy.

    If you want to see some crazy shit and learn all about Beck, watch Olberdickface. He has rational guest on like Lawrence O'donnell.

  • Harrison Bergeron||

    The "Social-Democrats," like fascists (and like fascists), were competitors to communism, not its enemies

    Meh, Crips- Bloods

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    I'd still make a distinction between communism and competing ideologies like social democracy and fascism. In countries under control of social democracy and fascism, most people still retained the right of exit. For the most part, Hitler rarely prevented people from leaving Nazi Germany.

    That's not something that's true of any communist country, with the exception of China, which is mostly communist in name only.

  • affenkopf||

    Somehow the Social Democrats unlike communists and facists managed to govern without mass killings. But since they are lefties it's all the same. Moral relativism FTW!

  • ||

    He writes, accurately, that “‘the first anti-Communists were democratic socialists and anarchists like Emma Goldman’

    Really? No one further to the right than the soc-dems and Emma Goldman was opposed to Communism until later?

  • classwarrior||

    Nick, a little context and perspective regarding Che would help. Check Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara, and you'll find he presided over several hundred executions mainly of those guilty of war crimes, with the approval of over 90% of the population. Compare this to the estimated 20,000 killed by the Batista regime. I know this is ideologically inconvenient, and many libertarians have a difficult relationship with intellectual honesty, but it's something that must be said.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Classwarrior,

    Check Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara, and you'll find he presided over several hundred executions mainly of those guilty of war crimes,

    Yes. War Crimes. By the way, Sophie Scholl was beheaded after being convicted of a war crime...

    This is what the woefully apologetic article in Wikipedia says about his executions:

    "What is acknowledged by all sides is that Guevara had become a "hardened" man, who had no qualms about the death penalty or summary and collective trials. If the only way to "defend the revolution was to execute its enemies, he would not be swayed by humanitarian or political arguments."

    There is no mention of executing people for war crimes, only for being "enemies of the revolution", which could include libertarians for all he cared.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: classwarrior,

    and you'll find he presided over several hundred executions mainly of those guilty of war crimes, with the approval of over 90% of the population.

    You now, your gullibility is incredible - where do you think such a poll was obtained? Does it seem factual to you?

  • Les||

    classwarrior,

    You sound exactly like the neocons who defend indefinite detentions, enhanced interrogations, and preemptive invasions. It's probably because, details aside, you're exactly like them.

  • feisty penguin||

    In the world's worst dictatorships, voting is compulsory. Think about that for a minute.

  • smartass sob||

    Of course voting is compulsory - they need the appearance of legitimacy. They want it to look as though the majority of the population supports the system.

  • affenkopf||

    In Australia voting is cumpulsory as well, think about that.

  • MattXIV||

    Which is precisely why the US gov't must torture suspected terrorists. What is the pain inflicted on a handful of detanees by waterboarding compared to the loss of thousands of US civilians to their ilk?

    Thank you classwarrior for once again showing the main difference between left-wing and right-wing authoritarianism is the marginal tax rates.

  • Jordan||

    Oh well, if 90% of the population approved, then carry on.

  • ||

    "...he presided over several hundred executions mainly of those guilty of war crimes, with the approval of over 90% of the population. Compare this to the estimated 20,000 killed by the Batista regime. I know this is ideologically inconvenient..."

    Yes, it is ideologically inconvenient to say 20,000 murders makes several hundred murders OK...

    "but it's something that must be said."

    As necessary as taking a big steaming dump, which is what your comments amount to.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    +1

  • Johnny Longtorso||

    Nothing nowhere has "the approval of over 90% of the population".

  • ||

    you can say that again!

  • 10% of the population||

    "..."

    Oh wait they aren't saying anything, because they are dead or in hiding.

  • Coco||

    Other than me.

  • Kiwi Dave||

    I'm wondering what happened to the 10% who answered "no" to the opinion poll.

    Anyway, since when did Libertarians have a brief for Battista? Right wing dictators are just as nasty as left wing dictators.

  • ||

  • Johnny Longtorso||

    How many people did Che kill compared to how many Ted Bundy killed? Bundy wasn't on the top 100 historically, but the women who wanted to marry him in prison are generally considered idiots.

  • classlesswarrior||

    How you know that 90% of the population doesn't approve of Ted Bundy's actions?

  • Kiwi Dave||

    I haven't seen Beck's documentary, but it is certainly true that the center-left was a cricial ally against Communism.

    For instance, until Thatcher, the British Labour Party was consistently more pro-American when in government than the Tories; despite being well to the left of either party in America, and a party with actual socialist roots, Labour was staunch in opposition to Communism. In America, the mainstream union movement was solidly anti-Communist. Left-wing anti-Communists like Koestler, Orwell and Kundera were hugely important in the intellectual struggle against totalitarian socialism.

    So even though we disagree with the center-left on policy, we should recognize that the mainstream center-left in western Europe and the USA not only aren't to blame for totalitarian Communism, but should get some credit.

    It's also probably true that had the western European countries not gone down the road of a mixed-economy social-democratic welfare state, at least some of them would have gone Communist. Italy was touch-and-go for a while, as were Greece and France.

  • alan||

    Greece had the alternative to being a social-democratic welfare basket case, or of being a communist basket case? At least with the later choice the lesson would have already been learned.

  • People Power Hour||

    Glenn Beck is a festering turd.

  • ||

    But Nick Gillespie, when he's not citing polls to fuel a post, is just ga-ga for the Glenn.

  • mikheil||

    why do we even differentiate between left and right totalitarianism....shouldn't we just use the differentiate between anarchism and totalitarianism?

  • Sean W. Malone||

    "We" don't. The general news media, largely populated by retards, does - because they don't think very well. And yes, we should only differentiate between anarchism & totalitarianism and rate people on the continuum in between those extremes.

  • ||

    MATT XIV: Which is precisely why the US gov't must torture suspected terrorists. What is the pain inflicted on a handful of detanees by waterboarding compared to the loss of thousands of US civilians to their ilk?
    I'm glad I have an ally who thinks the ends justify the means. That's the lefty motto.

  • ||

    What a stunning intellectual debate we have here.

    And you guys wonder why no one takes you seriously?

    Circle jerk.

  • Meh||

    What would you have us debate?

  • alan||

    Radosh claims that Beck is telling half the story here. I don't claim that Radosh is being dishonest, looks like a fairly good thesis he builds on, but there is much more to it that needs to be elaborated. Beck tells a quarter of a story, Radosh tells another quarter of it, the old right which public monies were used to discredit gets another quarter, and the 60's New Left probably deserves the remaining chunk.

    Not only did Social Democrats lay the ground work for Anti-Communism, but they laid the ground work for the Cold War, the CIA, and nearly everything pernicious that our side was responsible for during that struggle.

    If they want credit for some of the meager progress they made in advancing a dissident movement within Communist states that were doomed from the start due to their back ass wards economies, or if Elliot Abrams is to be believed, making Central America a little less bloody by reigning in the brutality of those we supported (I'm agnostic to the veracity of that claim, I've seen lies come from every direction) then okay, give them credit, but they also should pick up the tab for the trouble they have caused us starting with a military and foriegn affairs establishment with the most bloated price tag in the history of mankind which they are more than a little responsible for given their guys like Scoop Jackson were the architects of its current entrenched mass.

    Buy all means Social Democrats, pat yourself on the back, but then be sure to stretch that hand further down to your wallets because you owe us all big time.

  • ||

    "A major anti-Communist operative during the years of the Cold War was Jay Lovestone, head of the AFL-CIO’s international apparatus, which he singlehandedly transformed into an active organization fighting the Communists in Italy, Germany, Japan and elsewhere. When some supporters of Senator Joe McCarthy attacked his outfit as working with leftists, Lovestone responded that “they don’t understand that the Social-Democrats are our best allies in the fight against the Communists.”

    If you mention that, you might as well mention George Meany...

    The AFL-CIO under his leadership worked to decertify communist labor unions here in the United States of America, not to mention what he and his friend Lovestone did overseas.

    From working with American companies (rather than working with the government to take them over) to being able to brag at the end of his life that he'd never walked a picket line... There was a time when labor leaders thought of free markets and labor as something that should work together.

    Someone should do a documentary about how far the American labor movement has strayed from the labor and trade unions of the 1950s and '60s, that's supposed to be the golden years of labor, isn't it?

    If Meany were alive today, I suspect he might have thought Gettelfinger un-American. Speaking for myself, as a taxpayer and a consumer, I know I have a hard time trying to think of labor unions these days as anything other than the enemy.

  • Why am I posting||

    Ok, so Hitler was a leftist. So....I am a lefty if I....

    1. Believe in Nationalism

    2. ID enemies of the state.

    3. Build-up my military for world, or at least continental conquest.

    4. Have a glaring obsession with national security.

    5. Protect corporate power.

    6. Suppress labor unions and communist organizations.

    7. Have a disdain for intellectuals

    8. Conduct fraudulent elections

    9. Have an obsession with crime and punishment.

    You see, part of the problem I have with these critiques is that they take some generalized similarities and lump them together. I seriously question the academic who believes the above ideas, central tenants of fascism, belong on the left of the political spectrum exclusively.

  • Jason||

    John T. Flynn argues that the nationalism arises out of the need to protect their welfare state from liberal economies.

    Corporatism is not protection of business corporations, but rather a philosophy viewing the state as an organic whole (a body, or corpus) and the the system of guilds, called corporations, that represent various industries. The corporations are made up of three groups: the owners/managers, the workers (incorporating trade unions), and consumers (the entire nation being the consumer of most products, the government makes up part of this group). Business governance would be structured in the same way. Membership in a corporation is mandatory and people vote for representatives from their own corporation to form the government. Industry standards, wages, etc, are set by the consent of all three groups in the corporation.

    I suggest A. Raven Thomson's The Coming Corporate State (Microsoft Reader required) for an exposition of corporatism and fascism written by a fascist.

  • smartass sob||

    I seriously question the academic who believes the above ideas, central tenants of fascism, belong on the left of the political spectrum exclusively.

    You do realize that everything you've listed, with the exception of item number 5 and to some degree items 6 and 7, were characteristics of the Soviet Union?

  • ||

    You just basically described the USSR and Maoist China, as well as a host of other leftist dictatorships.

    Oops.

  • ||

    He writes, accurately, that “‘the first anti-Communists were democratic socialists and anarchists like Emma Goldman

    technically wasn't the first enemy of Stalinism Hitler?

    And wasn't it socialist democrat FDR who allied with Stalin?

    Pointing out how different leftists groups fought wars against each throughout the 20th century spilling the blood of millions really does not help their cause.

    If anything the 20th century is proof that the left are warmongers.

  • ||

    Warmongerers... Internally and externally.

  • Lil Papi||

    I probably missed the party on this thread but I'd like to make a separate, maybe larger, point. Glenn Beck owes his entire newly found fame to hammering on the point that a socialist is now running the country. The debate as to whether or not social democrats ever helped fight communism is missing Beck's insinuation entirely. The man who wrote in his diary that Sarah Palin is the only one who can save us is dogwhistling to his audience that it is a matter of time before Obama and ACORN are opening gulags and death camps. Maybe you don't buy it, but you and I are not his target audience. I wonder if anyone asked him "You aren't insinuating this is what Obama has planned, are you?" or "Wow Glenn, this is just like the time when you attacked socialist ideas like corn subsidies, Medicare and the NFL." Glenn Beck does not give a frack about socialism or communism or fascism or you for that matter. He plunged into a crowded market segment with aplomb and realized that he had to outcrazy crazy and he's getting rich off of it. Good for him, but at least recognize him for what he is.

  • ed||

    Anyone who idolizes the idiot Palin as much as Beck does already has one foot in Crazyland. And what, exactly, is her job there at FOX? To be interviewed? That's it? Has even Fox News finally begun to realize that Mrs. Palin is utterly clueless?

  • ||

    Social Democrats for all their faults Keynesian spending, over bloated welfare systems and punitive taxes were even more vehemently opposed to Communist than the Right.

    In Sweden the Social Democrats even created a secret oranisation wihtin teh Swedish State Security Forces, a police within the secrete police the IB, Information Bureau, it collected information on Communists so that they could be expelled from government positions and from Unions as well as from the Defense forces. It was completely staffed by trustworthy social democrats and the best informers were trade union officials and factory union representatives. A sort of Social Democratic version of the softer version of Mussolini's fascist Black Shirts.

    The blackballing and blacklisting of Communists in Sweden makes Joe McCarty look like a choir boy in comparison.

    Wikipedia The IB affair

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement