The Bifurcated Tea Party

It deserves the usual admonition that you read through the whole thing, but when consuming Matt Continetti’s very smart feature on the Janus-faced Tea Party movement pay particular attention to the section on Glenn Beck, whom he deems “the voice of a reactionary counterculture.” Continetti argues, subtly and convincingly, that the Beck strain of conservatism is not unlike its Bircher antecedent—after all, Beck is an acolyte of the turtle-faced crank W. Cleon Skousen, a longtime associate of the John Birch Society—and, in the spirit of William F. Buckley’s 1962 ideological “Night of the Long Knives,” during which the National Review editor cast the cranks out of the movement, the mainstream right might want to rethink its relationship with Fox News’s most popular conspiracy monger.

Read and watch enough Glenn Beck, and you realize that he is not only introducing new authors and ideas into public life, he is reintroducing old ideas. Some very old ideas. The notion that America’s leaders are indistinguishable from America’s enemies has a long and sorry history. In the 1950s it led Robert Welch, the head of the John Birch Society, to proclaim that President Dwight Eisenhower was a Communist sympathizer. For this, William F. Buckley Jr. famously denounced Welch and severed the Birchers’ ties to mainstream conservatism. The group was ostracized for decades…

For Beck, conspiracy theories are not aberrations. They are central to his worldview. They are the natural consequence of assuming that the world hangs by a thread, and that everyone is out to get you. On his television program, Beck promised to “find out what’s true and what’s not with the FEMA concentration camps”—referring to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, a federal bureaucracy that chiefly funnels relief funds to victims of natural disasters, and is more commonly (and accurately) thought of as punchless. Beck later acknowledged that his staff could not find any evidence for such camps. Beck has urged his viewers to read The Coming Insurrection, an impenetrable political tract by a French Marxist group called The Invisible Committee that has no clear relationship to U.S. politics (or to reality). In Glenn Beck’s Common Sense, the author writes that “efforts are now also being made to empower the State to retain, test, and research the blood and DNA of newborn babies.”

I have written previously of the Beck’s peculiar version of American history, though haven’t revisited his show in some time. So when a colleague from Europe, in town to promote a new book, asked if had seen Beck’s latest “investigation” into a shadowy government conspiracy he was calling “Crime Inc.,” I headed straight for YouTube and found this video, in which Beck advises his army of viewers to do research on Google (!) and begin uncovering the conspiracy so immense. But don’t just send a link, Beck advises, "burn a DVD" and take "screenshots" before Obama’s sturmabteilung wipes the Internet clean.

“How do you expose this, Beck asks, with a tinge of panic in his voice, “and live?”

And it's always hyperbolic, heavy-breathing stuff, no matter the subject. I loathe Woodrow Wilson, but was he, as Beck recently announced on his television show, "the most evil dude ever"? Nor am I a fan of the journalist Walter Lippmann, though what of Beck’s bizarre claim that the Public Opinion author, whose books are “diabolical,” was “almost as evil, if not more evil” than Woodrow Wilson? Continetti picks up the theme:

“Socialism and fascism,” the author writes in Glenn Beck’s Common Sense, “have been on the rise for two administrations now.” Beck’s book Arguing with Idiots contains a list of the “Top Ten Bastards of All Time,” on which Pol Pot (No. 10), Adolf Hitler (No. 6), and Pontius Pilate (No. 4) all rank lower than FDR (No. 3) and Woodrow Wilson (No. 1). In Glenn Beck’s Common Sense Beck writes, “With a few notable exceptions, our political leaders have become nothing more than parasites who feed off our sweat and blood.”

This is nonsense. Whatever you think of Theodore Roosevelt, he was not Lenin. Woodrow Wilson was not Stalin. The philosophical foundations of progressivism may be wrong. The policies that progressivism generates may be counterproductive. Its view of the Constitution may betray the Founders’. Nevertheless, progressivism is a distinctly American tradition that partly came into being as a way to prevent ideologies like communism and fascism from taking root in the United States. And not even the stupidest American liberal shares the morality of the totalitarian monsters whom Beck analogizes to American politics so flippantly.

Read it all 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.

  • ||

    With a few notable exceptions, our political leaders have become nothing more than parasites who feed off our sweat and blood.

    This is nonsense.

    I dunno. Sounds about right to me.

    Nevertheless, progressivism is a distinctly American tradition that partly came into being as a way to prevent ideologies like communism and fascism from taking root in the United States.

    I think that's a little strong. More like, progressivism is the form that the collectivism that also produced communism and fascism took in the United States. The progressives weren't trying to inoculate us against collectivism; they were trying to implement it as best they could given what they had to work with here.

  • G-Love||

    Agreed.

  • ||

    I'm with you. And this idea that "progressivism" came into being as a way to combat communism and facism is absurd.

  • CAW||

    Social democracy was, however.

  • Tman||

    this idea that "progressivism" came into being as a way to combat communism and facism is absurd.

    Yeah, I don't understand how you square that circle. So "progressivism" combats fascism and communism, how exactly?

  • BakedPenguin||

    In one of her essays, Rand called it something like "homeopathic" socialism. You take sub-lethal doses of the poison to build up an immunity to it.

    It works as well as homeopathic medicine.

  • ||

    Is it immunity or tolerance? I think more likely (and what the agenda is) is that what we're talking about is incrementalism. A little socialism here, a little facism there and pretty soon, before you know it, you have have Obama appointing a health care czar, bailing out Wall Street Banks and bureaucrats dictating how much salt you are allowed to put on your food.

  • ||

    The basic argument went something like this: "The communists are exploiting the plight of the poor and inciting them to revolution. We need to diminish the appeal of communism by helping the poor ourselves." It's not a bad argument in a way, but the problems are: 1) too often the remedies were just Socialism Lite instead of free market based, and 2) problem #1 was perfect for the Fabian socialist strategy of incrementalism.

  • shrike||

    Fabian? Is that like Bush Socialism?

    I get the nutcase CT mixed up.

  • CatoTheElder||

    I think you mean "compassionate conservatism".

    Bush believed in free markets so much that he violated every principle of free markets in order to save them.

  • shrike||

    Like I have any business criticizing Bush...

  • Inkblots||

    Indeed. We'd all do well not to forget the mutual esteem in the '20s and '30s between many of the leading intellectuals of the progressive movement in the US and UK and the fascists and scientific socialists of Continental Europe.

  • Jason||

    Yup... it seems to me that Progressive Era (1890s-1920s) predates Fascism (1910s to 1945, essentially).

  • ||

    I vote "mostly parasite", too.

    As for the Progressive Era, it was about as much socialism as a commercial nation like the U.S. could tolerate at the time. A lot of poison was introduced into the body politic then, poison that's still in our system, creeping toward our heart.

  • shrike||

    Why doesn't Beck attack the progressive Teddy Roosevelt?

    Beck is an well paid errand-boy for Murdoch and the GOP.

    The fact is you have to be an uneducated (like Beck himself) greasy-headed redneck to even be drawn to his ridiculous propaganda.

  • WTF||

    Not unlike the Current Occupant. Except substitute "slack-jawed, mouth-breathing dupe" for "greasy-headed redneck".

  • Nine Bullets||

    I have heard Beck go after TR, listing him as bad, but not as bad as WW.

    Does the Team Red/Team Blue thing still apply to Presidents from more than 100 years ago?

  • ||

    Beck has attacked TR many many times. Especially when McCain talked about being a "Teddy Roosevelt Republican."

    Beck makes these odd and strange connections to disparate points and figures and events. It's just silly.

    At the bottom of it all (way down there), he has a small point. I.e., Tocqueville's warning about the "bland despotism" of the democratic state and how a bigger state diminishes the citizen. But beyond that, Beck is, well, he's a crank.

  • shrike||

    So where is TR on Beck's Top Ten tyrants list?

    I admit to not reading his goofy fucking book.

  • Amakudari||

    He falls in at number 8.

    Seriously.

    You can stop your hand-wringing now.

  • Jeffersonian||

    There goes the shrikeshriek.

  • ||

    I admit to not reading his goofy fucking book

    Since you're really not interested, I'll pass.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    I wonder what would happen if Beck ever read Foccault's Pendulum

  • shrike||

    I love progressivism. I would fuck it if I could. In the ass.

  • ||

    Beck’s book Arguing with Idiots contains a list of the "Top Ten Bastards of All Time," on which Pol Pot (No. 10), Adolf Hitler (No. 6), and Pontius Pilate (No. 4) all rank lower than FDR (No. 3) and Woodrow Wilson (No. 1).

    I've never heard of the book but it seems pretty inarguable that Pontius Pilate and Pol Pot did far less to screw up the United States than any President in the 20th century.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Yeah, but saying someone is a "bastard of all time" is wrong. TR, FDR, WW do all suck hard.

    But the only one who could come close to Pol Pot is FDR, who allowed millions to fall under communist slavery (and could have prevented it), and millions died as a result.

  • ||

    But the only one who could come close to Pol Pot is FDR, who allowed millions to fall under communist slavery (and could have prevented it), and millions died as a result.

    Gosh, I don't think the country was willing to fight the Soviets at that time.

    And as the saying goes, armies don't fight wars, nations fight wars.

  • Ray||

    Its a good thing there is no liberal anywhere that calls mundane Republicans "Worst People in the World".

  • Some Guy||

    But the only one who could come close to Pol Pot is FDR, who allowed millions to fall under communist slavery (and could have prevented it), and millions died as a result.

    So Stalin doesn't even come close but FDR does?

    I'm no FDR fan, but that's just silly.

    If Pontius Pilate were around today, he'd be the most popular sheriff in Arizona.

  • Joshua||

    That's really not fair to PP. In effect, he said "There's gonna be an execution here, you country bumpkins tell me who's invited to the party."

    And, like Judas Iscariot, without PP, there would have been no crucifixion. Which wouldn't have any effect on ME, but the the christians think it's a big deal.

  • ||

    I'm sure Joe Arpaio has arrested more than a few guys named Jesus, but beyond that I don't see your point.

  • ||

    But the only one who could come close to Pol Pot is FDR, who allowed millions to fall under communist slavery (and could have prevented it), and millions died as a result.

    And there is a pretty good argument to be made that Pol Pot never would have taken control without the United States bombing Cambodia. Which means we need to put Nixon near the top. And maybe LBJ and JFK. Eisenhower too since the "domino theory" was the brainchild of his administration. But Nixon was his veep, so maybe just Nixon is sufficient.

  • ||

    And there is a pretty good argument to be made that Pol Pot never would have taken control without the United States bombing Cambodia. Which means we need to put Nixon near the top.

    But if the North Vietnamese didn't use Cambodia as a sanctuary, Nixon wouldn't have bombed Cambodia.

    Besides, William Shawcross has revised that argument.

    Anyway, I blame Momma and Poppa Pot.

  • ||

    Kissinger pwned Nixon...David Rockefeller pwned Kissinger...so really David Rockefeller is the worst guy ever.

  • JoshINHB||

    Beck’s book Arguing with Idiots contains a list of the "Top Ten Bastards of All Time," on which Pol Pot (No. 10), Adolf Hitler (No. 6), and Pontius Pilate (No. 4) all rank lower than FDR (No. 3) and Woodrow Wilson (No. 1).
    I've never heard of the book but it seems pretty inarguable that Pontius Pilate and Pol Pot did far less to screw up the United States than any President in the 20th century.

    Woodrow Wilson's legacy

    1) Created the FED
    Almost 100 years of fiat money enabled war, welfare & inflation

    2) Lied his way into WWI. Fucked Up the peace, paved the way for WWII.

    3) Enacted war socialism on US economy, became an inspiration for FDR in the GD & WWII

    4) Created the idea of a US duty to "make the world safe for democracy" led directly to the US role as world policeman

    5) Helped get the 16th(income tax) 17th (direct election of senators) and 18th(prohibition) amendments passed

    6) Enshrined segregation as federal policy.

    Seems pretty fucking bad to me

  • Jason||

    You missed creating the American Protective League.

  • AA||

    "And not even the stupidest American liberal shares the morality of the totalitarian monsters..."

    Not a big Glen Beck fan, but I'm not sure this statement is entirely accurate either.

  • MattN||

    I noticed this too. It's amazing how people so easily slip into sensationalizing and propagandizing, even when they're critiquing someone else who does it.

  • Tony||

    Ignorant fuck, to be a progressive is to be anti-totalitarian. We care more about abuses of power than you do, and we've done a hell of a lot more about it than you have.

  • ||

    Oh right, that's why progressives like Code Pink and Oliver Stone continue to suck up to Castro and Chavez, and why Chomsky made excuses for the Khmer Rouge, and why Hellman and Hammett and Trumbo and Seeger were such fans of Stalin, etc. etc.

  • 43hr||

    Chomsky never 'made excuses' for the Khmer Rouge. He very clearly doesn't sympathize with their politics, and is fully aware of everything that took place under their rule. He simply made some clarifications about the death toll number, and provided some context to their rise. He also points out how various western governments later supported them once they had been ousted by a Vietnamese invasion, and were back to being a guerilla movement, since the new government was Vietnam-supported and the US was anti-Vietnam.

  • ||

    No, it was more than that. Every step of the way Chomsky was putting events "in context" by blaming the US, or swallowing Khmer Rouge propaganda, or saying it wasn't their fault they had to hitch people to plows, or attacking the messenger for reporting atrocities. It all boiled down to "US bad, commies not so bad, and if the commies are bad it's the fault of the US for forcing them to be that way, and the US is hypocritical when it does support them against a common enemy." It was the same playbook we heard from the American left defending Stalin, with different names and locations and an academic gloss added as frosting.

  • MWG||

    It takes little more than a light search on Google to show that Chomsky's defense of the KR went a little further than "clarifications about the death toll number, and [providing] some context to their rise".

  • ||

    When they hitched old people to plows, Chomsky said it was because American bombers had killed the draft animals. That really happened, and sorry but the leftists don't get to laugh it away this time as they have done in the past with Stalin.

  • Contemplationist||

    HAHAHAH. Ah, man. Pick up any random manuscript from buttfuckers in University English departments in the 60s, 70s, hell even 80s, and you'll see Stalin apologia.

    Progressives have the dubious distinction of being strenuous anti-anti-Communists while mildly rebuking the mass murderering tyrants of the left. Heh Castro is still lionized in many circles.

  • ||

    Don't forget the mandatory Mao bible or Marxist Manifesto ;)

  • ||

    Tony is right they are totally anti totalitarian AS LONG AS YOU DO EVERY FUCKING THING THAT THEY TELL YOU!

    There you go Tony! Now the serfs are getting it!

  • Jeffersonian||

    Can someone rent Tony a fucking clue?

  • Tony, simplified||

    ...except for progressive totalitarianism, which is for your own fucking good, as you are nothing but ignorant children if you don't depend on government guidance at least SOME of the time.

  • Tony||

    Nice try, impostor, but I am the real Tony and you didn't go nearly far enough explaining the glory and virtue of progressivism.

  • ||

    In the past three months, I have seen Sean Penn suggest that anyone who calls Hugo Chavez a dictator be imprisoned (which is like a Jeff Foxworthy "you might be a dictator if..." joke), Woody Allen and Thomas Friedman dream of giving Obama dictatorial powers, and Oliver Stone release a love letter "documentary" to Latin American dictators. Sorry, what's crazy is the worldview of people who think like that, not the people who point out it exists.

  • jtuf||

    I tried Beck's radio show a few time. It did not agree with me.

  • mattrue||

    I can only tolerate it when his sidekicks are making fun of something. Those guys need their own show!

    Beck just floated in on the anti Obama tsunami. He's appealing because he's less republicanny than Rush. But now that we have tasted Democratic control, President Limbaugh would be AWESOME!!!

  • ||

    the funny thing is that real conspiracy theorists hate glenn beck. they like alex jones, jim marrs or david icke.

  • Tman||

    That's what I don't understand about the push to make Beck out to be a conspiracy-monger. He's a little nutso, and leaves the reservation quite a bit, but he's done more to smack down the truly stupid conspiracies of the alex jones, jim marrs or david icke stripes than anyone else in the media of which I'm aware.

    But yeah, sorry Glenn, FDR and Wilson weren't worse than Pol Pot or Hitler. That's some powerful stupid.

  • SIV||

    Pol Pot and Hitler aren't venerated by the current ruling political ideology in America

  • shrike||

    Teabaggers only rule in your mind.

  • oh no not this again||

    +1

  • BakedPenguin||

    Tman - as I wrote above, FDR allowed millions to come under communist slavery, and die as a result.

    While that is something less than Pol Pot's directed genocide, it's pretty evil. I'd probably have a list like :

    Stalin
    Mao
    Hitler
    Pol Pot
    Lenin
    Castro
    FDR

  • Tman||

    Yeah, I'll buy that, but I'm not putting him in FRONT of the others.

  • Jason||

    You're missing Woodrow Wilson... remember the APL, Palmer Raids, and Creel Committee?

  • strat||

    It's frustrating to see someone promote Hayek's work on national television, and have the other stuff come along for the ride. I take what I can use and leave the rest, but for some reason, it seems in myriad ways America hasn't realized that option.

  • shrike||

    Hayek would piss on Beck for sure.

    He hated conservatives.

  • Hayek||

    I hate you, too, shrike. Now, stop invoking my name to prove your pointlessness.

  • JoshINHB||

    But yeah, sorry Glenn, FDR and Wilson weren't worse than Pol Pot or Hitler. That's some powerful stupid

    Who did more to fuck over America, Pol Pot or Wilsom? Hitler or FDR?

    If your a world citizen first then yeah the foreigners were way worse.

    If your an American then who fucked up your constitution and country?

  • ||

    Yeah, sure, but look at the title of the ranking, there is nothing about "US" in it. So, this list is meant for all of the world.

  • ||

    Getting hung up on cardinal ranking of badness is silly.

    who supported Pol Pot?...Z Brezinski. It is in his book "Grand Chessboard". Z is still a very prominent US foreign Policy decision maker. Who funded Hitler? Brown Brothers Harriman...Prescott Bush's firm...Z brezinski and Prescott Bush. The political establishment that worked with or supported or was supported by Woodrow Wilson, CFR, JP Morgan is bad.

  • ||

    This article was written dishonestly in bad faith, and here is the proof:

    " On his television program, Beck promised to “find out what’s true and what’s not with the FEMA concentration camps”—referring to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, a federal bureaucracy that chiefly funnels relief funds to victims of natural disasters, and is more commonly (and accurately) thought of as punchless. Beck later acknowledged that his staff could not find any evidence for such camps."

    This quote is intended to leave the reader with an impression that is 180 degrees from reality. It makes it sound as if Beck was pushing the FEMA camps story, and then sheepishly had to admit that he couldn't prove it. BULL-FUCKING-SHIT. Beck was asked (I believe it was on a morning show) if he could debunk the story, and answered that he didn't know enough about it to debunk it, but would look into it. About 4 days later, he dedicated an entire episode of his show to EVISCERATING the FEMA camps conspiracy story. He went through the video and took it apart piece by piece, explaining that the "camp" was a train repair yard, that the "gas chamber pipes" were a climate control system, that the "satellite photo" was from a North Korean camp, and finally that the video itself had been kicking around for years under multiple administrations, always with a different secret rationale for who was going to use it and why. Beck NEVER supported or hyped this conspiracy theory, and in fact put more effort into blowing it apart than any other major media outlet. Moynihan either didn't research this and is making up Beck's role in his imagination, or is aware ofthis and deliberately trying to mislead the reader. Which one is it?

  • ||

    The FEMA camp stuff started with.

    Oliver North's controversial Rex-84 "readiness exercise" in 1984. This called for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to round up and detain 400,000 imaginary "refugees," in the context of "uncontrolled population movements".

    People got more paranoid after this guilty acting response to questioning on C-Span:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug0IL7k3elQ

    If you are not retarded you can easily use google to search for many legit sources that discuss the KBR(the Halliburton subsidiary) and their $385 million contract from the Department of Homeland Security to provide "temporary detention and processing capabilities."

    The contract -- announced Jan. 24 by the engineering and construction firm KBR -- calls for preparing for "an emergency influx of immigrants, or to support the rapid development of new programs" in the event of other emergencies, such as "a natural disaster." The release offered no details about where Halliburton was to build these facilities, or when.

    over the Mexican border into the United States. North's activities raised civil liberties concerns in both Congress and the Justice Department. The concerns persist.and he ignored the KBR contracts to build camps to detain 20 million "aliens" if neccesary.

    People who don't trust the government(aka people who are not retarded) think maybe the government has plans to use these facilities for people other than "aliens". People who are conspiracy nuts that don't like Glenn Beck think the gleen beck types are trying to stir up hate of "aliens" to make it easier for the government to go after "white Al Quada"(aka people who don't trust the government) at some time in the future.

  • ||

    I think the seed of truth at the root of a lot of FEMA paranoia was the guy Reagan originally appointed to head it, who was basically a Gen. Jack D. Ripper-type who put together all sorts of scary-looking martial law plans to implement in the event of nuclear war or civil insurrection. Supposedly the various agencies whose fiefdoms he was infringing on exerted pressure to force him out before Reagan's first term was over.

    Since then FEMA has been a fairly neglected political siberia, the emptiness and incompetence of which Katrina provided exhibit A.

  • Tman||

    Continetti is getting the story completely wrong about the FEMA camps conspiracy. Beck never bought that they were "concentration camps" and he spent several segments of his show dedicated to debunking that theory. If this is what Continetti passes for judgment about Beck, then he needs to go back and try a little harder next time.

  • MattN||

    I agree.

    To me the piece really is nothing more than a hit-job on Beck, and a correlative attempt to then disparage half of the "Tea-partiers" based on a weak guilt-by-association argument.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Why bother with the facts when there's a plausible smear?

    After all, that's the way Beck treated Medina.

  • ||

    Wait, Pilate got ranked above Judas and the Pharisees?

  • iamtheeviltwin||

    I've never really understood this mentality amongst the newer branches of Christianity...
    I think it comes from a backlash against the anti-Semitism of the Old-World beliefs that hating Jews was OK because they killed Jesus...
    Since in the post WWII US we love Israel we can't blame them for killing Jesus...better to blame the Roman.

  • iamtheeviltwin||

    *Old-World Church...(preview is your friend)

  • ||

    He washed his hands.

  • BakedPenguin||

  • Stormy Dragon||

    I actually agree with that. The Pharisees were worried Jesus's followers would grow into a revolutionary movement (not a crazy fear given some of the apostles were advocating exactly that) and bring the fist of Rome down on them. While there solution to that certainly wasn't good, they at least had good intentions.

    Pilate was a politician who executed a man he himself admitted was innocent just so that people would stop pestering him about it.

  • ||

    Pilate was a politician who executed a man he himself admitted was innocent just so that people would stop pestering him about it.

    That's the official version in the Gospels. Reality may have differed.

  • ||

    Applying the clan superstitions of desert, hairless primates from 2,000 years ago to current thinking is really fuckin' goofy.

  • ||

    Whatever. Beck is currently talking about public pensions. We need to shut him down immediately.

  • Pontius PIlate||

    I wash my hands of Glenn Beck

  • shrike||

    Concerning "Crime Inc" Beck is pushing some conspiracy that the CCX is owned by Tides, Goldman Sachs, and Obama operatives.

    One quick glance shows that the CCX is a full subsidiary of the London Stock Exchange (but about to be sold to commodity traders ICE in Atlanta).

    Beck is a full time liar.

  • ||

    It's fiction.

    Not a Beck fanboy here, but damn, man.

  • shrike||

    So why doesn't Beck tell his gullible audience that?

  • shrike||

    I, on the other hand, believe everything Keith Olbermann says, without bothering to fact-check or even consider the act of doubting him.

  • shrike||

    I'm also a racist prick who hates people like Walter E. Williams because he and his ilk just won't stay on the liberal plantation where they belong.

  • Jeff P||

    Beck is a TV show entertainer, nothing more. He knows how to keep'em tuned in for a few hours. To legitimize him as a conservative idealogue is to insult conservative idealogues.
    He's a song-n-dance man compared to splinter movements of the past, albeit one tuned by the party-at-large to keep their ideas circulating.

  • ||

    "Nothing more"? The man has his positives and negatives, but "nothing more"? Tell that to ACORN. Tell that to the Tea Parties, who are going to do more to translate our (libertarian) ideals into actual people who hold real offices than 40 years of the inconsequntial entity that is the Libertarian Party ( Joe many did they ever get to march on Washington?). Tell it to the admitted communist Van Jones.
    The gigantic surge in anti- statism, pro-gold standard/anti-Fed, anti corporatist bailout state, etc has been given much of its popularity, focus, and effectiveness through Beck's show and the outgrowths of the 9/12 movement he started.
    Would that we were all "nothing more" so effectively.

  • ||

    Ummm...Joe many= how many

  • seanrude||

    missed by one key twice, impressive

  • ||

    Plus he's Mormon.

  • ||

    Believe it or not, Beck shares more beliefs with Ron Paul than any other politician.

  • ¢||

    This must be the "very smart" part (because "smart" means "TEAM BLUE!"):

    And not even the stupidest American liberal shares the morality of the totalitarian monsters whom Beck analogizes to American politics so flippantly.

    Admittedly, Pol Pot only merits occasional apologia, like a retarded cousin, and Hitler's the embarrassing ex-boyfriend they pretend they never fucked (for years and years), but all the Mao, Lenin, Trotsky, Castro, Che, and occasional Stalin heads that are floating around wherever "liberals" are found mean something.

    I suspect it's not "We disown these wrongdoers."

  • AA||

    +1

  • MattN||

    Right -- how many morons do I see walking around with Che on their shirts? LOTS.

    It's not that I think they consciously wish they were ruled by despotic, violent dictators, or even that they themselves wish to be such a dictator, but that they fundamentally subscribe to the very kind of thinking that makes those dictators possible.

    And we have those kinds of people in office... making law... making war... etc.

  • shrike||

    Beck, Hannity, Limpdick, Palin et al are what is wrong with conservatism today.

    These "leaders" are ignorant buffoons with nothing of substance to offer.

    Until the GOP recruits a responsible spokesman with IDEAS it will continue to flounder as a meaningless skin condition on the body politic.

    Frum and Bartlett should take over the GOP but that won't happen.

  • ||

    Frum and Bartlett should take over the GOP but that won't happen.

    shrike is once again a fan of bailouts, and of the prescription drug plan and Obamacare.

    To say that Frum should take over is to say that George W Bush was right, because Frum stands for the same things that he stood for when he was with Bush and his ideas were directing the GOP. shrike is, as always, a fan of Bush.

  • shrike||

    You're so clever, Thacker.

    Nice twist. I like that. You are definitely the smartest of the Cro-Magnon conservatives.

  • ||

    It's not really a twist. If you're a fan of Frum, then you're a fan of George W. Bush's governing style and policies.

    If you want Frum to "take over the GOP," then you want him to toss out "unpatriotic conservatives" for opposing war.

    shrike-- fan of George W. Bush, the prescription drug benefit, and war? Or just hates the GOP brand so much he wants it to become as anti-libertarian as possible so that his hate will be justified?

  • shrike||

    But the GOP routinely rejects libertarianism and will do so again in 2012.

    They even hooted anti-choice Ron Paul out of the debates in 08.

    A vote for the GOP is a vote against liberty.

  • ||

    So what, shrike? There's a difference between realizing that the American people reject liberty and actively rooting against it.

    You don't have an interest in liberty one way or another, you just have an interest in hating the GOP. That's fine if that's your thing, but please don't pretend you care about liberty. You'll actively root against liberty all day if it means you can call some Republican a redneck. You're more obsessed with parties and party loyalty than anyone who comments here, even tony.

  • shrike||

    You are so wrong. I care about liberty more than you can imagine.

    I just don't couch it in terms of 2-3% difference in top income tax rates.

    If some tyrant like Rick Santorum were elected President then he would enforce his whack-job totalitarian Christo-Fascist views on an unsuspecting public via command fiat.

    We don't need a Savonarola as leader.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Jesus, what horseshit.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    "I care about liberty more than you can imagine."

    Okay, but if you only refrain from voting for Republicans, you aren't doing the full job of caring about liberty. You have to stop voting for Democrats, as well.

  • ||

    They even hooted anti-choice Ron Paul out of the debates in 08.

    But you'd hoot Ron Paul out of the debates too, considering his views on the Federal Reserve and TARP and his views on the war (since you want "unpatriotic conservatives" Frum to "take over the GOP). You did say that people who wanted to audit the Fed and people who opposed TARP were utter idiots.

    So you're criticizing them for doing exactly what you would do? Doesn't make any sense, except that shrike is never consistent in anything other than his GOP hatred.

  • shrike||

    You're right, Ron Paul is unfit to lead.

    But so is any Cro-Magnon type.

  • marlok||

    Why exactly would you want Frum to lead the GOP? It's rare for me to meet someone, liberal conservative or other, who has a true liking for the guy, so I'm curious.

    Was it his "axis of evil" speech that won you over? Medicare part D? Disavowing the importance of budgets and defecits? His humorless demeanor?

  • ||

    smartest of the Cro-Magnon conservatives.

    But he is still gay right?

    "smartest of the flaming fag Cro-Magnon conservatives."

    Which is weird cuz I think they use those types to sell car insurance.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

    Why do you hate the gays Shrike? Did one hit on you in a bar or something?

  • ||

    Michael Savage touched his pee pee while they were both swimming naked with Alan Ginsburg.

    It would screw you up too. Admit it!

  • Waggoneer||

    Woodrow Wilson created the situation for the rise of Hitler, so he bears blame.

  • shrike||

    Spoken like the true Beckerhead you are.

  • shrike||

    If I were honest, I'd admit I'm full of shit for responding to Waggoneer like that.

  • ||

    Nor am I a fan of the journalist Walter Lippmann, though what of Beck’s bizarre claim that the Public Opinion author, whose books are “diabolical,” was “almost as evil, if not more evil” than Woodrow Wilson?

    Especially weird consider that Lippman's The Good Society is a pretty searing indictment of the overreaches of FDR-style liberalism.

  • ||

    Especially weird consider that Lippman's The Good Society is a pretty searing indictment of the overreaches of FDR-style liberalism.

    Yes, Lippmann dramatically changed his views over the years. Socialist, idealist, pro-FDR, pro-New Deal, anti-New Deal, anti-communist, realist.

    Still, his democratic theory was, throughout his life, strongly anti-populist and pro-elite. So, I imagine Beck is fitting that Lippmann into his the powerful vs. the people narrative.

  • leathercoat||

    it's a ratings war. wouldn't look too much into it.

    i know two people who are part of the birchers. they don't seem all that odd to me. they might have some weird mason handshake that they do before they can disclose the juicy stuff.

  • shrike||

    Ask them about flouride or the Federal Reserve.

    Their ignorance will become quickly apparent.

  • ||

    Or maybe they'll end up winning a Democratic congressional primary, like LaRouchite Kesha Rogers.

  • ||

    all rank lower than FDR (No. 3) and Woodrow Wilson (No. 1).

    Using left wing historical relativism if you were an American of Japanese decent in an internment camp with pneumonia while your home and business is stolen from you I think it is fair to say that FRD is worse then Lenin and Pol Pot.

    Compared to left wing paranoia Beck is no worse and in many ways he does bring up valuable points to his masses. Showing the similarities between socialism and fascism and their historical roots is doing good work in my opinion.

    Also i think the ranking would bug an internationlist more then someone who actually thinks about the leaders that effected them.

    Pol Pot was pure evil...but his 50 year legacy are not bankrupting my county my state my county my city, my employer and my family.

  • ||

    It's amazing to me that there are people who compare Gitmo to Auschwitz yet love FDR. If we just declared the entire Arab race suspect and put them all in Gitmo, would that be ok?
    Well, it would be wrong.... if Bush did it.

  • Post History||

    And not even the stupidest American liberal shares the morality of the totalitarian monsters whom Beck analogizes to American politics so flippantly.

    http://reason.com/blog/2010/06.....t_1734541:

    Tony|6.1.10 @ 3:26PM|#

    I don't get libertarians. You want literally the worst possible society, then scoff when others don't agree with your infinite wisdom.

    prolefeed|6.1.10 @ 5:26PM|#

    Yes, a completely free country is literally much worse than North Korea or Cuba or China under Mao or Soviet Russia or ...

    You need to show your work if you want to be taken seriously.

    Tony|6.1.10 @ 6:03PM|#

    At least dictatorships can get shit done. A society in which nearly everyone has to agree in order to do anything is one that collapses pretty quickly.

  • AA||

    "Now you can go where people are one, now you can go where they get things done..."

    I know its ironic to quote the DK here, but still.

  • Tony||

    I'm not saying I would ever endorse a dictatorship. I'm saying a dictatorship is better than libertopia.

  • Sean||

    Libertopia also doesn't rely on everyone agreeing so something gets done. It is called the market. You choose what you want, not what everyone else wants.

  • Tony||

    And it would TOTALLY SUCK.

  • Jeffersonian||

    And, since the specter of Libertopia will always hang over Tonydonia, he'll just keep on rooting for the next Great Helmsman.

  • Tony||

    I love the idea of the diminishing individualist mindset. Group-think is where it's at. And 1984 is how America should be.

  • Barack Obama||

    Tony, I really appreciate what you and your fellow travelers do for My Cause. Keep 'em distracted while I pull the really cool shit over their eyes. Tax hikes are only the beginning!

  • ||

    I think this is the first time I've heard someone say "At least Mussolini made the trains run on time" non-ironically.

  • Atanarjuat||

    Holy shit.

  • Amakudari||

    FYI:

    10. Pol Pot
    9. Robert Mugabe
    8. Teddy Roosevelt
    7. Bernie Madoff
    6. Adolf Hitler
    5. Keith Olbermann
    4. Pontius Pilate
    3. Franklin D. Roosevelt
    2. Tiger Woods
    1. Woodrow Wilson

    Pretty sweet list there.

  • AA||

    I don't think #s 1,3 or 8 belong on that list, as bad as they were. But I do like the addition of #5...

  • ||

    The evilness of Tiger Woods is so singular that he should not be ranked among the others.

    He should have his own list which looks like this:

    1. Satan
    0. Tiger Woods

  • shrike||

    You're fucking kidding, right?

    Madoff is a hero to the dereg crowd like Grover Norquist.

    Tiger is #2?

    Beck is at the core a moralist theocrat totalitarian for some dusty monotheistic past.

    Beck is a just another fucking conservative loon.

  • ||

    Madoff is a hero to whom?

  • shrike||

    Grover Norquist.

  • ||

    I don't think that Norquist's "heroes" list includes anyone with that many Democratic campaign contributions. About 90% of his political donations went to Democrats.

    And what does Madoff's crime have to do with deregulation? Regulations are no problem if you're willing to just lie like Madoff was.

  • Amakudari||

    Right. Madoff had nothing to do with the big deregulatory battles like Glass-Steagall. The only thing even potentially disruptive would be hedge fund registration (he was technically wealth management) with the SEC, but that was the same agency that didn't do shit about Markopoulos's well-documented complaints.

    "I was astonished. They never even looked at my stock records. If investigators had checked with the Depository Trust Company, a central securities depository, it would've been easy for them to see. If you're looking at a Ponzi scheme, it's the first thing you do."

  • shrike||

    The lax SEC under Bushy-boy enabled Madoff's ripe crime years.

    Chris Cox should get an assist for Madoff's plunder.

  • ||

    Oh right, since Madoff founded his firm in 1960, and Markopoulos's complaints to the SEC started in 1999, it's clearly the fault of the guy who was president from 2001 to 2009.

  • shrike||

    Right - eight years of incompetence and you still fluff Bushy-boy.

    Have you met Gilbert Martin while "down there"?

  • ||

    Bush is not to blame for everything, including (as should be obvious) things that happened before he took office. Other things he's not to blame for include your inflated ego, general lack of knowledge, and substandard genitals.

  • marlok||

    shrike, you were stronger in your first few comments higher up and seem to have run out of steam, offering brain drool here. I would recommend that you not over-exert yourself on the message board and dilute your brand.

  • shrike||

    A year and a half of being disappointed by Obama, and I would still take his cock up my ass.

  • ||

    Beck is a just another fucking conservative loon.

    Pull your panties out of the crack of your ass. You're embarassing yourself.

  • shrike||

    No -- you out of touch "conservatives" are the real shame on America.

    DeMint has his pants down and is tapping his toes, pal.

    Get thee to a truck stop!

  • ||

    DeMint has his pants down and is tapping his toes, pal

    Demint? That was Larry Craig.

    Geezus, you're just incoherent.

    Beck makes more sense and, as I said above, he's a crank.

  • shrike||

    Same shit - different asshole.

  • shrike||

    I will, however, forever refrain from casting doubt or derision on liberals, as they are all good and honest, every single one of them.

  • William Jefferson||

    You tell 'em, shrike! Tell 'em how I was framed by The Man, how Whitey MADE me take that ninety thousand dollars WHICH THEY PLANTED IN MY OFFICE FREEZER!!!

  • James Traficant||

    I appreciate all your hard work defending us non-criminal liberals, shrike, but can I please have my toupee back?

  • Picture of Mao||

    Trust me, you don't want it back. You'll never get out all the jizz stains shrike left in it.

  • Bingo||

    What, is this his list?

  • ||

    No it is a joke list. I like how Shrike thought it was the real thing.

  • shrike||

    How would I know? I don't read the Gospel of Beck.

  • Bingo||

    In shrike's defense, the inclusion of Pontius Pilate at #4 set a level of ridiculousness that could include modern day celebrity personalities.

  • Bingo||

    How does any sane person rank a minor provincial governor of the Roman Empire as a worse totalitarian than Pol Pot, Robert Mugabe, and Adolf Hitler?

  • ||

    Even considering his role in Christ's execution, it's not like he ordered it. He just didn't stop it.

  • ||

    it's not like he ordered it. He just didn't stop it.

    A Roman governor said he "washed his hands" and then actually washed his hands...

    Have you never seen an episode of Sopranos?

    A Roman saying he washed his hands of an execution is like a normal person tattooing an execution order onto the victims forehead.

  • ||

    Jesus > a stable Z$

  • MJ||

    Yeah, who claim to infamy is not preventing the execution of a political/religious prisoner whose movement was a minor annoyance at best. Even if you subscribe to the Christian belief about who and what Jesus was, Pilate himself barely had the cultural context to understand such an identity, much less accept it.

  • strat||

    No Idi Amin?? He supposedly ATE people. That's got to count for something. What a bunch of pikers.

  • ||

    I loathe Woodrow Wilson, but was he, as Beck recently announced on his television show, "the most evil dude ever"?

    I think Moynihan just got generation gapped which is weird because Beck is 5 years older then Moynihan.

    By the way dude, the ice cream sandwich I had last night was the best ice cream sandwich EVER!!

  • BakedPenguin||

    By the way dude, the ice cream sandwich I had last night was the best ice cream sandwich EVER!!

    Warren Zevon would be so happy...

  • Lucy||

    Awww, so he would.

  • alan||

    Yo, the motherfucker said ice cream!

  • ||

    I think Moynihan just got generation gapped which is weird because Beck is 5 years older then Moynihan.

    Correction:

    I confused Michael Moynihan with Michael C Moynihan. at Wikipedia....The Michael C Moynihan article actually does not give a date of birth..

    After reading Michael Moynihan's wiki page i think the whole thing with Dejong calling our Moynihan a fascist might be because Dejong read the wrong Wiki page. If true this would be fucking hilarious.

  • MJ||

    Wilson is in the running for worst Presdient/American politician ever. Anything more is hyperbole.

  • shrike||

    Wilson is top 10 best.

    Dumbya is bottom two (with Buchanan),.

    Quit sucking Beck's shriveled dick.

  • marlok||

    Well that settles it.

  • Max||

    Hey, shrike, "stop sucking [insert any right-winger]'s dick" is MY line!

  • Yonemoto||

    You know, at least W didn't imprison hundreds of thousands of citizens against their will, and "for their protection".

  • ||

    Did you get it from the floating Ice Cream truck on the river?

  • Steve Nash Equilibrium||

    How about giving some props to the old school bastards like Caligula, Atilla the Hun, Tamerlane, and others? After all, this list is supposed to be of all time. These young guys have no appreciation for the bastards that came before them.

  • ||

    I watched some pretty nasty vikings on tv last night. I wonder how their totals stack up.

  • ||

    Michael, over reach much?

  • oh no not this again||

    I wanted to reread Atlas shrug a few weeks back, and seriously was wondering what people would say if they saw the book. SInce i drag books every where i go, it was a real worry for me. I didn't want people at work to see it, and think i was a TeaBagger, or one of the other collectives.

  • Tony||

    I read the whole thing in my bathroom. Thought it was fitting.

  • ||

    I knew you jerked off in there!

  • Tony||

    No. I shit in there. It's a good room for shit to be in.

  • The Oval Office||

    Hey, I'm a better room for that! And bonus: Cats go crazy looking for a corner to shit in.

  • oh no not this again||

    +1

    Yeah, i was amazed at how much she forced her beliefs into it. I still recommend We the Living though, she actually tried to discuss where the communist character was coming from. After that book, the bad zeal took the driver's seat.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Why bother learning why communists do what they do? Fuck 'em, there's nothing redeeming about their beliefs. Rand wasted her talents on that part of the book.

  • ||

    Good post, but:

    And not even the stupidest American liberal shares the morality of the totalitarian monsters whom Beck analogizes to American politics so flippantly.

    Of this, I am not convinced.

  • Tony||

    Half the posters here are Beck worshipers or at least peddle in Beckian conspiracy theory stupidity. I've noticed a big uptick in the "progressives are totalitarians" bullshit lately. "Liberal" doesn't ring so sinisterly in the flapping jowls of Rush Limbaugh anymore, it's time to use the GOP propaganda machine to destroy that other word the enemy is calling themselves.

    There is a totalitarian movement in the US, and Beck is one of its top lieutenants. The rhetoric is so apocalyptic and--this is very important--so mainstream, that anyone who believes it almost has a moral duty to participate in violent insurrection. Which in the hands of the likes of Beck, Limbaugh, and their butt buddies in political office, is not likely to result in enlightened democratic rule. It never does with far rightwing movements.

  • Contemplationist||

    Yeah, meanwhile Obama continues Bush wars, declares power to assassinate US citizens as he sees fit, continues interrogation policies, all the while pursuing all the Big Government economic agenda. Ah, yes those totalitarians who want to audit the fed!

  • Tony||

    If you weren't marching right alongside the left during Bush when these things were invented, and I'm not saying you weren't, then you don't have credibility. The left is not silent on these issues, they are the most important voices in opposition. Conservatives want more torture, and libertarians are too busy bitching about tax rates, as usual.

    I'm not gonna lie and say there isn't pragmatism on the left. A Democrat is just better on these issues than a Republican, so there's little point in tearing them down in what is a zero-sum situation.

  • marlok||

    "A Democrat is just better on these issues than a Republican"
    Are you admitting that you don't care about war, torture, expansion of executive power because a Democrat's in charge?
    That sounds more totalitarian to me than Beck whose main message seems to be to fear the government, whereas you worship it.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Better than what, Tony? Liberals want to run our lives just as desperately as conservatives want to give us our marching orders - the only difference is how each side wants to rule over us.

  • Tony||

    You do realize you sound like a fucking lunatic, right?

    Your tinfoil hat wearing bordering on clinical paranoia precludes you looking at these issues in an intelligent way.

    When there's Mussolini around every corner, why worry about details? Details like which party is populated by science-denying theocratic corporate whores, and which isn't?

    I know seeing totalitarianism everywhere is easier than actually thinking, but it's such a terrible waste of energy.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Tony, if you only knew how petty it sounds when Democrats talk about "rolling back the tax cuts, which is not a tax hike, even though it is"... imagine having someone bum thirty-four cents off you, then have the temerity and gall to say "I need another nickel".

    Why not cut spending by that nickel on the dollar, and leave the tax rate where it is?

    But it's not just that - Papaya laid it out in another, brilliant post. Conservatives want to control whom we have sex with, what substances we may take, and other moral horseshit, but liberals want to regulate our lives in all other aspects minus those moral things. And BOTH sides only do it because they CAN do it, not because it will help society - they only do it to increase their power over us. Period. There's no altruism, no real concern for our well-being; it's all about being able to control us just because they can pass the laws and levy the fines/taxes to power their re-election machinery.

    Example: Conservatives get caught fucking their mistresses, yet want laws against such behavior; liberals fly in gas-hog jet planes, yet want the rest of us to drive Smart cars. Hypocrisy, thy name is elected official.

    But, go on, do tell us why we should vote for Democrats, when the real solution is to give a hearty fuck off to them AND the GOP.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Oh, and on that tax hike that isn't a tax hike:

    Imagine a company makes and sells a product, and dropped the price from $39 to $34... then sells out to another company that decides to "roll back the price cut".

    Would that not be both a price increase and a petty-assed lie?

  • MJ||

    "...but liberals want to regulate our lives in all other aspects minus those moral things."

    Liberals want to regulate our lives in all things. They just deny that their motivation has anything to do with morality.

  • Tony||

    You only have two choices. Really. So I suggest voting for the ones who won't destroy the country, if not the planet.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    How many Democrats signed the PATRIOT Act into law, Tony?

  • Alan Grayson||

    "A Democrat is just better on these issues than a Republican"

    I still say anyone who uttered the phrase "drill, baby, drill" should go to prison... but otherwise, I am in complete agreement with Tony.

  • Cass Sunstein||

    Even though I think the internet and news organizations should be run by the government, I must also agree with Tony... Democrats are always better at civil liberties than anyone else.

  • George Soros||

    When I'm not making billions of dollars short-selling world currencies, I too also agree with Tony.

  • ||

    When I'm not busy writing campus behavior codes that require express written consent for every stage of kissing/fondling/sex (or the guy is automatically a rapist) and arguing that it's rape if the woman changes her mind the next day, I like to tell conservatives to get out of our bedrooms and keep their laws off my body. And I agree with Tony.

  • The GOP||

    We tortured people!

  • Yonemoto||

    since when has the left wanted to get rid of the fed?

  • ||

    The idea that Beck and Limbaugh are "totalitarians" is too stupid to bother refuting, but let me give you a little lesson about political terminology and history.

    The term "liberal" originally meant (and to an extent still does in Europe) someone who believed in keeping government out of the marketplace as much as possible, separation of church and state, etc. After "progressivism" crashed and burned after Wilson, the term became tainted, so people of that ideology started calling themselves "liberals." (Exactly how they got away with this, I've been unable to learn.) By the late '60s, the failures of liberalism meant term liberal had become tainted, so they went back to calling themselves "progressives."

    So it's not their opponents destroying the words, it's the left screwing up when they try to implement their ideas and then having to rebrand themselves in an attempt to get people to forget their record.

  • Tony||

    Even ignoring your Beck-supplied fabrication of history, who gives a fuck about Wilson or even the 60s? There is not a generational conspiracy going on. American liberals who are alive are not totalitarians. The closest thing we have to that is the tea party. And like the best totalitarian movements it has excellent PR, including an entire Orwellian rhetoric about freedom.

  • ||

    If you weren't so busy with guilt by association and jumping to conclusions, you'd be able to make better arguments. I've never seen or heard an episode of Beck's shows.

    It's quite rich to hear a lefty dismiss history, because most of your self-awarded glory and attacks on your enemies are based on things that happened decades or centuries ago.

    I don't think most liberals are totalitarians, by the strict definition. However, liberals want to maintain or increase government control of schools, businesses, construction, food, medicine, the internet, automobiles, light bulbs, food, the composition of the atmosphere, and many other things. They're not totalitarians, they just want control over most everything.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Your last paragraph was solid, PSF. Watch Tony and the other collectivists try to dispute it.

    Bearing in mind, of course, that conservatives want to control our lives as well... just in different ways.

  • ||

    Thanks, though I got "food" in there twice....

    And true, conservatives want to control other things, but when the government has less control of the economy, people have better means to avoid or evade the social restrictions conservatives want.

  • seanrude||

    They really want to regulate food, so it is ok

  • Tony||

    Liberals want more checks on the powers that individuals encounter. That's more than just government. Like, say, I dunno, when a huge company is responsible for destroying the Gulf of Mexico, maybe government should be there to make them accountable for it.

    Your antigovernment dogma necessitates corporate rule. As a liberal, I don't want anyone asserting tyrannical control over me. You don't care if you're shackled as long as it's not the government doing it. Government should be the instrument of the people, and it's our only recourse when other powers abuse us.

  • ||

    Except that wanting government to rescue you from corporations and everything else puts more power and potential tyranny in one place, where it tends to stay and grow no matter who votes for what. At least with your dreaded corporations, people can usually avoid them, but you can't avoid the government. You think that if the government is democratic, then the shackles somehow aren't shackles, but they are.

  • ||

    Most Democrats I know are NOT liberal and I live in Minneapolis, fer crissake.

    Racist (though smart enough to keep it in private), religious, money-first
    half-Republicans.

  • oh no not this again||

    I love the Progressive is the new word to hide their past etc etc. You can safely assume they've never opened a Tolstoy, dostovevsky, solzhenisyn, or any of the countless books written around the turn of the last century that used the term.....progressive.

  • ||

    As I wrote above, the term fell out of favor in the US after World War I. The average voter associates the failure of American leftism with the term "liberal" because of the failures of the '60s and '70s, so "progressive" doesn't have that taint. In fact, these days it's mostly used by socialists who don't want to call themselves that, and who want to disassociate themselves from liberals because they felt liberals didn't go far enough.

  • marlok||

    I think they have the liberal taint, IN THEIR MOUTHS.

  • Tony||

    What failures of the 60s and 70s?

  • ||

    Urban renewal, welfare, higher taxes, more crime, and unlivable public housing complexes come to mind. When Carter ran in '76, he ran partly against the failures of old-school, Northern liberalism. Same with Clinton in '92.

  • ||

    Pot was nearly legalized in the '70s until crack and Reagan showed up...

  • Contemplationist||

    "And not even the stupidest American liberal shares the morality of the totalitarian monsters whom Beck analogizes to American politics so flippantly."

    lulz. Have you ever read the comments section at Daily Kos or even better...AlterNet?

  • alan||

    He would prefer not to soil himself with anything less than the pure ideal of progressivism if he can help it. That is why he is here, after all.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Tony believes that, once we get to the Progressitopia stage, it'll all be cool.

  • josey||

    No system will work.

  • Tony||

    Progressivism will, but only if idiots like half of America give up their individuality, vote only for Democrats, and give half their income to the state.

  • ||

    A brilliant troll, or the real Tony...?

    vote only for Democrats, and give half their income to the state.

    Which is how New York City eliminated poverty! The End.

  • josey||

    Tony or not, he clearly didn't read my statement with the proper inflection.

  • alan||

    and, in the spirit of William F. Buckley’s 1962 ideological “Night of the Long Knives,” during which the National Review editor cast the cranks out of the movement

    Why didn't that old segregationist fart show himself the door?

  • shrike||

    Buckley got butt-fucked by Ayn Rand.

    He doesn't matter anymore. Limpdick is their leader now.

  • alan||

    Have to admit, whatever you say about her face, she had a way with a strap on.

  • shrike||

    Seriously, Ayn Rand hated conservatives like Buckley.

    She would despise Limpdick and Hannd-job moreso today.

  • marlok||

    Are these original nicknames? They're actually kind of hilarious in their inanity.

  • Ayn Rand||

    I didn't like idiots like you either, shrike.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    And fuck it -- I've never seen his TV show, but I admit to listening to Beck's radio show now and then and being very entertained. Anybody know if he still does the "Moron Trivia" bit on Fridays?

  • Kevin||

    Last week, I was watching Glenn Beck with my mom-who was recovering from surgery and we both looked at each other said “This guy has lost it!”

    From the wacky conspiracy theories including making connections to unrelated events/persons to that damn chalkboard for hell, I truly believe Glenn Beck has lost his mind & without a doubt be carried away from the set of his show in a straight jacket.

  • ||

    He's a showman. He admitted it's all entertainment and that he doesn't believe (most of) what he spews.

    But daaaaamn, lots of people DO believe what comes straight out of the moving picture box. The scariest bit is that these people VOTE, and DRIVE CARS, and REPRODUCE.

    Truly depressing stuff.

  • ||

    "Strait jacket" or "straitjacket."

  • RyanXXX||

    So what the author Moynihan endorses ACTUALLY says is that we need big-government with a Cowboy- hat "conservative" face. Great.

    Free minds and free markets my ass

  • AA||

    Um, what?

  • Jeffersonian||

    Forget it, he's rolling.

  • RyanXXX||

    Did you not read the article?

    The author (not Moynihan but the guy he links to) says that the tea party has a choice between a Goldwater philosophy and a Reagan philosophy, and that they should choose Reagan. As in, no real change to the status quo, just a change in demeanor.

  • RyanXXX||

    He also says that the tea party should forget about entitlements, the federal reserve, and out overseas adventures because they aren't going anywhere. He's a douche

  • DNC Strategy||

    Of targeting libertarianism this campaign season will be wildly successful at least as far as that goes as the Libertarian Party will take an ass pounding in the polls this November, and likely get no more than 6 percent of the vote or less outside of Central Western states.

    However, this will prove to be a hollow victory as the Democrats will be blind sided by the Republicans who they regarded as a feeble opposition, given the GOP status as an impotent party of 'no'. They are not considered even a factor in the race for hearts and minds. The results will prove quite shocking to those in the DNC who blamed libertarians for the 'lost decade', the 'failed policies of deregulation', and the sentimental attachment a few people still retain for a constitutional order that inevitably leads those misguided fools to blow up Federal buildings and hang census workers.

    Somehow, they forgot to cast the net wide enough to include Republicans. Soon they discover that except for die hard Democrats, nobody considered the GOP to be a party of limited government.

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