Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Glenn Beck is a Neocon (Not a Libertarian)

This post has 28 Replies | 4 Followers

Not Ranked
Posts 6
Points 135
Liberty Australia Posted: Mon, Apr 20 2009 8:49 AM

Of course you all knew that.

It just might be useful to show any delusional socialists / statists who try to equate us with the neo-conservatives.

Enjoy Smile

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 377
Points 7,180
Ansury replied on Tue, Apr 21 2009 4:48 PM

Can't see the video here (blocked) but while I don't doubt that he has Neocon tendencies (foreign policy, ugh), we should at least give him some credit on economics. I wouldn't provide him as an example of a Libertarian yet but his show is still more worth watching than most Keynes hugging crap, and it has ratings. I know I have heard him say he was Libertarian, but I won't believe it until I hear massive changes in his foreign policy and personal freedom opinions from what they used to be years ago.

I'll try to remember to watch the video posted when I get home but unless it's something fairly recent (last year or so?), I feel like his views may have changed or may still be in the process of changing. I hope so anyway. The "financial collapse" (w/Peter Schiff) and Ron Paul's presidential campaign probably have a lot to do with it, would be my guess. He seriously needs to start inviting them back on the show again, what the heck happened to that trend?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Ansury:
I feel like his views may have changed or may still be in the process of changing. I hope so anyway.

He uses people and is a complete shill.  You don't get his position on the networks by being a good guy.  He is strictly false opposition for the left-right paradigm, and is trying to co-opt minarchists republicans away from positions of true liberty.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 377
Points 7,180
Ansury replied on Tue, Apr 21 2009 5:06 PM

I'm not sure what you mean by "uses people". I think he's gotten his position by being crazy and entertaining, really. All I know is when he says something libertarian-minded or criticizes big government, I agree. It's still hard to watch the foreign policy commentary (ugh) and it's one reason I don't watch all that often, but it's better news than most other than Freedom Watch.

Perhaps I'd understand what you mean if you give an example of how he has co-opted people from true liberty?

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Ansury:
Perhaps I'd understand what you mean if you give an example of how he has co-opted people from true liberty?

The Ron Paul Forums.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

Ansury:

I'm not sure what you mean by "uses people". I think he's gotten his position by being crazy and entertaining, really. All I know is when he says something libertarian-minded or criticizes big government, I agree. It's still hard to watch the foreign policy commentary (ugh) and it's one reason I don't watch all that often, but it's better news than most other than Freedom Watch.

Perhaps I'd understand what you mean if you give an example of how he has co-opted people from true liberty?

If you only could see the video at the top of this thread.  Glenn Beck in his own words, explicitly, translator not even needed, goes on about how the bailouts are good, Ron P. is a goof, and Bush is awesome.

 

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 56
Points 1,355

Being an ex-Neocon myself(anarcho-capitalist now) I think it is better to have some kind of a voice than none at all. Yeah he isn't libertarian on foreign policy but he is a step closer to libertarianism than other conservative talk show hosts.  Glenn Beck is a bridge to true Libertarianism. It is easier for someone to go from Rush to Glenn to Paul then from Rush straight to Ron Paul. It is too big of a leap and people close their minds when ideas stray too far from their own unless there are gradual differences. Especially when you have perceived associations with 9/11 truthers and conspiracy theorist who completely repel people from libertarianism. Better to convince people on what we have in common than to bash them with what we disagree with.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

MagnusTokai:

Being an ex-Neocon myself(anarcho-capitalist now) I think it is better to have some kind of a voice than none at all. Yeah he isn't libertarian on foreign policy but he is a step closer to libertarianism than other conservative talk show hosts.  Glenn Beck is a bridge to true Libertarianism. It is easier for someone to go from Rush to Glenn to Paul then from Rush straight to Ron Paul. It is too big of a leap and people close their minds when ideas stray too far from their own unless there are gradual differences. Especially when you have perceived associations with 9/11 truthers and conspiracy theorist who completely repel people from libertarianism. Better to convince people on what we have in common than to bash them with what we disagree with.

 

What does he have in common?  I watched the video.

 

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 56
Points 1,355

Watching a video only highlighting his neocon views is hardly an objective means of learning all his views. You shouldn't throw the bad with the good. Even though he does distance himself from Ron Paul sometimes, he does give Ron Paul and other libertarians a voice on his show where they discuss their common beliefs. By far he has the most mainstream libertarian show on television.  There is no other show that has had as many libertarians on as his, except for freedom watch which is only online.  His magazine and show give voice to writers and commentators of the Ayn Rand institute and some libertarians. Yes, the Ayn rand institute represents objectivism but that isn't too far from libertarianism and it a step in the right direction. Any medium that promotes a movement towards libertarianism and away from statism is good.

He has a large audience and does bring attention to the Federal reserve which is not in most people's minds or even acknowledged as being relevant. He has shown willingness to change his mind when he is wrong.

The more recent the video clips the more you see him change his position towards libertarianism. He is definitely less of a neocon than when he first started. He doesn't always represent libertarianism correctly but most of the time he does and his libertarian guests do and correct him when they are on.

http://libertymaven.com/2008/08/08/glenn-beck-on-libertarianism-foreign-policy-and-ron-paul-08082008-audio/1386/

http://rebuildtheparty.ning.com/forum/topics/glenn-becklibertarian-in

Here is his show dedicated to interviewing Ron Paul during his campaign. Here you can clearly see the differences and shared beliefs between both.  For most of the interview Glenn is agreeing with paul except for when they discuss foreign policy.

http://libertymaven.com/2007/12/18/ron-paul-on-glenn-beck-12182007-video/612/

He is not perfect but it is something.

 

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 377
Points 7,180
Ansury replied on Tue, Apr 21 2009 9:38 PM

Okay I've seen the video. Pretty much what I thought, he's wrong on foreign policy here, and wrong on economics--on his CNN show (which are older clips). Just a guess but I think the pro-Bush clips are even older. (I've been disappointed by many of these clips at the time of their first airing.)

I am fairly sure that the "bank bailouts are needed" clips were the very first reaction he had. Obviously you can't learn real economics in a few days, so I'm assuming the change came after it triggered research into the area.

I still think he might be the same or similar on foreign policy. Based on what I've seen on the Fox show, I think he's just recently (last few months) moved further libertarian economically. I can't recall a quote but I think I do remember him doing a 180 on some bailout(s), only very recently. I feel like he was questioning someone (who supported bailouts) pretty fiercely fighting them on whether they were really needed, and saying that it would be better if "they" just failed. "They" could have been the auto industry or banks, not sure.  I also recall him aggressively attacking an attorney general (?) recently for unjustly trying to force recipients of bonus money to forgo payment.

Time will tell if he's really making the change. Since he's calling himself a Libertarian now I guess he's more likely to put all the pieces together. If he's still talking about aggressive foreign policy or invasions of privacy and freedom in the name of security in a year from now, I'll be disappointed. Cafeteria libertarians with large audiences have the potential to be pretty damaging.

It's a start, I guess. We'll see where it leads.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 56
Points 1,355

The thing about his show is that he puts on libertarians that challenge him when he is wrong and you can see Glenn's hesitation when he is corrected as if he were rethinking his position. Sometimes he even adopts the position of a previous guest using their terminology when he never previously used these terms before. I think his show is a great vehicle for pushing libertarianism because he has so many libertarian guests not because of him specifically. Most people don't even know what libertarianism is so any exposure is good.

Yeah, there might be people converted to Glenn's version of libertarianism but it is easier to convert a Glenn libertarian to true libertarian than a pure neocon. There are a lot less hurdles to contend with. The more exposure the less people see libertarianism as extreme.  How bad can cafeteria libertarianism get compared to the mainstream parties.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

MagnusTokai:
Yeah, there might be people converted to Glenn's version of libertarianism but it is easier to convert a Glenn libertarian to true libertarian than a pure neocon. There are a lot less hurdles to contend with.

You are right, but I can't stress enough, beware of gradualism and false prophets.  That is how movements get untracked.  People stop rallying around the ideas of a Lew Rockwell or a Ron Paul, and embrace the telegenic Beck or Obama thinking that there are shortcuts to change.

The media and propaganda machine is so sophisticated, I would not be surprised if Beck was run out as a Trojan horse, since only just 1 year ago, he was calling me and my friends potential domestic terrorists.  Now maybe he has undergone a miraculous transformation, but he's still not a libertarian and he is still a neocon on war and the state.

Anyone who doesn't preach peace is not a libertarian.  You can do something with people who respect non-aggression.  If they don't, all of the fiscal conservatism and constitutionalism is just soft statism, not principle.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 377
Points 7,180
Ansury replied on Tue, Apr 21 2009 10:18 PM

What I meant by a cafeteria libertarian being damaging is that people might see Neocon mixed in with it and think, "Oh, that's libertarian."

But you make some valid points and I also can say that I've also seen a most definite change in his thinking over time, at least on economics.

I really hope he goes full libertarian some day and hopefully converts some of the tools at Fox too.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 56
Points 1,355

I was a Neocon so I know it is possible to be converted. I didn't go from Neocon to Anarcho Capitalism in one fell swoop either. I started out believing in small government and individualism which is a belief Neocons share with Libertarianism. It was small exposures through media of libertarianism that had me looking more into the libertarian arguments. Most people only hear Republican and Democrat arguments. Republicans often use many Libertarian arguments (distorted or not) to convince people like the belief in smaller government and lower taxes. The problem is when they don't reflect the principles supporters believe, which leaves people looking for alternatives like Libertarianism. They won't look for Libertarianism if they don't know about it.

Foreign policy is the hardest Issue to convert Neocons on. Since even in libertarianism you have a right to defend yourself. The distortion and extension of this belief is what gives rise to the Neocon foreign policy where you start getting into preemptive defense. You can convince neocons that we shouldn't get involved in foreign affairs that don't affect our national security or interest. That part is very easy. Once the issue of percieved/false threats arises it becomes much harder to change their minds since inaction in their minds will have us reacting to attacks when it is already too late and people have died. You can see this reflected when Glenn questions Ron paul on foreign policy. Even I am not fully convinced on this issue except for the fact that I think the expansion and tyranny of government is a bigger threat and any foreign threat is miniscule by comparison. That and no nation is insane enough to start a war with the US. That and if we have free trade between nations there is no incentive to start wars.  Individuals, yes, but there are always crazy individuals both foreign and domestic.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,939
Points 49,110
Conza88 replied on Tue, Apr 21 2009 11:34 PM

What you will now see from the Media - Written just after the inauguration.

It, all, came, true.

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Conza88:

What you will now see from the Media - Written just after the inauguration.

It, all, came, true.

Great post.  And yeah, it all came true, predictably.  Many of us knew it would happen.

 

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Posts 56
Points 1,355

I don't think it is a conspiracy with media. It is just a reflection of agendas. Rupert Murdoch is good at noticing trends and reflects that on Fox news thus the higher ratings over other cable competitors which choose politics over ratings. Rupert murdoch is more concerned about making money then pushing politicss when it comes to news as opposed to the other networks. FOX tv isn't exactly a conservative medium especially with Seth McFarlane making fun of conservatives all the time and they constantly push green promos just like NBC and the other networks. Rupert even held a fundraiser for Hillary and supported the labour party in britain at one point. Fox News rode with the popularity of Republicans in congress during the Clinton years and road it through to the end of the Bush years. With the Republicans out of favor he is now spotting a trend towards libertarianism which is why he hired Glenn Beck and is testing Freedom Watch(which has Lew Rockwell, Peter Schiff, Ron Paul and other libertarians/Austrians on a weekly basis which never really happened anywhere else before) on Foxnews online to put on cable. Left leaning news has never been popular and if it was Fox news would reflect that, I pretty much guarantee it. MSNBC which leans far left has never had good ratings even during the height of Obamamania and now that he is elected they are lower than ever.

I think the key to convincing people is to find common ground and go from there. If you start off with disagreements and start blaming and demonizing people you disagree with you will end up just getting ignored. Alex Jones and the 9/11 truthers are more damaging to libertarianism than anything Glenn Beck could do.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

MagnusTokai:
Alex Jones and the 9/11 truthers are more damaging to libertarianism than anything Glenn Beck could do.

I'm no AJ booster, but AJ did more for the Ron Paul revolution, which is the principled foundation for the modern libertarian movement in conservative circles.  While Glenn Beck was accusing people like Conza and I of being terrorists, AJ was pushing a freedom agenda.

MagnusTokai:
I don't think it is a conspiracy with media. It is just a reflection of agendas.

There is no left and right.  There is the statist paradigm, and the liberty paradigm.  The agenda of the media is to perpetuate the right-left paradigm.  Which is why they hop back and forth being anti and pro government.  It's meant to keep people thinking red team, blue team, and not liberty vs. tyranny.

I do agree with you, that they are following a trend, but they will abandon it as soon as Republicans make a resurgence.  There is a reason why the Judge's show has zero production quality and is confined to the web.  They dare not allow the voice of Lew Rockwell (amongst others) on mainstream Fox broadcasts.  If you want to speak truth to power, they will give you a little free speech zone on the net where you can scream and holler in relative seclusion.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 881
Points 15,030
banned replied on Wed, Apr 22 2009 1:02 AM

Tucker Carlson was the only good mainstream news host. It's a shame he's gone.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 56
Points 1,355

liberty student:

There is no left and right.  There is the statist paradigm, and the liberty paradigm.  The agenda of the media is to perpetuate the right-left paradigm.  Which is why they hop back and forth being anti and pro government.  It's meant to keep people thinking red team, blue team, and not liberty vs. tyranny.

I agree. I was just illustrating that Rupert Murdoch was not motivated solely by politics.

I think the ideas of liberty can be infectious. After the Bush years and the inflation and spending that is occuring in the Obama administration people will be looking for alternatives and by presenting an alternative with Glenn Beck's advocacy of Libertarianism people will go there. Alex Jones won't exactly bring in mainstream support. I'm hopeful because of the people he brings onto his show and gives voice to like Ron Paul and not necessarily on what he says. Having a mainstream platform to have our views heard is important.

On the terrorist accusations he seemed to have switched positions on that issue with the DHS report. If Glenn is to be believed the reason he brought up accusations of terrorism was becasue he was getting threatening letters. I don't really no the situation so I can't really comment.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

MagnusTokai:
I was just illustrating that Rupert Murdoch was not motivated solely by politics.

You're right.  He is motivated by profit and power.  And he gets that by promoting politics, not principle.

MagnusTokai:
Alex Jones won't exactly bring in mainstream support.

Nothing exciting happens in the maintstream.  The mainstream aren't going to be of any value to an intellectual (r)evolution until they turn off their TVs are start thinking for themselves.  Tuning into some media demagogue for an opinion is exactly what we have to push back on.  No shortcuts.

MagnusTokai:
If Glenn is to be believed the reason he brought up accusations of terrorism was becasue he was getting threatening letters.

I suspect it is because he is an epic douchebag.  He's apparently legendary for being a chicken in public.  When he has the mic, he's a big mouth, when he has to face his critics, he wilts.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,939
Points 49,110
Conza88 replied on Wed, Apr 22 2009 2:39 AM

liberty student:
Great post.  And yeah, it all came true, predictably.  Many of us knew it would happen.

Thanks. Yeah, no doubt you and many others here did. There was a slight few over at Ron Paul Forums, but the majority over there had no real clue unfortunately.

I've been trying to push a lot of them to investigate the Austrian School with some successes.

 

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 50
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 151
Points 3,165

Conza88:

liberty student:
Great post.  And yeah, it all came true, predictably.  Many of us knew it would happen.

Thanks. Yeah, no doubt you and many others here did. There was a slight few over at Ron Paul Forums, but the majority over there had no real clue unfortunately.

I've been trying to push a lot of them to investigate the Austrian School with some successes.

 

 

unfortunately, the site has broken down drastically since approximately 1.5 years ago....ahh well, it's likely still salvageable.

 

Quite shockingly, there's even one member who's a keynesian, of all things (I'm pretty sure you know who he is, Conza).

 

 

Resident Christian Anarcho-Capitalist.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Conza88:
Thanks. Yeah, no doubt you and many others here did. There was a slight few over at Ron Paul Forums, but the majority over there had no real clue unfortunately.

I have a few thousand posts on the RPF.  But I don't read or post there anymore.  Good people, but as I started reading and posting here it was tough to hang around with politically active Republicans.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

MagnusTokai:

Watching a video only highlighting his neocon views is hardly an objective means of learning all his views. You shouldn't throw the bad with the good. Even though he does distance himself from Ron Paul sometimes, he does give Ron Paul and other libertarians a voice on his show where they discuss their common beliefs. By far he has the most mainstream libertarian show on television.  There is no other show that has had as many libertarians on as his, except for freedom watch which is only online.  His magazine and show give voice to writers and commentators of the Ayn Rand institute and some libertarians. Yes, the Ayn rand institute represents objectivism but that isn't too far from libertarianism and it a step in the right direction. Any medium that promotes a movement towards libertarianism and away from statism is good.

    I see that Ron P. is on all news channels.  Maybe Glenn Beck is accepting of them as being guests, but it comes off as ratings and a way for the neocon to hijack Constitutionalists and Libertarians.  Of course a show on TV would have to eventually address the growing Ron P. reloveution.  They can't ignore it.  I don't have TV so that's why I asked.  I don't watch Glenn Beck at all cause when I did have TV I remember him calling Ron P. a quack and stuff like that.

MagnusTokai:

He has a large audience and does bring attention to the Federal reserve which is not in most people's minds or even acknowledged as being relevant. He has shown willingness to change his mind when he is wrong.

The more recent the video clips the more you see him change his position towards libertarianism. He is definitely less of a neocon than when he first started.

Than when he first started?  He's been around for a long time.  Glenn Beck is just riding the waves.  He's just going with what is popular.

MagnusTokai:

He doesn't always represent libertarianism correctly but most of the time he does and his libertarian guests do and correct him when they are on.

http://libertymaven.com/2008/08/08/glenn-beck-on-libertarianism-foreign-policy-and-ron-paul-08082008-audio/1386/

http://rebuildtheparty.ning.com/forum/topics/glenn-becklibertarian-in

Here is his show dedicated to interviewing Ron Paul during his campaign. Here you can clearly see the differences and shared beliefs between both.  For most of the interview Glenn is agreeing with paul except for when they discuss foreign policy.

http://libertymaven.com/2007/12/18/ron-paul-on-glenn-beck-12182007-video/612/

He is not perfect but it is something.

Well, they couldn't ignore Ron P. forever.  Sorry.  I've known Glenn Beck for many years and on a dime he's shifted to Ron P.... on a dime... so I think he's just showboating and maybe he is finally waking up to a good thing.  But Glenn Beck has a lot of proving to do.  His character has been tainted.  He shows no principles to change like that overnight.  But maybe he will learn something and become stronger in his principles.  We'll see.

 

 

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

Conza88:

liberty student:
Great post.  And yeah, it all came true, predictably.  Many of us knew it would happen.

Thanks. Yeah, no doubt you and many others here did. There was a slight few over at Ron Paul Forums, but the majority over there had no real clue unfortunately.

I've been trying to push a lot of them to investigate the Austrian School with some successes.

 

You know who to really watch out for.  Mark Sanford.  He's the biggest dupper of them all so far.  I don't know if anybody else has noticed him gaining appeal within the Republican Party.  I think he might try to run for President.  The Republican Party needs a new face and somebody that comes across as a true conservative.  He gave back, what, maybe 5% of the stimulus (advocated giving it back don't really know for sure if he could and did actually give it back.  don't know if he could because those stimulus packages could only be turned down by the State representatives, the governors had no say, but I don't know for sure on this, so, he would have just been making a calculated move), and now all of a sudden he's a hero to some in this movement.  He's the South Carolina governor if any didn't know.  I've already had to confront people on him in other places.  I confront people on these issues cause I want to know what actions the politician has actually made.  For instance, Ron P. is everywhere sticking up for his principles and he's super knowledgeable about these issues.  His impromptu is very impressive.  But as to Mark Sanford they really think he's helpful cause:

1 - here's against the Federal Reserve (who isn't if they want to pick up Ron P.'s momentum)

2 - he's for 9th and 10th Amendment (I think with all the State's coming out in favor of the succession movement it's more political and fashionable than actual hardcore line in the sands unless these State's actually doing something about it more.  It seems some states are really serious about this issue and some are not.  But it is too early to tell.)

3 - he turned down ca. 5% of the stimulus package (big deal).

    I bring him up cause he was starting to write posts at the Campaign for Liberty website and some at the website were in awe of him.  It has recently emerged that he chats and stands with Newt Ginrich on war and other foreign policy issues.  So now somebody posted at Campaign for Liberty that they ought to take a step back and re-examine him.  Mark Sanford is going to pick up a lot a suckers with his propaganda.  The way to know if somebody is really convinced in the principles they talk about is to notice how much does that individual go around and speak out against the 'wrongs' in the government.  How much do they know about a topic instead of speaking slogans.  Do they happen to know why the Federal Reserve is not good.  There is an intellectual factor that has to be taken noticed of when viewing these people.

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 56
Points 1,355

wilderness:

Well, they couldn't ignore Ron P. forever.  Sorry.  I've known Glenn Beck for many years and on a dime he's shifted to Ron P.... on a dime... so I think he's just showboating and maybe he is finally waking up to a good thing.  But Glenn Beck has a lot of proving to do.  His character has been tainted.  He shows no principles to change like that overnight.  But maybe he will learn something and become stronger in his principles.  We'll see.

Actually, I think they can ignore Ron Paul forever and it was never made so clear than in the primaries. Glenn Beck was the only one that gave him an hour(really 40 minutes because of commercials) to speak his mind. Yeah, he appeared on other shows but he was given 3 minutes to speak and was constantly interrupted. Ron Paul was even cut out of the debates. Ron Paul did do Meet the press but he was constantly interrupted and challenged. He was asked about the earmarks and then accused of being hypocritical. Then Paul was interrupted by Tim and who quickly moved on to the next question before he could answer at all.

It is possible to change opinion on one stance over night if confronted with a compelling argument. To expect people to change ALL their positions at once to libertarian positions goes against human nature. It is never gonna happen. It is also possible to have beliefs that contradict principles. You just have to look at the Republican and Democrat Party. What we should be doing is to define these principles and show people the contradictions and not bash them and say "you are not a pure libertarian GTFO".

We should be sending Glenn books on libertarian foreign policy. He has show a willingness to read about current issues and then promote them. Like Peter Schiff's crash proof. He didn't get the ideas about the evils of the federal reserve out of thin air. You just have to point him in the right direction. Gradualism can work because it did work for me. I'm willing to send him a book myself. Just give me a book recommendation.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

MagnusTokai:

wilderness:

Well, they couldn't ignore Ron P. forever.  Sorry.  I've known Glenn Beck for many years and on a dime he's shifted to Ron P.... on a dime... so I think he's just showboating and maybe he is finally waking up to a good thing.  But Glenn Beck has a lot of proving to do.  His character has been tainted.  He shows no principles to change like that overnight.  But maybe he will learn something and become stronger in his principles.  We'll see.

Actually, I think they can ignore Ron Paul forever and it was never made so clear than in the primaries. Glenn Beck was the only one that gave him an hour(really 40 minutes because of commercials) to speak his mind. Yeah, he appeared on other shows but he was given 3 minutes to speak and was constantly interrupted. Ron Paul was even cut out of the debates. Ron Paul did do Meet the press but he was constantly interrupted and challenged. He was asked about the earmarks and then accused of being hypocritical. Then Paul was interrupted by Tim and who quickly moved on to the next question before he could answer at all.

It is possible to change opinion on one stance over night if confronted with a compelling argument. To expect people to change ALL their positions at once to libertarian positions goes against human nature. It is never gonna happen. It is also possible to have beliefs that contradict principles. You just have to look at the Republican and Democrat Party. What we should be doing is to define these principles and show people the contradictions and not bash them and say "you are not a pure libertarian GTFO".

We should be sending Glenn books on libertarian foreign policy. He has show a willingness to read about current issues and then promote them. Like Peter Schiff's crash proof. He didn't get the ideas about the evils of the federal reserve out of thin air. You just have to point him in the right direction. Gradualism can work because it did work for me. I'm willing to send him a book myself. Just give me a book recommendation.

     In politics you can't ignore a growing population of opposition unless you want to compete and/or war against them at some point in time.

     We can guess all day to his true aspirations.  I don't see how you valuing him and my not valuing him as completely as you seem to needs to be debated.  Values can't be debated over and over again.  It's like beating a dead horse.  I'm not changing my story (nor have you).  But I guess we only find that out by discussing.  

    Good chattin' with ya Big Smile

 

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 377
Points 7,180
Ansury replied on Wed, Apr 22 2009 9:39 PM

I may be coming from a slightly different perspective here because I've listened to GB almost since he was brand new (about 2 years into the show when he moved to Philly).  I think he's a pretty good guy. Not perfect, but he's honest about it, and he puts up no (or fewer) illusions. He says he's biased and running a for-profit business all the time, which is more than you can say about most other news related shows.

Glenn did seem to turn on a dime in becoming more of a Ron Paul supporter (still not sure if he's 100% there but I'd wager he'd vote for RP), but I don't think that means he's just showboating at all.  I feel like I did the same exact thing, and I don't have a TV or radio show! I think the change can happen pretty fast because the message is so powerful. When the concepts of freedom start to really spark in your mind, maybe it's just me, but it just makes more sense than any of the other garbage you've heard before.

But I'm sure everyone is different, and sometimes it does take a gradual change at least in certain areas before that spark can really ignite. For me it was Ron Paul on economics. I didn't buy into the foreign policy right away--at all, but that's when my research started. I figured if he was so correct on economics...well what about the other stuff?

Anyway, it's nice to know that you've found the right school of thought, isn't it? It's intimidating at the same time because you realize better exactly how much you don't know, but at least it's more than the sheep out there.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (29 items) | RSS