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 [:)]
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?
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.
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?
The Ron Paul Forums.
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.
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.
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://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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tucker Carlson was the only good mainstream news host. It’s a shame he’s gone.
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.