« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Glen Beck; a nice man but…

By: rsu65 (Diary)  |  November 23rd, 2010 at 08:10 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Oh!  If only I were ready to follow Beck’s call for acceptance and prayer as a way to  ward off the calamity headed my way as an American.  I believe in the saving power of  God’s Will and that as a finality  It will prevail despite the apparent calamities lurking around every corner of His creation.  I just have doubts about Glen Beck’s grasp of how His will works.

The alcoholics “acceptance” comes after the enemy, alcohol, has totally defeated them.  It is not until this “bottom” is reached that recovery begins.  The alcoholic says; I am never cured…I am always recovering.  To say “I am defeated by Obama and must accept it before recovery is in the offing will never be in my lexicon.  More importantly it is the part that anger plays in Glen Becks scheme of things that sets me apart from him.  That is; along with his radical adherence to libertarianism.

Today Beck convinced me that he believes anger must be stuffed.  This is understandable since the alcoholic, in his recovery, is not allowed an excess of any emotion.  While “Denial, Bargaining and Acceptance are written large in his life; anger is writ so very small.  It has come up before with him as he cautions us time and again “not to act out of anger”.  I believe the committed libertarian can hold on to their philosophy only in the absence of an active electorate.  The type of activism demonstrated on November 2 brings fear and trepidation to the heart of a libertarian.  You see political activity born out of anger leads the country class to pick sides and to act with energy on the implications of our choices.  We did this on election day and not one libertarian was elected.  That is the way of it.  Glen Beck will see his world view take hold and accede to power only when we set aside anger, when anger is justified and screamed for, as it is today, to be replaced with Becks “alcoholic” acceptance and therefore giving up that dreaded “partisan” indulgence exhibited last “freedom” day.

Glen Beck is right about one thing.  That being prayer to an almighty God.  When all is said and done, and faced with the intensity of evil in our world,  on our knees is not a bad place to be.  That is.. before we head out to the polling place and pull the Republican lever.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

    Perhaps it would be clearer if you could reorganize your content to 1) explicate what Glen Beck actually said; 2) interpret what he means; 3) indicate what you think of his position (with reasons); and 4) where you recommend we go from here.

    • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com Beaglescout

      Glenn Beck may claim to be a libertarian, but he doesn’t agree with libertarians on the one issue where the difference between them and classical liberals, aka conservatives, is starkest. Libertarians believe in the invisible hand of the free market. They believe in the wisdom of the people to guide their own lives. They believe in individual freedoms. They believe that government governs best that governs least. But they do not believe in God, nor that the principles and laws that perfect human interaction descend from God’s perfect wisdom.

      Beck is not an atheist. Most libertarians are. That’s why I disagree with the premise that Beck is libertarian. I think he’s a conservative Republican who feels betrayed by the Republican Party, so he calls himself libertarian. But he isn’t one.

      • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

        Sorry Beaglescout, but you are absolutely dead as a doornail wrong on this:

        but he doesn

        • streiff

          “conservative” to suit your own ends.

          The right of the government to establish something like a public standard of morality has been part of our system of government since its inception. At the time of the signing of the Constitution church attendance was mandatory in most colonies. We have laws against usury and prostitution. Gambling is strictly regulated. Ditto alcohol. Blue laws were common up until the 1970s and are still present in various guises in some states.

          Conservatism is not libertarianism. It never has been and it isn’t now. Conservatives and libertarians are allied on a small slice of issues. where they find common ground.

          As to your main argument, the federalism train has left the station. It was mortally wounded by the Civil War and was effectively killed by the New Deal. Social issues from gay marriage to abortion are decided in the Congress and federal courts. It is nonsense to advocate that conservatives unilaterally disarm.

          • Bill S
          • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

            You can build a winning majority coalition on federal political issues by advocating limited government and a return to true federalism. It isn’t about unilateral disarmament — of course we have to fight the battle in Congress, but the object shouldn’t be to trample the Constitution in the same way the liberals did. The object should be to restore the Constitution to its true, original place and meaning.

            Besides, don’t you think that conservatives can win at the state level, where dedication and activism play the biggest, most influential role? In Florida, a decidedly purple state on federal issues, we are solid red at the state and local levels.

            Final thought: I’m not saying that we shouldn’t push abortion and gay marriage at the federal level. We just have to do it constitutionally, which means a constitutional amendment. Congress has no business legislating on these topics.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            I somehow doubt that he “trusts” Congress. More like, I’m guessing, he distrusts the Courts more. At least Congress is elected.

          • Scope

            Amen to that.

          • Scope

            n/t

          • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

            Just wanted to note that those laws you cite as the public standard of morality, were enacted at the state level. These are not federal issues.

          • aesthete

            fiscal issues by trying to hew to the idea of government as a neutral arbiter, despite the fact that leftists have been raiding the goodie basket for decades? Why don’t we simply abandon our commitment to antiquated ideas like “limited government” and just go whole-hog on getting our own goodies from the government? I hear that getting paid by the government to be a stay-at-home mom is all the rage in Europe and Canada! It is foolishness to say that the other side’s foolishness justifies our own (this also applies to statements about federalism).

            Regarding public morality, you are right concerning the facts, but mislead by omission when it comes to the general bent of government and the level of government at which this policing of morality largely took place: just as the US had public works programs and statist government meddling in the economy but is not defined by it, so too the US has never been defined by restrictiveness in the social sphere. The truth is that, relative to most of the European polities (to say nothing of the rest of the world), the US governments, both state and local, were very permissive: it is blatant falsehood to say or imply otherwise. Moreover, with the exception of some unfortunate altercations with the Mormons, there was very little attempt at policing or establishing the dictates of a particular religion or sect at the federal level.

            Conservatism tends to be close to libertarianism at the federal level precisely because a government bound by the enumerated and implied powers is not too far from performing the roles that libertarians see as appropriate for government to perform. In that sense, scorpio’s point is perfectly legitimate.

    • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

      Beck’s episode on Fox News today; talking about the stages of grief. If I were sure, I’d probably have more of a comment because I think Beck went off track a lot trying to tie it to his war with alcoholism and the stages of grief.

      I disagree with Beck’s premise from a different angle because the stages of grief does include acceptance and I, for one, will never accept that freedom is lost. Ain’t. Happening.

      Nor will I bargain though depression does come and go with every set back.

      • JadedByPolitics

        he is a “nice” guy, do you know him? What he is to me is a man who has delved so far into the mental delusion known as liberalism that he is lucky to be mentally able to tell me what he has learned. I respect his work, and if by chance he happens to get something wrong in his 3 hours on radio and 1 hour on tv a day, every week day, well that is to be forgiven because there is NO ONE else telling this TRUTH of the sickness that has befallen 20% of the population of America on a daily basis. I thank God every day for GLENN Beck and FOX News for allowing him to get the TRUTH out!

    • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

      …I don’t think that he’s trying to lull America into a stupor (I think that’s what this diary implies). He’s a pretty devout Mormon, but he’s not evangelizing for the Latter Day Saints, and the view of AA that this diary presents is a caricature, at best (no offense intended).

      I think that Beck is an entertainer first, and he just sort of shoots his mouth off without much forethought. He’s still basically a morning zoo radio guy (and a very smart one), but now his shtick is politics.

      • acat

        What I know about Beck is that he’s a very smart (in a very fly-by-the-seat-of-the-pants sort of way) guy who has discovered the vast body of conservative thought. The “morning zoo” description is quite apt – Beck can think on his feet, and has a good sense of timing.

        What I don’t know about Beck is how deep his cynicism runs. He’s an entertainer, that’s been his career, and his current shtick – conservative politics – is making (or should be making him) buckets of ca$h .. but it’s also leading a lot of 60somethings to Hayek, the Federalist Papers, etc. etc.

        Why is he doing this? The money’s nice but this is a calling? The calling’s nice but it’s the money?

        Mew

        • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

          He’s clearly a shrewd businessman, but he’s pretty consistent. I just think that as soon as he learns something new, he

      • chbroussard

        I don’t understand all the correlation with his alcoholism either and I think a lot of times he acts a little silly.

        But I have to give him this…he has educated me on a lot of issues, basics upon which our country was founded, and connected a lot of the dots between Obama and some rather unseemly characters.

        For these reasons, I am grateful to Glenn and agree with you that he is a net positive for conservatism.

    • bus2dc

      I agree with rsu65. Glenn compares our fight against what is amounting to a complete overthrow of our nation (our government is already gone) to the “stages of grief” people are counseled through after a death or divorce. In addition to all said above, Glenn is also forgetting that Christians are taught to be as “soldiers” in God’s army. We FIGHT against evil. We use our anger as strength when targeted or tortured in His name. We know (accept) the world’s sin (evil) ALREADY if we are saved and walk with the Lord. We most certainly will NOT lie down and accept the fate Obama chooses to bring to our lives or our nation and THEN work our way back to reconstruct after the sky falls. If any soldier went into battle that way they be defeated in short order.

      Glenn is correct in that it is time to leave those who do or will not see behind — this concept is in the Bible. One is to do everything possible to save a neighbor, but we use discernment and prayer to know when it is simply time to help and protect those who are willing to fight by our side and stop hiding. We need to move on with a sound plan to FIGHT before we plan to “rebuild”. I thank Glenn for the UNBELIEVABLE amount of info and exposes that may well have stopped a few Marxists in their tracks momentarily. However, could we have some ideas for the BATTLE, Glenn, in addition to the food storage / survival hints?

  • The_Gadfly

    reality and fact checking if you are going to continue to post here. As several others have already pointed out, it is “Glenn” Beck not “Glen,” something you could quickly have confirmed by checking the Fox News web site, or doing a search with Bing, Ask, or even Google.

    Second up, while I have some major disagreements with libertarians, I grant them credit where due, and you need to too. One of the most prominent wins on election night went to a confirmed libertarian running under the Republican banner. His name was Rand Paul. While I am sure I will disagree with him on some things, I am also sure he will serve us well.

    • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com Beaglescout

      Paul’s christianity compared to Rand’s atheism is a perfect example of how libertarians and conservatives can get along. I sure believe we can both be on the same team. We agree on 90% of everything, certainly on personal freedom and a restoration of the Constitution and the rule of law.