After I wrote a quick blog in response to a story on Glenn in the Weekly Standard, a few different sites picked it up. Eventually, there was actually some interesting discussion. This was surprising considering the Standard’s original article was almost exclusively worthless.
Jonah Goldberg finds that the Standard comes up short.
I could go on. But I’ll just leave it here: A more fair-minded treatment of Beck would at least acknowledge that Beck is right about a lot of things, that he gets people to read worthwhile and mainstream conservative and libertarian books, and that a good number of his fans and followers are perfectly capable of making up their own minds. And a more fair-minded treatment of the tea parties wouldn’t use them as a Trojan Horse for an attack on Beck.
Matthew Vadum spends two posts, with more coming, absolutely destroying the Standard.
Continetti offers as proof of Beck’s lunacy his assertion in Glenn Beck’s Common Sense that, “With a few notable exceptions, our political leaders have become nothing more than parasites who feed off our sweat and blood.”
My gut reaction to that sentence was: And?
Are there any thinking Americans remaining out there who actually, naively, foolishly believe that the bulk of the nation’s politicians are interested in doing anything other than perpetuating themselves in office? That’s why there is a Tea Party movement that has been embraced by Americans everywhere and from all walks of life.
That Beck almost singlehandedly moved large numbers of Americans in the dark, depressing early months of the Obama presidency to begin questioning the Dear Leader’s divinely inspired plan for a new America is barely acknowledged by Continetti. Make no mistake: cable TV’s Rick Santelli may have fired the first shot against Obamaism but Beck was the force that drove home the point to the American people that Obama meant it when he said he wanted to “radically transform” America.
Hotair had a thoughtful post on it as well:
Is prophylactic government inevitably and uncontrollably a road to serfdom? Glenn Beck would say yes. (So would Hayek, if with more precision and analytical care.) Buy into the concept of government needing to intervene to prevent or foster (or guarantee) outcomes, and you have bought the totalitarian premise hook, line, and sinker. There is no moral or logical brake on the government’s charter to order the people around, if you agree that it should behave prophylactically, in everything from averting the formation of monopolies to averting the formation of cholesterol in your arteries.
The conservative side is where the question still lives, whether government can be entrusted with prophylaxis in the people’s lives. It’s worth noting that over the last century, every prediction of those who say it can’t has come true.
And, at the National Review, Daniel Foster, says he lands in between Glenn and the Standard, but levels a few weak attacks at my “attack.”
While Beck’s producer says the whole piece is “a collection of lies,” his criticism is confined almost exclusively to the bolded sentences above (the top ten list) which he says were part of a joke that Continetti has taken out of context. Fair enough, but Continetti’s larger point — that Beck’s likening of progressivism to totalitarianism is paranoid and counterproductive — hardly seems to turn on the Top Ten list.
The reason I focused “almost exclusively” on the list was because it was the easiest to illustrate in a short blog. It was a quick way to show he was being disingenuous. I didn’t keep it short because there wasn’t anything else in the article to criticize. I couldn’t care less if people take shots at Glenn. But…try. Try to do it well.
However—I, “Beck’s producer,” am a man of the people. If you want more, I’m happy to provide. More to come after I get out of July 4th vacation mode.