Skip to main content

The conundrum at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave: to respond to Glenn Beck or not?

From a political perspective, the proper response to Glenn Beck in the past few weeks would have been to stand by Van Jones and Yosi Sergant.

[I realize both had become political liabilities, but not even one-tenth the extent a political liability that being seen to cave into a talk show host creates.]

Now that Beck is going after Valerie Jarrett, the proper political response would be (a) for the White House to ignore him and support Jarrett, while (b) sending out some heavy-hitting political surrogates to take him on.

Having White House officials directly challenging Beck on an official White House website does not debunk Beck, it elevates him.

Hell, at this point he appears to be getting more of Barack Obama's attention than General McChrystal in Afghanistan.

At the same time it diminishes the power of the Presidency.

Why? Because it says, in effect, This man has developed such a following that his lies now require the official attention of the government in lieu of real things we should be doing.

Since trust in government, from both ends of the political spectrum, is running pretty damn low, that gives Beck's followers the idea that he is striking a nerve, and--ironically--tells President Obama's supporters exactly the same thing.

The problem for the Obama administration is that what would have been the right move for a campaign--responding quickly--is the wrong move for a sitting president.

Glenn Beck is a sick-freak-fad that can only become a phenomenon with staying power if his enemies treat him like one.

Comments

Delaware Watch said…
I read somewhere that Beck is a registered Libertarian. Do you know anything about it?
Anonymous said…
"This man has developed such a following that his lies now require the official attention of the government in lieu of real things we should be doing."

So, have you debunked any of these "lies"? If they're not lies, your impotent mini diatribe is a waste of time. Wait! You're a Libertarian (just like Beck?), so you're no stranger to political impotence.
Hube said…
I don't watch Beck nor listen to him; however, from what I've read, I can see nothing about him lying at least in regards to Van Jones. All he did was play clips of Jones' own words.

How is that lying -- or even the slightest bit disingenuous?
Mike W. said…
Having White House officials directly challenging Beck on an official White House website does not debunk Beck, it elevates him.

And that of course is exactly what Beck wants.
Anonymous said…
"And that of course is exactly what Beck wants."

Is anyone other than me surprised that Prof. Newton hasn't figured this out all by himself? He is certainly not that obtuse. I think he's gaming as a part of some perverted, masturbatory fantasy.
George Phillies said…
The people who appear on his program lend some of their credibility to Beck's claims of legitimacy.

A list could be generated.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...