The Dangers of Politicized Conservative History
Wilentz takes on Beck’s self-proclaimed role as America’s history teacher. Beck, he notes, says that his new Beck University contains “lessons from the best and brightest historians and scholars that we can find.” Wilentz scoffs at this outlandish claim, since Beck’s lineup of three faculty members contains only one real scholar, James R. Stoner Jr., a political scientist from Louisiana State University. Of the two others, one is a management consultant and the other a Mormon activist, the head of a “pro-family” group called WallBuilders.
Wilentz, like Zaitchik and Hemingway, notes the similarities of the ideas now popularized by Beck and the “ideas that circulated on the extremist right a half century ago, especially in the John Birch Society.” Those familiar with conservative history know that the Birchers were kicked out of the mainstream movement of its day in the 50s by none other than William F. Buckley, Jr. As Hemingway writes, “Skousen was active with the John Birch Society throughout the 1960s, even going so far as to write another book titled The Communist Attack on the John Birch Society, accusing those that criticized Birchers of promoting Communism.”
Wilentz takes readers on a tour of Birch Society history, from the crackpot theories of its leader Robert Welch, most known for condemning Dwight D. Eisenhower as a Communist, and on to Skousen, whom Wilentz calls “the most outlandish of the era’s right-wing anti-Communists,” a judgment with which I heartily concur. For Wilentz, “The political universe is, of course, very different today from what it was during the Cold War. Yet the Birchers’ politics and their view of American history — which focused more on totalitarian threats at home than on those posed by the Soviet Union and Communist China — has proved remarkably persistent.”
Another book which Beck regularly promotes is the The 5000 Year Old Leap, which was republished recently with an introduction by Beck. Wilentz points out accurately (I recently read the book) that it is made up of “selective quotations and groundless assertions that claim the U.S. Constitution is rooted not in the Enlightenment but in the Bible, and that the framers believed in minimal central government. Either proposition would have astounded James Madison, often described as the guiding spirit behind the Constitution, who rejected state-established religions, and like Alexander Hamilton, proposed a central government so strong that it could veto state laws.” (To this, Peter Berkowitz argues that actually “the tea party movement’s focus on keeping government within bounds and answerable to the people reflects the devotion to limited government embodied in the Constitution.” )
Wilentz then asks an important question: how is it that “extremist ideas held at bay for decades inside the Republican Party have exploded anew—and why, this time, Party leaders have done virtually nothing to challenge those ideas, and a great deal to abet them”? Here, Wilentz seems to lose sight of the fact that while Beck might restate and seem to agree with the Bircher analysis — and at times has openly credited them — he is not a leader of the Republican Party, but a radio and TV talk show host, granted an influential one.
The Tea Party movement is another matter, since many of their groups are taking Beck’s advice and making Skousen’s books mandatory reading material. Just as the left goes to Zinn for inspiration and spurious historical backing for their politics, some in the Tea Party seem to be going to Skousen to find a usable past, one that seemingly provides them with a direct line to the Founding Fathers. And that is a particularly dangerous route to take.
In the second part of his article, Wilentz uses his portrayal of Beck-style history to argue that the concerns of Tea Party activists and regular citizens who are now supporting Republicans and Tea Party candidates in the coming election are wrong. This is where his argument falls apart. He essentially says if their history is bad, that means so are their current political concerns and positions. This is simply not true. But it is true that today’s conservative activist base deserves better than ideologically created phony history that is both incorrect and misleading.
What Wilentz also does not get is addressed by Peter Berkowitz in his op-ed in the weekend Wall Street Journal, “Why Liberals Don’t Get the Tea Party Movement.” Berkowitz writes:
Vast numbers of other highly educated people read and hear these dubious pronouncements, smile knowingly, and nod their heads in agreement. University educations and advanced degrees notwithstanding, they lack a basic understanding of the contours of American constitutional government.
The Tea Party is, he notes, “one of the most spectacular grass-roots movements in American history,” notwithstanding some of the obvious faults of a few of their candidates and their tendency to adopt bad history when looking at the past. But their current movement derives from justified anger about the present. Berkowitz understands that “the tea party sports its share of clowns, kooks and creeps. And some of its favored candidates and loudest voices have made embarrassing statements and embraced reckless policies. This, however, does not distinguish the tea party movement from the competition.” At the end of the day, the Tea Partiers are calling for conservative solutions that have been successfully applied in the past. As Berkowitz writes, “activists and the sizeable swath of voters who sympathize with them want to reduce the massively ballooning national debt, cut runaway federal spending, keep taxes in check, reinvigorate the economy, and block the expansion of the state into citizens’ lives.”
With Holoween right around the corner, perhaps this article is fitting. Our radical socialist Islam-loving America-loathing president spawns his insane communistic schemes and elevates more avowed communists into positions of power, he tramples on the US Constitution, he dedicates NASA to the mission of making Muslims feel good about Islam’s titanic contributions to the US space program, and Ron Radosh trots out the old “right-wing extremist” bogeyman complete with a scary “John Birchers” soundtrack playing in the background.
Earth to Ron Radosh: our nation has been hijacked by genuine radical extremists — they’re not on the right side of the aisle. Jihad is spreading, and our monstrous president is indifferent or worse, but you talk about “right-wing extremism”, and John Birch and the paranoia of America’s anti-communists?
If it’s Halloween, then the fruitcake season is right around the corner too, and Ron Radosh shows us he’s ready and can hardly wait.
Thanks for an excellent riposte. Got a good laugh.
I could of not said it any better!!!
Morton Doodslag:
I agree with you 100% but I also think that Beck should not be in the place that other Conservatives have held in the past. William F. Buckley comes to mind. His Firing Line made me a Conservative. It was a pleasure to see his intellect at work. Beck gives me the creeps no matter how good his intentions may be.
The thing about Beck is that he says not to believe him. He tells the watchers/listeners to check everything. If he’s wrong you can find out because HE SAYS not to believe him. Does anyone on the left say that or anything close to it? NO!!! They don’t want you to check the facts. They know what you will find.
Have you every checked any of Beck’s “facts”? Here is just one of many examples: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/cash-for-clunkers/
Google will help with any others you may have.
Why is Radosh allowed to post this drivel on PJM?
Did I miss something? Is this a center left convention? Do my fellow readers want to hear this kind of inane, vacuous, left-wing propaganda?
It’s not a free speech issue. Of course he has the right of free speech. It’s a product issue. He can take his nonsense somewhere else or I’ll be taking my patronage somewhere else.
Typical conservative, can’t handle the least bit of challenge or variance from the Koch Brothers’ talking points. Incapable of independent thought. So lazy. So childish. So . . . patriotic!
Please, don’t wait for anyone to beg you to stay. I invite you to leave right now. In fact, I doubt that your ultimatum will result in banishment for Mr. Radosh. So I guess that means we won’t be seeing any more posts from you, given your incredible principles and strength of conviction. So, where will you be toting your patronage to now?
Koch Bros., really? You’re the embodiment of the kind of ignorance that Radosh is talking about here (from the leftist side, of course). That whole Koch Bros. calumny is laughable to everyone except you wild-eyed loonies, you know.
As for Radosh’s critique of “bad history” from the right to equate with the verifiably bad history from the left, he makes a lot of claims about it but doesn’t really support those claims at all with any citations. Anybody can make unsubstantiated claims. But nobody believes them.
Consider it substantiated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz9OEURcpg0
But your misguided pride just won’t let you believe the truth . . the definition of a Tea Bagger.
[Consider it substantiated.]
Really? Let’s examine that a bit.
Where in the video do the Young Turks substantiate the claim that AFP is FUNDING the Tea Parties? Nowhere. Or are you seriously going to try to claim that membership in Group A means that any other organization you belong to is funded by Group A? For example, if you belong to the UAW…while serving as a Scout Master for your son’s Boy Scout troop…does that indicate that the Boy Scout’s are funded by the UAW?
Also, note the segment on AFP’s opposition to ObamaCare, particularly the scene where the bus is pulling away from the curb. Then, note the segment where he talks about TEA Party buses being secretly “funded by AFP”, a segment which again shows the same footage of the bus pulling away from the curb. Two things:
1. What evidence do you – or the Young Turks – have that this video was taken at a Tea Party event? None.
2. Look at the footage of the bus pulling away, particularly the back end of the bus, near the top. Notice anything?…like a big, glaring oval with the words “Americans For Prosperity” inside? Kind of hard to be sneakily funding a bus tour when your organization plasters it’s name on the side of the bus, eh?
Members of AFP are clearly active in the TEA Party movement. What. A. Shock. I’ll bet that plenty of them are also active in the NRA. Does that indicate that the Koch Brothers are funding the NRA?
[But your misguided pride just won’t let you believe the truth . . the definition of a Tea Bagger.]
Kind of like buying everything force-fed to you by your Leftist overlords make you the definition of a useful idiot.
The AFP funded Tax Day Tea Parties in nine states. That took me about 20 seconds to find, man, and confirm from different sources. Their websites link to instructions at helping you throw tea party events in your area.
How could you say those things, just to try to prove someone you disagree with wrong? You didn’t research anything, made it look like you were tearing apart his argument when you either know your points are false, or worse yet, don’t know.
Maybe you were saying there’s some official form of Tea Party group they don’t fund, but that’s incredibly disingenuous. As a centrist, it upsets me when people try to reduce someone’s argument by calling them a “fascist” or a “wide-eyed loon.” If your argument is better, make it, and make it with the truth. Unless you’re one of those people paid to post comments on political sites. I don’t know how those people live with themselves.
Get a grip. It’s just an obscure article. It isn’t like, in the greater scheme of human pursuits, Radosh will ever have any effect on the course of human events.
Although reading his article gave me a craving for a grilled cheese sandwich with deviled ham spread and mayo.
Hmmm, you know, maybe there were insideous and diabolical, subliminal messages in Radosh’s article. I now have a craving for buttermilk and for chocolate ice cream, too.
Nicely done couldn’t have put it better. I guess Radosh has sent out fruitcake a little early this year.
Morton Doodslag?
Thank you, Sir! Well said! Hear! Hear!
Beck’s a TV clown, a second and third-handing buffoon stumbling along behind the parade and is about as important to the “tea party movement” (Read: We The [Sovereign American] People) as are tits, to boars and are pimples on bums.
Although I did enjoy the salad turnip’s bit about the dunce pretending to the title “teacher.” Mr Beck’s ego impresses — but that’s it.
And don’t dare get me started on the ludicrous lanky Long Island leprechaun, on the Shep, on Scarface or on the every bit as execrable Gerry Rivers!
1) Whatever James Madison thought about established religion, the Constitution allowed any State to establish an official religion, or not — as they chose. And Congress could enact no law respecting such establishment.
2) The Enlightenment was fundamantally wrong about human beings. Humans are social animals (Aristotle knew this B.C.), not solitary individuals. Humans are born with a hard-wired Human Nature, not as a tabula rasa, subject to endless manipulation or improvement via the environment. All Leftism is founded on this Enlightenment error — the rationale for Leftist regimes is the proposed improvement/perfection of humanity by changing their environment (Marxists, economic; Gramscians, cultural). The reason why Leftism does not work is that no matter how extreme the environmental change may be, human nature does not change and people aren’t perfected.
Ludicrous. We can’t simply ignore all the acts of violence that have been committed by Beck’s listeners. I can think of at least two shooters off-hand who claimed to be trying to stop people Beck said were destroying America. You can write those people off as crazies, but guess what, they’re not the only ones. Turns out freaking everyone out has some bad unintended (I hope) consequences.
Even if the President had a secret agenda of promoting communists to the highest places in government — which remains to be proved as much as when Joseph McCarthy said it — do you really think it’s with an intention of killing or enslaving us? Cause that’s a bold statement, and as a reasonable centrist I’d want to hear evidence of it, not Beckish “I’m going to tell you something earth-shattering” then citing a bunch of unrelated facts.
Honestly, you sound just like the libs during the Bush administration, calling him a fascist, nazi, etc. etc. This us-them nonsense just masks the fact that politicians on both sides are conspiring against the people of this country. It’s not as sexy as a crazy conspiracy theory, it’s the boring conspiracy of politics and economics that is the real world, and there’s such a huge volume of evidence of it compared to these heady “Obama is a sleeper cell” type hypotheses.
“Wilentz then asks an important question; how is it that ‘extremist ideas held at bay for decades inside the Republican Party have exploded anew—and why, this time, Party leaders have done virtually nothing to challenge those ideas, and a great deal to abet them.’”
A better question; how is it that ‘extremist ideas held at bay for decades from outside the United States have exploded anew with the Democratic Party – and why, this time, Party leaders have done virtually nothing to challenge those ideas, and a great deal to abet them.” Methinks the John Birchers, W. Cleon Skousens and Joseph McCarthies of the 50s and 60s were men ahead of their time, but they have proven to be quite prescient about where America is heading.
An ajoinder by John Steele Gordon: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/gordon/374376
One other thing: why does it matter who does the actual teaching of history? The purpose of history should be to educate and enlighten. It’s matters not if I learn it from a historian, a talk show host or a management consultant. If I am being educated, then let there be a thousand educators for me to choose from. I am wary when people say that we should only learn from a select few “experts”.
here!here!Chris Bolts, Sr. Now, after reading that estimation I am going to be extremely skeptical of Ron Radosh in the future.
Glenn Beck has done yeoman’s work in getting people to read and question some earlier history lessons. History is no easy task because you have to read so many different authors to get an accurate and broad understanding of the subject.
Ron, I believe you are a bit narrow in your take on GB.
I like Glenn Beck. Quite a lot actually. I must agree on one thing in this article though and that is one’s view of history must not rest on one author, one book. Read many books on the period you want to know more about. Reading just one book that leans right is as bad as the left reading only Howard Zinn. By the way I think Zinn represents the worst in historical authors. In an interview he admited that facts were not as important to him as was his need to make a “difference”.
My point is “know” your history and not just buying everything from one source.
Many MANY times I have heard Glenn Beck say, ‘Don’t just listen to me, read for yourself, study for yourself, make up your own mind.’ He does NOT say, ‘I am the way to enlightenment’, rather he says, ‘Enlighten yourself’.
I agree, Michael. If you watch any of Beck’s shows, he’s the first one to always, always, say to do your own research and read your own books. You really don’t have to take his word for anything. But he has been the first person on television to even raise the subject of the Constitution and how far this nation is straying for it.
For example, is Obamacare constitutional? This has been a big topic on the show and I totally agree that if the Federal Government gets to enforce Obamacare, Federalism as we know it is dead. If the Federal Government can actually force you to buy something, like insurance, where will it stop? Will it be able then to tell you what car you can buy, say, only from General Motors since the government owns it? And if the Federal government runs healthcare, can it tell you what to eat and how much you can eat? After all, if smokers and drug addicts are charged more for insurance, will overweight people be taxed more unless they lose weight? Once we go down this road there is no end to what the government will do to you.
Yet where has the main stream media been on this? They don’t even raise the question, let alone provide an opinion. As for the Tea Parties, how much trouble can a country get into if it actually reduces the size of a bloated government, cuts horrific spending, and reduces taxes so that people actually get to keep more of what they earn? If we actually balance the Federal budget, why would that be a bad thing? If we get rid of pointless earmarks, why would we suffer because of that? The Tea Party activists are grounded in very simple and sensible principles, regardless of what books you read.
Glenn Beck is ultra “far right”. What planet do you live on? He’s a right leaning liberal. The fact that PJM publishes you on a regular basis and considers itself “conservative” is shamefully misleading.
I’m with you. When I hit that, I pretty much stopped reading. That whole left-right thing was a creation of the left. It is a false dichotomy and anyone who’s world view is based on it can not do anything but support the left. The socialists have defined our language and our shared world view for too long.
I have to disagree with you on this one. GB is indeed an ultra-far-right individual. Allow me to explain.
I disagree with the political circle. I believe it is a line. Ont he far Right are the Anarchists (no government). On the far-Left are the Totalitarians (total government). Everyone else is in between. It is all about the size and scope of government.
Libertarians like Beck, seem liberal on issues, because they believe the government shouldn’t be involved at all in such things as marriage and drugs. We are talking VERY limited government.
Conservatives, by contrast, believe in a little more government than that. They believe government has a role in protecting our culture, for example, or rather, keeping the Leftists from using the government to subvert our culture.
Both Libertarians and Conservatives are on the Right, advocating limited government. The argument between them is about just how small a government, not how big. To a Libertarian, a Conservative is a big government guy.
Of the limited time that I have watched GB, he always tells his viewers to “look it up for yourselves, don’t take my word for it. He implores the viewers to make their own judgements, not his judgements (which are carefully researched). He has to carefully research the topics that are being discussed, because as we all know, he is being watched by more people that you think.
He would certainly get called out for it.
Someone like Mr. Beck who adheres to a religion that affirms (against all scientific proof to the contrary) that the native tribes of America are descendants of the lost Northern Tribes of Israel who crossed the Atlantic en masse thirty centuries ago… is hardly anyone’s idea of a rigorous historian.
Mr. Beck is a good conservative comedian but he is no Russell Kirk.
Glenn Beck is a far right charlatan, Radosh? Which makes you what? An apologist for leftist thugs.
Ron evinces the reformed Leftist’s reverence for intellect as a cure-all for society’s ills. (All that’s needed is 10 more points of IQ or another graduate degree, or more footnotes in the thesis. Then all will be well.)
IMHO, great change is written in bold splashes of color. Fine distinction in argumentation dispirits the target audience. The Left uses simple strokes to appeal to its base. The Right dare not come across as Medieval Scholastics, weighing out Truth on a gram scale.
If Beck, or Rush or Levin do not always nail the facts, at least we know the goal is the correct one.
All the best to the Leftists who grow up.
Anyone else noticed that Ron Radosh has this insufferable habit of tacitly nominating himself as “the one” worthy of determining merit and scholarship?
Most of the rest of are simply too stupid to fall in line and we need his help.
Somewhere, somehow, I feel like I’ve heard that line before while I bitterly cling to my guns and my religion.
Mr. Radosh, I am far less concerned that Glenn Beck and some members of the Tea Party believe “‘the founding’ — is ageless and sacred and to be worshipped; that certain historical texts — ‘the founding documents’ — are to be read in the same spirit with which religious fundamentalists read … the Ten Commandments” than that our political leaders in Washington obviously do not.
You also state that “some in the Tea Party seem to be going to Skousen to find a usable past, one that seemingly provides them with a direct line to the Founding Fathers. And that is a particularly dangerous route to take.” And the danger is what? You leave that undefined. Not very persuasive.
I would guess that citizens are more informed, not less, due to Glenn Beck. I’m sure he makes mistakes, but with the World Wide Web and efficient search engines it’s possible for a curious viewer to quickly find original sources once they know something exists.
George B: I’d have to agree with you that more people are now familiar with basic American history facts because of Beck. I’ve heard many highly schooled people say they’ve learned something from his history shows. Plus, there are many avenues of checking him if you hear something that doesn’t ring true.
Mr. Radosh and his professional historian friends can pick as much as they please, but Beck is Pop TV and the content is not bad as far as it goes.
Perhaps, Mr. Radosh is feeling a little sheepish that his entire profession has been so unsuccessful in familiarizing the public with such an important area of knowledge.
They shouldn’t complain too much. Beck’s giving them jobs.
Thing is, BBC, the salad turnip and others like him are just plain envious of Mr Beck The Buffoon’s Twenty-Five Million Bucks a year for not saying anything we don’t already know to a bunch of folks who like that kind of thing said by Mr Beck, the buffoon, better than they like to hear anything that’s said by the salad turnip and others like him!
Yes, and if you throw in Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul you have an unbroken font of paranoia going back to the 50s.
There really isn’t much difference between the Tea Party and the movement to elect Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan. What has changed is the failure of the mainstream Republican Party to provide an alternative, with a big assist from the failure of the Democratic Party to deal with economic collapse.
I don’t believe that the American people have suddenly embraced extreme isolationist and antigovernment paranoia. I think this will become obvious after the election when Congress still fails to solve all their problems.
I’m not a fan of extremism in politics, but I don’t see the Tea Party as some evil plot. It’s a reaction to government failure. The real problem is the failure of the center to deal with crises.
with a big assist from the failure of the Democratic Party to deal with economic collapse.
The Democratic Party didn’t fail to deal with the economic collapse. They caused it with the CRA. The Republicans weren’t bright enough to explain what happened.
The Tea Party isn’t anti-government. It’s pro-limited-government. There is a difference. For example, most Tea Partiers would agree that there are certain areas where government is either the best or only answer… such as law enforcement or public safety (including the Armed Forces).
And isolationist? Look at the modern left… they want us out of Iraq, they want us out of Afghanistan… that’s isolationism.
Now, you can either learn from this gentle correction, or you can double down on your flawed worldview. Your choice.
…. the failure of the “Democratic” Party to deal with (monetary) collapse ….
You having a lend of yourself, or what?
The systemically viciously treasonous vast RICO-racketeering organized criminal enterprises usually addressed by their street name, ‘the “Democratic” potty’ are totally “hands-on” in the monetary collapse.
The bastards engineered it!
More and more every day in every way I understand the French Revolution. Elitists are evil and insane and sometimes the only thing you can do is kill them wholesale. Like in WWII. It’s a real bitch. Makes me ashamed to be human but it is so obvious today it hurts.
I have harbored that same sentiment with the hope that killing them won’t be necessary. I still have faith that our gov’t system is set up in such a way that revolutions can go down without bloodshed.
There’s sick, there’s PJM sick … and then there’s Scott & Bobbcat.
Revolution sucks and millions of people die. Then life continues much as before, except when it’s worse.
Lets review, James Byrd, Teddy Kennedy, Barney Frank and John Karry. Glen Beck could run around D.C. in a tutu and not be any more ridiculous than the above named. If Beck was preaching revolution and armed conflict you might have a point but he isn’t and your argument is flawed.
I love Glenn. He is trying to help us learn about the country that this school system will never cover. He is trying to make us proud of the Founding Fathers, as the left is not even including them in history books for kids anymore. As “coolidgerules” says above he always says do the research for yourself, don’t believe what I say. Do you know a lib that says that? He also is a prodigious reader and recommends many books for his readers. I really think the real reason the libs hate him so much (besides he makes money and he does so much research on all the organizations behind obama) is that he never went to an ivy league college (did you hear the bells toll, or the angels sing when I mention Ivy league?) or any college for that matter. He is a self made man. I get mad at him sometimes when he goes after Bush, and he did the same when Bush was in office. So you can always tell when someone spouts off about him and you know they have never listened to his shows even once, because they think he only bashes the left wing.
The president has so besmearched the office of the president because he personally goes after him. As some say I think he lives in the pres head.
Thank you Goldi for your honest enthusiasm about Beck. I too like him a lot, he makes me laugh when he performs his antics, especially the academics. I appreciate his history ‘lessons’ on Fridays. The only reason I read this Radosh missive is because I came across David Horowitz’s name. I adore the latter and I support his organization. As for Cleon Skousen, a few years ago I read a book entitled ‘The naked Communist’ and if I remember correctly Skousen wrote it. Interestingly enough, a few things he described are quite prominent today. Without rereading the book it is probably not wise to quote anything from it, but didn’t he write something about taking the children at an early age and make good communists out of them? Reminds me of the early childhood education, preschool and such that they are pushing here in California. Start brainwashing the kidlets at age 2 and you create a reliable socialist democrat voter for ever. As an independent thinker and a conservative voter I dislike that.
Amazing article…I thought it would be substantive but I don’t see many areas where there is clear evidence of Beck distorting historical FACTS–merely some disagreements of interpretation, especially the questionable allegation that Madison favored a strong central government.
I enjoy Radosh’s writing–don’t know if he’s right, left, or center–but I consider PJM to be a right of center site, and I am always amazed at the Right’s tendency to eat their own. Kos and the Netroots may be crazy but I don’t see them forming as many circular firing squads as we do on the Right.
“I am always amazed at the Right’s tendency to eat their own. Kos and the Netroots may be crazy but I don’t see them forming as many circular firing squads as we do on the Right.”
Moonbat Sweat Lodges in full Hive-mind mode rarely do.
If you should ever wish to plumb the depths of a Moonbat livestock-pen, all you need to do to be accepted as a card-carrying true believer is to macro the words:
“OMG! I TOTALLY AGREE”
with whatever the “Daily Group-think” happens to be,(and use the caps, they like that kind of thing over there).
Heck, do it enough and they’ll give you comment moderator powers…
If you’ve got the stomach for it, try it and see.
As to this article, much of it seems more like a faculty lounge argument that spilled out into cyberspace.
You don’t have to like Glenn Beck, or agree with his views or his history to appreciate what he’s doing.
No one has EVER done on tee-vee what Beck is doing.
And since his aim is so far and his target so wide, he’s bound to miss a few shots or get a few hang-fires here and there.
This point of view of yours is insane. If Beck is presenting a flawed view of history it should be pointed out. Perhaps Beck himself is not aware that he may be in error. If you disagree with Ron’s version of history then by all means point out his factual errors. But do not blame the messenger if you do not like the news. No one is above the truth.
I doubt that one can point out factual errors regarding historical writings. None of us who write here were around when this country was founded, so we rely on history books and other sources. One must certainly not judge history by today’s standards. Unfortunately, all kinds of history has been rewritten to fit the writers’ agendae. Political correctness rules! I am a pre WWII person, I lived radio news on a daily basis, read newspapers and witnessed war refugees,and soldiers from different countries gone awol ending up in my country to be taken care of until the war was over. Today, I read and I hear from so called experts about issues and events that are hairraisingly false. Like I said none of us were there when the founding fathers were active. The only facts would be in letters or other writings by these men themselves, also original newspaper articles, but we know that very little of these originals survive. We are left to interpret and guess from what we have access to. So we merrily go ahead and make facts fit with our own view of life and politics.
Ron- To say that Beck is spouting bad history is only valid if you provide solid examples. Please name the examples. Everytime I hear Beck, he is constantly stating, “don’t depend on what I say, research it for your self”. He demands that his listeners (viewers) do their own research. While you are at it Ron, please provide examples of what makes someone a far-right loon? I had a professor tell me that she got tired of talking to her relatives who had crazy Christian extreme far-right views, and I had her to explain exactly what classified someone as extreme, and she just looked at me like I was crazy.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/18/101018fa_fact_wilentz
What, liberals can’t be isolationists if conservatives are? Perhaps they both can be? I’m supposed to simply ignore my own eyes and ears? When I see so much of the libertarian right obsessed with strange foreign policy ideas and odd conspiratorial worldviews, I’m supposed to forget about it because they want to lower taxes?
Conservatives can’t be antigovernment if they want less government? Perhaps they are just anti- this government? I’m supposed to look at this comment thread and not see antigovernment views?
Bizarre. It’s quite possible for two different ideologies to produce paranoid nonsense. Unfortunately, for the last 10 years that’s been happening a lot.
We had the liberals who hated Bush, now we have conservatives who hate Obama. Maybe we should stop blaming people in Washington for all our problems? The primary cause for our problems are human decisions, and not all the people who made them are in Washington.
The world is complicated and cannot be understood with simple ideas. Radosh took two pages to sort out what’s wrong with Beck & Co. Lying about history is lying about history. Either it’s true, or it’s not. Getting all huffy at anyone who attacks the hero of the moment is very blind. That’s exactly the time to tell the truth. That’s integrity.
Otherwise, you elect an empty suit and regret it two years later. I’m not interested in electing a bunch of people offering simple answers to complex problems. That’s exactly what’s on offer from both major parties, and that’s why were are in a fix.
If they concentrated more on results than ideas we’d get out of this mess. If we stopped elected people who simply tell us what we want to hear… look, we’re a democracy and we get the government we deserve. It’s our fault.
Now get all angry and spam this comment with replies. I’m going to go balance my checkbook.
Yep, doubled down.
I win my bet with myself.
Thanks for being so predictable.
There is clearly a misunderstanding here.
Libertarians are isolationists (seeking minimum government).
Liberals are not. They are just disinterested in foreign affairs. To them, domestic policy is everything. It is about getting and keeping power. “Viva la Revolucion!” and all that. When you are engaged in a revolution, external (foreign) affairs are simply a distraction.
Once they take power and hve secured it, then they will turn their baleful gaze upon the rest of the world. Indeed, to the tyrants (Leftists), having an external enemy is central to retaining domestic power.
The socialists teach and propagandize Foucalt’s proposition that America’s history is one of greedy and evil aggression and oppression.
Beck’s mission is to point out to non-scholarly middle-class voters, particularly those who have voted Democrat out of habit and are uneasy about this administration, that our history, though not entirely noble, is one of honesty and high principle, in which we should take pride and defend against regressive “collectivism” and multiculturalism. He knows his audience is not interested in niggling nuances. And he is switching more votes than Ron’s specialists would ever reach, much less persuade.
Isn’t that what this election is all about?
Knock off the dilletante, name-dropping “My sources are better than yours.” Doctor Radosh.
Part of the problem has to be that many of these people DO look at the Constitution (written by people who were trying to form a country in the context of a group of states coming together often with much reluctance) the way a Fundamentalist looks at the Bible. It wasn’t just an evil anomalie that from that date on we grew as a country, BECAME a country, in fact, and the Constitution, like the country was a living entity. One could probably cite 200-500 examples, hell, probably 2,000-5,000 examples of how the Federal Government grew beyond the limits proscribed (apparently) by the Constitution. Yes, it is shocking to see what the Guvment has become, given the stated limitations, but what we have become is more of a reality than is the (gasp) strictly constructed Constitution. To go back to 1790, can’t happen, won’t happen. Politicians USE the Constitution to achieve what they want, or try to stop what they don’t want. The Supreme Court tries to maintain some semblance of order and adherence to the Sublime Document, but they too, have adjusted it so many times, that their adjustments have become “settled law.” That is what we are dealing with.
Therefore, it does seem somewhat simple minded to say we’ve got to get back to the Constitution. One can say, we’ve grown government too far too fast, and have to slow things down for a while, or that the Constitution espouses a principle of liberty that we need to re-invigorate, but let’s not descend into into mindlessness, and either refuse to see how much we have changed, or see it and be driven crazy…left to envision another French Revolution.
Ugh.
It’s late and I don’t have time to do this in detail, but, though Icome from an academic historical background (ABD in European intellectual history, esp the Enlightenment), I think Beck’s take on Wilson and at least certain wings of the Progressives (I’d exclude most of the 1910 California Progressives like Hiram Johnson) is probably a lot closer to historical accuracy than the current received version – and this is a view based on reading the Link biography, the Freud & Bullitt psychobiography (great fun!), House’s memoirs, Grey’s memoirs, the Sidney Fay, Bernadotte Schmidt, Albertini, Ritter, and Fischer stuff on WWI, Nicholson on Versailles, and a whole lot of other primary and secondary material on Wilson and the period. I think H.L. Mencken had the “Archangel Woodrow” dead to rights. There is absolutely nothing to admire about Little Tommy Wilson’s reign.
The transformation of mainline Protestantism into the Social Gospel (while Bryan the the fundies did Chatauquas, revivals, and brought us Prohibition – which dovetailed with Progressivism nicely) and thence into Progressivism sliding into socialism and Marxism is too little understood and appreciated. One has to read Niebuhr, though I dislike him and think he is somewhat muddle-headed.
My father took Skousen moderately seriously in the ’50s, but I never did. As you say, he made even Chambers blush (but then, so did Ayn Rand).
Ron, thanks for an excellent piece. I’m old enough to remember the days when the John Birch Society was widely quoted; for someone who was what we now call a “Constitutionalist” in the 60′s, the Birchers were hardly helpful, even if they were, on occasion, right.
As for many of the other comments here, I just today heard a lovely characterization of “common sense” as “seeing what’s real, and doing what’s right.” The first step of that is “seeing what’s real”. At some point, everyone has to make a decision: try to see what’s real, thinking critically for themselves and making their own decisions — or simply follow some Leader.
Me, I’m with Ron: let’s think for ourselves and try to understand what’s real.
The John Birch Society did enormous damage with its conscious conspiracy nonsense. It literally sent millions of conservatives off in the wrong direction to fight imaginary enemies. Glenn Beck is a work in progress—and quite humble. He candidly admits that he is working hard to get his act together. I agree with him roughly eighty percent of the time. That’s good enough. Beck is very knowledgeable concerning Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and other major Progressive figures of American history. You will often hear people insult Beck. Do yourself a favor: demand specifics!
Sorry. I appreciate your loyalty to your friend but Ron Radosh shows no such loyalty or respect to those commenting on his pieces. He goes off on apparently unsolicited attacks on those like Geller and Spencer, flaws and all, that have brought awareness of Islamic doctrines to tens of millions of people. Then he takes poster’s inadvertent errors and makes them the starting point of an article – with the intent to ridicule. He did that with me, and – maybe I missed it – I never saw a retraction.
As for his comments about Beck: Glenn, like Pamela and Robert, has brought some important truths to the fore about Obama and the ideology of those behind him. Doubling back and slandering Beck because he has qualms about ‘The New World Order’ etc. is not fair. Radosh is consistently unfair, and mean.
Mentioning Beck and history in the same sentence creates a dissonance. This dissonance needs to be explored. Beck is a TV and radio personality, best known for his commentary. He is obviously partisan. The conventional wisdom is that any historical perspective Beck supports must be partisan.
But, how many history textbooks, books, and biographies have we read without questioning the biases of the authors? I’m guilty. From an early age, I was taught that the textbook author was an authority figure–the all-knowing, all-seeing, expert. From K thru 12, I accepted what those experts said. When I was in college, I learned that the first thing to do before reading a book was to research the author. This is how I knew that anything Howard Zinn said was suspect.
Without having seen the historians and authors that Beck (or Limbaugh and Levin) has interviewed on his show, I would be ignorant of a whole range of perspectives. This is what makes him important: without him a lot of folks would still be sitting in the dark thinking that it was daylight.
Just a small comment…..a great while back I talked with a guy from the WWII era, and now really wish I got his name, who told me something very interesting. Could have been fabricated but my sense was he was telling the truth. He was in the military and charged with loading certain materials to fly over to Russia during WWII. Not a high level guy but one of the men actually loading the planes. He claimed when FDR was president, we were in fact shipping materials straight from the Manhattan project under orders from the White House.
Maybe the Birchers were more right than we know.
Ron, I supplement my US history by listening to Mark Levin every day. I think you would learn current conservative concerns with a daily dose of The Great One.
Glenn Beck is not helpful.
The one thing Beck has done has gotten us to read and learn, once again, about our history and Constitution. The questions comes now: where do we get a good list of books to read that are conservative based? They’re not readily available online. Any suggestions?
Kevin – My brother is a history professor. He recommends Dumas Malone for his biography of Thomas Jefferson. Dumas Malone received the 1975 Pulitzer Prize in history for these six books on Jefferson. In 1983 President Ronald Reagan awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. I’ve read two of them. They don’t seem to be biased to me
Jesus, are you people high or something? Ron is making a sound argument here. History is not something that should be subordinated to anyone’s ideological agenda, regardless of how well-intended.
I don’t watch or listen to Glenn Beck often but when I do I get the distinct felling I am rereading the conservative books I read in the 80′s. He has a fundamental idea of what is happening but doesn’t translate it to the present. This is the major thing that sets Rush and Mark Levin above the rest. They see the shift and correctly predict the lefts next move and counter it. The others are reactive rather than proactive. This is also the main reason for success in the Tea Party. I don’t know how they do it and neither does the left, it seems like inspiration. This is a new battle that needs new tactics.
Although I share Ron’s concerns about history being distorted for political purposes, it’s been a problem for a very long time (probably for as long as there has been history to record), and the left is far more active in this regard than the right.
You know I don’t watch Glen Beck regularly but every time I have watched him he has said (multiple times) “Don’t believe what I say. This is all out there. Research it for yourself.” Funny how people are consistent in their vilification of Beck but not what he says on his show.
Take for example his little lesson on the “Shadowy People” Nancy Pelosi likes to talk about. One of the most shadowy of the the shadowy is George the Kingmaker Soros, who runs the Tides Foundation who funds or funded Acorn, Moveon.org, and now is bankrolling the newest effort by the Huffington Post to obtain relevancy. It seems they feel the need to have an independent “investigative reporter” organization that will be “objective and independent “. While being bankrolled by the very man who bought the presidency for Barak Hussein Obama? Really.
Beck does not make these things up. He just connects the dots and encourages people to find out the truth for themselves. And like Ann Coulter he uses peoples words and actions to make his points for him. Thank goodness someone’s doing it because the lame stream media and the left wing bloggers out there aren’t about to police themselves.
The big bad media wolf might want to watch out for the sheep, we’re coming for you.
I agree with David Horowitz. Bad timing. Real bad timing.
You remind me of compulsively “fair” Jews in Israel who believe, even at the worst possible times, that they must — are obligated — to illuminate any faults Israel might legitimately have — rather than putting their energy and concentration on vital matters of
survival and the opposition’s — or enemy’s much, much worse actions, intentions, and malevolence.
Bad, bad timing. Totally foolish choice.
Radosh’s attack on M. Stanton Evans’ book (the ONLY thouroughly-researched and intellectually honest work
about the rise and fall of Senator Joseph McCarthy)
undermines whatever other arguments he has made here.
Looks like Ronnie buys into some pretty bogus “history”
himself. I wonder how many liberals would even know who John Birch was without checking Wikipedia. 5%…or less?
I believe that the Left attacking a remark Palin made recently certainly made fools of themselves by exposing their ignorance of the significance of 1773.
yest.
Beck doesn’t demonstrate the perils of auto didacticism, but the perils of learning the subject while at the same time attempting to teach it.”
But this can be applied to many, many teachers of history today who learn what they have been told to think and pass it on without any critical appraisal and research.
Amazing how with sufficient experience one discovers later on in life that some who taught us were no better than dumb ideologues.
Glenn Beck constantly implores his audience to double check everything he says. The man is very well aware of his limitations. Beck wants you to study on your own. I disagree with him on a number of points—especially his advocacy of a radical libertarian interpretation of national security issues. Still, he deserves credit for starting the discussions.
beck has to be taken with a grain of salt. leftists including those in academia are disingenuous until proven otherwise
Glenn may no tcome up to the appropriate standards of a history prof. But for me he exposed Van Jones and Anita Dunn, and made us aware of the Tides foundation and spooky dude Soros. On the ground, i see too many young college grads that have a biased view of the US bordering on hate; that had to come from their education. Higher Ed is failing.
So conspiracy cable TV theories are more reliable that university level history courses?
When we talk about such things we usually forgot many things about that and people should read this to get more information about it.
Ron: I know you hate the truth, with you there is always something wrong with the truth, always an argument against it; “hath God said”. There is nothing new or fresh in what you do. You are just standing in a long line of gainsayers waiting for the ground to open up and swallow you whole. Next time try and see the good in the truth when you find it knocking on your door. The days will be much brighter and you’ll actually find joy in your heart instead of the satisfaction of pulling wings off of insects.
I just want to take issue with the first quote on the so-called perils of “auto didactism”, not that any “real” academic has ever made any errors or fabrications or anything. Correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t most of the scholars, particularly in the sciences, all auto didacts until the last century or so when everything suddenly became a degree or a certification? Would that we spent as much time examining their auto didactism if that was really such a problem.
Mr. Radosh:
“Like Wilentz, Hemingway refers to what he calls “Skousen’s dubious achievements,” and he too points to Skousen’s best-selling book from the 1950s, The Naked Communist , a volume “which even for 1958 is so irrational in its paranoia that it would have made Whittaker Chambers blush.””
Maybe it is, I’ve not read Skousen yet, and certainly some of the claims made by Birchers seemed to be pretty far out there, but when I see the Speaker of the House saying this:
“We’re talking about addressing the disparity of income where the wealthy people continue to get wealthier and some other people are falling out of the middle class when we want to bring many more people into the middle class. But that disparity is not just about wages alone, that disparity is about ownership and equity. It’s all about fairness in our country,”
I’m far more persuaded that the Birchers were not all that “out there” after all.
For God’s sake…the Speaker of the House is publicly advocating Socialism, Mr. Radosh!
Our problem is NOT that we had a Martin Dies in the House and a Joe McCarthy in the Senate…our problem is that we didn’t have MORE of them, and that they didn’t extend the Red hunts to more than just government employees and media types.
And I’ve felt this way LONG before I ever picked up “Blacklisted by History”.
Frankly, the revelations of the Oxford-Cambridge Spy rings detailed in “Spycatcher” showed one of the Soviets’ successful espionage ploys, and after reading it, I asked why is it held that the same ploy was not also targeted at the USA.
It seems fairly obvious now that it indeed was…it was just never publicized to the extent that Guy Burgess and Kim Philby’s crowd were.
So to that end, I wouldn’t be so quick to declare Beck’s, or anyone’s history to be “wrong” or “politicized”, since the history we’ve all been force-fed is itself a politicized construct.
For God’s sake…the Speaker of the House is publicly advocating Socialism, Mr. Radosh!
Hogwash. The tendency of pure capitalism to concentrate most of the available wealth into the hands of very few has been known for a long time: it’s the entire reason for regulatory measures sush as anti-trust law.
As much as I can’t stand Pelosi, she’s correct in saying that the trend is accelerating and that this is not good. A healthy republic depends on the middle class owning the goods and services in moderation.
Pelosi’s recommended “fix” for this is debatable. That she’s noticed what others have is not. She’s not advocating socialism, and wetting your panties every time she speaks not only doesn’t help, but makes you appear rather Pavlovian.
“She’s not advocating socialism, and wetting your panties every time she speaks not only doesn’t help, but makes you appear rather Pavlovian.”
Alston, I think the Socialist kook’s words speak for themselves:
““We’re talking about addressing the disparity of income where the wealthy people continue to get wealthier and some other people are falling out of the middle class when we want to bring many more people into the middle class. But that disparity is not just about wages alone, that disparity is about ownership and equity. It’s all about fairness in our country,””
I don’t necessarily think that you’re a dullard, but since perhaps you are playing one here let’s parse this paragraph out.
Ms. Pelosi, who is the Speaker of the House, is talking about “addressing disparities”,in the name of “fairness”.
I s’pose we have to elect the Politburo in order to find out what the Politburo’s definition of “fairness” is, eh?
“But that disparity is not just about wages alone, that disparity is about ownership and equity.”
Alston, I’ve lived in and travelled to places where I’ve heard this kind of rhetoric… places like Venezuela under Hugo Chavez and Nicaragua under the Sandinistas.
Yet you will sit here and say with a straight face that it is “hogwash” to declare this the Socialism that it is.
I’m being kind here because it could also be that you are such a helpless dupe and fellow-traveller that you simply are in such denial that you can no longer face the reality of what is plainly before your face.
I reckon then that you will not concede that it is what it manifestly is until the government steps in and confiscates your house, car and IRA pension fund,(that “ownership and equity” she babbles about),from you.
But maybe not even then…
Frankly, it doesn’t matter what you admit to or not though, since Pelosi and her policies will have proved themselves to be an unmitigated disaster for the DemocRat Party.
1994 was good for half a generation of GOP rule in the Congress, and Pelosi’s political ghost should suffice for at LEAST that long again in power.
Alston, I think the Socialist kook’s words speak for themselves:
Everything involving a tax in any society is a redistribution scheme. It is not socialist to speak of redistribution, to talk of income disparity. Nor is it class warfare. The middle class is shrinking. I disagree with Pelosi’s position, yet it’s not socialist. That’s just a convenient term you learned in school and have learned you can accuse people of it. It’s as meaningful as them calling you fascists. Any idiot can call names.
What’s socialist is to regulate private business to a point it can’t function, having government involved with the wheels of making things work. Pelosi et al are a great deal more dangerous playing with adult issues like energy policy. Their green nonsense can ruin the country.
I’m all for seeing Pelosi et al voted out. I’d appreciate *real* help in voting these imbeciles out for their stupidity, which is a real and present danger. But grandstanding and beating chests and attempts on voting them out based on a third grader’s version of “socialism?” Please.
“Everything involving a tax in any society is a redistribution scheme. It is not socialist to speak of redistribution, to talk of income disparity. Nor is it class warfare.”
Alston, try as you might to ignore it, she was not just talking of taxes and wages.
For God’s sakes, man, the Socialist kook,(and her weird hand-jives), specifically mentioned ownership and equity.
This. Is. Socialism.
“Any idiot can call names.”
This is so, but only a self-deluded idiot claims that it’s “just calling names” when the name perfectly fits that which it is being called.
At a certain point, pig-headed denial starts to look like deliberate mendacity, y’know.
“It’s as meaningful as them calling you fascists.”
Glad you brought that up. What kind of government do you suppose that the Socialist kook and her cronies would have need of in order to effect this “redistributive scheme” of hers vis-a-vis that “ownership and equity” thing she’s babbling about?
Folks who live in mansions are not likely to jut voluntarily vacate them to the government without a fight. And people who get their 401k earnings infringed upon are going to probably be pretty damned pissed off at little Miss Moonbat Speaker “dipping her beak” into their retirement funds.
Socialism needs Fascism like peanut butter needs jelly.
We’re seeing it now with the waivers being granted for the “Favored Few” companies and unions from the dictates of Socialist Utopia ObamaCare… there it is:
Exemptions and Waivers to benefit the Cronies, The Giant Sucking Sound of Socialism for the Masses.
And making it all possible, the government flunkie with a gun to our heads.
“What’s socialist is to regulate private business to a point it can’t function, having government involved with the wheels of making things work.”
Alston, in all seriousness…are you high when you post here?
You consider the over-regulation to the point of obstructionism of private business to be “Socialism”, and yet you can contemplate the .gov seizing an ownership stake,(how much of one THEY will decide),in a business and siphoning off whatever wealth,(that likewise they will decide),it can manage to create in spite of their interference, not just with equanimity, but to the point where you declare me guilty of juvenile name-calling?
The mind simply boggles…
(Seriously, man…leave “aqua-Buddha” on the coffee table. Hit him up AFTER your PJM seesion, m’kay?)
Beck describes his show as entertainment,not education. In that context he is fine by me. He doesn’t claim to be an educator. This site is also about tabloid commentary rather than scholarly research. Everyones opinion can be heard but who thinks all opinions are equally valid?
GB is a great presenter and re-shaper of ideas. He would be failing if he didn’t make people angry. My taste is more towards Dan Carlin,James Burke,Niall Ferguson and VDH.
I am also amazed at the people wanting to only read things they agree with. Whats the point of that?
Let me reply briefly to many of you who make the same argument; ie, Beck tells people not to trust anyone including himself, and do their own research.
Well, let me tell you two things. One: I privately communicated with him and his producers by phone and private e-mail, none of which they took to heart. Indeed, if you go back and read my entry on his program on King, I showed in that blog how he was wrong.He did not respond. More to the point, he did not acknowledge he was wrong, privately or publicly.
Second, I was asked by his producers to prepare for him a lengthy memo on certain issues. I did it, taking up much valuable time. They ignored it completely. Evidently, when presented with material that challenges their view, which was done at THEIR request, they ignored it completely. That tells me something. Others have had the same experience.
I think Beck is more comfortable with those he knows from his closed Mormon world, such as the Wallbuilders “historian.” There are good non political mainstream historians he could learn from. Their writings are well known and accessible. How come he doesn’t ever refer to them?
“How come he doesn’t ever refer to them?”
Perhaps doing so would go against his agenda, which should prompt one to ponder just what exactly that entails.
“There are good non political mainstream historians he could learn from. Their writings are well known and accessible. How come he doesn’t ever refer to them?”
Maybe they are and you were too nuanced for his target market?
Other commenters here have offered that Beck is painting in broad strokes for a mass media, and you do tend to get a little “inside Baseball” at times, even for latter-day commie hunting fan geeks like me.
If you wished to go over the issue in excruciating detail with finely-calibrated arguments both pro and con, your natural home would be of the ilk of “Firing Line”, (good luck with finding such today).
But it was that very quality that made William Buckley’s points to NOT become accepted mainstream thought until his message was translated for the masses.
And where did that get us?
With a Speaker of the House publicly advocating Socialism.
Conservatism has won the battle of the parlor, but now it must win the war in the streets…and it gets much coarser and uglier there.
I don’t think Beck has to delve into great depths of detail in order to attain the goal of being accurate. If accuracy isn’t his focus, it’s natural to my mind to wonder why.
Your point about conservatism having to shift to the ‘war in the streets’ is spot on. Our side’s failure to connect better ‘with the masses’ as it were, has contributed to limiting our success in the arena of ideas & policies.
Beck is even useless in the streets. His promoting of non-violence and touting of Gandhi and MLK in this regard makes his whole exercise an Onan-orama. Gandhi and MLK were facing decadent/dying nations (in some sense the same nation), not ruthless Leftist psychos. Basically, non-violence only works if the other side is essentially non-violent too.
Jacobite:
“Gandhi and MLK were facing decadent/dying nations (in some sense the same nation), not ruthless Leftist psychos. Basically, non-violence only works if the other side is essentially non-violent too.”
Ekscyooze me?
Which histories of Gandhi and MLK have YOU read?
Their strategy of non-violence was calibrated PRECISELY to counter a violent opposition that was defending the status quo.
The point was to be resolute in their political agenda and absorb the blows to the point where their opponents were finally convinced of the futility first of violence against their agenda’s proponents, and then ultimately of resistance to that agenda.
MLK and his allies’ conscious recruitment of liberal college students from the then “integrationist paradise” of northeastern US universities to carpet-bag and organize voter registration drives among the Deep South’s disenfranchised blacks was a cynical master-stroke.
Those dumb kids were little more than “red meat” thrown to the Klan, and once the Klansmen took the bait by shoving two of them under a dam in Mississippi, that personalized the pro-segregationist violence for millions of white Americans outside of the South with dumb college kids of their own.
George Soros and his crew try the same thing today.
Rachel Corrie’s stupidity in becoming a speed bump for a bulldozer did untold damage to Israel, and Marla Ruczyka in Iraq was supposed to be the dead poster child for the futility of our efforts there.
Corrie’s political suicide still gets traction among the anti-semitic and anti-zionist crew, while Ruczyka’s little red wagon never really got going, (being that it was an insurgent IED not US ordnance, that got her and that “Peace Mother” Cindy Sheehan’s little Crawford TX Circus opened at about the same time).
And let’s be clear here, we’re not talking about revolution, but rather about mutiny.
We don’t want to sink the ship, we want to get control of the bridge and the engine room.
(and the galley).
Mr. Radosh- The main point of your article seems to be that it is erroneous and dangerous to twist history in service of a political ideology. This is an extremely important point which I would hope would be obvious to anyone familiar with the work and influence of Howard Zinn. It is dangerous no matter which ideology is being served.
Errors and inaccuracies will come back to haunt those who promote them–which is why it is so important to be open to criticism and dialog. Winning the next election is only a short term goal in the much larger and longer battle of restoring a properly limited government–and to promote an erroneous view of history in support of a belief will only give the opposition ammunition to undercut you in the future.
Thank you for your article. It’s a good introduction. The next step would be to write more specifically on errors you encounter—wherever you encounter them.
They didn’t even consider your hard work and insightful memos and you were nice enough to explain to them how they were wrong and they didn’t appreciate it. So?
I detect more than a hint of the whole ‘hell hath no fury’ thing going on here. You sent them some stuff, some of which they asked for. They did not either acknowledge or use what you sent them. I do understand your frustration and you’re a little peeved. I would be too.
Most of us here though are here because we are tired of the world that created Edward Said. You’re kind of leaning that direction with this article so we’re not as sympathetic as we might be.
Sincere apologies for the whole gender reorientation thing with the ‘hell hath no fury’ comment. No slur is intended.
I do understand your frustration and you’re a little peeved. I would be too.
No, you don’t really appear to understand. Radosh is showing you that Beck is lying and/or obfuscating, and moreover, Beck is well aware of it. Beck ain’t your BFF.
The response to the left going off the rails isn’t to steer a course to go off the rails to the right. The object of the exercise is to stay on the track.
Most of the commentary here seems to presume that going off the rails to the right will garner more style points. No. It won’t. A crash is a crash.
No, no – Ron has already displayed that everything is personal with him. So I can’t take at face value his comment on how Beck’s producers reacted. And, no, I don’t support some covert Mormon narrative.
I don’t appear to understand because I am trying to give him a gentle nudge in his motivator. There are hundreds of people commenting on this site and dozens of comments on just this article. He is not going to want or to be able to read all of them.
They didn’t use his material and apparently they asked him for his thoughts. Was it, ‘if you send us something will you please shut up?’ or ‘we’re going to write our next article with you in mind’ or a little of both or neither? We don’t know. Maybe Ron doesn’t know because they were being disingenuous.
Whatever the case Ron knows that most of what gets written and much of what gets asked for does not get printed. Did they agree to collaborate and produce something together? It does not appear so.
I adamantly believe that Glenn Beck does far more good than harm. There is, alas, usually not much I can do with someone’s overly sentimental view of Martin Luther King, Jr. I simply am compelled to shrug my shoulders when Beck and others refuse to look at the historical evidence concerning this brave—but also very destructive man. King was a non-violent radical left-winger when he was murdered. The Gallup polling organization reported that he was no longer listed among the top ten most admired Americans. What? Am I making stuff up? Could I possibly be a lying scumbag? Well, take a look for yourself: http://www.gallup.com/poll/20920/martin-luther-king-jr-revered-more-after-death-than-before.aspx
As far as Beck’s sources are concerned, please spare us the argument by authority. Degreed historians don’t have any more affinity for developing a logical conclusion about the implications of their study (facts) than the average citizen. Madison may have advocated a “strong” central government, but he writes at length regarding the obvious perils of an unchecked Federal government (see Federalist Papers). To suggest the converse of Beck’s distilled argument – as you do – that he (Madison) would be anything but horrified at the size and scope of today’s gargantuan federal bureaucracy is laughable.
While Beck’s recommended reading may not be as “scholarly” as you prefer, that subject is at best a matter of opinion, not historical fact. Your claim is pretty much this; “This guy’s (Beck) assertions are false because his viewpoints or those whom he advocates are either (a) not congruent with mine or (b) are not accepted by my sources”. Enough with the non sequiturs please, I can already get that rot on Kos or Huffington.
Dear Ron,
maybe you are not cynical enough? Glen Beck, multi-millionaire entertainer, doesn’t have much to gain by making inconvenient corrections to his scripts. Enjoy his work for what it is. If he started to get reasonable his ratings would drop. He didn’t create the tea party but he has used it beautifully to advance his brand.
Ron,you’ve been played.
Many of the specific Beck criticism are pretty subjective.
The author of this article needs to go back to a university and take a few courses in math, science, ie, LOGIC. His thinking is fuzzy to those of us who are accustomed to intelligent, logical thinking. He might read D’Sousa for an example of logical arguments…You make an hypothesis, then use FACTS to try to prove it…..Anything less than that wastes our time.
I read “The 5,000 Year Leap” too, but had not read anything else of Skousen. I knew he was John Birch, but that was it.
I agreed with almost all of the book and it makes good sense. There was one part where he is coming into the idea of our rights from more of a biblical perspective, but I’m a Catholic and so it worked for me. But, he also mentions Natural Law for those of the Cicero path to truth which makes sense to me also. Both paths ultimately merge in the end.
The problem I have with Radosh is I detect academic jealousy from him which is VERY VERY hard to resist when you are in the academic world.
Mr. Radosh, let it go. We have an election to win in two weeks, and you can man the phones and walk a precinct too. Consider getting out there and being part of GOTV efforts to stop the Progs.
History is not made by ….talking about it. It is made by DOING IT. We can worry about how it shows in the history books later.
Mr. Radosh seems to think that there is one, true, correct “History” and it is the one he favors, and one that only “historians,” especially those who have been trained at Left-dominated, supposedly “elite” schools like Harvard—although the myth of Harvard’s excellence is starting to stink as badly as a dead whale, beached for a week on Martha’s Vineyard–have a grasp of this “correct History,” and that anyone not an anointed historian, who dares to offer his reading of History, is, well, just a semi-literate, uneducated nutjob, or even—cue the scary music—a “Bircher.”
In studying History, first you have to identify what is significant, what is determinative, i.e. the “dots,” to understand them, then you have to try to order, to “connect” them, to see if they make some sort of comprehensible pattern; this is what Beck is doing, and doing well. Beck just happens to see a different set of dots and a different pattern than do mostly leftist historians and the Left, and, then, to be able to very successfully communicate his take on History in a comprehensible, entertaining and believable way, and that infuriates them.
Beck is always saying “don’t take what I say as Gospel,” “do your own homework,” “look it up,” and “go to and read the primary sources”; hardly the prescription of someone who wants to stuff your conception of History into a straitjacket of his own crazy devising.
The fact is that in the course of the last several generations our educational system has been very successfully conquered and occupied by the Left and, then, deliberately dumbed down–turned into a leftist indoctrination machine–the evidence of which is evident all around us in an ever increasing number of people who have only the most passing acquaintance—if that, with History, Philosophy and Economics, “graduates” who very deliberately have not been taught the lessons in Patriotism, Morality and Ethics that earlier generations were, high school and college “graduates” who can’t do elementary arithmetic, who often cannot read or write at anything above the level of functional illiteracy, and who—despite the diplomas they might have on their walls–have been deliberately denied what used to be the enlightenment, tool kit, and armor of what was, until, say, WWII, a broad, rigorous, actual, “Liberal education.”
And why?
Because such uneducated, ill-educated, mis-educated, barely literate, propagandized people, without a true, solid, comprehensive knowledge of our history, without a strong moral and patriotic foundation, with few critical thinking skills, are much more easily fooled and easily led, and, most especially, they are badly positioned and equipped to comprehend, stand their ground, and to fight back.
If you do not know a subject or viewpoint exists, if it is “beyond your ken,” then Glenn Beck introducing this or that new author, or text, or viewpoint is a route to broadened understanding and, perhaps, enlightenment, and to a better, more comprehensive, more true understanding of who we truly are, where we came from, where we are right now, and what our Founders thought and meant, and were aiming for when they debated and wrote the Declaration, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution, and established the United States. It is the road to a more informed and hopefully, to a more active and participating citizenry. I see nothing wrong with that, but it seems to me that the author is just plain jealous of Beck’s influence, and upset, too, that a sizable and growing number of citizens will no longer be put off by the mantra of “move along folks, nothing to see here.”
Kudos to Ron Radosh for this article. The reference to William Buckley purging the Birchers from the conservative movement was important. It’s disheartening to read some of the comments which reflect the same closed, circle-the-wagons mentality that is more typical of the immaturity of the Left. Conservatives have always been more self-critical — reflecting a liberal attitude in the true sense of the word as an asset (open-mindedness).
Speaking of books, Dumas Malone got a Pulitzer Prize in 1975 for his six-volume biography of Thomas Jefferson. Ronald Reagan awarded him the 1983 Presidential Medal of Freedom for his scholarship.
I’ve read two of these books and don’t see any particular bias in them. They are as detailed as you would expect from a history professor.
Get a grip and get real and put this issue in its proper perspective.
Like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck is, first and foremost, an entertainer, and he is a damned good one, as his ratings show.
What I like about him is that, if you read the wacky comments on the Daily KOS, you can readily discern that the Beckster is screwing with the minds of Democrats and driving them crazier and crazier at unprecedented levels and like few other entertainers on TV or on radio have ever accomplished.
Those loonies, Joy Bahar and Bill Mahar, see Glenn Beck as the anti-Christ, which says more about those loonies than it says about the Beckster. It must gall them, too, that the Beckster’s ratings are [much] higher than their ratings ever were.
The guy is a great showman. You’ve got to give him that.
Agreed.
“‘the founding’ — is ageless and sacred and to be worshipped; that certain historical texts — ‘the founding documents’ — are to be read in the same spirit with which religious fundamentalists read … the Ten Commandments”
YES!!! Whats wrong with that? For the first time, ordinary men articulated for the WORLD TO SEE, the basic, inarguable “self evident” facts of mans true and proper relationship with governance.
Of course it must be remembered, memorized, and worshipped for its clarity, its meaning, its FOUNDATIONAL PURPOSE for who “we” are as a civilization.
I dont care if you are religious, but you cannot deny the magnitude of Christ and his message of salvation, and redemption through LOVE of your fellow man.
It was a REVOLUTIONARY concept for its time, and now its basic tennemts of compassion, honesty and mutual respect are simply considered the “normal” way civilized (non islamic) people SHOULD behave, even in highly secular places.
So too is “The Founding” in its magnitude for People/State governance. Of COURSE we are are free! CERTAINLY the powers the government has only come from what we lend it. OBVIOUSLY we decide own own fate, are presumed innocent untill PROVEN guilty, shall worship as we see fit, and not be coerced to adhere to any thoughts or opinions or loyalties we disagree with.
These were REVOLUTIONARY concepts at the time, and are now simply accepted as the “normal” way people and governments SHOULD interact.
But familiarity does indeed breed contempt over time, and that is why they BOTH are worshipped, with great thanks and greater reverence, by people who CARE.
No dry historical dissection should ever suggest these are anything but living miracles, to BE worshipped, because they SHOULD be.
“No, you don’t really appear to understand. Radosh is showing you that Beck is lying and/or obfuscating, and moreover, Beck is well aware of it. Beck ain’t your BFF.”
Don’t be silly.
The left runs the schools and universities and have had a lock on the teaching of history for years. Students in many Western countries have been taught revisionist history for the past 40-50 years (Castle (D) Delaware,in his “Bearded Marxist,” article stated that he realized the horrors of the American system, and moved to the Democratic party after he attended two university courses.)
This is why some of Beck’s words upset even the conservative commentators.
It is about time that old time Democrats realised their party has been hijacked by the “Progressives.” Beck upsets the ratbags so much because he is exposing their plans. It is a pity he may be too late.
Fifty years have taught the average American little. This is well evidenced by Ron Radosh’s article. Peruse, if you’d care to, the 45 goals of Communism as stated before the 1963 congress:
“Congressional Record–Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963
Current Communist Goals
EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, January 10, 1963
Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.
At Mrs. Nordman’s request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following “Current Communist Goals,” which she identifies as an excerpt from “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen:
[From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]
CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.”
Its truly sad that we’ve learned so little in such a long period of time…
It matters not what Madison prefered really. He was but one member of the group. They all had their own ideas and no one got everything they wanted.
Many on the left get their news from The Comedy Channel or DNC talking points and beck is the moron?
Beck constantly says things like
“I am a nobody”
“I am unworthy”
“Don’t take my word for it”
“Don’t trust what what you hear. Look it up yourself. Read the founders original writings!”
And Beck is egomaniacal?
Let’s compare his attitude to Obama’s and see who has the bigger ego.
David Frum….it’s you, isn’t it?
Today’s GB program was about Mojo-jojo G. Soros giving leftist radical Media Matters some cash, reported in among other places, here:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2010/10/george-soros-gives-1-million-to-media-matters-to-monitor-fox-news.html
which, according to Beck is to fund media personalities’ hit jobs on Fox and especially Beck. This story sounds very much like a hit job on Beck, doesn’t it?
It comes less than two weeks from very critical elections, doesn’t it?
There’s “civil war” being waged among the lefties, according to another article in PJM, isn’t it?
Hmmmmm.
I think it is incredibly important for ALL people to question ALL teachers/preachers of any ideology or politics on a constant basis.
Pardon me, if I [personally] believe the ‘right’ leaning Americans question everything more than the Leftist hive-minded whackoids.
When Beck mentioned that the first SLAVE-OWNER in America was actually a BLACK MAN, I was FLOORED! I looked it up online and found it on PBS (a left leaning channel/website) which confirmed what Beck brought to the fore.
We need MORE Becks, not LESS.
Our country needs to awaken to the B.S. propagators.
We are NOT all retards who need to be lead by the nose. We can watch a show and not be morons who blindly follow without following up.
Elitists don’t even keep up or double-check their sh*t.
Please.
We are NOT all retards who need to be lead by the nose.
Of course you are. This took about 6 seconds of googling:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_was_the_first_slave_owner_in_the_US
Moreover, Beck is using smoke and mirrors in the sense that the new world was wide open for slaving and working slaves starting about 1494 or so. Slaves first set foot in what is now the US around 1513 as parts of expeditions (e.g. Ponce de Leon landed in Florida that year.)
Beck is using fine hair splitting technicalities to make it appear that it was the blacks enslaving the blacks in the new world (America) before the whites did.
Untrue. Categorically.
Beck is a liar who is followed, apparently, by idiots trying to make points via technicality and STILL coming up short.
wiki is owned by LEFTIES, you brainwashed dumb fuck.
Wake the fuck up, scrambled brains:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1narr3.html
Carla? Carla Tortelli, is that you?
Apparently all information on your planet is owned by lefties given your lack of response to the historically accurate stuff I posted regarding slaves of the Spanish in the New World.
Many Muslims STILL own slaves.
Your point, puta?
This article was stupid in the extreme. It is an example of what is wrong.
Dr. Radosh is yet another elitist academician. He criticizes Beck’s teachings and his facts. He sets up a completely false standard which he insists Beck meet. I am not surprised to see that he recommmends certain authors and titles as being absolutely authoritative. Credentialed! He gets into the fine details… and misses the forest for the trees.
Let’s start with calling Beck a liar. Dem’s fightin’ words! It is libelous. Beck may be wrong on the facts at times, but he doesn’t ever claim he’s right. He says check for yourself. Ergo, he cannot be lying. If I were Beck, I would come over to you, Radosh, and punch you in your damned big mouth for your libel.
“But wait!”, you say. “I’ve submitted details, practically written him a thesis on it! He didn’t even have the decency to respond to my academic critique!”
Mm-hmm.
Perhaps he is just too uneducated, like the rest of us, to wade through your adacdemically, tendentious critique. Not being a professional historian, having only begun to delve into it when he finally perceived the great danger we face, perhaps he couldn’t understand the nuances you offered. Nor did he appreciate the honor you deigned to bestow upon him. Sorry, good Dr. Radosh, but you seem to have cast your pearls before swine. Or maybe, they took a look at your offering, and decdied you were just not worth responding to.
You, like our New Aristocrats in government, are an arrogant jackass.
The thing you miss, is that Beck is having more success than anyone at reaching and teaching the public. More. Success. Than. You. Or maybe, deep down, you did not miss that at all.
“The politics in academia are so vicious, because the stakes are so small.” – I forget who. Perhaps the good historian could look that one up.
Let’s deal with your false standard. This is not History 402. It is civics 101. Beck deserves a Freedonm Medal from the next President for the service he is doing his country. He is getting people interested in their government and their history, something teachers in school are have completely FAILED to do.
“But he gets his facts wrong!” Who the heck cares?!? He is getting folks reading! Folks come on his show with their new books, with heavy tomes, and the books start selling. He sells more textbook-quality books than anyone!
“But he’s just a charlatan!” (Read: a mere vulgar entertainer) That’s what makes him the most successful teacher around. He makes it INTERESTING. Millions watch him every day, in a time-slot which does not get such ratings normally. It is an incredible phenomenon… and you can only disparage, not marvel.
And he makes a helluva lot more money than you do doing it. 4 best-selling books in 1 year! Why do not folks buy your scribbles in such quantities? You criticize your betters. You fail to appreciate Beck’s outright genius.
The same thing can be pointed out about Palin’s detractors. They focus so much on her lack of proper credentials, that they fail to see what an incredibly powerful person she has become. Others would have simply wilted under the attacks and pressure brought to bear. She is handing them their heads. While they are busy calling her stupid, they fail to see her magnicient genius.
Who is really the stupid one here? The one lacking proper academic credentials, or the one with the credentials who is just too damned stupid to perceive the incredible glory shining before them?
You owe Beck an apology.
Thank you, Marc! AMEN!
Cliff? Cliff Claven, is that you?
“But he gets his facts wrong!” Who the heck cares?!?
’nuff said. Truth is irrelevant to conservatives. Don’t worry, we knew it all along. We’re just waiting for them to admit it . . . One down, the rest to go.
Truth is “irrelevant” to people on BOTH sides of the political isle who FAIL to do their homework.
Dipshit.
Not quite ready yet, eh Delia? Take your time. The truth can be a tough nut to crack. Takes practice. I was hoping you’d be #2 to admit it. I’m disappointed.
53 Marc Malone Beck may be wrong on the facts at times, but he doesn’t ever claim he’s right. He says check for yourself.
A portion of Beck’s schtick is the inability of the average listener to fact check even a portion of it due to sheer volume. This acts as a disincentive. His “check for yourself” nonsense
is simple reassurance for rubes. On top of that, twisting a fact until it screams “Uncle!” isn’t factual reporting either, so even in cases where facts are involved, there’s no guarantee he’s presenting the fact in context.
People like you DO understand the concept of context, yes?
Your argument sounds a great deal like that of the imbeciles who claim “ignorance of the law is no excuse” when there’s a mountain of legal code that no human could possibly read in 10 lifetimes. OF COURSE ignorance of the law is an excuse.
Really Alston? You honestly believe that your Lefty Loons take the time to “Fact Check” every excoriating, vile bullshit LIE that they spew?
Really?
Really?
Dream on, fucktard.
Actually, since Beck’s source is really Jonah Goldberg’s revisionist ‘roots of progressivism’ book “Liberal Fascism” – which has already withstood the critiques of hostile American history profs, several of whom he cites.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/193810/i-lf-i-and-historians-and-historians/jonah-goldberg
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/249338/hating-woody-jonah-goldberg
Goldberg finds himself vindicated. Have a look, Ron.
My history prof buddy David Beito, then at the Universityof Wisconsin, Madison, concurred on this later thesis while getting his PhD in the mid-80s – prescient fello!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_T._Beito
YOu should know I gave Goldberg’s book a good review- one of the best he got- in the NY Sun.
Mr. Radosh:
Have you received any financial support from Media Matters and/or Soros to write this hit piece on Beck?
Is PJM an outlet which is controling what conservatives can and can NOT talk about? In effect, is PJM (like some other so called “conservative” outlets) a plant?
Do not censor this post – but instead answer it.
No, and you could ask them if you think I did. Your McCarthyite logic indicates you stoop to the usual leftist trash; ie, if one says something he disagrees with, he is funded by the other side. Your argument is the same as scores of my left-wing opponents who accuse me of being funded by the Koch brothers and other right-wing funders.
Mr. Radosh:
“No, and you could ask them if you think I did. Your McCarthyite logic indicates you stoop to the usual leftist trash; ie, if one says something he disagrees with, he is funded by the other side.”
Don’t bridle so, it was a blunt challenge, but a valid one.
Trying to ascertain who is filling someone’s rice bowl is only pragmatic common sense, since we have no laws mandating full disclosure in private media.
And FWIW, I don’t care much for your seeming knee-jerk reaction calling it “McCarthyite”.
Anyone with more than a nodding acquaintance of the period should be fully aware of the constellation of false flag organizations and fellow-travelers leagues, (all controlled by the Comintern), that would raise an orchestrated ruckus to defend the dirty Commie rats on the US Federal payroll that McCarthy was trying to expose.
“Your argument is the same as scores of my left-wing opponents who accuse me of being funded by the Koch brothers and other right-wing funders.”
Ah, Mr. Radosh, surely at a point this far down the pike you have realized that projection is one of the Left’s greatest weaknesses?
The Socialist kook Pelosi’s lip-music about TEA Party/Town Hall “astroturfing” in summer ’09 as an example was well and truly made apparent by the Left’s pathetically flaccid “One America” counter-rally.
In the bubbling pot of sludge that the Speaker of the House soviet uses for a mind, ANY popular demonstration simply MUST be funded and organized by an organization, since we proles, like Orwell’s O’Brien opined: “mindless animals”, are totally incapable of rational thought and self-mobilization.
So when the moonbats accuse you of being in some fat capitalist bastard’s pockets, they are revealing that it is THEY who are really singing their masters’ tune.
Politics is a nasty game full of trickery and self-serving deception that ranges from re-writing history to breathtakingly dishonest sophistry. It’s painfully naive to somehow think that the Right does not at times engage in that sort of thing as well.
Regardless though, history is of course very complex and since so many actors are involved in the making of it, there’s plenty of viewpoints and interpretations of events around for most of it. But there is a value in a historical “myth” that allows a community to rally around it as long as in general that myth is at least in principle historically defensible. I think the idea that the Founding Fathers were good, wise men and the Constitution a (near) sacred document is such a “myth” that has proven to be very useful as it allowed the American Republic a stable form of government that avoided many ideological pitfalls of the 20th century and it once more, now, stands in the way of the radical ideas of a self-appointed elite. It’s to some extent irrational but no more irrational than to love a cozy, happy home at Christmas. It’s one of the finer aspects of conservative traditionalism.
“The Revolution was a beginning; the battle over its meaning can have no ending.”
Indeed Ron. And letting the Left control the past by rewriting history, unchallenged is a gargantuan mistake in that struggle. He who controls the past (and the education system) controls the future.
Hey, Ron I appreciate what you did here, BTW.
In a sense, the modern movement Conservative is a reaction to the Leftist radicalism of the 60s…which has been hugely successful.
We are bound to be overzealous, but our enemies are determined and have no scruples.
Ease up on Ron.
Agreed. Ron is just playing the middle-man.
Most Americans are Center-Right (‘center’ being the key-word). Most of the ex-lefties on this blog are probably Center-Right.
While I appreciate Glenn Beck for a few things, he is a converted Mormon. I believe that people have the right to believe anything they like. I also have the right to question their beliefs. Anyone who converts to Mormonism as an adult looses a lot of credibility. This is a Religion that is founded on crazy principles and ideas. It is only a few hundred years old and is nonsensical at best. Sorry Glenn love your enthusiasm, just have a problem with your decision making.
I agree. Study even the basics of Mormonism and you find in crazy Jospeh Smith not only a cult leader practicing covert polygamy but an apocalyptic theocrat dedicated to overthrowing the US and instituting a Mormon dictatorship. His inspiration was Mohammed and Islam and he promised to be the “Alcoran (Qoran)and the Sword!” Check out basic info on his life or the Council of the 50:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Fifty
It seems to me that Ron blasts Glenn Beck as a far right radical based on examinations of his historical ramblings made by…… far left radicals who amazingly find his analysis is not ‘worth warm spit.’ This is, of course, a learned academic assessment, not an ad-hominium. I don’t think that Glenn Beck’s history lessons are without bias and inaccuracies, but don’t find either Mr. Wilentz or Ms. Lepore are the dispassionate, fair reviewers that Mr. Radosh is looking for in highlighting “the Dangers of Politicized Conservative History.” In fact, assuming that Mr. Beck is, in fact biased, such bias would serve as a usefull counterweight to the histories of Mr. Wilentx and Ms. Lepore. I realize that I am comparing a Harvard professor with a Fox Clown. That’s OK with me. I believe it is a fair comparison.
I’m sure Professor Radosh is as appalled by the right-wing pig-ignorance he’s encountering first hand as much as he was by the left-wing pig-ignorance that he stirred up by taking on the historical truth of the Rosenberg case.
I humbly submit that he, Professor Wilentz, and the rest of us with an “elitist” devotion to TRUTH have a lot more in common with each other, regardless of our political differences, than we do with the partisans of this new Age of Ignorance.
Glen Beck is a clown. A manic, bi-polar, firebomb-thrower that is one of the most dangerous people in our country today. He plays footsie with the ‘Ruby Ridge wing’ of our party and gives voice to the other extremists that only respond to fear and alarmism.
Truthfully, I hope he drives all the people that follow him into breaking away from the party. I would rather be a member of a minority Republican party that was free of these intellectual nitwits instead of enjoying a congressional majority that has to cater to them.
Pssst, I believe that he’s a Republican, don’t you? (snicker, snicker)
Ron: Number me as one of the few who sees you performed an enormous public service with this article. I have been reading, and agreeing with your criticisms of Howard Zinn. I believe the same can, and should be leveled at Mr. Beck. (And thanks for showing how insincere he is about his “don’t blame me” posture on lousy history.) Having established my bona fides, here is my objection: I don’t think you demonstrated why politicized history is “dangerous.” In fact, I think you argued against the point: “[I]f their [tea partier's] history is bad, that means so are their current political concerns and positions. This is simply not true.” If this is true, why is politicized history “dangerous”? I am seriously interested in this question and would appreciate any kind of reply.
I think I expressed myself badly with that sentence. What I meant to say is some Tea Party positions are correct, despite the use of bad history. Others of their positions I might disagree with. It depends what they are arguing. The problem is that their history often leads them down untenable paths; i.e,, the argument that the entire welfare state apparatus has to be abandoned, because they were not in the Constitution. Conservatives have to think whether it makes sense to argue the need for legislation to undo acts like Social Security, which most of the public does not want overturned. As Bill Buckley once wrote years ago, it might be a nice exercise to prove it should not have been passed, but it is folly to wage electoral campaigns to undo it and expect to get the public’s sympathy for a conservative agenda.
TO the above. I hear this a lot.
But left Wing is not all about massive Government and Totalitarianism, and Right Wing is not Anarchy.
Right Wing is about Preserving the Traditional Order, and Left Wing is about the creation of an Egalitarian Society.
This is one of the errors of Beck he got from Skousen that’s been resurgent lately in Political discourse.
This and the assumption tat Communism is a new form of Monarchy.
By the way, Monarchy is usually Small government and Conservative, but is labelled by Beck ( and his Mentor Skousen) as Totalitarian. That’s just plain wrong.