I enjoyed reading Dana Milbank rip of Glenn Beck’s huge “civil rights” rally being staged at the Lincoln Memorial here in DC today.
It just so happens to be the 47th anniversary of King’s “I have a dream” speech in the same location.
The breathtaking gall of this is something Alexander Zaitchik discussed on my previous hosted episode of Point of Inquiry; now here’s Milbank:
Let’s review Beck’s history as a civil rights pioneer, a history I’ve studied while writing a book about Beck.
When Beck was a radio host in Connecticut in the 1990s, his station apologized for an on-air skit in which Beck and his partner mocked an Asian American caller and used their version of an Asian accent. As a CNN host a couple of years ago, Beck interviewed Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the first Muslim elected to Congress, and challenged him to “prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.”
President Obama, who Beck says was elected because he isn’t white, is “moving all of us quickly in slavery,” Beck has asserted. On his radio show, he declared that “you don’t take the name Barack to identify with America. . . . You take the name Barack to identify with . . . the heritage, maybe, of your father in Kenya, who is a radical.” He accused Obama of seeking “reparations” from white America, seeking to “settle old racial scores.”
Beck has spoken on air about “radical black nationalism” in the White House and “Marxist black liberation theology” influencing Obama. He has further determined that the New Black Panthers have “ties to the White House in a myriad of ways” and are part of Obama’s “army of thugs.”
This is not quite the ideal background for a man who would claim to be King’s heir…
But with Beck, facts don’t really matter. Neither does intellectual analysis generally.
The outrageous thing is that, as Zaitchik explained on the show, this rally is going to get Beck a massive amount of attention. It’s being treated as the leading story in the country today by the Washington Post.
So even as the Zaitchiks and Milbanks of the world use their powers of reason and intellect to criticize him, Beck wins–he gets the last laugh.
August 28th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Beck is like a character from a Sinclair Lewis novel. A smarmy, sanctimonious, wrapped-in-a-flag shmuck. I honesty despair for the country when so many of my fellow citizens fall for his self-aggrandizing sophistry.
Someday the adulation will go to his head, he’ll assume he’s invincible, and he’ll get caught with a live boy, or a dead woman, or maybe a nanny goat.
Until then, hold your nose.
August 28th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
You’ll have to remind me again. Which party did Martin Luther King vote for?
And I’m pretty sure King was in favour of equality between blacks and whites, not political privilege. Nothing in Dana’s quotes of Beck shown here contradicts that. It might not be true, but none of it contradicts civil liberties or racial equality.
I’m no fan of Beck’s approach, but I think there are better ways to argue against it.
August 28th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Beck and King is a strange comparison. King spoke to 200,000 supporters of the Civil Rights Movement, a national grassroots effort that had been unpopular for years. King’s writings and speeches reveal a deeply spiritual and humble man, a well-educated and thoughtful leader. On the other hand, Beck is speaking at a gathering that no one has heard of before today (at least I haven’t). There are no theological underpinnings, no unifying efforts to change unjust social mores and political policies. Would King have applauded the intent of today’s meeting? How will media coverage differ between 1963 and 2010 (besides the obvious technological advances)? I suspect that forty-seven years from now we’ll remember “I Have a Dream” but not “America today begins to turn back to God.”
August 28th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Yep, just what happens when a public personality is allowed to foment hatred, alternative history, and a bit of pseudoscience. Of course you should remember one other bit of anti civl rights in Beck’s history: Beck converted to Mormonism. Not only does he seem to foam at the mouth in agreement of old doctrine of the Mormon church, but rails against the many other religions. He isn’t bringing faith back to America unless you too wear the Mormon undergarments. How can the bulk of Republicans be so blind? Actually it is easily explained. Logic is trumped by fear and uncertainty. To top that off, teaching our children critical thinking just isn’t a priority.
August 28th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
“Of course you should remember one other bit of anti civl rights in Beck’s history: Beck converted to Mormonism.”
Fascinating! Please, tell me more about how this is anti-civil rights…
August 28th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Read your history or try to google racisim, Mormon, and throw in Beck for good measure. Mormons were traditionally prejudiced against other races, especially Africa origin. They have only recently moved away from this in 1978. It stems from Africans being said to be decedent from Cain. http://nowscape.com/mormon/negro.htm
In traditional tribal chest-beating terms, if you are not a part of the club, you have no rights afforded by the tribe.
I should add that much of this has nothing to do with Beck’s personal stance on any political or religious subject. Just throwing a little fact on the fire mainly that he is against other religions (on TV and radio – again who knows what he really thinks). The fact is that the man will say anything that drives his ratings. He is a master of fomenting anger, inventing conspiracies, and that adds to his popularity and an ever increasing populace following his drivel without questioning the facts or his motives.
August 28th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
The Mormon Church opposes allowing people to extend their Constitutional rights, look at their Prop 8 support, and until recently openly claimed blacks were inferior to whites in the eyes of their God, and treat women as chattel. Hows are these not anti-civil rights?
August 28th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
He is a master of fomenting anger, inventing conspiracies, and that adds to his popularity and an ever increasing populace following his drivel without questioning the facts or his motives.
That’s what frightens me the most.
August 28th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
#6,
“Mormons were traditionally prejudiced against other races, especially Africa origin.”
So were lots of people. Like I said, you might want to check up on which party Martin Luther King supported, and why.
Prejudice is not a violation of civil rights if you don’t do anyone harm by acting on it. People are free to hold and express opinions, however unpleasant. I believe that itself is a civil right, yes?
“They have only recently moved away from this in 1978.”
So did Glen Beck convert before or after 1978?
One of the examples Dana Milbank cites above was questioning a Muslim about his possible support for the enemies of the US – meaning Islamic Jihadists, obviously. Given the orthodox Islamic position on offensive Jihad – that it is a communal obligation (‘fard al kifaya’ – see Umdat al Salik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri; sections o9.1, c3.2) this is a relevant question. (One with reasonable answers available, of course, but still worth asking.)
Muslims have a whole range of traditional opinions (and a long history) that don’t exactly jibe with civil rights. But so long as they don’t act on them to the detriment of others, they’re entitled to do so. This is called freedom of religion, and as I’m sure you know better than I, it was a founding principle of the United States. They are welcome in our countries, however they may feel about us in theirs.
So why is questioning a Muslim seen as a violation of what King stood for, but criticising a Mormon for their beliefs is not?
The point about civil rights is that they apply to everybody, not just to people we like or agree with. They don’t just apply to ‘nice’ people. That’s why they’re so hard to bring about.
“It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important.”
August 28th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
Obama *was* elected because he wasn’t white….and his competition was pretty weak, to say the least.
August 28th, 2010 at 11:48 pm
Glen beck is an imbecile and the only people who listen to his drivel are like minded hatemongers. Thank the Lord ( everyones Lord) he doesn’t change the minds of the majority of sane minded gracious individuals in our wonderfull country
August 29th, 2010 at 2:15 am
MLK niece was there today. If she found nothing wrong with it then what does that tell you people she has also, been on fox news with Glenn Beck several several times she believes in what he is doing. So what doe that tell you people that do not seem to stand for anything and will fall for anything. Where is decency in this country and people standing up for good honest to God morals. The integrity we all used to have. We knew the difference between right and wrong. Dont follow this administration and what they are doing to us. Be strong and stand for morals if for nothing else for our kids and grandchildren.
August 29th, 2010 at 3:16 am
I am not endorsing Glenn Beck , however it may be prudent to consider how large the disconnect in between “John Q Public” and the circles of academia have grown that Glenn Beck seems like a reasonable alternative. Pieces such as Milbank’s are preaching to the “anti Beck” quire and are ultimately ineffective. In Glenn Becks world such a piece is a badge of honor increasing his credibility against the “leftist elite”. One aspect of this “rally” most media either missed or didn’t comment on the implications of was that Glenn Beck got over 5 and a half million dollars for his charity just by asking. If your worried about Glenn Becks message, worry more about his ability to ask for and receive “old white money”. Your looking at the birth of a king maker.
August 29th, 2010 at 10:14 am
Frank Rich has an interesting piece in the NY Times on who funds these events.
August 29th, 2010 at 10:56 am
Obama *was* elected because he wasn’t white
Obama was elected because he was one of the few Democrats who spoke out strongly and publicly against the Iraq war before it began. That won him the Democratic primary.
He won the general election because years of Republican rule had led to the worst financial collapse in 80 years. The Republican nominee was going to lose against virtually any Democratic opponent.
Anyone who thinks being black was a net asset is crazy.
August 29th, 2010 at 10:34 pm
Obama won because he was not Bush. It had very little to do with being black. That does not mean any Democrat would have won, but not being Bush was a big advantage Obama had. Plus, the opposition was McCain.
August 30th, 2010 at 9:02 am
Obama won because he was not Bush.
Exactly. He was the anti-Bush. That’s what won him the primaries too. He won because he could give a speech and sound like he knew what he was talking about, among other things. And he wasn’t afraid to say certain things, kind of like Howard Dean but with much smoother edges. That’s why he won.
August 30th, 2010 at 11:18 am
To those complaining about Beck’s little rally, lets sum up what you are doing: You are complaining that Beck is exercising his right to free speak and right to assemble! What, can only left wing nut jobs exercise these rights?!?! The constitution protects these rights regardless of loonyness or political affiliation. If you don’t like it, stage your own rally and stop complaining about others!
August 30th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
FUAG@18
They certainly have a constitutionally guaranteed right to peacefully assemble and protest and speak freely. What bothers me is the message that Beck has been propagating. Even the toned-down “positive” speeches saturday are disturbing, reminding me of Sinclair Lewis’s statement “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross”. As Robert Altemeyer documents, large numbers of authoritarian personalities following a social dominator is a highly potent and dangerous combination.
August 30th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Sean McCorkle@19
“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross” – Beck is libertarian, not fascist. He certainly has fascist ideals, but his message is about stopping gov’t from telling us how to live, not the other way around.
“large numbers of authoritarian personalities following a social dominator is a highly potent and dangerous combination” – Certainly potent, but only dangerous depending on your point of view… I find Nancy Pelosi dangerous!
August 30th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
I find Nancy Pelosi dangerous!
This is what’s weird: What is she going to do, bring you health care? I mean worst case, repeal it, right? I take it you weren’t scared about the last president invading countries on questionable premises and tapping your phones with no warrant. So why suddenly so scared about
Emmanuel GoldsteinI mean Nancy Pelosi?By the way, no one ever said Beck wasn’t entitled to the first amendment. We’re using our first amendment as well. Saying “the way Beck demagogues, deliberately stirs up uninformed people is perverse and scary,” is us using our first amendment.
August 31st, 2010 at 10:27 am
Jon, I already have healthcare. I’m afraid she will burden me with taxes to pay for one more entitlement that will spawn another generation of people dependent on the government for survival. Then I’ll continue to pay them as they vote for more people that will take my money and give it back to them. Why don’t liberals see the danger in the cycle! It’s SCARY!!!
August 31st, 2010 at 10:52 am
You’ve identified one risk, but there are others. A big reason why healthcare costs rise, is that the uninsured go to the hospital, regardless of whether they can pay or not (unless you’re suggesting doctors leave people to die). That makes everyone else’s costs rise. These ballooning costs in turn affect Medicare, which needs to get its costs under control over the next few decades. If you don’t care about that program, you are a part of a small minority. It’s a very small slice of the population who are hardened social Darwinists to that extent, have read Ayn Rand, or some such libertarian treatises, etc. Most want the entitlement programs to work (they’ve paid for them with their payroll taxes all their lives).
By the way, if I pay a little more taxes so old people aren’t out dying in the middle of the street, I don’t mind. So I wait a few more days to get my wide screen TV, so what? The notion that you pay taxes for a minimum level of civilization is not offensive to me.
August 31st, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Whenever Glenn Beck comes on TV (usually only happens in our household during Daily Show clips), my 8 month old baby’s eyes widen, his lips tremble, and he starts weeping uncontrollably.
September 5th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
“Sanctimonious and smarmy” applies to a lot of the commenters here. Calling attendees of the Restoring Honor event “haters” is such a childish, absolutely incorrect thing. But something that comes quite easily to people who are themselves haters.
Patriotism and faith in God are actually good things. These are things Americans have always valued, and will continue to value; even after the era of liberalism has ended.
September 5th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
u lost me when u called attendees and fans racist. I know that to be an utter and complete lie, and a whooper at that. u might as well be in an alternative and insane universe. I pity and pray for the progressive lost souls (and minds), but most of all I pray we can recover from decades of immorality and really big lies. the Nazi regime didn’t do as good a job of perverting minds (irreversible, appearently) as the progressive movement has. very, very sad and tragic.
September 5th, 2010 at 4:58 pm
if you give a dope dealer 6 months before you invade his property i’m sure no drugs will be found. i don not know of anyone who has lost any rights here in the U.S.