This is actually my response to comments made on my previous post, The power of fact-based fiction.
I knew very well my previous post would be unpalatable to many who read this blog, and many of you would be driven to defend Beck (either gently or passionately), but I'm not going to silently stand by while I watch trends which worry me. There are a lot of people out there daring to say things few others are saying: whether you agree with someone seems to define whether someone is a courageous crusader or a misguided loudmouth, so let's set aside the heroism.
I have a thing or two to say as well, and I won't be subdued or brushed aside by the pseudo-humble pomp of the self-supposed saviors and guardians of American values and principles of government when the welfare of my country is at stake. I can muster righteous indignation, too. Does that make me more correct?
Those of us who either disagree with Beck (nevermind the Tea Party, which I have mixed thoughts about) or may agree with most of his principles but find his theories to be more interesting speculation than meticulously researched history are not pseudo-intellectual, left-wing elitists (which is a convenient stick used to beat dissenters at least as much dissenters of left-wing politics are beaten with the "ignorant yokles" or "pseudointellectual ultra-wealthy right-wing elitists" stick) or ignorantly swallowing the spoon-feedings of the left-wing media machine and our left-wing, watered-down-history public education.
I'm not going to debate, here, whether the Obama administration has secretive, underhanded, nefarious plans for the downfall of "the Republic". That's not at all what this is about.
And no, there's nobody who doesn't make some errors in fact. The problem isn't the occasional errors in fact, as I stated.
Why don't more Republicans or other conservative-leaning public figures express any dissent or concerns about Beck's rhetoric? Obviously, because he's right, and they know it, right? Or could it be that it's politically and socially advantageous for them to play nice due to his fiercely loyal supporters who are increasingly energized by a sense of victory and progress, ready to bulldoze any who try to stop them?
If he and his fellow crusaders are right, they're right. But the mentality is one that easily snowballs into dangerous proportions. So the basis of the passion and revolutionary attitude really do become that much more crucial and pivotal, which is why I focus on Glenn Beck as an obvious key player rather than, say, Rachel Maddow, whose overly-loyal listeners also often neglect to context-check her "well-documented" facts but who do not constitute the kind of force to be reckoned with that the Tea Party movement, for example, represents.
Concerns over current administrations (including Bush's) aside, there are people from all political angles, including fiscally conservative libertarians, who are concerned over Beck's weaving of theories using technically accurate but over-interpreted facts, with people joining the righteously passionate "we won't take it anymore" throngs but who most often (not always) neglect to get online (or go to a library, if that seems more reliable to some) and research "the other side" because they've already dismissed the "other side" as untrustworthy because they're either implicit in or ignorantly duped by underhanded smoke and mirrors as part of the supposed conspiracy. Maybe change will only be accomplished by the kind of passion born of believing a one-sided or extreme portrayal of "opponents", but I'd like to think that's not true.
That's the thing. I believe he's usually at least partially right! I do! It's the extent to which he takes things, perhaps deliberately overshooting to elicit the response necessary to effect change (not an uncommon tactic), that concerns me.
And just like you, some of us have had enough and, despite agreeing with many of the principles Glenn Beck is defending and concerns over the role of government, want to stop another runaway train before it's out of control, and despite trying to remain objective and fair-minded, I'm pretty damned passionate about certain trends I see, like the move, on many fronts, from as-objective-as-possible journalistic integrity to impassioned speculative commentary, combined with an apparent tendency of many Americans to seem increasingly disinterested in distinguishing the two.
2 comments:
I've been busy working on a Power Point presentation today, so haven't had time to respond, and tomorrow I shall play with my camera, so stay tuned... :)
PS: I will say only that I agree with much of what you say.....
I finally got around to this epistle, but this blog is so old now, I doubt anyone will read it. Oh well.
For several decades, the Left was a very passionate, vocal minority that successfully drove a very public, very angry, very demanding, very obstructionist, often violent movement toward governmental and societal change. While they were making headlines and getting all the attention, the conservative population was generally happy and content, confident that the Republic would never fail.
As the Left continued to aggressively push their agenda, the Right remained confident that their elected officials, who were supposed to represent them in Congress, would, in fact, represent them in Congress and would not cave in to the pressure from the left. Surprise! The government rapidly moved leftward, and the conservative folks were disturbed, but they didn’t make waves. As a result, they were dubbed the “Silent Majority”.
Well, they’re silent no longer, due in large part to Glenn Beck and a few others like him who know how important it has become to motivate the formerly Silent Majority to speak out in defense of the form of government in which we believe. And the Left is spittin’ mad, accusing the Right of using all the tactics they themselves have used for so many years. Beck may very well intentionally be overshooting because it’s time to take a stand, and getting the Right spun up seems to be the only way to motivate them to take action, specifically by exercising their voting privileges at the polls today (Tuesday, November 2, 2010).
Yes, unfortunately, the pendulum will likely swing too far in the other direction. I pray it doesn’t happen, but if it does, there will be another kind of mess to clean up before the country settles into a more reasonable (albeit quasi stable) state of being.
If there were ANY way to truly solve the country’s problems without being oppositional, I’d sign up in an instance, because this fight is a Catch 22. In the long-run, I fear it’s a lose-lose formula because there are such extremes on both sides. Even if we succeed in reaching a somewhat reasonable equilibrium, it will last for a finite period of time before the pendulum starts to swing out of balance again as man starts to do what man always does. It’s the same human condition that gets us into wars.
You, my dear, and a handful of others who strive to bring people to the table to listen with open minds and find common ground and mutual respect are an endangered species in today's world. However, the country will need people like you to at least attempt to put it back together for the wellbeing of all.
How’s that for optimism?
Post a Comment