Video: Beck - Progressives Then & Now

[spursncowboys]

th_30AlHtow

WH & MB would like this.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I stopped at Glen Beck

[Marcus Bryant]

ok, since I "would like" it, I viewed it.

First, this topic is one better treated by something other than a talk show with short clips and watered down, condensed discussion.

Second, where's Reagan? If anyone was squarely in the militarist, warfare-state tradition of Wilson, it was him. And he often cited FDR as a political forebear. One of the great myths of modern "conservatism" is that it is not the heir of militarist progressivism, that it embraces a classically liberal view of a minimalist state, limited in personal affairs as well as in the use of military force. And that it holds the Constitution sacrosanct when it conflicts with political goals.

At least he did tie Wilson to GWB. McCain may have an affinity for Roosevelt but Wilson is more appropriate. Wilson was an asshole. Of course the participants cite his overt racism, but do miss his damage to civil liberties during his administration and his considerable disdain for the Constitution. And his lust for war to enhance the glory of the state and the control of society it would bring to the federal government. He makes GWB look like a piker.

The two major political parties in this country essentially carry on in the progressive tradition. One emphasizes the welfare state and the other, the warfare state. Though both incorporate each of these two major views. We focus on the relative differences but don't recognize our politics for what it is.

[elbamba]

I do not really understand Mr. beck's point. Is he saying that if we are not careful, we will become the next China/Cuba/Russia? Just because someone shares a similar political philosophy does not mean that they will be a heartless murderer. You can be a communist without being Che.

I know that George Benard Shaw believed in Eugenics, but so did many people at that time. Should we be worried that progressives are going to design a gas that can kill us humanely? Is that the point?

[Marcus Bryant]

And while the host seems to enjoy these ominous overtones by making these connections, at the end of the day we find that you can connect American political thought today to that of several decades before. Shocking to some, perhaps. As well as connections between the thought of yesteryear and that of European political movements of the time.

[elbamba]

And while the host seems to enjoy these ominous overtones by making these connections, at the end of the day we find that you can connect American political thought today to that of several decades before. Shocking to some, perhaps. As well as connections between the thought of yesteryear and that of European political movements of the time.

In this past years I have read biographies of several of my favorite presidents: Adams, Madison, Jackson, Polk and Lincoln. I can honestly say that aside from modern technology, nothing has changes much in Washington. Differerent politicians may take on a couple of different political philosophies that make them differ on two or three points. They then make the masses focus on those 2-3 points while the masses fail to realize that the outside those 3, the parties are the same. I still have a long way to go on my reading, but it has been a common theme in all of the books I have read thus far.

I start King Henry the VIII next week, a gift from my wife, and then I will move to FDR.

[George Gervin's Afro]

In this past years I have read biographies of several of my favorite presidents: Adams, Madison, Jackson, Polk and Lincoln. I can honestly say that aside from modern technology, nothing has changes much in Washington. Differerent politicians may take on a couple of different political philosophies that make them differ on two or three points. They then make the masses focus on those 2-3 points while the masses fail to realize that the outside those 3, the parties are the same. I still have a long way to go on my reading, but it has been a common theme in all of the books I have read thus far.

I start King Henry the VIII next week, a gift from my wife, and then I will move to FDR.

In your readings, did you find anyone who broke a campaign promise? Some on this board seem to think that Obama is the first President EVER to not live up to a promise.

[spursncowboys]

I do not really understand Mr. beck's point. Is he saying that if we are not careful, we will become the next China/Cuba/Russia? Just because someone shares a similar political philosophy does not mean that they will be a heartless murderer. You can be a communist without being Che.

I know that George Benard Shaw believed in Eugenics, but so did many people at that time. Should we be worried that progressives are going to design a gas that can kill us humanely? Is that the point? I honestly do not see how you can be a commie and not end up like che. I also am frightened at how common eugenics was and still is. You seem pretty educated, where as alot of people never read up on eugenics or the European progressives and our progressives. Most historians, say that what beck is pretty accurate and very insightful. Sure he does socratic logic of A+B=C, C+D=E therefore A=E, but he doesn't use lies. The right had a problem with him when he went after bush and now the left is after him when he goes after barry. He used to be chris matthews fav. conservative when bush was in office.

[elbamba]

Campaigning in the 1800's was not nearly what it is today. For example, Lincoln did not have any debates for his run for the presidency, however, he had some of the most famous political debates in history against Douglas in the run for the senate seat.

However, presidents certainly broke promises. It just wasn't as published as it is today. The most amazing thing I have gathered from my readings is the influence of the press. We tend to believe that the days of Fox and CNN are relatively new. This is far from the truth. Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers were spreading lies, propaganda and selective reporting from the time of George Washington, little has changes there.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Campaigning in the 1800's was not nearly what it is today. For example, Lincoln did not have any debates for his run for the presidency, however, he had some of the most famous political debates in history against Douglas in the run for the senate seat.

However, presidents certainly broke promises. It just wasn't as published as it is today. The most amazing thing I have gathered from my readings is the influence of the press. We tend to believe that the days of Fox and CNN are relatively new. This is far from the truth. Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers were spreading lies, propaganda and selective reporting from the time of George Washington, little has changes there.

I have been contemplating starting to read presidential biographies. Do you have any suggestions on which one to start with?

[elbamba]

I honestly do not see how you can be a commie and not end up like che. I also am frightened at how common eugenics was and still is. You seem pretty educated, where as alot of people never read up on eugenics or the European progressives and our progressives. Most historians, say that what beck is pretty accurate and very insightful. Sure he does socratic logic of A+B=C, C+D=E therefore A=E, but he doesn't use lies. The right had a problem with him when he went after bush and now the left is after him when he goes after barry. He used to be chris matthews fav. conservative when bush was in office.

I am not saying that he is inaccurate in his history. I for one, do not honor Che and I get sick every time I see a che shirt because it is obvious that the people wearing those shirts has never sat down with a real Cuban and heard the horror stories of Cuba during the revolution. Not that it was a Eutopia before that, Bautista was no saint and did his fair share of torture and killing.

My point is that Beck is not really making a point. He is referencing history and trying to tie it into our political system today. It is absurd to think that just because someone in the Obama Administration looks to Mao as a hero that somehow this means that pretty soon we are going to starve or our government is going to steal all of our food.

My youngest son has distracted me so sorry if this is incoheret.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I am not saying that he is inaccurate in his history. I for one, do not honor Che and I get sick every time I see a che shirt because it is obvious that the people wearing those shirts has never sat down with a real Cuban and heard the horror stories of Cuba during the revolution. Not that it was a Eutopia before that, Bautista was no saint and did his fair share of torture and killing.

My point is that Beck is not really making a point. He is referencing history and trying to tie it into our political system today. It is absurd to think that just because someone in the Obama Administration looks to Mao as a hero that somehow this means that pretty soon we are going to starve or our government is going to steal all of our food.
My youngest son has distracted me so sorry if this is incoheret.

Your statement may make a few heads explode..especially the fox news/ tea party crowd..

[doobs]

Wilson was a fascist. A proto-fascist, maybe, since he preceded his admirer, Mussolini. The most dangerous president ever.

The similarities between progressivism and fascism run deep in the notion that the state is the indispensable actor is promoting a single common good in nearly every aspect of life. Fascism doesn't narrowly mean xenophobic, militarist right-wingers who kill or otherwise oppresses minorities---at least that wasn't its original meaning. Nazi Germany was just one way in which the state-worship ideology of fascism was expressed. (The extent to which Nazi Germany was actually fascist is another interesting debate . . .)

Fascism and progressivism also aren't just about the size of government. It's more about the purpose of, and power given to, government. Progressives and fascists want to transform society.

JFK was no progressive or fascist, but I'm reminded of Milton Friedman's criticism of his inauguration address. ("Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.") The first clause is good and fine, but the second suggests the citizen is the servant of the government, and not the other way around. It appeals strongly to a progressive (or fascist) sentiment, even if that wasn't JFK's conscious intent.

I wonder if any American president would have said such a thing before Wilson.

[spursncowboys]

I am not saying that he is inaccurate in his history. I for one, do not honor Che and I get sick every time I see a che shirt because it is obvious that the people wearing those shirts has never sat down with a real Cuban and heard the horror stories of Cuba during the revolution. Not that it was a Eutopia before that, Bautista was no saint and did his fair share of torture and killing.

My point is that Beck is not really making a point. He is referencing history and trying to tie it into our political system today. It is absurd to think that just because someone in the Obama Administration looks to Mao as a hero that somehow this means that pretty soon we are going to starve or our government is going to steal all of our food.

My youngest son has distracted me so sorry if this is incoheret.
Very coherent. I don't think he is trying to tie in our system so much as he is trying to tie in the movements.

[Marcus Bryant]

JFK was no progressive or fascist, but I'm reminded of Milton Friedman's criticism of his inauguration address. ("Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.") The first clause is good and fine, but the second suggests the citizen is the servant of the government, and not the other way around. It appeals strongly to a progressive (or fascist) sentiment, even if that wasn't JFK's conscious intent.


I've often come across criticism of JFK's statement in this vein. It's not much of an onerous statement if you accept that JFK was referring to the society within the country. That is, to one's families, friends, neighbors...to one's fellow countrymen. I think if he wanted to make a direct appeal to governmental action he would have done so. It's not like JFK necessarily kept that hidden.

[Marcus Bryant]

Not that conservatives would find much else to disagree with JFK the Cold Warrior on today.

[doobs]

I've often come across criticism of JFK's statement in this vein. It's not much of an onerous statement if you accept that JFK was referring to the society within the country. That is, to one's families, friends, neighbors...to one's fellow countrymen. I think if he wanted to make a direct appeal to governmental action he would have done so. It's not like JFK necessarily kept that hidden.

Right. That's how I take it. But I think many people took it as a call to public service in an active and transformational government, especially after JFK's death left open the question of his "legacy." *cough* LBJ *cough*

[Marcus Bryant]

Or, what's interesting is that in quite a few respects, Reagan offered the same program as JFK twenty years later and was regarded as a reactionary by the establishment.

[Marcus Bryant]

Or, that vile and profane Mr. Truman from the Pendergast machine in KC is a great figure in GOP history...

[Marcus Bryant]

Has Newt stopped fellating FDR?

[doobs]

- What do you mean about JFK and Reagan?

- I don't know if Truman is a great figure in GOP history; it's just that his current "stature" is such a departure from his extraordinary unpopularity in the 50s.

Many people---and particularly Republicans---respect his decision to end the war in the Pacific with the use of nuclear weapons. The Marshall Plan and NATO also seem to have been successes in retrospect: the Soviet Union is no more and Europe is free and prosperous. That said, Korea was a mistake. And so was losing China before that.

Obviously, it's the Cold War that animates contemporary Republican praise for Truman. I don't think Republicans are cheering his Fair Deal.

- Newt loves FDR?

[ChumpDumper]

It's a Glenn Beck YouTube!

[Marcus Bryant]

- What do you mean about JFK and Reagan?

Cold warriors, first and foremost. Or, both ramped up the military, cut taxes, and pursued national greatness.




- I don't know if Truman is a great figure in GOP history; it's just that his current "stature" is such a departure from his extraordinary unpopularity in the 50s.


Another Democrat adopted by the GOP due to the Cold War, not to mention his willingness to drop 'The Bomb.' Or, a way to embrace WWII without embracing FDR, not that it really matters that much to the GOP anymore, unless domestic policy is being discussed.



Many people---and particularly Republicans---respect his decision to end the war in the Pacific with the use of nuclear weapons. The Marshall Plan and NATO also seem to have been successes in retrospect: the Soviet Union is no more and Europe is free and prosperous. That said, Korea was a mistake. And so was losing China before that.

Yes, the admiration for Truman has been retroactive.




Obviously, it's the Cold War that animates contemporary Republican praise for Truman. I don't think Republicans are cheering his Fair Deal.


Sure.




- Newt loves FDR?

He's had plenty of nice things to say about FDR over the years.

[ChumpDumper]

That said, Korea was a mistake. And so was losing China before that.How would intervention in China been any different from Korea other than the scale and level of monetary and manpower commitment's being much larger in China?

[elbamba]

Your statement may make a few heads explode..especially the fox news/ tea party crowd..

Imho, politicians are a lot less interested in changing the social structure of our country and much more interested in getting wealthy. People like Che believed in the movement, but he was not interested in wealth, he was interested in Revolution. Both Che and our leaders (democrats/republicans) do not mind taking lives along the way.

[elbamba]

I have been contemplating starting to read presidential biographies. Do you have any suggestions on which one to start with?

I started with McCoullough's Adams. That got me really interested in Madison and less interested in Jefferson. I read Kethem's (sp) Madison. This one is pretty dry but I think he gives a really good preview of the young life of Madison and how it influences him at the constitutional convention.

I could not put down H.W. Brands. It was like Adams, I read it in about a week. Those were the great ones, the Lincoln that I just finished was great but the author's name escapes me. What I found most interesting in that book was how much most northerns did not want slavery to end. In fact, Lincoln wanted to colonize the slaves in central america, it wasn't until Grant took over as general that Lincoln started preaching abolition.

[elbamba]

Very coherent. I don't think he is trying to tie in our system so much as he is trying to tie in the movements.

I think it is all about the money and maybe the power second. I do not believe Obama truley cares that much about the progressive movement. Just my opinion though.

[Marcus Bryant]

Brands was a decent lecturer. I guess I need to check out one of his books, but the popularity disturbs me.

[Spurminator]

This reminds me of this really good analysis this Boston sports radio station did about Yankee fans. I heard it once, it was wicked awesome.

[Nbadan]

Well, at least the wing-nuts are willing to admit now that liberal Progressives exist...I remember before the 06 election defeat they just labeled everyone a anti-war, Cindy Sheehan loving, anti-capitalists, cume-ba-ya singing socialists....still, the fact that they think that Hillary is a progressives just goes to show that wing-nuts like Beck still have a lot to learn about real Progressives..

[spursncowboys]

Well, at least the wing-nuts are willing to admit now that liberal Progressives exist...I remember before the 06 election defeat they just labeled everyone a anti-war, Cindy Sheehan loving, anti-capitalists, cume-ba-ya singing socialists....still, the fact that they think that Hillary is a progressives just goes to show that wing-nuts like Beck still have a lot to learn about real Progressives..
Hillary called herself a progressive.

[Nbadan]

Hillary called herself a progressive.

She tried to associate herself with the Progressive movement after she read the tea leaves, that doesn't make her a Progressive - Hillary is way to pro-business for that - She is more like Ben Nelson and Joe Liebermann in many ways than Obama...

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Hillary called herself a progressive.
http://www.politicalbyline.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/homer-doh-square.jpg

[Viva Las Espuelas]

C2oOoCdFblc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2oOoCdFblc