Tag Archive for 'glenn_beck'

Glenn Beck Gets One Right: Uses the Nolan Chart

Written by Colin. Published on March 2, 2010 ago in Current Events and Politics. 19 Comments

One of the most portable and effective means of both identifying libertarians as well as unifying and mobilising them, has been the Nolan Chart. David Nolan came up with it in the early seventies by basically adding a second dimension to the political spectrum (which was traditionally Left and Right).

The quiz, if you haven’t taken it, is right here.

Glenn Beck boosted his libertarian cred once again – dedicating an entire show to the Nolan Chart and arguing the libertarian case for most of the answers to each question.

Beck also added that he believes most Americans are libertarians. I would disagree. I think most Americans would like to be left alone themselves, but many amazingly conflate this with a crusader-like sense of moral self-righteousness to tell people what they ought to do, even to force them to do it. Living among Europeans for nearly two years has already given me some anecdotal lessons in just how arrogant and opinionated Americans are compared to other parts of the world.

Libertarian Infighting Dooms It As A Political Movement

Written by Colin. Published on February 25, 2010 ago in Politics. 50 Comments

Libertarian philosophy is among the most robust and developed among political philosophies because it practices what it preaches: ruthless competition in the marketplace of ideas, especially with itself. Libertarianism is a big, big tent – much bigger then mainstream political movements. But this is also the feature that causes it the most problems when trying to unite into a sustainable political movement.

Just as in a free-market, eventually a branch of the philosophy wins out and begins to effect real political power: see Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign and the emergence of Austrian Economics as the current big things going on the libertarian movement. For a while, a lot of differences are set aside and the movement unites in a push to gain political traction. However, like any political movement, it begins to be plagued with confusion over what to do with this new found power, and the competition for how/what/who to wield it erodes its base and plunges it back into radicalism.

I fear we may be seeing this now with the current libertarian surge. At the very least it is being set up by the emergence of several “under-leaders” who have already began to quibble:

  • Rand Paul: Ron Paul’s son has ticked off many of his father’s supporters by embracing some standard conservative foreign policy, including support for Gitmo and more socially conservative values.
  • Alex Jones: I think Jones’s ideas are nutty, but he is in the libertarian movement, albeit on the fringes (yes, he’s on the fringes of an often fringe movement). However, he recently lambasted Debra Medina who has spent the last week rabidly denying that she thinks 9/11 was any kind of inside job. Jones evidentially believes her and is withdrawing his support for her.
  • Debra Medina: Assuming she doesn’t win the Texas governorship, I wholly expect that she can win a senatorial or congressional election. But her deep philosophical convictions about questioning government have muddled her answers to the 9/11 truth question and alienated her from some supporters.
  • Glenn Beck: A rift exists between Beck and Medina, and Beck and Jones. In fact, all three do not like each other. beck has made a lot of friends in the libertarian movement, but he has also made enemies with what has happened with Medina and his occasional ideas about killing terrorists rile up the more anti-war in the libertarian movement.
  • Reason Magazine: They just came out with this piece absolutely slamming Ron Paul as having “half-baked crusades” and “silly books.” Reason has had a veiled acceptance of Ron Paul over the past few years, but this seems to be wearing off. The same article offers praise for the CATO Institute as a “serious” libertarian organisation.
  • CATO: Cato has also begrudgingly accented to Ron Paul for the sake of unity. But their decades old spat with the Mises Institute and Austrian Economics eventually puts them at odds with Pauland more ideological libertarians.
  • Mises Institute: They represent the most ideological libertarians, often embracing anarchism. With Ron Paul emerging and promoting Austrian Economics like crazy, they have seen a surge in readership and interest. However, they despise monetarist and Chicago School libertarians and have very little tolerance for the political process.

All of these groups and leaders have began to see alliances forming for control over this well of power created by Ron Paul. I believe they are starting to look as follows:

  1. The rEVOLution Purists. People who will defend the more radical ideology and philosophy of libertarianism:
    Ron Paul, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Mises Institute, Tom Woods
  2. The Pragmatic Club. People who will promote a “bread and butter” libertarianism in the media, academia and journalism:
    Reason, John Stossel, Rand Paul, CATO, Peter Schiff, Libertarian Party
  3. The Republitarians. People who will promote some degree of a watered down version in politics/punditry
    Debra Medina, Glenn Beck, Rand Paul, Bob Barr
  4. The Pet Projects. People who will use libertarianism as a means to advocate conspiracy theories, unsubstantiated hypotheses or untenable:
    Alex Jones, Ayn Rand Institute, Jesse Ventura

Currently, people in these wings would still unite around Paul. I could pull Alex Jones, Glenn Beck, Peter Schiff and Judge Napolitano out of each group, and all of them love Paul. But without Paul’s leadership, these groups suddenly have more overpowering differences then they do similarities. It’s like a wedding where all kinds of friends and family of the bride and groom come together for a time – but without the marriage, these people suddenly have much less reason to be together.

A valid political movement needs a big tent, but also a unified vision and goals. Ron Paul has provided that and called a lot of disparate elements into a common group. But that unified front may be fracturing again as Ron Paul ages. As an ideology and philosophy, this process is what makes libertarianism so strong and vibrant. As a political movement, it is the seed of destruction.

UPDATE: Tom Woods has now issued a counter-attack against Reason here.

Neo-Cons, Palin Fighting to Hold on to Conservative Machinery

Written by Colin. Published on January 12, 2010 ago in General. 4 Comments

Sarah Palin managed to make a couple of headlines this past week. She has now joined FOX News to add, uh… “commentary” to their already craptastic lineup of such Neo-Cons as Bill O’Reilly, Mike Huckabee and Sean Hannity.

This is significant, as the Republican base is now more fractured then it has been in decades. On the one side are entrenched, party-supporting, party-loving Neo-Cons who believe that George W. Bush was at the very least a “decent” president and would generally support anyone the party puts forward for local and state elections. Then there are the people who suddenly found a voice in the conservative movement over the past few years, as a few lone “kooky” leaders rose above the Neo-Conservative dominance. Some of them came in through Ron Paul, some through Glenn Beck and some through other libertarian oriented republicans.

But regardless how they came, they have now arrived, and are furious with many in the Republican party.

Sarah Palin, who despite what people may think of her ideals, unwaveringly supported John McCain and has demonstrated a relatively strict adherence to Neo-Conservative philosophy. Yes, she’s charming, and her personality speaks to middle and rural America – but were she to have her druthers, America would go back to the glory days of 2004. For more on Palin, see the American Conservative‘s Southern Avenger:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RgW5tgDIxY[/youtube]

This is why the second headline is so significant – that Sarah Palin will be giving the keynote address at the First National Tea Party Convention (for $100,000, I might add). The first “Tea Party” in the modern era was a fundraiser for Ron Paul – a man who represents libertarian-conservatism – quite the opposite of Palin’s big-government, daddy-state nationalism. And when “tea parties” became vogue – they were much more about Paul’s ideology: ending the Fed, dramatic reductions in spending, dramatic reductions in taxes, a restoration of civil liberties and support for capitalism. For the most part – these ideologies remain present, but Palin has managed to grab on to this movement and is doing a great job at steering these radical conservatives back towards the status-quo GOP ship of state.

The Tea-Party movement represents a rogue element in the political landscape. If it remains independent, then even Jesus Christ would lose as a Republican against Obama in 2012, because the Tea Party would likely vote independent. And this scares the crap out of the GOP, as Tea Party activists especially do not seem willing to vote for a standard Neo-Conservative like Mitt Romney, John McCain or Newt Gengrich. But Palin may be the key to working the Tea Party movement in such a way that within the next two years, they find themselves supporting the republican nominee (who will likely be against many of the issues they currently support).

This was done in 2004 with personalities such as Michael Savage, Larry Elder and  Neal Boortz gathering a “libertarian” audience very angry with George W. Bush about immigration, fiscal policy and even “socialism” but these supporters were soon channelled into voting for Bush in 2004 because he was “better than Kerry.”

And that will be the ultimate judge of Palin’s success with the Tea Party movement. In 2012, will the people criticising the Federal Government on socialism, spending and bailouts vote for a socialistic Neo-Con simply because he is “better than Obama?” This will reveal both the genius of Palin’s actions, but also the fickleness and lack of principles in the conservative movement.