Apple of Doubt

Recently right wing media personality Glenn Beck launched his own astroturfed populist movement in the same spirit of the recent “Tea Party” protests. His, bearing the not-so-catchy name “We Surround Them”, is based on nine principles and 12 virtues. The twelve virtues are pretty run of the mill things that few would object to like honesty, moderation, charity, etc. I’m always weary when someone expounds generic virtues without a deeper message. It strikes me as a hollow attempt at painting one’s self or cause as truly righteous. However that’s not the point of today’s post. Instead I thought I would just share a few initial thoughts on the nine principles of Beck’s “movement”. Be warned that due to imprecision of Beck’s wording, the use of sound bites, and my new found tendency some of my comments will come across as quite pedantic.

1. “America is Good”

That is all that’s written. The simplicity of blind nationalism, I suppose. I wonder what it means. Is it meant to say that America the nation is currently good? That the concept of America is good and, if so, what is the definition of this concept? Does it mean that the total actions of America from foundation to present have been good either in totality or aggregate? “America is good” is one of those statements that means nothing but sounds great. Rhetoric and not substance but it does appeal to the patriotic, nationalist, and militarist factions in the Republican party.

2. “I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life”

I originally discovered Beck’s “movement” due to this point. Brother Richard of Atheist Nexus invited all members to write about how being a good American and an atheist need not be mutually exclusive. The Friendly Atheist, Mojoey, The Gaytheist Agenda, and others have also touched on this point. While Beck does not explain what this has to do with “saving” America or making a better world we can take an educated guess. He most likely finds atheists to be immoral and with no virtue or principle. Atheists have the same stake in the political climate as a theist. They have the same human interests that theists do. They are effected by the market the same, helped or harmed by the same laws, and are members of the same parties as theists. While I’m sure there are reasons for creating a social group that is religiously exclusive there is no sound reason, other than the introduction of theocratic elements, to create such a political group.

3. “I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.”

This is a generic virtue with which most would agree. Most likely simply a stance taken against the traditional lying politician. Nothing much to say here save for the fact that I think a good addendum to this would be , “always try to read as many different perspectives on a single issue as you can”. After all, the phrase “to the best of my knowledge” can change a lie into a truth under the right circumstances.

4. “The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.”

Beck no doubt means the modern nuclear family and by sacred I can only assume that it’s meant as a a denunciation of any other type of family. Beck’s a mormon but I’ll spare you the jokes. This is obviously a point I disagree with. The modern iteration of the family is a social construct just like the iterations that came before it and is no more scared than them.

This point is a quagmire of imprecision. Due to that imprecision of language one can look at the second sentence and wonder, do you mean to say that you and your spouse get to decide what is a crime and how it’s punished? No? Then ultimate authority over what? While I could at least understand the general concept behind the first sentence this one is simply nonsense. Ultimate authority over what? It’s no different than if I were to say, “I and my spouse get to decide”. Decide what? Without context it’s meaningless.

5. “If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.”

Again, another generic virtue that I think few would object to. It does very little to separate the members of Beck’s movement from nearly any other. I’ll let you write your own mental snide remark about law and order Republicans support for the bush administration.

6. “I have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.”

There is a great deal that could be said here about natural rights and political rights, about the implications of having a right to life (what about the death penalty or starvation, etc.) and the limits on liberty. Each is it’s own conversation to be had. So what about “no guarantee of equal results”.

Even if we accept that there is no guarantee of outcomes or the underlying point that we shouldn’t equalize outcome does not entail an abandonment of liberal principles. Without speaking for every school of liberalism, one of the most common tenants is to create a society that proactively aids it’s citizens. However we can certainly imagine certain conflicts of interest where we would want the results to be equal, creating win win situations like a prisoners dilemma. Like the balancing of the need for industry and the effects of pollution.

7. “I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.”

There have been many good arguments made justifying taxation. From the necessity of public works, to offsetting shared societal costs, to remedying inequalities of distribution, to prevent worse “evils”, and so on and so forth. A sampling of blogosphere arguments can be found here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in those links do not reflect anyone else’s other than the respective authors. If you have a problem with their argument, don’t take it up with me.

On top of that I would add that the government isn’t forcing you to be charitable. They are not asking you to be generous or kind. Taxes serve a function. You can disagree with that function but I wouldn’t categorize it as forced charity.

I’m reminded here of one of my favorite quotes from president Obama’s inaugural address. He said,

“The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart — not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.“

8. “It is not un-american for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.”

I whole heartedly agree with this. I also extend this to religious authorities as well, something which I doubt Beck would agree with. Yet I’m struck how this is becoming a new mantra for the right after eight years of being told that dissent equaled disloyalty. It’s not hard to find examples of Republicans declaring Democrats traitors, anti-american, and disloyal for criticizing Bush and his plans for the middle east. I’m not calling Beck a hypocrite. I don’t have the inclination to pour through his archives and see if he himself said any of these things. My point is that the Republicans have gone from using the rhetoric of McCarthyism to that of populist revolution and along the way many have not only been hypocrites but of the worst kind.

9. “The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.”

I agree with this and don’t think that the Obama administration and Democrat majority are in any way shape or form the face of American fascism. It’s scare mongering of the worst kind.

I would make one change to this principle however. I would say, “the government answers for all of us”. Every voice should be heard and counted. And the government should take into account all of our needs and wants and opinions when formulating solutions.

Gleen Beck says if you are on board with seven or more of those points then you should join his “movement”. Only half of them are even political and even then I can see many Democrats and left-o’-centre liberals agreeing with seven (depending on how pedantic you want to be). I’ve said it before and will say it one last time, these are mostly empty soundbites, not even summations of arguments, that sound good when shouted over a megaphone but mean little to nothing. Aside from that there are generic virtues that Beck’s political opponents would have no problem embracing. This is a perfect example of the sort of hollow ratings oriented right-wing populism that is growing even louder than I thought possible. Let’s hope the punditry bubble pops before we are all driven back into apathy by the droning of buzzwords.