The New Yorker: Confounding Fathers

[AsburySkinsFan]

The New Yorker: Confounding Fathers

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/18/101018fa_fact_wilentz

The Tea Party's Cold War Roots

"Glenn Beck's view of American history stems from the paranoid politics of the fifties"

Please read the article before knee jerking.

que the ad hominem attack crowd who won't read the article and are screaming about the librawl MSM.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

I'm bumping this.

I'm sure this will get mixed reviews.

[Smoot Point Really]

The real story is ASFs obsession with Beck... It's getting a little creepy.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Good grief SPR if you're not going to read the article then just say, "Hey I'm not going to read the article, but I just wanted to stop in and insult the OP." If you had actually read the article you'd have found that it was more about tracing the idiotology of the Tea Party from its birth with Cold War extremists, but you didn't want to read the article because you figured you'd wouldn't like what you'd find...not that I'm at all surprised.

[skinfan133]

I read the first page, and that was enough for me. Let's be clear, Glenn Beck is dangerous and I don't like him or trust him one bit.

However,

Beck is in fact on the right trail in some regards on some issues. Woodrow Wilson is perhaps one of the worst presidents this country has ever had. He roped us into a war we should have never been a part of and created unnecessary central banking alongside establishing income and excise taxes that were originally forbidden to the Federal government. Lesser known is the 17th amendment, which I detest immensely, but that's a little off the mark. I think Wilson's shortcomings have less to do with "him hating everything about America" and more to do with the fact that he was actually and quite literally insane, a well known but unproven claim stemming from the rapid deterioration of his overall figure and mind, especially from 1918 onward. I am of the opinion that the Progressive Era was a mixed bag. Horrendous and unnecessary reforms were made, but the progressives did get a few things right like women's suffrage, child labor laws, and fraud-prosecution legislation.

Beck is not to be trusted, but that's not to say everything that happens to come out of his mouth is false.

[December90]

Hey I'm not going to read the article, but I just wanted to stop in and insult the OP.

The real story is ASFs obsession with Beck... It's getting more than just a little creepy.

[PeterMP]

He roped us into a war we should have never been a part of.

How did Wilson rope us into WWI?

If you want to blame an American for getting us into WWI, blame Teddy Roosevelt.

[JMS]

I disagree with the article. Glenn Beck was a pro choice, pro drug use DJ in the 70's and 80's. A moderate journalist working at CNN in the 90's. And a very sucessful right wing pundant in the 21st century...

Beck's "interpretations" of US history is part of his marketing strategy. He mixes fact with fiction to sell his ideas. He's written as much in his new book... "faction" he call it...... There is no question about this. The only question is whether he does so because he favors those ideas, or whether he does so to boost ratings and earn more coin.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Not just Beck, but the Tea Party (at least the really far-right parts of it) is also dangerous. There is a re-writing of history that is going on now, and I think that is being promulgated not just by Beck but also by the Tea Party.

The other thing that is really disturbing is the sense of ownership of the Constitution by the Tea Party. The Tea Party believes that the Constitution is clear and obvious. But that is really the beginning of the problem. The Constitution is purposely ambiguous, conflicting and difficult to decipher. But the Tea Party slings it around as if everyone who sees something different in them is either a) an idiot; or a socialist (or worse). The truth is that no one has a monopoly on the meaning of the Constitution and the founding fathers designed it to be difficult so that moving forward we could all figure it out as we go along.

Also, Wilson is nowhere near the worst president of all time. That's just ridiculous. For one, I'm surprised anyone on the far right to put him lower than Carter. Second, George W. Bush expanded government and impinged on civil liberties more than any president ever (including Obama). Richard Nixon committed federal crimes while he was President of the U.S. Grant was as crooked as any Wall Street banker is today. James Buchanan led us directly into Civil War. C'mon. And there are several others that were far worse than Wilson.

[Dan T.]

He mixes fact with fiction to sell his ideas. He's written as much in his new book... "faction" he call it...... There is no question about this. The only question is whether he does so because he favors those ideas, or whether he does so to boost ratings and earn more coin.

"Faction" sounds an awful lot like "truthiness." Only the coiner of "truthiness" uses it mockingly.

[deejaydana]

Well the New Yorker, God bless that publication, takes its stance from the artistic and liberal elite left. I state that as a former long-time subscriber. It has a long and rich history and has showcased some great American writers (Wolfe, Silverstein, Updike, Mailer, etc) and is worth the read just for the cartoons alone. Even the far left stance on most all issues doesn't make it unreadable. The fundamental problem with that article is it, once again, conflates the entire Tea Party movement with people like Glenn Beck. Beck is certainly a loon, he's unbearable to watch but at the end of the day he's just trying to make a buck. In that sense he's incredibly shrewd. I state that as someone who can't stand the guy and his delivery. With that said I think liberals make a mistake in trying to paint the Tea Party participants with such a broad brush. Many of them and a growing number of Americans in general have had it with profligate politicians. Ignore them at your peril.

[Dan T.]

The fundamental problem with that article is it, once again, conflates the entire Tea Party movement with people like Glenn Beck. Beck is certainly a loon, he's unbearable to watch but at the end of the day he's just trying to make a buck. I think liberals make a mistake in trying to paint the Tea Party participants with such a broad brush. Many of them and a growing number of Americans in general have had it with profligate politicians. Ignore them at your peril.

I was about to make this same point, to a degree. Certainly there are many in the Tea Party who heartily lap up what Glenn Beck is dishing out, but the Tea Party is too amorphous a group to equate all of Beck's views with Tea Party views.

However, the Tea Party is in serious danger of being minimized as too out of the mainstream precisely because so many of its adherents believe the revisonist crap that Beck espouses. They need a Buckley type to temper the fringe extremists within the ranks.

[deejaydana]

However, the Tea Party is in serious danger of being minimized as too out of the mainstream precisely because so many of its adherents believe the revisonist crap that Beck espouses. They need a Buckley type to temper the fringe extremists within the ranks.

Maybe they could enlist Sam Alito to talk

[AsburySkinsFan]

The fundamental problem with that article is it, once again, conflates the entire Tea Party movement with people like Glenn Beck.

You say this and yet the polls are showing that more people who agree with the Tea Party say they respect Glenn Beck more than any other personality even moreso than Sarah Palin.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Hey I'm not going to read the article, but I just wanted to stop in and insult the OP.

The real story is ASFs obsession with Beck... It's getting more than just a little creepy.

Well at least you're being honest, lazy but honest.

Although your continual denial regarding any critique of Glenn Beck is not creepy, but instead very much distrubing.

I've actually been trying to find a transcript of a piece that was on NPR last month which showed that when people are presented with the factual evidences that contradict media sources that agree with their own ideology they are more prone to retreat to a firmer belief in their previously held beliefs seems like something that we've see here on a regular basis.

[deejaydana]

You say this and yet the polls are showing that more people who agree with the Tea Party say they respect Glenn Beck more than any other personality even moreso than Sarah Palin.

I see why the article would appeal to you then. And you used the word "personality" above, didn't you? I think people can separate entertainment from actual leadership. I do have some faith in the voting public to make this distinction. Posed another way if the media told me "many liberals buy into Bill Mahr" I wouldn't take that as evidence of some far left liberal take over at the polls. The majority lives in the middle, not the fringes. As I mentioned earlier, the New Yorker has been and still is at times a superb publication. It still sells its stories from not just a left perspective but at times from quite far over from the left.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I see why the article would appeal to you then. And you used the word "personality" above, didn't you? I think people can separate entertainment from actual leadership. I do have some faith in the voting public to make this distinction. Posed another way if the media told me "many liberals buy into Bill Mahr" I wouldn't take that as evidence of some far left liberal take over at the polls. The majority lives in the middle, not the fringes. As I mentioned earlier, the New Yorker has been and still is at times a superb publication. It still sells its stories from not just a left perspective but at times from quite far over from the left.

I think what's confusing about your posts is that on one hand you are saying that Beck is far right and does not represent the Tea Party, but at the same time you are denigrating the New Yorker as far left because they are pointing out that Beck is not mainstream, and frankly a little nuts. I don't think you are trying to defend Beck, but in an ancillary way it reads like you are.

[JMS]

"Faction" sounds an awful lot like "truthiness." Only the coiner of "truthiness" uses it mockingly.

In a foreword, Beck notes that his thriller belongs in a category called " 'faction' -- completely fictional books with plots rooted in fact." He attaches an afterword of nearly 30 pages that contains citations to references in the story: information on the financial bailout, unemployment, measures to ensure government operation after a disaster and the like. He laces his plot with these facts in the same manner he employs them on his TV show, to lend credence to his fantasy of a nefarious government scheme to subvert the Constitution.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/14/AR2010061405423.html

[December90]

Well at least you're being honest, lazy but honest.

Although your continual denial regarding any critique of Glenn Beck is not creepy, but instead very much distrubing.

I've actually been trying to find a transcript of a piece that was on NPR last month which showed that when people are presented with the factual evidences that contradict media sources that agree with their own ideology they are more prone to retreat to a firmer belief in their previously held beliefs seems like something that we've see here on a regular basis.

Did you read post #3 and post #4 before quoting my post?

hint: it was a joke:)

I am not a Glenn Beck fan. I did not attend his rally, I don't think he speaks for me.

I do not belong to the Tea Party, but by and large I think I would align more with the Tea Party than I would with Obama, Pelosi, or Reid.

My hope is that when those Tea Party folks get a hold of some power that they don't become as corrupt as those currently in power. I am fearful that the axiom that power corrupts will remain true with the next batch of "leaders" that we send in.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Did you read post #3 and post #4 before quoting my post?

hint: it was a joke:)

That smilie would have been helpful in the previous post.

[deejaydana]

I think what's confusing about your posts is that on one hand you are saying that Beck is far right and does not represent the Tea Party, but at the same time you are denigrating the New Yorker as far left because they are pointing out that Beck is not mainstream, and frankly a little nuts. I don't think you are trying to defend Beck, but in an ancillary way it reads like you are.

What I'm saying is the liberal media is at pains, sometimes in a near constant fashion, to conflate Beck, clearly loony, with the Tea Party people en masse. Guilt by association and a crafty way to cast all of them as off kilter, right? Does that make more sense? Am I defending Beck? No. I can't stand his show and approach. Does that mean at the same time I have to make a blanket condemnation of him. No again. I hope that's more clear.

[Riggo-toni]

How did Wilson rope us into WWI?

If you want to blame an American for getting us into WWI, blame Teddy Roosevelt.

Can you elaborate on this a bit? I mean, Wilson did win reelection with the slogan He Kept Us out of War, and then declared war on Germany afterwards. All TR did was voice his opinion. I'm not being combative - just genuinely curious what facts I may be missing here. I only associated TR w/ our involvement in the Spanish American war.

[Hubbs]

"Faction" sounds an awful lot like "truthiness." Only the coiner of "truthiness" uses it mockingly.

"I'm not going to read the news to you. I'm going to feel the news at you."

Colbert is a better Beck than Beck could ever hope to be (even if Colbert's model is O'Reilly, not Beck).

That said, the person who said earlier that Beck is on the right trail in some cases was correct. The man's great at digging **** up that certain people want to remain underground, I'll give him that much.

[skinfan133]

"I'm not going to read the news to you. I'm going to feel the news at you."

Colbert is a better Beck than Beck could ever hope to be (even if Colbert's model is O'Reilly, not Beck).

That said, the person who said earlier that Beck is on the right trail in some cases was correct. The man's great at digging **** up that certain people want to remain underground, I'll give him that much.

that was me, of course :pfft:

[Tulane Skins Fan]

What I'm saying is the liberal media is at pains, sometimes in a near constant fashion, to conflate Beck, clearly loony, with the Tea Party people en masse. Guilt by association and a crafty way to cast all of them as off kilter, right? Does that make more sense? Am I defending Beck? No. I can't stand his show and approach. Does that mean at the same time I have to make a blanket condemnation of him. No again. I hope that's more clear.

I get it, but it's not just the liberal media or the far left that is pushing back against Beck. It is also very moderate people who rationally find beck to be both an idiot and a lying danger. Just because someone trounced beck does not mean that they are far

Eft.