RSS Feed MenuIf Beck can’t have politics, he’ll try to have religion. That seemed to be the lesson from Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally, held at the footsteps of the Lincoln Memorial.
For three hours, thousands stood in the National Mall. Most could not see the man they came to hear so they looked at the giant screens. The crowd overfilled onto the sides of the mall where the mega-speakers were not positioned and no speech could be heard. The heat was oppressive and water was in short supply yet the crowd was peaceful. There were no political signs. There were flags, but the event was ultimately positive.
While there was a lot about the rally to be critical about, there were also elements that were positive and a fair presentation of the rally must acknowledge that. The rally was held to promote a charity, The Special Operation’s Warrior Foundation. The Foundation provides the children of special ops soldiers who have died with the funds they need for a four-year college education. The cause is worthy, and there is no harm done if Glenn Beck is asking the crowd to make a donation to the fund with their cell phones.
So was the rally entirely harmless? That depends on how you feel about a rally where Glenn Beck comes out onto the steps of the podium and announces: “America today begins to turn back to God!” There was a lot of a God at the rally. Beck recounted how “5,000 years ago, God’s people were led out of Egypt by a man with a stick who listened to a burning bush” setting up the link between that exodus, and the exodus by the pilgrims to America.
Beck then introduced a rabbi, a pastor, and most unexpectedly, two Native Americans. The pastor then opened up the ceremony with a plea for America to seek repentance from Jesus, as the two Native Americans held onto him. Mormon theology and the unique importance it gives to Native Americans doesn’t usually make it onto Glenn Beck’s show, but it was hard not to see this part of the spectacle as reflecting that aspect of the theology.
The rally was “non-political” but with most things that surround Glenn Beck, he dances close to the line. Consider his introduction of Sarah Palin:
I didn’t want to have a member of Congress or someone running for anything. I wanted to have someone who was a dad or a mom [of someone in the military], so I called a mom, Sarah Palin!
Sarah Palin of course has a PAC, recently endorsed a candidate who seems set to achieve an upset in Alaska’s senate primary, and regularly speaks about political issues on television.
In this case, Palin did speak as a mom, “Say what you want to say about me. I’m the mom of a combat vet and you can’t take that away from me,” referring to her son in Iraq. Even the skeptical and the cynical had to be taken aback as Palin made only a few dog-whistling references to “restoring, not transforming” the country, and used the bulk her time to honor three military veterans.
She relayed the story of Marus Luttrell, a Navy SEAL who was stationed in Afghanistan. In June of 2005, Luttrell’s team ran into some Afghan goat herders. The team held them captive but couldn’t determine if they were dangerous and didn’t know whether to keep them prisoner or let them be released. They voted to release them and tragically, the herders likely told the Taliban about their location, leading to an intense battle that only Luttrell survived. Anyone who realizes the extreme level of personal danger that U.S. soldiers face by having to be excessively mindful of civilian casualties understands why this story is significant.
However, as with most things related to Glenn Beck, for every moment that spoke to a genuine concern, it backtracked into the hokey and the kitsch. Beck presented three “Merit Medals” to civilians who exemplified the “Faith, Hope, and Charity” values that Beck is constantly discussing on his show. Does Albert Pujols — a baseball player with the St. Louis Cardinals — really needs to receive a medal for “Hope” for his own personal journey towards Christianity and his current efforts to evangelize?
The presentation by Dr. Alveda King, the niece of Martin Luther King Jr. had its own way of showing that even the “non-political” rally could not avoid political issues. “Our material gains seem to going the way of our moral foundation” she proclaimed. She made clear that the famed check that Dr. King said in 1963 was returned and marked with “insufficient funds” would only be fully payable when prayer was “returned” to the public places and schools. She gave similar points on gay marriage (or as she referred to it, the threat to the sanctity of marriage) and abortion. At times, the speech was indistinguishable from the rhetoric of any other social conservative.
As for Beck’s final speech, it covered many topics but its central theme was that some sort of national revival was needed. Beck is notorious for monologuing and he did not disappoint on that front. Among the pearls of wisdom: go to the Lincoln memorial and read the second inaugural address, it’s important! Why does the Washington monument change color as you look up it? Because they stopped construction during the Civil War but then they finished it! He even discussed his own rhetoric, “I do talk about frightening things” but as Beck notes, so did the person who noticed that an iceberg was heading towards the Titanic.
And of course, “God is the answer, he always has been.”
Beck’s rally was long, and as I left, many members in the crowd were napping in their lawn chairs. But there was a reason they came out to endure the heat: “We’re here because he tells the truth” as one tea partier put it. The rally was called “Restoring Honor” because Beck and his speakers believe that honor has been lost in America. How will honor be restored? By focusing on the good things in America, and not just the “scars.”
What was the ultimate disappointment with the rally? It had a positive and important message about assisting America’s soldiers, but after nearly three hours of the extravaganza, it got lost in the muddle of social conservatism, political winks-and-nods, and the never-ending Glenn Beck version of American history. Beck would have an easier time convincing the media that his rallies there non-political if they didn’t make a point of getting intertwined with the anxieties he pushes on his television show.
Follow Noah on Twitter: @noahkgreen
An attendee at the rally.
Glenn Beck makes his appearance.
Three of the military veterans that Sarah Palin spoke about in her speech.
Kevin B // Aug 30, 2010 at 7:29 pm
well, it’s like a Freshman year gushfest where nobody has a well-formed opinion.Good thing you’re here for sophomoric counterpoint.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Aug 30, 2010 at 7:56 pm
Abj wrote: “You say right wing-nuttery has a discernible impact on policymaking, yet you fail to provide any examples as to how it has affected policymaking.”
You directed this comment to Vidoqo, but I’ll respond since I made the exact same claim in a comment to Nwahs.
HCR is the perfect example. The Right’s wingunts darn near killed a plan that was practically identical to one that conservatives had proposed back in 1992 and had very recently endorsed key provisions of it (cuts to Medicare, individual mandate, etc.). The Left’s “wingnuts” demanded a single-payer plan.
Now, which group had more influence – the Right’s which led to no GOP support for a plan touted by the Heritage Foundation, or the Left, which couldn’t even get a public option with a trigger (as supported by even GOP Sen. Snowe), much less a single-payer plan?
WillyP // Aug 30, 2010 at 8:27 pm
“Most founders were deists.”
Matter of fact, as far as I know there were exactly 2 deists: Jefferson and Franklin. As far as I know, the rest were Christians of one stripe or another…
Here’s the list… there ARE 2 listed deists (see above).
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html
The rest were, in fact, practicing Christians.
anniemargret // Aug 30, 2010 at 9:24 pm
Actually, all the rants and raves about social issues will amount to a hill of beans.
It will be economy, front and center. That’s all it ever really is.
anniemargret // Aug 30, 2010 at 9:55 pm
Here’s a nice little link that pretty much sums up who the Founding Fathers were and what they believed:
http://www.earlyamericanhistory.net/founding_fathers.htm
But the point is what…? That some were more Christian in nature than others? They most were more deist in thought and not strictly adherent to Christian churches and dogma? They were a variety of denominations as well. Which one was more correct? Apparently they didnt fight about it.
And neither should we. There is not a single mention of God in the Constitution of the U.S. That is revealing, isn’t it?
It’s because our Founding Fathers saw the inherent danger in between church and state, especially from the history of bloodshed and wars in European history. Jefferson was most definitely the rogue, and would be considered heretical by today’s Christians’ standards.
Again…who cares? Why should anyone care? Why should we care what they thought about God and which religion they saw as most important, or not important? The only thing we should care about in the year 2010 in this great country, is that we still have freedom of thought, speech, religion.
They were really, really smart guys weren’t they? Kinda anticipated all this hoopla about religion and God mixed in with politics now.
WillyP // Aug 30, 2010 at 9:57 pm
annie,
Yeah, well maybe not alllllways. But this election cycle Democrats are going to get creamed precisely because they don’t understand political economy OR they’re looking to intentionally crash our system. Take your pick.
At this point, I think it’s not unfair to assume they’re intentionally crashing the system. Either way they’ve been a disaster and America is in a weak position.
anniemargret // Aug 30, 2010 at 10:09 pm
Some were Deists, some Christians of a large variety of denominations. No atheists.
There was no mention of God in the Constitution. That was by design. They knew better. And they understood the danger of attributing someone’s version of God to manipulate politics. Coming from their violent history in western Europe they understood all too well that beliefs can easily translate into prejudice and hate.
So we really have to give them high marks for their vision and complete understanding of human nature. Their ability to forge a nation built on complete freedom…
…of thought, speech, religion.
And here we are, in the year 2010 on a ‘conservative’ blog debating the merits or demerits of religious beliefs interfering with our politicians’ personal lives or our freedoms. Pretty sad, I think. I think if they were around now, they would be horrified.
anniemargret // Aug 30, 2010 at 10:10 pm
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html
A groovy little link that really gives details about their beliefs…and in Jefferson’s case, disbeliefs.
WillyP // Aug 30, 2010 at 10:21 pm
I don’t think they’d be horrified at the religious debate. It is good to have an engaged and interested citizenry and debate is part of all that. They may be uncomfortable with the revisionist history which makes them all deists/atheists, however…
I think they would almost definitely be horrified at the leviathan state that’s developed. A much stronger case can be made in this regard. King George was a positive laissez-faire ruler compared to the freak show that is the Congressional majority today.
anniemargret // Aug 30, 2010 at 11:40 pm
Willy: Why would the Democrats ‘intentionally crash the system?” So you believe that there is some nefarious communist plot to take over? Really? and all the Democrats are on board? and will it all fold like dominos? including organizations and banks run by Republican led CEOs?
WillyP // Aug 31, 2010 at 12:33 am
annie:
I find the facts disturbing. But the unadulterated truth is that this Democrat Congress and this Democrat President have saddled us up to the eyeballs with debt in the middle of a Depression. MY grandchildren will still be paying it off.
And this assumes we CAN grow out of it. I very much doubt this. The economy is dead on the ground. 1.6% growth ain’t doing jack, to put it bluntly. The figures involved here are simply massive and unprecedented in the normal course of American history, excepting country-engulfing conflicts such as the Civil War and WWII.
So that leads us with 2 possible scenarios – government defaulting on its debts, OR hyperinflation. Either are catastrophically bad news. Whichever destroyer we choose, we can be sure that the moment it hits, armies somewhere in the world will cross borders. This is all but guaranteed.
It’s not inevitable. If we make significant budget cuts, defer welfare payments, and GROW to meet the demands a lessened debt burden we can get through this.
But consider that Democrats have brought us to the brink. I’m sorry if I sound alarmist. I’m not an alarmist by nature and have been accused of being too lax at work and in my life in general. However, having reviewed the numbers and being that I’ve monitored the figures closely for 2 years now, and considering I have a background in budgeting, finance, and a relatively sound understanding of economics, I’ll tell you straight up – the Democrats, unless they’re as damn stupid as some people think they are, have indeed pulled a nefarious trick.
What coughs up crisis? National bankruptcy. It also causes rioting, extralegal powers to be granted to security forces, and the perfect opportunity to rewrite our founding document to reflect a more “modern” governing structure. You know, like Europe’s, or perhaps like East Germany’s… you get the point. I wouldn’t find this quite as disturbing had our president not been in the Congregation of Marxist Liberation “Theologian.” This was known long before the clownish Beck incorporated it into his constantly changing shtick.
Nobody knows precisely what will/could happen. Only history can serve as a guide. But as a Conservative, whose overriding principle is PRUDENCE, I am EXTREMELY disturbed that we’ve self-imposed a very, very, very serious solvency crisis. And I blame the people who did it – Bush & Co. for TARP, and the Democrats for the rest.
I’m sorry if you find me over the top. I encourage you to spend a few hours reading about how serious our economic problems really are. National bankruptcy of the world’s reigning superpower is a little too close for comfort. You might even want to read what I wrote today, and what I’ve been chronicling for years.
http://nyyrc.com/2010/08/30/obamas-summer-of-poverty/
http://nyyrc.com/2010/08/27/jobless-claims-2q-gdp-down/
http://nyyrc.com/2010/08/16/just-how-bad-are-things/
http://nyyrc.com/2010/08/19/jobless-claims-rise-during-obamas-summer-of-recovery/
abj // Aug 31, 2010 at 9:55 am
spartacus -
HCR is the perfect example. The Right’s wingunts darn near killed a plan that was practically identical to one that conservatives had proposed back in 1992 and had very recently endorsed key provisions of it (cuts to Medicare, individual mandate, etc.). The Left’s “wingnuts” demanded a single-payer plan.
Now, which group had more influence – the Right’s which led to no GOP support for a plan touted by the Heritage Foundation, or the Left, which couldn’t even get a public option with a trigger (as supported by even GOP Sen. Snowe), much less a single-payer plan?
This isn’t evidence of wing-nuttery. Evidence of a policy reversal? Perhaps, but opposition to the “Affordable Care Act” isn’t a wingnut position, unless one classifies the clear majorities that oppose the healthcare bill as wingnuts. Besides, both parties (as well as individual politicians within either party) shift their positions on issues all the time. Compare where the Democrats stand today on free trade vs. where they were in the mid-to-late 1990s.
Now, if you could show, say, the “death panels” canard played a role in conservative opposition to the healthcare bill, you may be onto something – but I followed the final debate in both the Senate and the House very closely, and no one who spoke out against it referenced death panels, either directly or indirectly. Lots of overheated rhetoric, yes – but death panels? Not so much.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Aug 31, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Abj: “Evidence of a policy reversal? Perhaps, but opposition to the “Affordable Care Act” isn’t a wingnut position . . . ”
It’s not evidence of a policy reversal; it is a policy reversal. Opposition to the ACA is not a wingnut position if the reasons for the opposition are coherent and consistent with long-held policy positions, but this was not the case with the Congressional GOPers.
I’m sure you don’t need me to rehash the entire debate, but at least 4 current GOP Senators had strongly supported an individual mandate in 1993, yet none of them would even acknowledge this past support or their rationale for it during the HCR debate. Instead, they challenged the constitutionality of it.
Practically every GOPer has long criticized Medicare spending, yet when the Dems came up with a plan to cut $500 billion from Medicare, these GOPers all criticized it and claimed the Dems were denying care for the elderly.
In 2003, 204 GOP Reps and 42 GOP Senators supported funding for end-of-life issues and care, but none of them could find a single rationale for supporting the idea in 2010. Instead, Sens. Grassley and Kyl and Rep. Bachman went with the Death Panel meme.
Again, this was essentially a plan that conservatives had invented and had long considered to be good for the country. But they could no longer support it for no other reason than the fact that Obama and the Dems supported it. If that’s not wingnuttery it is downright evil.
anniemargret // Aug 31, 2010 at 6:40 pm
willy: I don’t doubt your concern about the economy. I share that too. I don’t have the economic background as you do, but certainly I can understand that a variety of factors over the years have led up to this moment in time. And it will take a long moment in time to resolve it.
How about raising some taxes? Perhaps we start with a gasoline tax?
If we are going to use budget cuts, you will also have to include the military – some of the billions can be trimmed for unnecessary items. Why this?: “According to the Defense Department’s annual “Base Structure Report” for fiscal year 2003, which itemizes foreign and domestic U.S. military real estate, the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and HAS another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories.” – commondreams.org
What about the F-22’s? Aren’t they a Cold War leftover? We’re fighting terrorists in barren ragged hills in the Middle East. Why are we giving Israel billions every year?
I’m against hurting the poor and working class. It is a spiral effect. They cannot get assistance and their unemployment numbers go up. If they cannot afford to take care of their families, then they apply for government assistance. If we don’t reform healthcare, what can be done with a small tweak in a doctor’s office is now a full blown ER visit. Wouldn’t it be wiser to seek ways for all Americans to get adequate healthcare instead of watching them go into bankruptcy and into foreclosures?
This then results in family members becoming depressed, perhaps even violent . Or homeless. How then does this better our society? It doesn’t.
The American people will not stand for cutting Medicare, Medicaid or SS. Recently in fact my own aunt had to sell what little she had left to enter a Medicaid assisted nursing home. She didn’t have the $10,000/month for a private one. These programs are too important to the average working American. Our quality of life should not be imperiled.
Only I don’t for a moment believe Republicans have the solutions to our economic crisis. In fact, the neocons are already drumming up the beat for war with Iran-
jakester // Sep 1, 2010 at 9:45 pm
I am so sick of this argument about the religiosity of our founding fathers, so what? They rode horses and wore wigs too, should we emulate that? Almost all of them were some sort of Protestant, varying from crypto non-believers, basic conformists with a few largely irrelevant fanatics .
Finally, as to answer the mindless retort that is on the tip of Glenn’s, Sean’s and every theo-tard’s tongue, God did not grant us those rights back in 1776 – 1791. If God did, he forgot about slaves, blacks, Indians and women