Debating David Horowitz about Glenn Beck, I made the point that it was very strange that David Horowitz can excoriate Ron Paul and then enthusiastically defend Beck, who is (I wrote) Paul’s “chief TV enthusiast and publicist.”
David Horowitz answered:
I have to confess that I am not familiar with Beck’s promotion of Paul. If David wants to engage this I would have to review Beck’s statements about Paul first.
You’d think that review would be a matter of some urgency for David Horowitz. After all, Horowitz himself described Paul as “a crackpot, a conspiracy nut and a public menace… an anti-Semite and an America-hater.” To date, however, Horowitz has not found time to consider the record. Soon afterward, David Swindle appeared on David Horowitz’s Newsreal blog to deny that much of a record even existed.
Swindle linked to a Glenn Beck segment from Nov. 2007 in which Beck worried that some of Paul’s supporters might engage in domestic terrorism. On the basis of this link, Swindle concludes: “Beck, ‘Paul’s chief TV enthusiast and publicist,’ disagrees with Paul ‘vehemently’ on many issues. Who’s Frum kidding here?”
Swindle should have made time to view the new Beck show, the one on Fox, not CNN – the one on which David Horowitz is such a frequent guest. If Swindle had done this homework, here is some of what he would have found:
In December 2007, Beck offered a glowing one-hour interview with Ron Paul.
Beck is more admiring still in April 2008.
By July 2008, Beck is in almost total accord with Paul.
In January 2009, Beck is telling Paul that his words are “interchangeable” with those of the Founding Fathers, and by July 2009, Beck has utterly absorbed Paul’s crank monetary and banking theories as his own.
Then there are the too many segments to count in which Beck broadcasts Paulite ideas as his own, as for example here, here or here.
Horowitz and Swindle can say they were unaware of this material before. Well, they know it now. What’s the conclusion? Or will it be more of this, from David Horowitz’s most recent blogpost:
The eagerness of some conservatives like David Frum to throw Glenn Beck under the bus reminds me of Trotsky’s observation about pacificists as people who don’t want to get their moral principles wet.
I don’t know that I’d take moral instruction from Leon Trotsky. And it seems to me that the challenge to conservatives these days is not to keep our principles dry, but not to discard them in pursuit of bookings, audience, and donations.
27 responses so far
1 greg_barton // Sep 19, 2009 at 2:10 am
Wow. Just nuke all of the comments, eh?
Stay classy.
2 MFarmer // Sep 19, 2009 at 3:47 am
Damn, my comment was deleted. I hope it was a mistake.
3 mlindroo // Sep 19, 2009 at 7:07 am
Well, does Glenn Beck ever discuss foreign policy on his show?
It seems to me that the main difference between Ron Paul — “an anti-Semite and an America-hater” in Horowitz’ words — and mainstream libertarian-conservative thinkers, is mostly related to foreign policy. Beck is a self described libertarian so it is not difficult to see why he sympathizes with much of what Paul says.
MARCU$
4 joedee1969 // Sep 19, 2009 at 7:22 am
Glenn Beck is not to be trusted. Ron has a son Rand we should all pay attention to. He is running for some office. I am also glad to see my guy back. I can’t believe what happened:
http://americaspeaksink.com/2009/09/the-boys-are-back-in-town/
5 MFarmer // Sep 19, 2009 at 8:48 am
I hope we receive an explanation regarding the deleted comments, otherwise I will assume censorship.
6 greg_barton // Sep 19, 2009 at 10:14 am
Might not necessarily be, MFarmer. I noticed that the date on the story also reset, so it’s possible that story edits would reset the comments.
Or, that was just a convenient excuse.
7 JeninCT // Sep 19, 2009 at 10:14 am
Maybe David Horowitz likes Glenn Beck and doesn’t like Ron Paul. After all, Glenn Beck is an entertainer, and Ron Paul is a politician and was a candidate for the presidency. If Howoritz goes on Beck’s show he is supporting himself. If he supports Ron Paul, he’s supporting the platform AND the politician, warts and all. Big difference.
8 MFarmer // Sep 19, 2009 at 10:33 am
I realize talking directly to the hoi polloi in the comment section is taboo here, so I’ll take the reset as an explanation — However, when I edit at my site, it doesn’t delete comments –I’ll leave my response to this post at http://www.bonzai.squarespace.com
9 WillyP // Sep 19, 2009 at 1:01 pm
David says, “In January 2009, Beck is telling Paul that his words are “interchangeable” with those of the Founding Fathers, and by July 2009, Beck has utterly absorbed Paul’s crank monetary and banking theories as his own.”
While there is much to loathe about Dr. Paul’s foreign policy in my own opinion, he is completely correct with his “crank monetary and banking theories.” Mr. Frum’s own ability to analyze money and banking are akin to a dim bulb next to Ron Paul’s star.
10 MFarmer // Sep 19, 2009 at 1:44 pm
“While there is much to loathe about Dr. Paul’s foreign policy in my own opinion, he is completely correct with his “crank monetary and banking theories.””
Yes, that was a toothless bite.
11 jjv // Sep 19, 2009 at 5:07 pm
It seems to me that for David’s criticism to bite he must quote Beck praising Paul’s anti-Israeli or (alleged) anti-Semetic statements. That he has not done so is telling. The chief problem with Paul is that he is a wacko on a lot of issues but his critique of the FederalGovernment’s divorcing itself from constitutional constraints has and always will resonate with a large subsection of the public. Conservatives would be wrong to write off everthing he has to say because of his Jefforsonian foreign policy views (if there was a founder who would be against Israel that is the guy).
12 fuzzywzhe // Sep 19, 2009 at 8:22 pm
The fact that Republicans are so vehemently against Ron Paul demonstrates on what loose footing Republicans are on today.
Ron Paul is precisely, exactly, the type of man that Republican voters have been clamoring for as a leader for 30 years. He’s got a perfect record at reducing in the congress at trying to reduce the size and scope of Federal government, he’s got a perfect record at reducing Federal spending, he’s got a perfect record for being pro small business and dividing very clearly the government from business making him absolutely anti-socialist and anti-welfare state.
Horowitz is an ex communist and you’re listening to him?
Horowitz is concerned with one thing and only one thing – Israel. The only reason Horowitz despises Paul is because Paul doesn’t believe in any foreign aid, and that includes Israel. Horowitz is a radical Zionist and since Americans are fully indoctrinated into thinking that Israel is a western style democracy, and it’s not, and are also fully indoctrinated into thinking that their war is our war, and it’s not, it was relatively easy to demonize Paul.
The real problem with Conservatives today is that many people who call themselves conservatives don’t have the first idea of what it means to be one. When Bush was president, he was busy nation building in not one but two countries, doubling the national debt, and bailing out corrupt banking executives with Hank Paulson instead of prosecuting them for fraud and corporate malfeasance. During this entire time, “conservatives” defended his policies.
Since Obama has taken over, the Patriot Act which is clearly unconstitutional and which I can guarantee that few if any of you has read, is still law. Guantanamo is still in operation, and if it closes the prisoners will simply be moved to a new location not called Guantanamo and the same practices will continue. The bailouts still continue, the wars and nation building continues. There is some talk about having national health care but I’ve seen this game before, it will fail or be stalled, and is merely there to get people up in arms over a program destined to fail and just cost money, like every government program and you conservatives hate him, I do too.
The Republican party is dead, and it won’t be revived until you’re educated enough to recognize a wolf in sheep’s clothing and get a little bit more educated and suspicious about the motivations of our government and it’s foreign policy.
You might want to take a good honest look at the planks of the Republican party and see just how well the leadership does enforcing them. Do any of you remember the Contract with America – I do, what parts were passed? Do we have a balanced budget amendment? Do we have a line item veto to get rid of pork? Talk is cheap, but that’s all you listen to, you don’t pay attention to actions. Actions are all that matter.
I think it’s too late actually to save the country, but when the dollar goes up in flames, and you actually face real hardship, maybe then you’ll do some simple work like looking into the voting records of the people you elect. Did you check McCain’s voting record? Or Obama’s? Probably not, but when this nation is in default of it’s debt and you are stuggling just to stay warm and fed, perhaps then you’ll be able to get off from your pedestals to complain about liberals, and start reforming your own party which is only a shade of brown different than the Democrats.
Glen Beck isn’t the answer BTW. He’s as wishy washy as any mainstream conservative who didn’t even bother to look up Paul’s record before casting people like me, who sent Ron Paul the federal maximum of $2300 to give people a chance to avoid economic calamity, as terrorists. Well, it’s too late, you got the government you deserve, and you’re going to get it good and hard. I hope you enjoy the bed you made, because you’re going to be sleeping in it for at least a decade.
And if Horowitz can get funding for Israel from China or Russia – he’s not going to care, he’s going to be gone. He’s got no moral principles. The guy is an ex communist, turned modern day fascist.
13 BoolaBoola // Sep 20, 2009 at 1:17 am
If Horowitz described Ron Paul only as “a crackpot, a conspiracy nut and a public menace… an anti-Semite and an America-hater,” then he left out the worst thing about Paul: he’s a right-to-lifer.
No true libertarian would, and no Libertarian should, ever even consider allowing Government to force pregnant women to grow pregnancies and give birth against their wills to babies they don’t want. The shot should not be on the table. “I’m libertarian but also a ban-abortion-ist” makes no more sense than “I’m libertarian except I support the right to own (and breed) human slaves” or “I’m libertarian but I also support the divine right of kings.” If Libertarian doesn’t mean pro-choice on abortion, then it doesn’t mean anything.
I myself have never voted Libertarian because I don’t buy the “minimal-government” fantasy, but I have always been grateful that the Libertarian Party was there. Their ideas, naive and formulaic as they were, broadened the discussion in many interesting ways. Ron Paul has done to the Libertarian Party the same thing Pat Buchanan did to the Reform Party after Ross Perot disinvolved himself from it. He has functioned as an infective vector for the deadly virus (or, to use a better metaphor, the neurodegenerative prion disease) which the political right has become in USA.
14 WillyP // Sep 20, 2009 at 3:16 am
BoolaBoola,
With all due respect – you sound like an idiot. What kind of miscreant depends on natural law to rebuff government – right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – and then violates their first principle, life? I don’t believe the Libertarian movement makes sense without a right-to-life. Without taking this to philosophical levels, I think your critique of Ron Paul is rather pathetic and blatantly partisan.
15 cpanza // Sep 20, 2009 at 8:51 am
Against both Boola and Willy, I think at best libertarianism would mean letting individual states decide what to do and how to interpret “right to life”, so it strikes me that if Ron Paul is for a federal restriction on abortion, he’s not being a libertarian on that issue.
16 David Frum Refuses To Acknowledge The Whole Story About Glenn Beck and Ron Paul « NewsReal Blog // Sep 20, 2009 at 1:00 pm
[...] over at New Majority David Frum has a rebuttal to my post calling out his distortions on Glenn Beck. He accuses me of “not doing my [...]
17 fuzzywzhe // Sep 20, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Ron Paul isn’t for Federal restrictions on abortion.
In fact, the only thing Roe v. Wade did was take away that decision from the states – before that, it was a state decision.
Paul has done one thing about abortion – he fought for a bill to define human life begins at conception. If that was true, abortion would be outlawed as murdered and completely constititionally.
Of course, the whole debate over abortion is simply a distraction. Although the Republican party has for years claimed abortion is evil, very few of them have take any steps to over-turn Roe v. Wade or to abolish abortion although they controlled the legislative, judicial, and executive branch from 2000 to 2006 and could have easily done away with it. This really isn’t an issue for them.
18 mlindroo // Sep 20, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Nice rant, Fuzzywzhe.
I was a bit surprised by the amount of sarcasm and scorn heaped on Ron Paul by the GOP media elite last year… After all, Dr.Paul was pretty much the only presidential candidate who had an enthusiastic following and a libertarian-leaning conservative agenda clearly different from the discredited policies of the Bush Administration.
Now, I can understand why some of his controversial views make mainstream Republicans nervous, but maybe Paul will seem less “extreme” if both Bush *and* Obama end up as political failures… People also scoffed at Howard Dean in 2004, but his opposition to the Iraq war + unapologetic liberalism were no longer regarded as liabilities in the 2008 elections.
MARCU$
19 BoolaBoola // Sep 20, 2009 at 4:54 pm
WillyP, there is no such thing as “Natural Law”. The only natural law is the law which nature imposes: things must be what they are and must suffer what they suffer.
Also, the phrase you quoted (”right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”) comes from the Declaration of Independence, which was written by the Founding Fathers, who didn’t give a single, solitary damn about abortion or about unborn babies. If they had cared about abortion, they would have written something–anything–on the subject, which they didn’t, none of them, never. What you are making is not an argument about abortion, but a pun on two DIFFERENT meanings of the word “life”.
Oh, and thank you for the compliment (coming from you, “You sound like an idiot” is a compliment).
20 Chamois // Sep 20, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Got an idea. Agree with Beck when he’s right; disagree with him when he’s wrong. But remember that David Frum is the same man who wrote the most disappointing NR cover story ever — claiming that Bob Novak was unpatriotic. It’s rich for such a man to disagree with another’s tactics, no?
21 cpanza // Sep 20, 2009 at 9:47 pm
fzz:
If Paul would support a federal law that defines life beginning at conception, then he’s for a federal law outlawing abortions. Which would make him not particularly libertarian on the issue, since how to define “life” is a clear moral issue that it open to interpretation, and should be left up to local communities, or perhaps even individuals.
22 sinz54 // Sep 21, 2009 at 9:12 am
cpanza:
I concur.
The issue isn’t life, but personhood. Is a fetus a person? Is an embryo a person? There is no scientific definition of “person,” and hence no real scientific answer to that. It remains a matter of personal philosophy.
If Ron Paul wants to legislate that personhood begins at conception (meaning that a newly fertilized egg gets Fourteenth Amendment rights), then he’s not being libertarian on this issue at least.
23 paladinofpeace // Sep 21, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Beck has never been a major supporter of Ron Paul, but he has provided him a forum. That is more than the Republican Party has done, for good or ill. The Republican party has become far too Progressive and most Americans are simply tired of it.
Just because we are not happy with the far left Progressivism does not mean we embrace the inside-the-beltway Republicanism. That age is over.
Glenn Beck represents the New New Conservative Populism that combines an ‘everyman’ spirit with conservative principles and the tactics of leftist radicalism. The problem is that too many Neocons and second- and third-generation Buckley-ites believe that they deserve complete control of the Conservative movement and they seem to believe with such aplomb that the useful idiots, the right-leaning Wal-Mart shopping unwashed masses, will crawl back to the Conservative cognizant elite once we see with Beck that he, the Emperor, has no clothes. They believe they will regain their former power.
Forget it. You really just don’t get it. There is a frame-breaking movement afoot, the old schemas do not work anymore, but, sadly, Mr. Frum and many others of the old guard are too entrenched to understand it. Proof of your misunderstanding is self-evident in these Beck-related postings.
24 » Commentary on Glenn Beck Liberal Values // Sep 22, 2009 at 12:55 am
[...] more of a Perotista than a Reaganite. His interest in conspiracy theories is disquieting, as is his admiration for Ron Paul and his charges of American “imperialism.” (He is now talking about pulling troops [...]
25 Glenn Beck Rocks! - Page 12 - TeakDoor.com - The Thailand Forum // Sep 22, 2009 at 2:02 am
[...] more of a Perotista than a Reaganite. His interest in conspiracy theories is disquieting, as is his admiration for Ron Paul and his charges of American
26 PunditFight.com // Sep 22, 2009 at 2:43 pm
I’ve written wondering aloud why Ron Paul wasn’t credited as the spiritual leader of the ‘Tea Party’ movement. It was essentially an extension of the passionate and well organised community Paul amassed during this campaign , championing the same “Left and Right are both bad”, “fiscal responsibility” platform Paul ran on.
Glenn Beck has been widely considered the spiritual leader of the 9/12 and Tea Party movement. Does all of this mean that the pundits are starting to distance themselves from the Tea Party movement?
27 NewsReal Vs. David Frum « NewsReal Blog // Nov 1, 2009 at 7:57 pm
[...] at New Majority, Glenn Beck and Ron Paul by David [...]
You must log in to post a comment.