RSS Feed MenuAt the recent CPAC gathering, Fox News commentator Glenn Beck, in an apparent jab at Senator John McCain (R-AZ), said, “We have a guy in the Republican Party who says his – his favorite president is Theodore Roosevelt.” He then proceeded to skewer one of America’s most beloved presidents as a socialist.
Beck disapprovingly read a TR quote, “We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used . . . so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community.” He actually misread the quote, using the word “judge” instead of “grudge” and then asked, “Is this what the Republican Party stands for?”
Beck continued, “…This is not our founders’ idea of America. And this is the cancer that’s eating at America. It is big government – it’s a socialist utopia. And we need to address it as if it is a cancer.”
As is fairly typical with Beck, his bold accusation bears little in common with reality, and he fails to afford his cherry-picked quote the dignity of an accurate historical context.
Beck fails to mention that immediately prior to the snippet he read, TR compared successful entrepreneurs to great generals who deserve to be glorified. In his speeches, TR is very clear that while he sought equality of opportunity—“a square deal”—he abhorred any notion of trying to equalize outcomes, which he makes clear later in the speech:
The fundamental thing to do for every man is to give him a chance to reach a place in which he will make the greatest possible contribution to the public welfare. Understand what I say there. Give him a chance, not push him up if he will not be pushed.
Beck’s disdain of TR reflects a fundamental ignorance of the problems TR sought to address, which included a scope of corporate power, corruption and practice that is unknown in our nation today. Railroad and banking monopolies were a concern. There was entrenched influence peddling designed to stifle competition. Child labor and sweatshop conditions were also prevalent.
TR worried that these excesses would cause a populist backlash that would over correct. He was just as quick to admonish those who were envious of wealth or overly critical of business as he was to call for needed reforms in the way business was conducted.
Of course, it is hardly surprising that Beck would take issue with the man who coined the term “lunatic fringe.” What is surprising is that Beck’s idea of a true Republican also leaves out another beloved president, Ronald Reagan.
In an interview for USA Today Weekend (02/21/10), Beck says this:
I’ve always said I was a Reagan-style conservative. But I don’t think Reagan was a real Republican. He just maintained some shared values.
Really? I am not sure which part of that statement is more illuminating, that Beck doesn’t consider Reagan a real Republican, or that he thinks so and is still willing to trade on Reagan’s credibility by professing to be a “Reagan-style conservative.”
One question I am left asking — and there are many — is, if Beck believes that neither Theodore Roosevelt nor Ronald Reagan are real Republicans, who does he think actually does belong in the party?
I’m sure he would nix Richard Nixon for creating the Environmental Protection Agency. Gerald Ford signed fuel efficiency standards into law, so that probably eliminates him.
One might think Barry Goldwater would clear Beck’s bar, but then again, Mr. Conservative once said:
While I am a great believer in the free enterprise system and all that it entails, I am an even stronger believer in the right of our people to live in a clean and pollution-free environment.
Beck could spend an entire show ranting about that.
The GOP according to Glenn Beck would be a very different party indeed. It would be a radical and ideological party intolerant of any compromise, unwilling to adjust to changing realities, and totally disdainful of traditionalist conservatism that recognizes man’s obligation to society.
It would also be a politically insignificant party that is incapable of either compelling a majority of the electorate or producing capable leaders.
If the Republican Party is wise, it will reject rabble-rousers like Beck, and the radicalism they peddle, and start demonstrating the real leadership that comes from a capacity to thoughtfully consider and solve the problems that face our nation.
TR perfectly summed up the challenge facing the Republican Party right now when he said:
I do not want to see our people, for lack of proper leadership, compelled to follow men whose intentions are excellent, but whose eyes are a little too wild to make it really safe to trust them.
andydp // Feb 25, 2010 at 9:39 am
Glenn Beck using half truths and innuendo ? What are the odds ?
Interesting he would call TR a Socialist while using an Emma Lazarus poem to make a point about the greatness of the USA.
sinz54 // Feb 25, 2010 at 9:43 am
Frum: if Beck believes that neither Theodore Roosevelt nor Ronald Reagan are real Republicans, who does he think actually does belong in the party?
Himself.
Ron Paul.
Michele Bachmann.
Sarah Palin.
Stacy McCain (“the other McCain”).
Pat Buchanan.
Rush Limbaugh.
RedState.com.
NOT YOU.
NOT ME.
GOProud // Feb 25, 2010 at 10:29 am
From the article: “As is fairly typical with Beck, his bold accusation bears little in common with reality, and he fails to afford his cherry-picked quote the dignity of an accurate historical context.”
I’d have to agree with that point –and it isn’t the only loose&easy instance Becj employs to explain A, B or C to his viewers.
However, to be fair DavidJ, when you claim that Beck called TR a socialist… I think Beck was classifying Teddy as a progressive… at least that’s what I remember of his speech. And, indeed, TR was a progressive –later in life, he was an unabashed, no regrets progressive who left his Party faster than a Bob Barr minute and contributed to the success of the opponent’s candidate –Wilson… and we all know where that progressive elitist led the country.
Just like with John Adams, there is a growing reassessment of Teddy Roosevelt underway. I never knew about TR’s secret deal with Japan that, without much doubt, created the conditions which resulted in WWII (Jas Bradley, Imperial Cruise). His cousin, Franklin, used those conditions to bait the Japanese into attacking US interests in the Pacific in 1941.
djenkins // Feb 25, 2010 at 11:18 am
GOProud Wrote: “However, to be fair DavidJ, when you claim that Beck called TR a socialist… I think Beck was classifying Teddy as a progressive…”
Beck did say TR was a progressive, but he clearly equates being a progressive with socialism. He characterizes TR’s viewpoint as follows:
“…This is not our founders’ idea of America. And this is the cancer that’s eating at America. It is big government – it’s a socialist utopia.”
While there certianly are conservative ideas and values that transcend the ages, the whole notion that being considered a progressive in the early 1900s can be equated with liberalism today is absurd. Getting a progressive label attached for opposing child labor or sweatshops is a far cry from getting a progressive/liberal label for efforts to promote big government programs that seek to equalize outcomes.
If you read all of TR’s writing you will find more conservative ideas in there than you will ideas that would qualify today as progressive or liberal.
Mandos // Feb 25, 2010 at 11:27 am
While there certianly are conservative ideas and values that transcend the ages, the whole notion that being considered a progressive in the early 1900s can be equated with liberalism today is absurd. Getting a progressive label attached for opposing child labor or sweatshops is a far cry from getting a progressive/liberal label for efforts to promote big government programs that seek to equalize outcomes.
They’re actually the same thing. You can’t prevent child labour and sweatshops without actively promoting a more equal society. The less you promote equality of outcome, the more sweatshops you will have.
balconesfault // Feb 25, 2010 at 11:27 am
Roosevelt is always problematic for today’s Republicans, if only for the following:
Every dollar received should represent a dollar’s worth of service rendered – not gambling in stocks, but service rendered. The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective, a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.”
As for Beck, he just has decided to personify the “reducto ad absurdum” of following current Republican creed (any expansion of government is socialism) and apply that both to Republican and Democratic expansions of government … even those expansions that have overwhealming support.
You guys turned him on … now you deal with him.
djenkins // Feb 25, 2010 at 11:36 am
Mandos wrote: “You can’t prevent child labour and sweatshops without actively promoting a more equal society. The less you promote equality of outcome, the more sweatshops you will have.”
I believe that there is a singnificant difference between promoting an equality of opportunity and promoting an equality of outcome. The first allows for failure and the consequences of failure, the later does not.
balconesfault // Feb 25, 2010 at 11:39 am
I believe that there is a singnificant difference between promoting an equality of opportunity and promoting an equality of outcome. The first allows for failure and the consequences of failure, the later does not.
And I know almost nobody in America who promotes an equality of outcome.
However, there is considerable support for a floor on outcome.
Mandos // Feb 25, 2010 at 11:42 am
I believe that there is a singnificant difference between promoting an equality of opportunity and promoting an equality of outcome. The first allows for failure and the consequences of failure, the later does not.
The difference you are talking about is a mirage. Call it my retort at Say’s Law: inequality of outcome creates its own inequality of opportunity. There are many reasons for this, but there’s one really simple and obvious one: the children of poor parents are just not as likely to succeed as the children of rich ones even if you somehow send them to the same school. (There will always be exceptions, of course, hence “not as likely.”)
I say this as someone relatively privileged and successful.
franco 2 // Feb 25, 2010 at 12:25 pm
According to the Franklin and Marshall poll, which surveyed 1,143 residents of Pennsylvania, former Representative Pat Toomey–a Republican disciple of Steve Forbes and the Club for Growth–leads Democratic Senator Arlen Specter in the senate race by 44 to 34 percent among likely voters. He leads Democratic Representative Joe Sestak by 38 to 20 percent. If you want to get really worried about Democratic prospects, look at the breakdown. Toomey leads Specter among whites by 53 to 24 percent and among voters from union households by 44 to 41 percent. The only groups among whom Specter does well (besides registered Democrats) are non-whites and people with no religious affiliation. He’s got that vaunted McGovern coalition wrapped up. Sestak, of course, does even worse, but he is still an unknown quantity in Pennsylvania. Specter and Toomey, who has run before, are well known to Pennsylvania voters.
If you really want to get depressed, look at the findings about the Tea Party movement. Sixty-two percent of Pennsylvanians know something about the Tea Party movement. Of these, 85 percent of Republicans, 58 percent of Independents, and 28 percent of Democrats (!) either strongly or somewhat support the movement.
-New Republic
HAhahahahaha!
LFC // Feb 25, 2010 at 12:30 pm
David Jenkins said… It would also be a politically insignificant party that is incapable of either compelling a majority of the electorate or producing capable leaders.
Well, the second part has certainly already been taken care of.
balconesfault said.. And I know almost nobody in America who promotes an equality of outcome. However, there is considerable support for a floor on outcome.
I believe this is now a fundamental difference between the current Republicans and the Democrats. The GOP is not really interested in a floor, unless it happens to buy votes like suddenly fighting tooth and nail against trying to find savings in Medicare, a position they supported not many years ago.
They want to privatize Social Security. If you fail to invest the right way (either through risk, inability, or market conditions you couldn’t control), tough luck.
They don’t want to do anything real to ensure that you can get affordable health insurance, or to change the rules that ensure that insurance you have can’t be taken away on a whim or refuse to pay when your costs are inconveniently high.
But they’d love to have the capital gains tax go to 0%.
sinz54 // Feb 25, 2010 at 2:45 pm
GOProud: His cousin, Franklin, used those conditions to bait the Japanese into attacking US interests in the Pacific in 1941.
Wow! You finally found something on which you agree with Noam Chomsky! Chomsky also blames the U.S. for “provoking” Japan into attacking us.
sinz54 // Feb 25, 2010 at 2:51 pm
LFC: The GOP is not really interested in a floor
The GOP strongly supports free trade and globalization: NAFTA for one.
And in a global economy, in which even Third World countries are industrializing rapidly, the “floor” for American workers could turn out to be equal to the average income in Bangladesh.
balconesfault // Feb 25, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Wow! You finally found something on which you agree with Noam Chomsky! Chomsky also blames the U.S. for “provoking” Japan into attacking us.
lol – to MI-GOPer you don’t care where the tool came from. If you can bash a Dem with it, you use it.
And in a global economy, in which even Third World countries are industrializing rapidly, the “floor” for American workers could turn out to be equal to the average income in Bangladesh.
Good reason to own real estate in a gated community.
Mandos // Feb 25, 2010 at 4:14 pm
sinz, balconesfault, and Mandos all agree on something at the same time, woohoo!
ProfNickD // Feb 25, 2010 at 4:36 pm
I think you misread Beck’s quote about Reagan entirely — it seems to me that Beck is saying that Reagan shouldn’t be denigrated as simply being Republican. Reagan was a real conservative and not a Real republican, as evidenced by the fact that Reagan was in fact a Democrat until 1964. Reagan spent an equal amount of his life as a Democrat and as a Republican.
GOProud // Feb 25, 2010 at 10:55 pm
Sinz54 and echo chamberist supreme BlankHead opine on the verity of FDR baiting Japan into attacking the US… I would suggest you both read Jas Bradley’s “Imperial Cruise”. You can wait for the coloring book, the audio tapes or the connect-the-dots versions to be published… I’m assuming those formats are better comprehended by your lot.
FDR wanted very badly to be in WWII. He wanted to rescue our English brethern. Strangling Japan’s industrial passions and need for raw resources –resources which were mostly under the control of Dutch and British companies– was the opening gambit. Forward clustering our naval assets was the bait.
Time was on FDR’s side.
GOProud // Feb 25, 2010 at 10:58 pm
BlankHead continues with “lol – to MI-GOPer you don’t care where the tool came from. If you can bash a Dem with it, you use it.”
Not at all, some of my best friends are Democrats. You’re just being silly again, BlankHead. It’s like watching a bad rendition of windmill jousting –only you’re on a jackass, all you have is a straw for a lance, and the windmill was last used in the 18th century… but still you think you can joust. Silly of you.
GOProud // Feb 25, 2010 at 11:01 pm
djenkins notes: “Beck did say TR was a progressive” –wait, you said Beck said he was socialist?
Further, you took exception to Beck’s inaccurate and possibly playful reconstruction of a TR quote –and then you take another playful moment to recraft what Beck said about TR and that’s not wrong?
Kettle meets pot?
balconesfault // Feb 26, 2010 at 12:08 am
Not at all, some of my best friends are Democrats.
First reaction … heh.
Second reaction … well, of course. Your circle of friend in the gay community would be as wide as the space inside of one of Evan Lysacek’s figure eights if you didn’t have Democratic friends.
Then again, I’ll bet at the dinner table if someone starts to mention politics they get a swift kick under the table and a “no, no, NOOO” look from everyone else around you.
GOProud // Feb 26, 2010 at 11:14 am
BlankHead, hasn’t happened to me.
Usually I’m asked to explain what is happening in DC, Lansing, etc. That may be the reaction you encounter –but that’s because of your unusual penchant for irritating all but the most dense around you.
Each year we host a Gay Parents Picnic in our city and last year 281 families attended… I guess I’ll have to ask you: does Evan’s 8s cover 40 acres? Yeah, I thought your pettiness was spitefully redounding… even if your imagery is flawed.
If you can’t learn new tricks or change your spots, BlankHead, grab another straw, get on your well worn mule and find a new windmill that isn’t moving too fast for you, eh?
Or stay on the thread’s topic for once?
balconesfault // Feb 26, 2010 at 11:46 am
Each year we host a Gay Parents Picnic in our city and last year 281 families attended… I guess I’ll have to ask you: does Evan’s 8s cover 40 acres?
Nope – and in no ways inconsistent with my comment. I’ll bet that the vast majority of those 281 families are Democrats.
And I seriously doubt any Democrats show respect for your political views, unless when talking in other forums you turn it down from 11 to 4 on the outrage dial, and don’t call anyone who challenges you an Alinski acolyte. But then again, I doubt you’d even notice if people were finding you tiresome.
djenkins // Feb 26, 2010 at 11:59 am
ProfNickD wrote: I think you misread Beck’s quote about Reagan entirely — it seems to me that Beck is saying that Reagan shouldn’t be denigrated as simply being Republican.
Sounds like wishful thinking from a Beck fan. Here is the full quote in context…read it and weep:
An influential cheerleader for the fiscally conservative Tea Party movement, he’s even willing to take a shot at the GOP’s patron saint of modern presidents, Ronald Reagan, who was no slouch in driving up a deficit. “Republicans sold the American people out,” Beck says. “I’ve always said I was a Reagan-style conservative. But I don’t think Reagan was a real Republican. He just maintained some shared values.”
dragonlady // Feb 26, 2010 at 3:14 pm
GOProud: “FDR wanted very badly to be in WWII. He wanted to rescue our English brethern.”
Errr…are you saying we shouldn’t have helped out the Brits? Just let an insane man gobble up Europe and commit genocide?
Glenn Beck’s black & white (or, enough Teddy-bashing!); About that CPAC “Statue of Liberty” finale - barrypopik’s Diary - RedState // Feb 27, 2010 at 4:09 am
[...] an article at FrumForum:: Beck’s Small Tent GOP February 25th, 2010 at 12:33 am by David Jenkins At the recent CPAC [...]