The Daily Plunge

I don’t like Glen Beck. There, I said it. He’s an emotional, populist, conspiracy-believing talking head who’s not helping the debate in the United States. Beck isn’t a conservative and his on-air style isn’t good for Americans. I’m not the only conservative who shares this opinion. Peter Wehner has a great piece on Beck and he hits all the right points.

He [Beck] seems to be more of a populist and libertarian than a conservative, 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 out of Afghanistan, South Korea, Germany, and elsewhere.) Some of Beck’s statements–for example, that President Obama has a “deep-seated hatred for white people”-are quite unfair and not good for the country. His argument that there is very little difference between the two parties is silly, and his contempt for parties in general is anti-Burkean (Burke himself was a great champion of political parties). And then there is his sometimes bizarre behavior, from tearing up to screaming at his callers. Beck seems to be a roiling mix of fear, resentment, and anger–the antithesis of Ronald Reagan.
I understand that a political movement is a mansion with many rooms; the people who occupy them are involved in intellectual and policy work, in politics, and in polemics. Different people take on different roles. And certainly some of the things Beck has done on his program are fine and appropriate. But the role Glenn Beck is playing is harmful in its totality.

I don’t share Wehner’s opinion about Beck as a libertarian, but everything else is correct. Simply labeling Beck a right wing fanatic is a dangerous tactic and it only feeds his rhetoric. The public is becoming more and more disenchanted with the Democrat and Republican parties, and the rise of Beck is partly because of this trend. I for one, don’t care what the babbling man has to say about any topic.