Monday, August 30, 2010

Glenn Beck

I heard an interview with Glenn Beck on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. I ordinarily avoid Beck. From what little I’ve heard of him, he comes across as a sanctimonious buffoon.

Listening to the interview I was struck by how shallow, trite, and frankly insipid his “message” was. It’s basically a self-help gospel.

However, folks like Beck and Palin are politically useful in their own way. They’re not terribly significant in their own right (although Palin may be the GOP nominee). For the time being they serve as a prism through which agitated voters can focus their disapproval of Obama and the Congressional Democrats. Both of them are riding the crest of Tea Party discontent with the status quo.

I don’t know how much staying power Glen Beck will have in the long run. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s a fad. Palin’s future is harder to gauge.

She was damaged in the presidential campaign, but has rebounded. At the moment she’s a force to be reckoned with. A political kingmaker. Whether or not she will fizzle over time remains to be seen.


  1. "(although Palin may be the GOP nominee)."

    I hope not. I do like her, but where are the Patrick Henrys, or Sam Houstons, or Francos Scott Keys?

    Are there any genuine statesmen out there?

  2. I agree with you that there are more qualified potential candidates. But at the moment she's the one with the starpower and the big mo. I'd prefer a candidate with more depth. But we'll see how it goes.

  3. Glenn Beck is a Mormon, so I would not expect a lucid exposition of the Gospel from him. However, he is right on when it comes to economics, limited government, socialism, etc. His show on Fox is worth watching. He rarely waxes religious. And although I firmly believe that proper attitudes toward political and economic issues are impossible apart from a Christian worldview, Beck's show has a lot of useful information to offer. And it's not tin-foil-hat stuff either, it's all documented. Forgotten (or rewritten) history, if you will.


    I thought the following comment by Christopher Hathaway was helpful:

    "Moore and the vast majority of comments I read seem to implicitly reject the principle Lewis was making in his The Last Battle with the Tash following soldier whom Aslan recognized as truly worshipping him.

    They also seem to deny that there is much worth in drawing the country back to at least the kind of piety that Ninevah expressed when Jonah proclaimed the doom of God. Did Ninevah understand the Gospel of Christ? No. And yet they were spared because they turned back to God as they dimly understood him.

    Moore seems to ask, "Unless the true salvation of their souls is proclaimed and understood what is gained?" I would answer that halfway out of hell is still a good step. Ask an alchoholic. And Beck, being a recovering alchoholic, obviously understands this. An reformed alchoholic doesn't have to know much about God to be able to say "Stop drinking and turn to God for help". Nor does his doctrine need to be sound for God to help him. What is true for individuals is true for countries.

    I wish that these earnest Christians would understand the importance and ability to reform the kingdom of man without confusing it with the kingdom of God and perfect doctrine is not required for the call to repentance. Also, I think Moore is being rather uncharitable in accusing all those who attended a call to revival of worshipping a false Gospel or of confusing a non-sectarian message with the Gospel itself. On what basis does he make that accusation? Many of us know the difference between Christianity and the imposters. But on one is so totally deceived that they are without any portion of the light, the Tao that Lewis spoke of, and we are glad when even the greatly decieved boldly lifts up what portion of light they have. Moore should as well. Rather than cursing Beck's darkness he should praise his little candle.

    I forget, did Moore sign the Manhattan Declaration?"