Beck has always been religious, but when I first started watching him on Fox, most of his shows had a theme that was purely political analysis and little to no religion entered the picture.  And the shows that did adhere to a religious theme, were obvious as such at the very beginning and I turned him off.  As an analyst of current political events, he was the best I'd seen and more than worth watching.  He was far ahead of everyone else in predicting which way things were going and very libertarian.

But at some point, he seemed to either run out of new things to say about politics, or, as I suspect, he gave up on being able to achieve a turn-around from the movement towards progressive goals, and he shifted to organizing a religious rebirth.  I quit watching him at that point.  But before then I'd say he was the father of the Tea Party grass roots movement and very much a Tom Paine of our era.  That statement will seem worthy of ridicule to those who are  religiously militant atheists and those who harbor secret leanings towards the left because they can't separate the parts out well enough to find the context needed to make an intelligent judgement on the man.

Those who are deeply religious will not be consistent supporters of capitalism or individual rights, and will veer off somewhere because their underlying principles aren't the right ones.  It looks like Beck veered off course pretty severely in wanting to get the FCC to block a voluntary business agreement.

Nathaniel Branden used to tell a story of being at a conference or debate where a large group of attendees and speakers were seated around a table eating dinner.  One of the speakers, a socialist, asked to have the salt passed to him.  Nathaniel passed it.  Later he found out that some of the students of Objectivism at the table were horrified that he did that as if it was sanctioning evil.  There is a context to each situation and for some people we need to refer to it to understand when we need to oppose that person because of their views.  For example, if a religious person is running for office, and they are libertarian on all of the issues, then we need to decide if their beliefs against mixing state and church are strong enough for it make sense to vote for them.  I found it useful to listen to, and learn from Beck without feeling that I was supporting his religious views or losing my grasp of basic principles.  I had no problem separating the wheat from the chaff.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 8/23, 10:28am)

Is a phemomenon like Glenn Beck much more complicated than, he's got a markatable gig and he's selling it?   He's basically aiming at a segment of the market, and loosely.   He meanders between conservative and libertarian and religious topics at will, in a deliberately entertaining, sometimes comical fashion.  Especially his radio products, with the staged recorded bits.   Does anyone remember his 'they nuked Oklahoma City' bit from severak years back?    It was clearly a parody of some kind..but many listeners believed it.  I barely remember what the point was, but that was around the first time I ever heard of him, and that event shaped my assessment of him; he was a guy making a living selling his schtick.

It is a wildy successful gig, and he comes across as someone trying to preserve the brand and not spoil the gig.   Is it a sincerely held or consistant gig?   The latter isn't necessary to maintain a successful popular gig.  I think when it comes to serving the least common denominator and aiming for popular market share, you can never go wrong by aiming low.  (That explains much of our political process.).

I haven't listed to Rush Limbaugh in decades.   Maybe a few seconds here and there if I am out in my jeep in the afternoon.   He is another guy with an incredibly successful schtick, serving pretty much the same marketplace as Glenn Beck.    He fatfingers topics constantly, totally butchers them, but it doesn't matter, not the point.    I used to get a kick out of him in the early 90s, when Clinton came into office.   Clinton winning the White House in 1992 is what catapulted Rush Limbaugh to stardom, and those eight years of being a loud constant thorn in Clinton's side was what made him.    What is amazing about Limbaugh is that he survived eight years of Bush, but he did, quite well, and is now once again in safe and easy territory with Obama in the White House.

But these are entertainers, unabashadly so.   Their self claims to not be serious is what gives both of them near carte blanche to just let fly.    So why would or should any of us be concerned about either of them being consistent in their schtick?   It's a schtick.   

Are we as critical of Homer Simpson(another source of amusing poltiical commentary) or South Park or The Colbert Report or Jon Stewart?   They are all firmly in the camp of amusingly free political speech.

Maybe their efficacy is that they don't claim to be purists; they are all free to lance any boil they come across by freely asking the questions, not subject to any purity tests.   It is a tradition of sorts in America; speech unfettered by adherence to any tests of purity, however imagined.  Let the buyer beware, but at the same time, let the buyer revel in the broadest possible range of choices.

regards,

Fred