Beck continues attempt to redefine political spectrum: "Nazis and communists, they're at the same end of the spectrum"
March 03, 2010 10:54 am ET
From the March 3 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Previously:
Beck's "one word that gives" Nazis and communists "context": "Progressive"
Beck: the "end of the progressive road" is "Nazis or communists" or white supremacists
Beck says purpose of progressivism is to move "step by step" toward communism and fascism
Beck declares his intent "to go after anyone who is for big government, because it leads to either fascism or communism"
East is west, left is right,
Up is down, and black is white,
Inside-out, wrong is right,
--- Kinks, Back to Front
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uEeKAXkiAE
Let's get these definitions set before we argue.
Someone needs to tell Mr. "self educated reads 2 books a week" Beck that the leader and orginator of Nazism hated Communism. He killed millions of Communists during WWII and there are simply hundreds of quotes to prove how much Hitler and his leadership hated Communism.
How much stupidity is someone allowed to get away with?
There is a regular right-wing poster here who has stated that the far left side of the spectrum is Totalitarianism and the far right side is Anarchy (based, presumably, on the frankly idiotic idea that libertarianism is the sum total of conservatism/right-wing ideology). It's hard to argue with someone who is that ill-informed about history.
It is hard to believe that a cable channel, even an entertainment one like Fox, can feature a prime time show hosted by a man who has this much trouble understanding the simplest concepts.
I tend toward thinking of the spectrum of colors as being greater and lesser frequencies of motion of the medium.
And as far as that beckerhead's political spectrum goes, Nazis and commies are so infrequent these days, as to be not worth the media hysteria he's making of them.
/snicker
"Excuse me Mr. Hystery Perfesser, but what does any of this have to do with today?"
He is just allowed to go around spouting absolute lies. What the heck?
Completely ridiculous. Obviously, he got his astounding analysis about the political spectrum based on his years and years of careful study and education... oh, wait....
I have a degree in Political Science. One little four year B.A. from a regional state school. I am officially more qualified to talk about politics than Glenn Beck. In fact, the 19 year olds in Poli Sci 101 are more qualified than Glenn Beck.
He is uneducated, wrong, and D.A.N.G.E.R.O.U.S.
When I hear people like him delve into academic or theoretical space, I always think of that Stephen Hawking quote:
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."
So true, so true...
I'm unsure just how many people are truly influenced in their political opinions by glenn beck, I believe he mostly just screeches to the choir, he's just doing a job of trying to make the lowest common denominator of angry frightened and stupid as chit Americans, he's just trying to make them feel not so alone, and make them feel understood.
He's an infomercial for the Republican party right now, he's on every day selling selling selling, and yes, people do watch infomercials, but I don't think they necessarily believe what's being said to them, they just mostly stare in a sort of hypnotic trance, because there's nothing else on any other channel, and they do so until they think of something better to do.
The guy's a commercial, and television and radio are full of commercials... and most folks would agree, that commercials are full of chit, chit they're trying to sell you.
Don't overestimate this guy's influence, the thing he's appealing to is certainly there (in greater and greater numbers), but he didn't put it there, nor is he truly increasing it.
Two weeks ago, I meet a new neighbor. Nice guy, about my age, married, two kids. Tells me he's getting more conservative as he ages, but he used to be a Dem. Tells me, and I quote: "Yeah, Fox News is starting to sound more like the truth to my ears lately."
Don't under-estimate the power of words, symbols and images, and the manipulation and inversion of their meanings, especially in the cable news, AM radio and internet era. The human brain is a sponge. There are several Becks now, like a virus, they reproduce and mutate into more toxic forms during stressful times. They are a persistent lot and they want to change the world too.
We've all been taught about the horrifying moments in history, but few people ever learn about the times leading up to those moments. They were filled with many seemingly insignificant moments and people chattering on and on just like Beck. People under-estimated those signs back then too.
Of course, we know too well what came next.
They are run quite well, ask the elderly
And we are typing on the Internets - another Federal government invention and success story.
As for the "internets," you chose your words well--intervention. Don't forget it was invented by private citizens and taken by the government for defense purposes.
There is no single-payer bill on the table ANYWHERE. I wish there were but it's not.
You are just regurgitating talking points that are untrue and that you can't even understand.
What this has to do with Beck's ridiculously false and uninformed statement is beyond me, though.
Beck thinks he is a political historian / philosopher. Acting is fun. But really, he's no different from a screaming, teenage right-wing blogger or a mentally disturbed man yelling in a city street.
Stop thinking of things as right-vs-left or Dem.-vs-Rep.
Think of it as total freedom (anarchy) at one end of the spectrum and total oppression (totalitarianism) at the other end. There are people from both parties at all points along that spectrum.
Everything in Glenn's World can be simplified, by Glenn and only Glenn, of course, to A vs. B, black or white--explained with dolls, flash cards, or grammar school chalk lines on a blackboard. Politics and History for Dummies.
If the spectrum is anarchy to totalitarianism they are on the same end of the spectrum.
I am talking about the classical political spectrum, right, left, and center. Within that said political spectrum, communists are on the far left, fascists (or Nazis) are on the far right.
It's really not that hard to understand.
They are not on the same end of the political spectrum.
When you view them in the 'freedom spectrum', where anarchy (no government) is at one end and totalitarianism (total government) is at the other, this puts those forms of government on the same side of the spectrum whether you want to admit it or not.
You can talk about 'in practice' or 'in theory' all you want, we live in the real world, not some college classroom.
You have fallen into the left-vs-right trap, where the right calls the left socialists and communists and the left calls the right fascists and nazi's.
Fixed.
Mr. Beck: Reveal your sources everytime you open your mouth and reveal from what university you graduated.
I am in agreeance with Beck on this one, as we both define the Political Spectrum in terms of government involvement in private life. This is a much less arbitrary spectrum than just saying, "Fascism is a right wing form of government because, um..., that's the way I learned it."
This is the conventional "political spectrum". Beck is trying to re-define it. He's not saying "this is MY personal definition", he's trying to portray this as THE definition and, conventionally, it is not.
It is also not the "conventional 'political spectrum'" just because you say it is. It is A convential spectrum, but using the definite article instead of the indefinite article is very misleading.
Please explain what makes fascism right-wing other than convention, tradition, or bias.
Hitler and the Nazis hated the communists and purged them and even had them rounded up and shot.
A little fact that you and Beck like to ignore.
Hitler also killed many of the conservative remnants of the Second Reich.
Banning gay marriage and sex, to me, seems like government involvement in private life, and I don't consider that a leftist, liberal, or progressive ideal. Same goes with abortion.
You can't just say someone is on the left because they favor a big government, just like you can't say someone is on the right because they favor a small government. Kings and Queens had big governments, and I don't see anything liberal about them.
I see nothing that makes Obama like a communist or socialist, nor do I see any thing that makes Reagan or Bush like a monarch or fascist.
As for the National Socialist party idea, I believe it is a valid argument in this case, but I do agree with you that a title can be very deceptive (The Democratic Republic of Congo would have been a better example though). Here is Hitler's 25-point program laid out and translated with a modern political exegesis to support my point.
You are also correct in stating that banning gay marriage is a right-wing ideology; however, as one drifts further to the right--i.e., toward Libertarianism--that desire for legislation decreases. (I am not aware of any mainstream political ideology that wishes to ban gay sex though.) The abortion argument is simply based on two opposing premises, viz., the question of life.
Your last point is intersting, comparing monarchs to a right-wing ideology. I disagree. I believe any form of government, monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy, can be either a left- or right-wing government. It is possible to have a limited government Monarch, q.v. Cincinnatus, or a big government one (Julius Caesar). The same can be said for the other forms of government. Indeed, even Communism needn't be a big government dictatorship per se, as many primitive cultures did practice Communism with limited involvement or regulation from a governing authority.
I don't see Obama as a Communist, but there are some definite Socialist ideas that creep through. This is not necessrily exclusive to him, however, as more and more of them have been gaining widespread acceptance since the ratification of the Constitution.
It says that someone replied to my comment but I don't see the response. Why?
Hope my comments speed up!