Posted on 09/01/2010 5:26:33 AM PDT by Kaslin
Predictably, the "Restoring Honor" rally on the National Mall last Saturday has evoked a lot of consternation.
Because the rally explicitly and studiously avoided trumpeting a political agenda, it freed up a lot of people to fill in the blanks themselves. For instance, Greg Sargent of the Washington Post insists it was all a con: "As high-minded as that may sound, the real point of stressing the rally's apolitical goals was political." By leaving the listener to infer an anti-Obama agenda from all of this talk of lost honor, host Glenn Beck was practicing "classic political demagoguery."
So let me get this straight: If Beck had done the opposite, and invited hundreds of thousands of anti-Obama signs, and carved up Obama like a turkey dinner, folks like Sargent would think the rally was less demagogic? Hmmm.
Obviously, Sargent's not entirely wrong about the rally's political resonance. Of course it was a conservative-and-libertarian-tinged event. Of course it would have been impossible without the right-leaning tea party movement. Of course the fact that Beck and Sarah Palin managed to attract so many people to the Mall is not a ringing endorsement of the Democrats.
But the partisan implications of the rally aren't that interesting. Nor, really, is the argument that the relentless celebration of Martin Luther King Jr. at the National Mall amounted to some grave insult to his memory.
One striking feature of Saturday's rally was how deeply religious and ecumenical it was. It seems like just yesterday that everyone was talking about how Christian evangelicals were too bigoted to vote for upright and uptight Mormon Mitt Romney. Yet Christian activists saw no problem cheering for -- and praying with -- the equally Mormon but far less uptight Beck, who asked citizens to go to "your churches, synagogues and mosques!"
The inclusiveness transcended mere religion. While the crowd was preponderantly white, the message was racially universalistic. That was evident not just on the stage, but in the crowd as well. When Reason TV's Nick Gillespie asked a couple whether as "African-Americans" they felt comfortable in such a white audience, the woman responded emphatically but good-naturedly: "First of all, I'm not African, I am an American ... a black American." She went on to explain how "these people" -- i.e., the white folks cheering her on -- "are my family."
Peter Viereck a largely forgotten conservative intellectual, would have found this familiar. During the 1950s, he noted that anti-Communism -- whatever its other faults and excesses -- had the remarkable effect of lessoning inter-ethnic tensions among like-minded activists. Anti-Communist blacks were celebrated and welcomed by anti-Communist whites. Anti-Communist immigrants and Jews were welcomed to the supposedly nativist and anti-Semitic movement. Viereck, who disliked the phenomenon (he said it was akin to xenophobia practiced by a "xeno"), dubbed it "transtolerance."
I'm more upbeat about the dynamic. Of late there's been a lot of debate, largely in the context of the so-called ground zero mosque, about the evils of American identity. Will Wilkinson, an influential liberal-libertarian writer, sees opposition to the mosque as an entirely reprehensible expression of the "cult of American identity" and the "zaniness of right identity politics." The upshot of Wilkinson's argument is that it's absolutely preposterous for the American people to see themselves as a people.
New York Times columnist Ross Douthat recently argued that there are "two Americas." The first America is wholly secular, "where allegiance to the Constitution trumps ethnic differences, language barriers and religious divides. An America where the newest arrival to our shores is no less American than the ever-so-great granddaughter of the Pilgrims." The other America is culturally defined: "This America speaks English, not Spanish or Chinese or Arabic. It looks back to a particular religious heritage: Protestantism originally, and then a Judeo-Christian consensus that accommodated Jews and Catholics as well."
Douthat makes some good points, but he downplays the relationship between what are really the two faces of one America. It is the American conception of itself as a people that keeps it loyal to the Constitution. The Constitution, absent our cultural fidelity to it, might as well be the rules for a role-playing game.
I confess, if Beck wasn't a libertarian, I would find his populism worrisome. But his message, flaws and excesses notwithstanding, is that our constitutional heritage defines us as a people, regardless of race, religion or creed. Is that so insulting to Martin Luther King Jr.'s memory?
>Because the rally explicitly and studiously avoided trumpeting a political agenda,
Unlike the WaPo itself, that is...
His definition is total BS, and designed to confuse. If you adhere to the constitution, then you believe in following the law. An illegal immigrant is breaking the law, something not one single nation on this planet would tolerate.
I LOVE this answer.
Greg Sargent of the Washington Post insists it was all a con: "As high-minded as that may sound, the real point of stressing the rally's apolitical goals was political. "By leaving the listener to infer an anti-Obama agenda from all of this talk of lost honor, host Glenn Beck was practicing "classic political demagoguery."
Greg Sargent is a pinhead. 'We' didn't lose our honor the day Barry was sworn in, just go back to Billy-Jeff.
That amoral sociopath redefined for many what sex 'is', or 'isn't'. what was 'right' or what wasn't 'wrong'. As Bob Dole said about BJ acting like an alley cat (iirc), "Where's the outrage?" So it wasn't about Barry, it was about our moral decline in society as a whole.
But undoubtedly Barry is greasing the slide downward and pushing everyone as fast as he can DOWN that slide to his level. 'Heck' not even Billy-Jeff would have avowed Communists and 'lovers of Mao' in his Administration. But for Obama, it's hey what's the problem with Communists?
We've become, or are close to becoming, Rome -- but without the Toga's.
Leave it to a liberal to say that an attempt to rebuild a culture of honor, honesty, integrity and responsbility is a “con”.
They mention Peter Viereckin this article. I had never heard of him. I don’t agree with some of what he believed but check out this quote
“Catholic-baiting is the anti-Semitism of the liberals”.
This is the part I don't get. When did MLK establish exclusive property rights to the National Mall? The man gave a memorable speech there, the message of which many of his own race choose to ignore, but that's the end of the story.
I think Glenn Beck is a remarkable man, and a courageous one. He could be leading a relatively peaceful and prosperous life like many talk-show personalities, but he stepped forward into the middle of the fire. Now he has a target on his back.
His work in publicizing the thinking of the Founding Generation has filled a major gap, as has his exposure of the “Progressive” movement and all its tentacles.
I take exception with him on the subject of Martin Luther King who was himself a “progressive” with views that came right out of the Marxist miasma.
he's an alcoholic with one failed marriage behind him....who is he to preach to anyone...
I disagree with you and so will most Freepers, I am sure. Dr Martin Luther King was a Republican
>>he’s very anti Catholic<<
If you post some quotes to prove that, I’d like to see them.
I’m Extremely orthodox Catholic. I have listened to Glenn in the mornings and use his show as my HS curriculum.
I’ve never heard him say anything Anti-Catholic and in fact have seen him give Kudos to B16 concerning Liberation Theology.
>>he’s an alcoholic with one failed marriage behind him....who is he to preach to anyone...<<
I’m REALLY glad that no one judges me by my past mistakes.
Holy Lord, I would be in trouble!
He didn’t, but Al racebaiter Sharpton did so to speak in his rally
And here is a quote from Bill Donohue
However, today, conservative Catholic League President William Donohue released a statement that did indeed defend and make excuses for Beck’s comments:
Many are hammering Beck for saying, “Am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!” A closer read of what he said shows he followed that quip with, “If I am going to Jeremiah Wright’s church. If you have a priest that is pushing social justice, go find another parish.”
Beck didn’t say Christians should abandon their religion. He recommended shopping around to find a more conservative parish if one is dissatisfied with hearing left-wing sermons. Nothing new about that. In the Catholic Church, there are priests who are stridently left-wing and stridently right-wing; many parishioners shop accordingly. Protestants shop by leaving one denomination for another. And so on.
I have to agree with both of them and I suspect that the more liberal parts of The Church are pushing the “Beck is Anti-Catholic” stuff.
If you are referring to his comments on social justice, he is not attacking what the magisterium teaches on social justice but the heretical form of it some Catholics attempted to promote (and some I guess some still attempt to promote), the form which was put down by then Cardinal Ratzinger decades ago.
He is no one. Only you are worthy. We are so very grateful.
Also.....I am afflicted with a bald patch. Please help.
And these people have the cojones to talk about "truth" and "reality". I think they wouldn't know either if they got slapped across the face by them.
It's totally obvious that they've never listened to Beck or watched his TV show. Yet they think they have the right to define something that they know nothing about.
Now that takes cojones.
Who ? Never heard of him (or her, I guess). Must not be all THAT "influential".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.