Carl Trueman is spot on with his critique of the mixed message from the religious right regarding Glenn Beck: No, Mr Beck is Part of the Problem. Here is a hint, it is not just his mormonism that is a problem. It is also his over the top rhetoric that turns discussions over very important issues into emotional exchanges of one-upmanship to see who can throw out the best zinger.
Yes, his lectures are entertaining; I would go further -- they are actually entertainment. And the tragedy of much American politics these days is that those on both sides of the substantial issues -- and I stress both sides here, for the left is no better than the right -- mistake such entertainment for intelligent argument and cast their votes accordingly.
If democracy ever dies, it is unlikely that it will be by act of Congress; more likely it will be because of the failure of the electorate to engage in an intelligent, civil manner with the democratic process. Sadly, Christians seems all too often to be in the vanguard of such uncritical incivility.
People like Beck on the right and Keith Olbermann on the left are poster children for the childish tantrums that have replaced rational conversations. Beck and his ilk are crass opportunists and demagogues who are cashing in on pseudo-political discourse. We face an enormous crisis of culture, politics and economics in the very near future but we cannot even begin to address these questions as a nation with men who have illusions of messianic grandeur forming the conversation.
3 comments:
I read Carl's post which accuses Beck of being uncivil in his discourse among other extensions of that. He gave NO examples. I have listened to Beck and have not determined anything I have heard to be uncivil or extreme. Is it not uncivil of Carl to accuse Beck of something and expect us to believe him without any examples of what he is accusing Beck of? This is quite shallow and suggests we should believe him with NO examples. At least Beck gives examples of what he is talking about.
Tim,
I agree on this point with Carl.
I don’t have cable/satellite but in the times I have watched Beck or read what he has written, I have found him to be uncivil, condescending, silly and inflammatory. All to be expected because he is first and foremost an entertainer. I have a special problem with Beck because he is an insidious wolf in sheeps clothing, but the whole Beck/Hannity/O’Reilly triumvirate that fills the airwaves are showmen and nothing more. I will put my conservative credentials up against anyone but I find nothing of any value in what people like Beck or Coulter have to say. Conservatism should win its arguments based on having the better argument, not because we have the loudest and snarkiest commentators.
Where is William F. Buckley when you need him?
"Beck/Hannity/O’Reilly triumvirate that fills the airwaves are showmen and nothing more."
I would say they are 10% showman. I am not going to invalidate everything because of that. Do they tell the truth? I think so. I give a huge amount of credit for that in leu of all the lying alternatives.
" Beck because he is an insidious wolf in sheeps clothing"
Beck has been fully honest that he is a Mormon. He is not hiding behind any illusion that he is evangelical. He is allowed to use the words God, church, faith, etc in his political discourse even if he does have a completely different understanding of it's meaning. The fact that some believers consider him a true believer is their own shallow faith and discernment,
Give me an example of "insidious wolf" and I'll consider your take. At this point I think you are gravely exaggerating, which is something you might not like even the "triumvirate" to do.
Do you have any examples of uncivil, condescending, and inflammatory? I will agree to silly at times. I don't think it's honest to accuse without specific examples that include some context.
Post a Comment