Motion Put Forth: Glenn Beck is an Idiot

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/us/12beck.html?_r=1&hp

Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, took issue with Mr. Beck’s depiction of Mr. Soros as a “Jewish boy helping sending the Jews to the death camps,” calling it “offensive” and “horrific.”
.
.

On Tuesday on his Fox program, watched by about 2.8 million people, Mr. Beck said that during the Holocaust, the 14-year-old Mr. Soros “used to go around with this anti-Semite and deliver papers to the Jews and confiscate their property and then ship them off.”

Mr. Beck continued: “I am certainly not saying that George Soros enjoyed that, even had a choice. I mean, he’s 14 years old. He was surviving. So I’m not making a judgment. That’s between him and God.” He also said that “many people” would call Mr. Soros “an anti-Semite,” though “I will not.”

Any seconds?

If not, let the rationalizations begin!

And I just have to say, if, but for the grace of God, Glenn Beck found himself in that particular time and place, he would most likely be quick and eager to put on an SS cap and garter belt and prance around like Charlotte Rampling in "The Night Porter" if he thought he'd save his own sorry ass.

"That’s between him and God.”

Fuck off, you sanctimonious jackass. You're no MLK.

Sickening.

There is an old argument -- begun, I believe, by the nowadays-neglected writer Hannah Arendt in the early 60s -- about the Jewish Councils that the Nazis relied on to control the Jews in the areas the Nazis had conquered, but it's not really a left-right one. I suspect few of us, raised as we have been in a safe, sane, lawful world, would have become glorious martyrs in that situation.

it's not really a left-right one

I agree totally, but it doesn't do any good coming out of the mouth of one of the self-appointed, and tacitly accepted, "leaders" of the right.

At what point do they decide it's time to ditch this moron? When the ratings dip?

I'll also second that motion. Here's a link which includes the audio: http://www.mediaite.com/online/glenn-beck-accuses-george-soros-of-helping-send-t...

Isn't Beck simply appealing to the anti-semitic segment of his viewing audience? His conspiratorial thinking regarding Soros, reflecting unconsciously the model of the distant past that evoked fear and condemnation of the "Golden International", comports well with the level at which his usual pseudo-intellectual punditry resides: character assassination. I heard Soros talk at an APSA meeting, during which he spoke at length of the deep impact Karl Popper made on his general vision of the social world. I look forward to Beck's future blackboard diagram of the hidden totalitarian kernel lodged in The Open Society and Its Enemies.

Conservatives generally don't like Soros because he funds liberal causes in the US. But he also funds liberal, in the more general sense of the term, causes abroad, via his Open Society project. Although paleo-conservatives might deplore the latter activity, since they think it should be no concern of ours whether, for example, another country murders its investigative journalists, such meddling to spread democracy is generally something of which conservatives approve.

I could be wrong, but I believe it was David Horowitz's group which first raised this issue, because Soros is not a hard-line Zionist.

But is there a significant wing of those who watch Beck who are anti-Semitic? I am skeptical of this, since, in general, the American Right are very pro-Israel.

There might be some latent anti-Semitism lurking among the paleo-conservatives, although I have never seen anything I would call real anti-Semitism there. (I recall reading William Buckley's "In Search of Anti-Semitism", examing the views of people like Pat Buchanan and Joe Sobran, and ending up just feeling confused .... were they, or weren't they?

Except when applied to Islamists, I think the anti-Semitism charge is usually bogus. And this includes something that is now an article of faith on much of the Right, namely, that the far Left, who support the Palestinians, are anti-Semitic.

What rankles is this:

"many people” would call Mr. Soros “an anti-Semite,” though “I will not.”

That's slimy.

And oh soooooooooooooooo subtle!

I'd say that people can be pro-Israel (have to re-build the Temple to bring on the Last Days, no?) and anti-Semitic.

In theory, yes. But I doubt that you'll find any actual people who are pro-Israel for that reason.

Methinks Doug needs to refrain from making absolute statements.

12
I didn't read the entire article, but my recollection of the end time scenario is that Israel must exist because of its role in Bible prophecy, but that ultimately, the Jews basically have the option of acknowledging Christ as the Messiah, or facing eternal damnation. If that's not anti-Semitism, I don't know what is.

#13: Jews basically have the option of acknowledging Christ as the Messiah, or facing eternal damnation. If that's not anti-Semitism, I don't know what is.

Except that as objectionable as that eschatology is, how is their view of Jews choosing between salvation and damnation any different from what they expect any other people to go through? Are eco-nuts "anti-semitic" just because they want Mother Gaia to decimate the human infestation, a subset of whom are Jewish?

#2 - he would most likely be quick and eager to put on an SS cap

Didn't he sort of explore that vibe on his Arguing with Idiots cover?

It's amazing how Glenn Beck has managed to make Bill O'Reilly seem like a reasonable man. I used to get the feeling that he was channeling Andy Griffith's Lonesome Rhodes, but anymore he's a lot closer to Howard Beale "The Mad Prophet of the Airwaves" from Network.

14
I guess the thinking is that the Jews are (were?) God's chosen people. Their rejection of Jesus as the Messiah (a Messiah specifically for the Jews until Paul & Co. decided to let the Gentiles in on the action) carries a greater significance, I suppose, than that of your garden-variety heathen. (I hesitate to mention that for centuries, the Jews were excoriated as "Christ-killers", so there must be those who believe they have that "blood guilt" to atone for. This thinking was the starting point/rationalization for a lot of Christian nastiness over the years.)

That's my take on it, but I'm certainly no expert. But you're right - you're either in the holy lifeboat or you're not.

I hasten to add that

1) I am an agnostic, and am not arguing for any particular religious angle.

2) I believe the majority of modern Christians, American Christians at any rate, find anti-semitism repugnant,and do not follow the thinking I've described here.

If you are pro-Glen Beck, you'll assent to the proposition, because "idiot" is actually the kindest interpretation you can put on the whole episode.

>18 Doug1943:
. . . and that last episode.

Nice piece on CNN:

Beck's bizarre, dangerous hit at Soros
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/11/13/wolraich.beck.soros/index.html?hpt=T2

The author, Michael Wolraich is hardly non-partisan, but I'm afraid he gets this one right. The nicest thing one could say is that Beck is hasty and in a truly thundering echo chamber. I think it's rather sick how the right has turned on Soros. How many today have done as much promoting freedom as he has?

20
Jesus. Will someone please let me know when Beck airs a special lecture on The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion?

I'm just waiting for this wicked fellow to call New York City "Hymietown".

Paul Gottfriend on Glenn Beck on progressivism.

It was just fifty short years ago that Jewish people were still not allowed to join some organizations, clubs, etc in the USA. Anti-semitism was the norm, although whispered, not shouted. It has only been one generation, and it should not surprise us that there is still an element of this bias, even now.

One should also not be surprised that anyone on Fox News is devoid of scruples, integrity, common sense and a host of other necessary attributes. Welcome to the media of the 21st Century.

Now for my question: why do intelligent people spend any of their time paying attention to anything said on Fox News? Don't the azaleas need watering, or something?

Now for my question: why do intelligent people spend any of their time paying attention to anything said on Fox News? Don't the azaleas need watering, or something?

If more intelligent people had paid attention to previous raving maniacs, and to the cattle cars waiting on the sidings, the world might be a slightly happier place today.

#24 - why do intelligent people spend any of their time paying attention to anything said on Fox News?

Because too many unintelligent people spend their time listening to what is said on Fox News, then they go out and vote for people like Michelle Bachmann, etc.

You owe it to yourself to be aware at least.

25 et 26> Life is too short for me to spend time listening to, or watching, clowns like Beck perform. I am far more concerned about the David Rockefellers of the world.

I also find it hard to believe that people who voted for Michelle Bachmann or the anti-masturbation 'witch' make their decisions solely from watching Fox News, nor would I believe that everyone who watches Fox News voted as Rupie would have hoped. After all, you imply that you watch Fox, and by your comments one can assume that you did not vote for the aforementioned. I would tend to think that those who did vote for them had other influences, such as local attitudes and upbringing, which may, in some cases, have been influenced further by Fox.

25> If more intelligent people had paid attention to previous raving maniacs, and to the cattle cars waiting on the sidings, the world might be a slightly happier place today.

If your reference is to Hitler ("cattle cars waiting on sidelines") you might want to take another look at history. If his 'eloquence' at a time when Germany needed to feel good again is to be construed as those of a "raving maniac", then you might want to look at the current situation in the USA. A good talker does not necessarily mean one is going to get a good leader, and Hitler was not the only example of this that history provides.

As for the cattle cars, you may also want to take a look at the reports on YouTube about the camps that have been built around the USA, next to rail lines and airports, which sit empty and are inaccessible by the public citizenry - and built with no resistance whatsoever. If you would like to educate yourself regarding this circumstance, this will give you a start:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P-hvPJPTi4

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=internment+camps+in+america&aq=0

With this development one might assume that knowing about "cattle cars waiting on the sidings" in the past has not educated society very much at all.

Is your contention then that we can safely ignore the demagogues, but that we need to pay more attention to random anonymous conspiracy theorists wandering around chain link fences with video cameras?

It would seem that America's rail system would be very put out transporting people around even stuffed tightly into cattle cars. The government has got a lot of half finished dorky projects--many of which are the brainchild's of anti-pork conservatives. At least they have their fair share. The previous regime may have even thought of these as some kind of holding camps for terrorist Islamic armies moving across the Mexican border post 9-11. The level of paranoia back then was incredible and yet some people are nostalgic for it--and most of them probably do watch Beck.

I believe Beck once devoted a program to his view that G.W. F. Hegel's thought lies at the root of what plagues America. I return to Hofstadter frequently for insight into his brand of conspiratorial theory.

"The final aspect of the paranoid style is related to the quality of pedantry to which I have already referred. One of the impressive things about paranoid literature is precisely the elaborate concern with demonstration it almost invariably shows. One should not be misled by the fantastic conclusions that are so characteristic of this political style into imagining that it is not, so to speak, argued out along factual lines. The very fantastic character of its conclusions leads to heroic striving for 'evidence to prove that the unbelievable is the only thing that can be believed. Of course, there are highbrow, lowbrow, and middlebrow paranoids, as there are likely to be in any political tendency, and paranoid movements from the Middle Ages onward have had a magnetic attraction for demi-intellectuals . . . The typical procedure of the higher paranoid scholarship is to start with such defensible assumptions and with a careful accumulation of facts, or at least of what appear to be facts, and to marshal these facts toward an overwhelming 'proof' of the particular conspiracy that is to be established. It is nothing if not coherent -- in fact, the paranoid mentality is far more coherent than the real world, since it leaves no room for mistakes, failures, or ambiguities. It is , if not wholly rational, at least intensely rationalistic; it believes it is up against an enemy who is infallibly rational as he is totally evil, and it seeks to match his imputed total competence with its own, leaving nothing unexplained and comprehending all of reality in one overreachiing, consistent theory. It is nothing if not 'scholarly' in technique. . . What distinguishes the paranoid style is not, then the absence of verifiable facts (though it is occasionally true that in his extravagant passion for facts the paranoid occasionally manufactures them), but rather in the curious leap in imagination that is always made at some critical point in the recital of events. . . The plausibility the paranoid style has for those who find it plausible lies, in good measure, in this appearance of the most careful, conscientious, and seemingly coherent application to detail, the laborious accumulation of what can be taken as convincing evidence for the most fantastic conclusions, the careful preparation for the big leap from the undeniable to the unbelievable. The singular thing about all this laborious work is that the passion for factual evidence does not, as in most intellectual exchanges, have the effect of putting the paranoid spokesman into effective two-way communication with the world outside his group -- least of all with those who doubt his views. He has little real hope that his evidence will convince a hostile world. His effort to amass it has rather the quality of a defensive act which shuts off his receptive apparatus and protects him from having to attend to disturbing considerations that do not fortify his ideas. He has all the evidence he needs; he is not a receiver, he is a transmitter." The Paranoid Style in American Politics, pp. 35-38

It's worth noting that the program during which Beck uttered the statement that became the target of controversy is entitled "The Puppet Master: How much does George Soros control?" Also interesting, in light of Hofstadter's diagnosis, is the fact that Beck (or his producers) invites his followers to participate in his paranoid style: "For months, Glenn has been pulling back the structure progressives have worked decades to put in place. Beneath every layer lies one common thread: George Soros. Tonight on TV, Glenn presents an in-depth look at the Puppet Master, billionaire financier George Soros, one of the most powerful forces in the Progressive Movement. But don’t just take Glenn’s word for it. Read. Analyze. Do your own homework and come to your own conclusions - read below to fact check all the sources used on tonight's show." (emphasis added) http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/47856/

>30 theoria:
Thanks. That makes a lot of sense. Especially:

the paranoid mentality is far more coherent than the real world, since it leaves no room for mistakes, failures, or ambiguities.

or at least of what appear to be facts...

Such as, perhaps, the conclusions drawn from the convergence of a rail yard and a chain link fence.

(btw, I liked the bit in the video where the narrator states that the rail yard has "nothing worth stealing". It would be funny if she went back the next week and found that the shiny chain link fence was missing.)

Beneath every layer lies one common thread: George Soros.

For "George Soros" insert "the Eternal Jew".

33> sadly, yes.

31> simple answers to complex matters. But I suppose we can give the paranoid style credit for abiding by the lex parsimoniae.

Being pro-israel and anti-semitic is one of the fundamental ironies of the republicans in the same way rich gay people flock to that party.

In the general sense, they are pro israel/ anti muslim and support the massive military expenditures associated with that mess if only to appear hawkish.

But in the heartland, where anti semitism is alive and well, there is a distrust of east coast elites---code words for rich banker jews who drink lattes, eat sushi, and make lots of money.

I guess you can separate it into group and individual beliefs. Keep in mind the hard christian right sees jews as infidels.

It's not a good time to be a rich Jewish banker.

When was it ever?

Quite an act, those Republicans. Of course, as all good lefties know, they are anti-Semitic, while arming those dirty Jews, sorry, Zionists, in Israel; they hate Blacks of course, and women, but cleverly pretend to fall all over themselves when conservative leaders emerge from these groups. They hate ordinary people, but cleverly manage to fool half the country into supporting them.

Of course they want to keep up a huge military, when as any fool can see, the world has been getting more and more peaceful. They hate all Muslims, because they know Islam is the religion of peace, and they hate peace.

Thank God they didn't win the last election. Now our new President can tour the planet, apologize for America's crimes, and win the respect of the world.

Looks like someone touched a nerve...

apologize for America's crimes..

Like Ted Kennedy, Jane Fonda, etc., etc., we can expect this to be a conservative idee fixe for decades to come.

Makifat:

So what Jane Fonda did is okay?

Years later, she did appologize and say she was wrong.

So what Jane Fonda did is okay?

Well, gee, is that what I said? Let me just have a look...

Nope, but thanks for playing "Test Your Comprehension".

Just thought you might be implying.......

Here you go, Doug.

Marrying Ted Turner was not okay.

In other news, Ailes apologizes (sort of) for his "boy who cried Nazi" routine, but continues to insist that Beck was just tellin' it straight...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/18/ailes-apologizes-for-nazi-commen...

"I did speak with Glenn and he responded favorably."

He held out his paw and took a scooby-snack....

"I did speak with Glenn and he responded favorably."

That probably means he cried. Again. There's nothing worse than a soggy scooby-snack.

Good ol' Pavlovian conditioning...

29> I don't watch Beck, and when approached by the governor of California asking to use these facilities for the overflow of prisoners the state had, he was refused. The locations are still empty. I believe that asking the simple question of 'Why?' is an intelligent position to take.

49> You might continue to label many people as 'paranoid,' when it comes to the removal of civil liberties and other activities in the USA. After all, it does seem easy to push aside the concerns of others with a wave of the hand.

I wonder what you would say to the holocaust survivor who met with Naomi Wolf (author of The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot) and showed her the correlation between the current events in the USA and those that took place in Germany, preceding WWII. Would you call her concern of seeing the same steps being taken in the USA that were taken in her country as paranoid, or would you possibly heed her counsel, as one who knows better than most what can come of the current circumstances?

50
My understanding is that Wolf wrote her book as, per the Amazon description, "a stunning indictment of the Bush Administration and Congress...."

So, yeah, I guess I can see the comparison.

Regarding the paranoid style of Beck, one notices a monotheistic vision of evil in it. In the particular case of Soros, he is the singular puppet master behind all that is wrong, the First Mover of the "Progressive movement" that is destroying America. The "Jewish" angle Beck explicitly evokes (N.B. it is certainly the case that one could criticize Soros' politics without referencing his religious/ethnic background) works in both the secular and religious registers of the manipulative "Jewish Bankers" and the biblical "Christ Killers" (which no doubts adds to the cathexis between Beck's audience and the subject matter).

In contrast, a polytheistic vision might entail recognition of, and openness to, complexity. On this account, good and evil -- for those who traffic in such a worldview -- would be distributed across a range of gods (i.e. forces, entities, persons, institutions, long and short term historical processes, etc.). This vision may not be as emotionally satisfying for those possessed of the conspiratorial mind, but it would at least bring them in touch with ordinary reality and might take some of the symbolically violent edge off their rhetoric (e.g. the primordialist "Us" versus "Them" imagination).

Makifat: I've got political nerves which can be touched, but anti-Semitism on the Right is not one of them. (In point of fact, since November 2nd I've been pretty placid. It seems to be others who are letting their raw nerves find expression in angry posts here, probably for the same reason I have been feeling pretty good.)

As for Right-wing anti-Semitism, a more ridiculous, fact-free idea would be hard to inventm and I'm surprised that intelligent liberals are actually taking it seriously, and letting "Rotobias" (who doesn't fall into the previously-mentioned category of liberals) speak for them. His utter b.s is what I suspect a psychiatrist would call projection: "Being pro-israel and anti-semitic is one of the fundamental ironies of the republicans in the same way rich gay people flock to that party. .... But in the heartland, where anti semitism is alive and well"

So the question is: how do you know? You say the rank and file of the Tea Party are anti-Semites? What's your evidence?

Let's bring some evidence to the discussion: the Anti-Defamation League do a survey of the American population periodically, to judge the extent of anti-Semitism. Their last survey found that 9% of whites are anti-Semites. Now let's assume that that 9% are entirely Tea Party Supporters. -- About a third to half the population are favorable to the Tea Party, which almost certainly means an even greater proportion of whites are favorable to it. So in the very worst case, the artificial case i have put together, anti-Semites are a very distinct minority of Tea Party supporters.

Now let's look at that part of the population who are not likely to be in the Tea Party, and who are overwhelmingly Democratic Party supporters: the same ADL survey found that more than a third of Blacks, and an equal proportion of foreign-born Hispanics, are anti-Semitites. So there are places where anti-Semitism is "alive and well" -- just look for a lot of faded Obama posters.

Of course, I know liberals are very keen to repudiate the support of these people, but just haven't gotten around to doing so yet.

So to the extent that popular anti-Semitism exists in the US, we are at least as likely to find it among the supporters the Left as on the Right.

Another really stupid argument is this: you can be pro-Israel but hate Jews, because you hate Muslims worse, or want to see Armageddon. Anyone who really thinks this -- and I doubt anyone does, it's just an argument that appears clever -- has no feel for human psychology. Yes, technically you could cheer for the the IDF while hating Jews, just as you could be an extreme arachnophobe and an arachnologist at the same time. There is no logical contradiction, just a powerful human one.

There is a serious argument, not even addressed by the leftist ravings here, about anti-Semitism on both the Right and the Left.

On the Right, the issue has to with whether or not those conservatives who are non-interventionist paleo-cons, and who are very critical of Israeli influence on American foreign policy, are also, or thereby, anti-Semitic. (About 20 years ago, William Buckley wrote a long, tortured piece on this issue.)

Although the real pre-war Old Right certainly harbored plenty of anti-Semitism, of the pre-Hitler pre-Islamist sort, I think this is probably a bogus charge today, at least in most instances.

Just as I think calling anti-Israeli Leftists "anti-semitic" is also bogus (and even more so applying this label to liberals and Leftists who support a two-state solution).

In both cases, the aim is to stifle serious argument, just as is the absurd, and, yes, dishonest claim that the Tea Party are anti-Semites.

Theoria:
Re your:
"e.g. the primordialist "Us" versus "Them" imagination"
Sometimes it truly is "Us" versus "Them." Think Hitler and Germany in WWII.

Glenn Beck is not an idiot but purely a "persona" like Sarah Palin. Glenn Beck is actually quite smart. Not because of what he is saying (which has no bearing on the truth) but because he has tapped into a vein of resentment and angst and he is using that vein to hit the mother lode (material wealth). Opportunism is the hallmark of politicians and their representative talking heads.

Bush did it after 9/11. Obama did it after the collapse of Wall Street and the war in Iraq. Beck is doing it after Obama's failure. The GOP candidate will do it in 2012 and who knows who will do it after she fails. The essential nature of politicians is opportunity, not principle or ideology.

53
You are addressing your post to me, but I'm not sure why. The crux of it seems to be:

So the question is: how do you know? You say the rank and file of the Tea Party are anti-Semites? What's your evidence?

I guess my response is: What's my evidence for what? Where exactly did I say that the "rank and file" of the Tea Party are anti-Semites? I don't recall even mentioning the Tea Party in this thread. My original comment was basically that, on a personal level, Glenn Beck is an idiot. And the fact that he doesn't even understand why his comments regarding Soros, the Jews, and the Holocaust are offensive tends to confirm this opinion.

I will be honest and tell you that I pretty much stopped reading your post when you asked your question. I've learned through bitter experience that you tend to create your own straw men, and then gleefully proceed to knock them down. In as much as it keeps you off the streets of Glocca Morra, I don't see any harm in it, but don't expect me to play into it.

54> that's true. But in the case of Beck v Soros or whatever other bogeyman he lectures about (be it Hegel or Harry Reid), it is not.

55
Oh, he's an idiot alright. Might be a good time to rent "Being There" again.

And speaking of movies, Beck's little lectures remind me of this exchange:

http://movieclips.com/j9Tyg-a-fish-called-wanda-movie-apes-dont-read-philosophy/

"Apes don't read philosophy!"

"Yes, they do, Otto, they just don't understand it!"

51> My understanding is that Wolf wrote her book as, per the Amazon description, "a stunning indictment of the Bush Administration and Congress...."

Check Youtube for interviews with Naomi, in which you will see and hear her make this reference. She also refers to this on the first page of the book. I suggest reading it, if you live in the States. It's quite an eye-opener.

Ronald Reagan was a secret Muslim.

You can scoff at Professor Beck, but realize that the vacillating Lincoln was assassinated by Progressives in order to clear the way for the unwavering Big Government Socialist Andrew Johnson, who imposed the Yankee Leviathan on the former small governmentarian, Confederate States. Stop reading Howard Zinn and learn the true, patriotic history of God's country.

Glenn Beck is making a lot of money pandering to the very lowest of the common denominators; I'm not sure he can be called an 'idiot'.

Those who blindly follow and believe him, however...

I get angry when I see the things I see on my TeeVee that make no sense. Then I come here and write about it to blow off steam. I should probably take up something more productive than chewing other people out and trolling.

>68 perdondaris:

Actually, we convert LibraryThing steam into power and feed it back into the electric grid. You're currently powering rural Ecuador!

I just get frustrated with conservatives that live in Candyland. When you question their foolish hypocrisy they cry FASCISM! ELITISM! Their ignorance is so amazing and brazen. It is only frustrating because they are influential and powerful. I am not frustrated by David Duke or Louis Farakhan. Their power and influence is well on the fringes of society that they pose little danger to human freedom. Conservatives are today's mainstream.

If you want to know how fascism and totalitarianism are completely coherent with capitalism read Mussolini's Doctrine of Fascism. In his little book he says explicitly that that which private initiative cannot do the State will do. The great landowners (as well as many other capitalists) in Italy embraced fascism.

Fact: the first antifascists were socialists. Charlie Chaplin was considered "prematurely antifascist" by that great conservative thinker and swashbuckler (some might even call fascist) J. Edgar Hoover.

Glenn Beck and his fellow con men would not frustrate me except for their power and influence. Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, literally talked out of his hat (his detractors invented the phrase "talking out of your hat" as a synonym for brazen lying) which conservatives have done since reactionary thinking was codified.

Ummm...as a conservative, I have to take issue with your description.

Not with your description of the current crop of demagogues or their followers; that's reasonably correct. (Although I'd dispute their real level of influence; most of what we see happening is because very powerful people benefit, and profit trumps ideology every time.)

As I've explained, we don't actually have capitalism in this country. But fascism and totalitarianism are systems of government; you can have virtually any economic policy irrespective of your government. (Although some systems work better together than others.)

But they're NOT conservatives; you're closer in describing them as reactionaries, although I'm not sure that's entirely correct either. REAL conservatives loathe and despise people who are willing to sacrifice principles for the sake of temporary self-interest. Who refuse to engage in critical thinking and exploration of possible consequences of proposed policies. Who blithely condemn the 'Big Government' when its policies conflict withn their own ideas, but thoughtlessly accept its largesse when it's beneficial to them. Who think like criminals, with an eye on what they can get, rather than what they might owe.

No, these people; whatever they are; are not conservatives. Whatever they may try to claok themselves as.

You've said we have not had capitalism for 150 years. If the model of a free society (or capitalism) is antebellum America (2010-150=1860) then I have some questions about what you consider capitalism and a free society.

Capitalism is about property ownership and the priority of property ownership in the laws of society. He who has the property controls society. Ayn Rand's capitalist ideal is similar to the Orwell's 1984 in that a small group of people run society for their own benefit without concern for their subjects. Orwell's Inner Party makes decisions with no consideration of the rest of society. Just as the ruling elite of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other powerful lobbies.

Many Americans do not vote because they view it as silly nonsense. They say nothing will ever change because there are powerful groups in society that will veto anything that does not match their agenda. Therefore voting is a waste of time that would be better spent elsewhere.

In capitalism you have a minority making decisions for a majority, just as in Communist dictatorships. This is why I think capitalism fits so well in the conservative philosophy of the world. Conservatism is all about order sustained from a God, translated and clarified by an oligarchy for the administration of society. For atheist conservatives like Ayn Rand I would substitute the Invisible Hand of the free market for God. But it all adds up to the same as George Orwell's descriptions of oligarchy.

In a society based principally on property rights and not individual equality those without property will disregard the laws. The poor do not benefit from a society based on private property and will therefore flout its laws. They get none of the perks of citizenship so they do not partake in any of the responsibilities of citizenship. You cannot judge them for not taking responsibility without taking into consideration the fact that the most powerful members of society take no responsibility for their actions (e.g. institutions like British Petroleum and the Roman Catholic Church).

Capitalism ended when the railroads came.

What we've had since then is called a 'managed economy'. Translation: socialism for the rich and powerful, and actual capitalism for the middle class and poor. The middle class supported this for a long time.

Government subsidies, although an affront to capitalistic thinking, didn't steal that much from the public coffers. Or rather, everyone was paying a few pennies a day to the rich. It's not worth anyone's while to protest losing 5 cents a day.

And there was always the hope that through hard work and pluck, YOU would become wealthy and hence benefit from the system.

But as always, those at the top are getting greedy and wanting more. And forgetting that there's a reason why everyone should get some benefit from supporting the government and society.

Rabbis vs Glenn Beck http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/artsandliving/journalad/index.html

I believe Beck is more libertarian than conservative. At least, I saw him call himself than that. The occasional nuttiness does seem to indicate libertarian.

We won't have Beck to kick around anymore after his dismissal from Fox.