From time to time I purposely subject myself to things like Glenn Beck's television show. Call it a kind of monastic self-flagellation. I try to be well-rounded in my consumption of political commentary, and I really do believe that we all benefit from hearing things from a different perspective. On one particular occasion, however, after watching a mere 13 minutes of his program, my head hurt so much that I couldn't even laugh at the absurdity of what was being spewed.
I love a good discussion, and I love hearing opinions that are not mine. But, dear Glenn Beck, please, for my sake, ensure that your opinions at least make sense.I've taken the liberty of transcribing the best part to give you an accurate representation of what was actually said without leaving anything out and without paraphrasing, but if you can stomach it, you can watch the full, weird, pathetic, woeful lamentation here (and i don't hesitate to use those words, because sounding pathetic and woeful is clearly Beck's shtick). Beck began his program by using an old wooden chair to represent the quote-unquote true America as it was in its 'original state.' Then came:
There were rallies today in California and all around the country (facing video of protesters lining the streets with placards). They were promoted as--look at these pinheads--they were promoted as 'saving education.' Well who--who doesn't want to save education? But the education budget wasn't the real goal. Let me show you a little something about the people involved in these protests. These were the posters that were used to promote this (walking toward a large poster featuring a slogan, and a logo of a fist on a book, painted in red, black, and white hues). Right here: 'Education is a human right.' Really? Wow. Education is a human right--boy this--almost looks like old, Soviet propaganda art dud'n'it? These people feel so strongly about education, you think they'd be educated to know that education is not a right. The Constitution doesn't mention that one. Let me clarify that; the United Sates Constitution doesn't mention that; this one does (holding a red document inscribed with Russian writing). This one. This is the Soviet constitution. Oh, it mentions education; free education for everybody, mhm. Let me help. Save the education. Rights do not come from government, they never have. If they do, you end up with a completely different government. You end up with a footstool or you end up with, what are those things that--stockades. Your rights come from God. If government grants you rights then you're a slave to the government, because if they grant them, they can also take them away. In America you don't have that right. This is what knowing what this chair is all about is all about. You gotta know what it is. Adding in education is just adding another coat of ugly paint; another ding, another scratch, somebody else just standing on it or, whatever. It wasn't designed to do that. If you want government to start granting rights then perhaps it's time to start looking for something other than a chair. Something entirely different than this because that's not what this one does. That's what this one does (raising the Soviet constitution).First, I just want to lay out one of Beck's lines of persuasion: If the the cause is protected by the Soviet constitution (and the art looks Soviet!), then the cause is fought for by communists. Therefore, I'd like to point out to Glenn that article 53 of the Soviet constitution defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. Right now, Mr. Beck, there are people--people protesting to have an identical article added to our sacred constitution. Here--in the God-blessed U.S. of A.! Please, Glenn--reveal this conspiracy to the world. Stop these pinheads from passing these--they call them 'protection of marriage' acts--but we know what the real goal is.
Second, I think Beck is very confused in regards what he actually thinks about the nature of rights. Granted, his job is to say things, not to think about them, so we must offer him a measure of grace. Let's try to help him out, though, by pointing out a few conflicting little nuggets:
- "...education is not a right. The Constitution doesn't mention that one." Again, let's lay out this logic: The U.S. Constitution does not cite education as being a right. Therefore, education is not a right. We can also infer based on this argumentation that the Constitution is exhaustive in its delineation of rights, since we should not be adding more. Furthermore, we have assurance that by way of granting us the rights it does mention, the document also assures them to us against forces which might seek to take them away. Fair enough.
- "If government grants you rights then you're a slave to the government, because if they grant them, they can also take them away." Wait, Glenn, so are you saying that you and I and all U.S. citizens are enslaved by the Constitution rather than liberated by it?
- "Rights do not come from government, they never have." Oh, okay good, you had me scared for a second there. But you're still appealing to the Constitution to hold your whole argument together. So, if the rights granted in the Constitution are not granted by the government, then who grants them?
- "Your rights come from God." Alright, I'm following. Our rights come from God, and the Constitution is an explanation of those rights. Now, just so i can pass this knowledge on to unbelievers, can you point out to me the Scriptures the founding fathers used when they were putting this list of rights together? Maybe just the ones talking about the right to form a well-regulated militia, protection from quartering of troops, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, oh and right to counsel, I better memorize that verse, prohibition of excessive bail, and lastly, since states' rights is a big issue right now, where in the Bible should I look to show people that powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the states or the people? ...what do you mean there's nothing in the Bible about that? Okay, I get it, so the United States Constitution is an extra-Biblical revelation the founding fathers of the nation were divinely inspired to write down. Got it.
Well, I do think Glenn is right about one thing. If your entire conception of the rights we now or ever could have is based on the U.S. Constitution (the version we have in 2010), then you truly are a slave to it. And I must stress here, on a philosophical basis, that more accurately, you are a slave to your conception of and interpretation of that piece of paper. In Beck's case, one can conveniently forget about something like the 9th amendment (my personal favorite):
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.So here, I will try, on behalf of our good friend Glenn Beck to clear up some of his confusion:
- There are indeed certain fundamental things we know about humans, by nature of their being created in the image of God, which entitle them to certain rights.
- However, the rights themselves are not granted by God. It is people themselves who have the responsibility of recognizing these truths and seeking to allow various rights and responsibilities universally to others.
- In the case of the United States Constitution, our founding fathers wrote down an interpretation of--not an explanation of--the 'inalienable rights' they observed; they labored within their own personal/historical/social contexts to provide the nation with a basic understanding of these. So, for them it made sense that the right to vote applied only to white, land-owning males. However, over time, our interpretation of that same right has evolved.
- In addition to the evolution of recognized rights, our common collection of basic human rights, and our conceptions of them, is equally dynamic. Obviously, part of this is due to shifting collective political mindsets. However, I think the bigger reason is that the nature of our shared experiences is constantly changing. For example, not only have we chosen over time to collectively reject the idea of slavery itself, the picture we get of 21st century slavery is vastly different than the picture of 18th century slavery; the specific human rights relating to this issue often deal with things like forced sexual relations with children, as opposed to, say, racial domination.
- If the communal landscape is such that people choose to deem education a right, then by way of the liberties supposedly entitled to them by prior rights agreements within given communities (such as the Constitution), the people may choose to paint their chair whatever color they please. (Or create and adopt new agreements; see The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, drafted in 1948, believe it or not. See specifically article 26.)
Right on!
ReplyDeleteOne thing:
When talking about how our rights come from God, I think your rhetorical strategy works well for the likes of Beck and the so-called Christian right. Where are these rights in the Bible, indeed!
But we shouldn't forget that the American Founders were men of the Enlightenment (the Christian right has no idea what it is praying for, and would probably be upset if their prayers were answered). They believed in a god of reason, a god that anyone with a head on their shoulders could understand, nature's god, natural theology. They said these rights were self-evident, they are obvious to any reasonable person. This wise word is governed by a wise order which implies a wise governor. This isn't the robustness of the Judeo-Christian God, this is a thin, philosophical god.
But anyway, I think your rhetorical strategy works against Beck and the so-called Christian right simply because they, as you said, "[pine] after bygone things that were never there in the first place."
Good stuff.
I’ll grant you this. This was not Beck’s best work. It was rather exclusively addressed to those who already watch his program and have been following, at least, loosely, the discussion for the last year or so. He leaves lots of gaps in his argument, granted. He assumes you know how to fill them in. If you haven’t been watching/listening, you don’t. So yes, the argument is rather flawed when taken at face value outside of the context of the long-line discussion. What’s presented is not an exhaustive political view, it’s an emotional appeal to a specific audience, his audience. And the main point of his appeal is “educate yourself on what the founding documents of our country actually say.” The references to communism may be in poor taste, but they are calculated to achieve a specific goal: getting the American people off their collective rears and actually getting involved in what is happening in the country.
ReplyDelete“If the cause is protected by the Soviet constitution (and the art looks Soviet!), then the cause is fought for by communists.” Maybe. But having heard him speak on the issue of communism “invading” American thought, his actual view is probably slightly different. He is trying to point out how likely it is that the fundamental ideas behind the rally are socialist in nature, that those who are really pushing the issue and designing the posters may very well have a second agenda. And have you ever heard Beck speak on the topic of gay marriage or are you just assuming that he automatically lumps in with the opinions of the “Christian right”?
I agree with you that his discussion of rights is unclear. So maybe I can help you out and clear up some of the confusion, based on what I know about Beck.
• He’s a constitutionalist. He thinks the founding fathers got it right (or pretty darn close to right). So when he says, “education is not a right. The Constitution doesn’t mention that one.” He’s really saying “Woah, I totally disagree.” He’s just using the constitution as something larger to point to than his own opinion.
• He’s specifically NOT saying that the Constitution grants rights. He’s making a very fine distinction. God grants them, our constitution recognizes them and protects them. If your rights fundamentally come from government, then you ARE a slave to the whims of that government, as you have no rights outside of what it dictates.
• "Your rights come from God." Okay, so he’s using his faith here. His audience is mostly American Christians. He’s also alluding to the founding fathers’ own faith in God which was fundamental to their worldview and no doubt greatly influenced the forming documents of our country. To use a point from the previous comment, the “God” that he’s referring to does not necessarily have to be the Judo-Christian God. It only has to be the philosophical idea that there is something fundamental that orders the universe, and that that order is knowable(or as close to knowable as anything is) to humans. Therefore he does not have to back up this idea with scripture. He could be a deist and make the same argument.
So, he doesn’t actually believe three different things about rights. He has one coherent view. Rights come from God. Our constitution gets it pretty right as to what those rights are, and it protects them and points them out.
continued...
“If the communal landscape is such that people choose to deem education a right, then by way of the liberties supposedly entitled to them by prior rights agreements within given communities (such as the Constitution), the people may choose to paint their chair whatever color they please.”
ReplyDelete• Of course they can! And they have! Beck would not disagree. He just, as he said, doesn’t want the chair to be made into “a stool or firewood.” The man is convinced that our current government is on a swift path to socialism. It’s not a matter of paint colors. The constitution protects human rights, and we can change our definition of human rights if we wish; that in itself is a right protected by the constitution.
“I'm not sure if nostalgia is the right word for pining after bygone things that were never there in the first place.” Which things are those?
It’s a badly framed argument. You’re right. It only works in the context of the ideas already presented. The “education is not a right” line was a stupid thing to go on. If you want to discount Beck completely, though, you should take him on when he is at his best and not his worst. Otherwise, it’s just a straw man argument.
I think the best part is that he says that education is not a human right, but then goes on to say that he is educating people with his show.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I find it odd to say that education is not a human right because it isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Note, I'm not saying here that the Constitution gives us our rights. Women didn't have the right to vote when the Constitution was written. Slaves were slaves and less than human, so they didn't have rights when the Constitution was written. Did God not yet think these were rights? Or were they just not self-evident to the Founding Fathers? At any rate, perhaps these protesting "pinheads" are simply saying that it is "self-evident" to them that education is a human right, so why isn't it protected by the Constitution? It should be! Just as someone said that it is self-evident that women or blacks are not less human and therefore are also have these rights.
I still don't understand all the commotion about communism and socialism. We already have Medicare and Medicaid, why aren't we complaining about these? We already have free education, why aren't we complaining about this?
Beck does all this talk about history, but doesn't know the history of democracy. Plato called democracy the "supermarket of consitutions," this is the beauty of a democracy, you can find any constitution there. The thing about a democracy is that you can't pin it down. It necessarily includes what it excludes. Socialism isn't undemocratic. Communism isn't undemocratic. What's the big deal?
You could say that America isn't a democracy, it's a republic, but that is just a preference for Latin over Greek. The point remains. The Romans saw themselves as the reincarnation of the Greeks, and the Founding Fathers were greatly influenced by the Romans.
Sure you can make arguments as to why communism or socialism would be bad (even though we've been, to a certain extent, communist and socialist for years, why does it matter when it comes to health care?), but to drop these words as a way to demonize something your opposed to is something quite different. They are just empty words with negative connotations.
anonymous- thanks for the thoughts; you bring up some good things, so forgive me for this drawn out response to almost everything you mention:
ReplyDelete-i hear beck's radio program every time i go to work in the morning, so i'm fairly familiar with his rhetorical style and basic worldview. granted, the radio show has a different tone (much more tolerable, in my opinion!), but many of the ideas carry over. as far as i can see it, i think the specific things i'm critiquing here in is argument hold true even when looked at in the wider context of his political commentary.
-about the gay marriage issue, i wasn't speaking to any position or non-position Beck may hold on the subject. my intention (and this will hopefully address the other half of what you mentioned in that paragraph) was simply to show that it seems ridiculous to call the cause itself communist just because communists fight for it. i think the larger question here, and chris spoke to this is his comments, is why education is NOT a right. i personally could care less who adheres to each side of the debate. part of my issue with glenn beck (as well as sean hannity and increasingly, rush limbaugh, though he wasn't always this way) is that i wonder how much education goes on when 4 out of 5 programs just tell people who the socialists are and what they want to destroy the country with.
-so, on this issue, for example, i've yet to hear beck give a solid explanation of where his own position comes from. in this specific case, he appeals to the constitution in one breath, but then discounts it and all government in the next.
-i think you make a really interesting point about the fact that it doesn't really matter who or what the god he is referring to is. i'm not sure if that's necessarily something that's going to work in his favor (since the communist could easily retort 'i agree! our rights come from god and education is one of them!), but it's certainly a very intriguing discussion in the wider context of the conservative political landscape.
-my point is not at all to discount beck. i do want to discount this type of rhetoric, though. if his position is that education is not a right, i don't even necessarily want to discount that. honestly, i don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. however, with things like this and health care, i've yet to hear anyone give a solid argument for why either of these things are bad for people to order their own governments to take care of; we seem to be completely comfortable with letting them wield nuclear arsenals.
ReplyDelete-i guess to wrap all this up, i don't have a problem with arguing that education is not protected by the constitution or that our government was not designed to handle things like health care. but there is a chasm between those 2 things and saying that education is not a right, period. i see nothing wrong with saying, as you did, "If your rights fundamentally come from government, then you ARE a slave to the whims of that government, as you have no rights outside of what it dictates." however, i'm not yet convinced that rights, in the political sense, come directly from god (and i explained a bit why that is in the article). that is also why i appeal to communal agreements, referenced the universal declaration on human rights, etc. it seems counter intuitive to me, to separate a right from the embodied exercise of that right.
hope that gets a little at some of your concerns. certainly feel free to follow up.
chris- i think you're putting some pretty devastating things on the table in regards to this issue of whether our rights come from god (as well as the idea that the constitution is a closed, infallible document). if they do, then did he change his mind at some point? let's say for his sake he didn't: if their coming from god makes them self-evident, then clearly the founding fathers gave us an incomplete picture in the constitution.
ReplyDelete