Apparently Glenn Beck has taken a fancy to nonviolence. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer he recently made “a metaphoric plea for a Gandhi-and-Martin-Luther-King-inspired nonviolent resistance to what he claims is the government’s march toward socialism.”
“Get God on your side, and then pick up a hammer,” Beck said Saturday at a tent-revival-meets-politics rally that nearly packed the University of Central Florida basketball arena. Quoting Gandhi, he took the hammer to an anvil onstage and said: “With nonviolence, take your hammer and pound that truth every day, and everything that doesn’t fit, toss it out! We have the truth . . . With nonviolence, be the anvil of truth every single day!”
The Orlando rally was the first of at least two heavily promoted, daylong American Revival events featuring the TV-and-radio star and some of his favorite pundits, designed to answer a question that might have seemed ludicrous just a year ago but which on Saturday attracted followers from up and down the Eastern Seaboard, including the Philadelphia region:
Now that Glenn Beck has captured everyone’s attention, just where exactly is he trying to take America, anyway?
Beck plans to slowly roll out the answer over the course of 2010. He’ll be publishing a not-surprisingly apocalyptic political thriller this spring, hosting an audacious rally at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial in late August – on the 47th anniversary of King’s “I Have a Dream” speech there – and has claimed he’ll release another book right before the fall elections with a 100-year plan for reviving America.
Of course the one major thing stopping Beck from being the next great nonviolent leader is the very “anvil of truth” he references. If we were to follow what Gandhi said and reject “anything that does not stand the test when it is brought to the anvil of truth and hammered with nonviolence” we would have to reject most of what Beck says because to be truly nonviolent you must have a just cause. Most of Beck’s rhetoric is based on lies (calling Obama a socialist and likening him to Hitler), as well as a violent agenda (opposing health care and other would-be social services that save lives).
It is interesting, though, that he chose to promote nonviolence. Perhaps he realizes its power of persuasion and the legitimacy it tends to give to a particular movement. Unfortuantely he has yet to realize his ideaology doesn’t fit with nonviolence. You can’t tell people to be nonviolent at the same time you tell them the apocalpyse is coming and that they’d better “stockpile food.”
Watch out for that anvil, Glenn.
Most of Beck’s rhetoric is based on lies (calling Obama a socialist and likening him to Hitler), as well as a violent agenda (opposing health care and other would-be social services that save lives).
Glenn Beck is foam-at-the-mouth crazy, but his hysterical ranting that the ‘social justice’ or ‘progressive’ movement is socialist (with Obama as the social-justice arbiter in chief), isn’t really a lie so much as a question of whether he’s correct. If Beck were lying, he would have to secretly disagree with what he’s saying. But is it really so strange to refer to a social movement as socialist when one of its primary aims is to expand government-mandated social services?
I think Beck’s central error is one of degree, not kind (you know, in addition to his general incoherence and rabid psychosis!). He thinks that most liberals are closet revolutionaries who want to federalize all business and property to create an entirely socialist state. This is crazy. Where they exist at all, such persons make up only a tiny minority of progressives. Instead, most progressives just want socialist-type, European-style reforms, but are generally happy to have social-welfare programs and government regulation co-exist with a restricted form of capitalism.
But people like Beck see such reforms as a slippery slope heading towards an all-out federalized economy, and can we really blame him when even Noam Chomsky is praising the recent health care bill as a step in the right direction towards a centralized social-welfare state, his only regret being that it doesn’t go far enough?
Regarding the “violent agenda” that Beck’s rejection of socialism supposedly represents, you know how I feel about the inherent violence of government-mandated social programs. They redistribute wealth and services, but they do so with force, and even against the will of many of the people who are supposed to benefit. Beck’s ideology may not fit with nonviolence for reasons other than those you listed, but progressive ideology is similarly disqualified, depending as it does on the existence of the state, and the use of force to enact its agenda.
I do think it is strange to refer to the current health care legislation as socialist because all it does is guarantee more customers to the insurance companies. It doesn’t address the rampant costs of health care or make health care a basic human right like most of the European programs. Our system is totally corporate and caters to corporate interests. It could never be socialist unless the flow of insurance lobby money was somehow stopped. To even think of this as a small step in the right direction or a socialist direction (and yes, I’m probably conflating the two) seems wrong to me. It’s a step with a wall in front of it. So I guess I agree with you that this legislation sucks. But I’m more scared about the corporate power it feeds into. Why is that not as much of a concern for you or people like Beck and his followers? I don’t see how you can be against “government violence” and ignore the “corporate violence” government allows.
Fifty-seven years ago the Father of Universal Healthcare in America and bill-writer of Social Security legislation was introduced to our MD Class of University of Wisconsin Madison to inform us of the future of the government in our medical practice. For fifteen minutes he discussed the political philosophy behind his authorship of the successful SSA enactment and the growing role of government in the practice of medicine. His closing remarks have now come true with the Obama Healthcare enactment. Professor E. Witte, PhD then clearly stated, ” Before you finish your residencies, we will own you.”
I do think it is strange to refer to the current health care legislation as socialist because all it does is guarantee more customers to the insurance companies.
I do to, and that’s a pretty fair assessment of what it does, although the bill is more than just the mandate. It also places restrictions on the health insurance industry — as well as increased federal spending on health care — setting up a regulatory precedent for the industry that could be expanded upon later (a recent article at Slate.com examines how this has now happened with student loans). It’s hardly socialist, but I think Chomsky is right that it’s a necessary first step (however tiny) for complete government control of the industry. Of course, I didn’t say that the recent health reform is socialist, but that it’s not a stretch to see the progressive agenda, and social welfare programs in general, as such, especially considering that most progressives really wanted a single-payer system instead.
But I’m more scared about the corporate power it feeds into. Why is that not as much of a concern for you or people like Beck and his followers? I don’t see how you can be against “government violence” and ignore the “corporate violence” government allows.
Who says I’m not as concerned about corporate power? How am I ignoring “corporate violence”? As you already know, I agree with Emma Goldman that all forms of authority must be met with direct action: “Direct action against the authority in the shop, direct action against the authority of the law, direct action against the invasive, meddlesome authority of our moral code, is the logical, consistent method of Anarchism.” Using the federal government to protect you from corporate power is to exchange one form of domination for another. You could argue that you prefer one over the other, as Chomsky does, but you can’t argue that either one is nonviolent.
Regarding Glenn Beck, it’s not my intention to defend him, but to demonstrate that his agenda is no more inherently violent than the progressive agenda.
dont “regular” christians believe mormons are wacko, are they just keeping him around to have their numbers look bigger than are….is this like how mike steele doesnt realize he was hired because he was black, not because they thought he could do the job
Jason, I’m just having a hard time being convinced that this is a step toward complete government control of the industry. Maybe my understanding of government is way off, but I think it’s too bought up by corporate interests to ever proceed any further in a socialist direction. Therefore I think fears of a socialist takeover (a la Beck) or even mild socialization (more in line with your concerns) are basically unfounded.
Even though I don’t consider myself a socialist, I hope I’m wrong. When it comes to health care I just don’t see a better system than universal single-payer. The alternative is privatization and that has already proven itself to be the greater force of violence. Perhaps there’s a chance to minimize whatever downsides you see coming from government control of the industry. It hasn’t really been tried in this country. Even Medicare, which is far more socialist than this reform bill, is still tangled up with private insurers that exploit and deny people coverage. Just as Eric about his experience.
What is your ideal situation? How do you propose we create a just health care system? I’m not being facetious. I would like to know the anarchist answer to this problem. How do we leave the government out of health care AND not let the insurance industry screw us?
Socialism
Whether Obama is a “socialist” or not depends upon how one defines socialism. Whether Obama is a “capitalist” or not depends upon how one defines capitalism. These terms have wildly different definitions depending upon who is using them.
For example, if one defines socialism as an ideology advocating state ownership of the means of the means of production, and if one defined ownership as the legitimate authority to control or regulate the thing being owned, then I’m not a socialist at all.
On the other hand, if one defines socialism as the belief that the current system promotes an illegitimate or unnatural accumulation of power or resources or whatnot, then by that definition I could be called a socialist. (I very much enjoyed Benjamin Tucker’s essay “State Socialism and Anarchism,” for example.)
Likewise, I could also be described as a capitalist or an anti-capitalist depending upon how one chooses to define that term.
I do not know what definition of the term socialism Beck uses, and therefore I do not believe I can justly judge him on that matter.
Hitler
All politicians can be justly compared to Hitler. While most politicians probably would not advocate Hitler’s policies with regards to the Jewish community, all politicians share this in common with Hitler: they aim to remake the community/world in their own image through controlling the state apparatus. Even so-called “good politicians” unfortunately share this quality with Hitler.
Healthcare
The state apparatus is an inherently violent institution. Even the state’s means of funding its own operation is based on violence.
The state acquires virtually all of “its” resources by threatening to initiate force against innocent people. If you, for example, refuse to surrender any portion of your earnings to the state, it will send gunmen in blue uniforms that will threaten to throw you in a cage if you do not submit. The guns are present to make this tacit threat: “If you do not go peacefully into your cage, we will murder you.” This is the so-called morality of the state.
All taxation is violent. The only nonviolent methods by which the state raises any revenue are (1) lotteries, (2) user fees, and (3) endowments. (It can also borrow, but it typically borrows from other states, which in turn fund the borrowing through violent expropriation.)
I’m an absolutist on this sort of thing. I do not and will not condone the initiation of force or fraud, no matter how seemingly-noble the purpose is. For this reason, I absolutely must oppose all taxation. Taxation is inherently violent, and it is my sincere belief that we should work toward its abolition. I say this not to be rude or divisive or anything else, but simply because nonaggression is very important to me.
Now, a question comes up concerning healthcare. Can the state provide healthcare without taxation, that is, without aggression?
If the state were to abolish taxation and begin funding itself through nonviolent means (as listed above), I would have no problem with a government option in health insurance. But until taxation is abolished, I cannot condone any government involvement in healthcare whatsoever.
Even then, even if taxation is abolished, the most the state should be permitted to do with regards to healthcare is to offer aid, insurance, health vouchers, and the like. It would still have no legitimate authority to regulate, since regulations are also predicated on violence, and thus cannot be condoned.
Let’s take the war on drugs, for example. The government claims that marijuana and heroine have no medical value, and thus bans the ownership, purchase, sale, and use of such drugs. There are huge problems with this. (1) When the state tells you what you may or may not place into your own body, it is effectively usurping control over your body from you. It does this, again, with gunmen in blue uniforms. This action is inherently violent, regardless of whether it is in the true interest of the individual to be injesting these drugs. (2) It is not true that these drugs have no medical value, and even if that were true, it would be up to the individual to decide, not some violent gang. (3) The war on drugs is an extremely costly operation, and it relies on taxation, which as we have seen above, is inherently violent. (4) The war on drugs actually increases the rate of violent crimes elsewhere in society. The state literally creates the black market in drugs by artificially limiting the supply and thereby increasing the demand relative to the supply, thus inflating the profits one can make from selling drugs. Since those on the black market have no legal means of settling disputes, violence is often employed, and thus we see such things as drive-by shootings and other acts of senseless violence.
The state would also have to abandon the FDA in order to become nonviolent. The FDA uses the same systems of violence to enforce its regulations as the IRS, after all. And, worse yet, the FDA causes millions of Americans to die, far more than it saves. Drugs that are already on the market saving lives in other countries (e.g., European countries) are kept off the market in the U.S. by the violent regulatory agency because the FDA is so needlessly stringent. Further, since it costs hundreds of millions of dollars to get even one new drug onto the market in the U.S. (thanks to all the FDA regulations), this jacks up the cost of drugs and thus makes them less available to the sick and elderly that need them. (This isn’t to say that no one should be permitted to test drugs, only that (A) drug testing should not be funded through violent expropriation and (B) no one should be forced to test her own drugs if she does not wish to.)
The cost of drugs and medical techniques are also driven up wildly by the state-created patent system, which gives an unnatural monopoly over a given drug to a given company, and prevents other companies from competing with the patent-holding company on a truly level playing field (the sort of playing field that would exist in a truly free, stateless market). And, of course, this state-granted monopoly is also enforced by the guns of government.
Finally, let’s look at the healthcare bill that was recently passed. It dictates that everyone must get health insurance within the next few years. What if I don’t want to get health insurance? Well, then, the state will fine me, and these fines will be enforced with the same guns the state uses to enforce everything else it does. Thus, I see this as little more than a form of corporate welfare. The cost of health insurance is bound to rise thanks to this recently-passed law, and poor persons such as myself are sure to suffer the most.
I don’t know how much of this Beck understands. Perhaps none of it. But I’ve seen very little of his show, so who knows?
Apocalpyse
Mr. Farrell writes, “You can’t tell people to be nonviolent at the same time you tell them the apocalpyse is coming and that they’d better ‘stockpile food.'”
I mean no disrespect in saying this, but I don’t understand.
Like everyone else, I have no knowledge of the future. It’s possible an apocalpyse will occur tomorrow, and it’s also possible the one will never come. But either way, one can still be nonviolent, even if an apocalpyse does suddenly arise. And being prepared for national or world-wide emergencies is not exactly violent, either. Right? I suspect I’m missing something here. My apologies if I am.
Sincerely yours,
Alex Peak
P.S. I just wanted to add that I’ve discovered this blog, and I love the name of it. 🙂