"We" surround "Them", or "Just what is Glenn Beck Up To?"

[silveradept]

So, a little while back, Mr. Glenn Beck feels that powerlessness or inability to change the direction of the country is an illusion, propagated by those in charge and their lackeys to stop the people from rising up and instilling the government that they really want in Washington. And thus, he lays out these fifteen commandme... nine principles that he espouses. If you can match seven of them, then you're an ally and you should help him and each other. So, let's have a look at them, shall we?

The Nine Principles

1. America is good.

'S a gimme. Most people interested in changing their country do is because they want to see it better, even though they think it's pretty good as it is. You can bet most people would check off on this.

2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.

For the grand majority in this country, this is another gimme. Most theists would say this is true, even if it isn't right now, and it would become so if you asked them to strip away all the things that were trappings, they'd still keep God around to the very end.

3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.

So long as all you have to do is try. Actual success doesn't figure into this. And most ethical systems, surprise, surprise, put an emphasis on Right Speech as one of the things that has to happen. Even if they are ultimately fond of parables or will excuse "skillful means" in service of getting more people to follow that system and achieve its reward.

4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.

Oooh, this one's a trickier one. Especially if you consider it in conjunction with the one right below it...

5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.

So who's in charge here? If it's you and your spouse, then the law holds no weight, even if you restirct it to the implication of "in raising my children". If it's the law that requires penalties and no mercies or leniencies that reigns supreme, you should be willing to raise your children in that harsh environment, and not care at all about them if they run afoul of it. After all, nobody is above the law and penalties must be assessed when someone breaks it. And does that mean you turn your child into the authorities if they're breaking the law and you catch them? Mr. Beck, I think your principles need some clarification.

6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.

So I don't have to feel bad about the homeless or anybody else I disapprove of, and I can take schadenfreude on anyone I like that I see in a bad situation, no matter their circumstances or what led them up to this situation, because they had their chance to improve themselves and they blew it. I don't have to help anyone that I don't want to, because they should be able to help themselves. Hey, look, that's...

7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.

No, they can't. They can tax you within an inch of your life and you'll smile and pay up, though, right, because you believe in rule #5. Even if you think or know that tax money goes to people you don't want to share it with, those people from #6 that you think didn't work hard enough. So far, so good?

8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It's even better than that, Glen. It's a Constitutional right and thus, one of the most American things you can do.

9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.

And rule #5 doesn't apply? The law and its enforcement is an arm of the government, y'know. If you mean that by the pinciples put down in place of a representative, republican form of government, the elected officials at all levels of government need to justify themselves to their populaces or be recalled or voted out of their office at the next election, then, yeah, the government does work for you. And should answer to you. Although they do not do so individually, and your vote is your stamp of approval or disapproval of their actions. But, anyway, I can see where most people have the hubris to take that statement and assume they have mroe power over their government other than the redress petition, the ability to vote, and their ability to voice their criticisms and possibly build a coalition of people to change things.

If I wanted to read these right, I could take 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 as the principles and then say "Because I believe this, we should become a democratic socialist state", which I suspect is the antithesis of what Mr. Beck wants from his Real True Americans. (Heck, I could even swap in #2 on a message of charity from the Gospels.)

But there's even more to this. Presenting:

The 12 Values
* Honesty
* Reverence
* Hope
* Thrift
* Humility
* Charity
* Sincerity
* Moderation
* Hard Work
* Courage
* Personal Responsibility
* Friendship

...which, actually, I don't have much issue with, because they can be bent to my ideals just as much as his.

So, I suggest that Mr. Beck iron out some of the kinks in his principles, because they start leading into contradictions. It's probably #5 that could be changed enough to fit, so that would be the first spot to look for tweaks. Or it's the one that nobody takes as their principle (after all, we only have to match seven of nine, right?) I also wonder what he's going to do on Friday, when he unveils this great plan on CNN. Stay tooned for updates.

Comments

[greyweirdo.livejournal.com]

I don't know if it's just been selective or if this is his regular M.O., but I've always been impressed by Beck's almost liberal ability to disagree with his own opinions. Every time I've read something or heard him (which isn't much so I have a small sample group) I've noticed he always manages to disagree with the things he just got done saying where absolute truths. (see example #4 and #5)

[silveradept]

I guess that's why you only need seven of his nine principles - that way you can resolve the contradictions by choosing to ignore one of the absolute truths.

[greyweirdo.livejournal.com]

Actually I only need 6. #7 isn't a principal, it's right-wing whining. Having worked in broadcasting, he'd have to do a lot more to convince me he works hard for his money.

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

And so the government itself has the right to determine where one's money should be spent? Bear in mind that, for the last eight years, it's been the left who has been "whining" about where money has been spent. The government must be responsible to the will of the people when determining where money should go. And neither side seems to have a grasp on that.

-=Kiyoshi

[greyweirdo.livejournal.com]

They've always decided where the money should be spent. And don't go blaming the left. People on the right have been complaining about where the money has been spent for the last 8 years too. A lot of people don't like what government chooses to spend the money on. People on the left don't like some of the things money is being spent on now. Don't go acting like one side has some absolute moral right or another has some absolute wrong.

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

In a Lockian system, the government must obey the will of the people as to where the money is spent, within the bounds of its defining purpose. In our case, to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

As for where I'm posting blame for mis-spending, I shall say nothing more about this until you read my comment more carefully.

-=Kiyoshi

[silveradept]

If the government is responsible to the will of its people, and the will of its people is clearly fractured into several milliards of tiny pieces, then how does the government respect that in its spending? Asking all the millions what they want their money spent on and working from there?

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

Then the government must follow the lead of the majority, while protecting the needs of the minority. It's a tricky road to follow, but it can be done.

-=Kiyoshi

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

I think you're mis-reading the overall intent of #5. Consider it as a nicer way of saying, "if you do the crime, you do the time." If you combine that with rule #4 and rule #7, and then put them in perspective of rule #9, you'll see that they can work together.

Einstein said it perfectly: "Die Staat ist für die Menschen und nicht die Menschen für die Staat." That's rule #9, perfectly. In a Lockian government (for that is really what he's outlining), if the people do not desire to have the government perform charitable giving, then by all means, the government should not give to charity. The government in such a system must obey the ultimate will of the people.

As for the family being supreme, George H. W. Bush put it best when he said, "What happens in your house is more important than what happens in the White House." The supreme temporal control over your life is the head of your household. And while one should do one's best to remain within the rule of law, it is ultimately the HoH that determines that, metes out immediate penalties when the household rule is disobeyed, and determines the general path one will take when growing up. It's the immediate environment from which a child will spring and I certainly agree with B.F. Skinner that, at least to some degree, we are produced by our environs.

Now finally, when we come down to it, doing the time for the crime is not the action of the government, though it is the government's duty to enforce it. A Lockian society is based on the rule of Law, not the rule of a person or people. The people may write the law, but then it becomes a power in its own right, and even the government must obey it. This is why the current administration's cabinet is so scandalous; many of his picks have violated one of the laws, that is, one must pay taxes to support the government, whose job it is to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

I think I could support all nine of his rules, there, without modifications.

-=Kiyoshi

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

The twelve values can be written another way. Let me re-order them a bit. I'm sure you'll recognize them.

* Honesty -- Trustworthy
* Hope -- Loyal
* Charity -- Helpful
* Humility -- Friendly
* Moderation -- Courteous
* Sincerity -- Kind
* Hard Work -- Obedient
* Friendship -- Cheerful
* Thrift -- Thrifty
* Courage -- Brave
* Personal Responsibility -- Clean
* Reverence -- Reverent

-=Kiyoshi

[silveradept]

That was the vibe I was getting there. I don't find all your analogues compelling (Hope and Loyalty have very little to do with each other, for example), but I thought that was the place he was going for. For Mr. Beck, the BSA is probably an excellent model. They are not for me, and so I would interpret those values differently.

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

Yeah, some of them were a stretch, but I could see them working.

-=Kiyoshi

[silveradept]

Even re-read, #5 insists that there are no exceptions or room for leniency under the law, and that the government is duty-bound to enforce it to that degree. Even in the Lockian society, where the law and government abide by the people's will, once a law comes into being, all are subject to it and will obey it or face the penalty. The only way to change the law is to change the will of the people. We have plenty of examples of even the Founders realizing why that's a really bad way of governing, starting with the existence of the Electoral College written into the Constitution.

I still don't see the resolution of conflict between the absolute rule of law and the primacy of the Head of Household - take spanking, for an example - if you practice it, there's a high chance that you are committing an assault and battery on your child, according to the law. If there are no exceptions, then every parent that spanks should be charged with child abuse and prosecuted. Every time. How many families would that pull apart? There must be some room for sanity between the law and its interpretation. Otherwise we're all in jail, and the government (or your neighbors) is watching you at every moment of your life to make sure that you are in strict compliance with the law. If, instead, the HoH is the law because the law cedes him/her the authority in raising their child or declares that children do not have the right to expect that adults will not abuse them for their actions, then the law provides for exceptions to itself, based on the judgment of the HoH, or by creating an official blind spot in its own enforcement. The benefit is that the government doesn't have to prosecute every spanking case, but it does away with "If you commit the crime, you will do the time."

As for picks of the administration, if that's the standard you want to use, then there will be a lot of searching to find someone who is clean and experienced enough for the job. So be it. Apply it to the election of your representatives and executives, and begin swift and summary impeachment proceedings against anyone found to be not up to the standard. How many people running for office will make it past the beginning gate, much less all the way through their term?

If taxpaying is also one of those patriotic and necessary things, the baleful eye of the enforcement agency might be better suited turning toward those persons and entities that exploit the tax code, change the primary place of their residence, or otherwise transfer as much of their wealth as possible to places where it cannot be taxed, even as it is used in the country. I wonder if there's a governmental entity that estimates how much potential revenue isn't in the coffers because of tax evasion, cheating, and other tricks employed.

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

Well, since #2 is reverence to God, let's reference scripture on this. Paul wrote in Romans 13:

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

Now, bear in mind that at the time Paul wrote this, Christianity was not only illegal, but prosecuted. Was he telling people to obey the law and worship Caesar, Apollo, Jupiter, &c.? Certainly not! But in civil disobedience (for the Civil Disobedience idea is, ultimately, modelled after first century Christians), one must be willing to accept penalty for breaking the law. This is where martyrs gain their power. If a Christian bravely and unashamedly accepts the penalty for breaking the anti-Christian laws, then a) the people will begin to see that the law is unjust, because of the boldness by which the Christian would rather be executed than give up such an important ritual, and b) the government will begin to realize that the law is unjust, because they will lose the backing of the people and eventually change the law.

So in being disobedient to unjust laws, one accepts the penalty for breaking the law. This is the penultimate example of #5. If the law is unjust, I will follow the greater good of being just, and when I must, I will gladly accept my penalty, for being punished is greater than accepting injustice.

As for the head of household, whatever the parent trains will be ingrained in the next generation. "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it." Whatever I train my child, that is the law he will follow. I was thinking about this tonight because Moody Radio has launched another anti-gay-marriage rhetoric today. I will train my child to love and accept anyone, regardless of their sexuality, but also be sure that they understand why the Bible says what it says, and what God intends for their lives. Thus armed with truth and love, I will set them forth in the world to make their own decisions in the knowledge that they know what the Lord would have them decide. And just as I have stumbled, I will pray for them when they stumble, and I will rejoice when they choose instead to follow God.

-=Kiyoshi

[silveradept]

That's reading a lot into that statement. If that were the intent, there are several more elegant ways of putting it than the very legalistic way it appears. It lacks any "I answer to a higher power than the law, so I will obey that law, resulting in breaking and accepting the punishment from the laws of men." to it. Especially considering the elevation of the law to be something that nothing is above. It's a serious stretch to get here from there, TK.

The latest HoH example doesn't really do anything illegal under law, as it is thankfully not a crime to be a homosexual, nor one to raise a child to believe that homosexuals are unbiblical. In these instances, the law doesn't care, which is not the sense of confrontation I get from those "I am in charge"-type statements. If the government promotes equality, tolerance, and the free exercise of religion, and home chooses not to, there's no legal conflict so long as neither side crosses territory that is forbidden by the law. It's a good illustrating example of how #4 can work, but I can't accept it as a solution for #5.

[shenalia.livejournal.com]

It's insulting to me that Beck considers himself Libertarian...

[krinndnz.livejournal.com]

I agree with you: it looks to me as though the virtues that Beck is espousing are generally pretty good - and do not in the least require subscribing to the value system that he thinks naturally emerges from them.

[silveradept]

Thus, one of those wonderful and wonderfully frustrating things about beliefs and politics in America - we all disagree, and somehow we have to make a consensus out of that.