"I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation"
- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., August 28th, 1963
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
The rally that occurred today sounds like it was a rather blaise affair from the news reports. Full of lots of praise the troops, we must turn to God, etc. rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteYou've got liberals arguing that the Beck/Palin rally is offensive and shouldn't go forward, and you've conservatives arguing that a Mosque/community center shouldn't be built within a few blocks of the WTC site. What a perfect example of liberals and conservatives act and think.
I do think the two events are comparable in that sense. I don't think they're identical - given our experience with Beck I think it was probably more reasonable to brace yourself for something that actually did spit in the face of King's legacy out of him (or Palin, or someone else on that stage) than from the mosque that would spit on the legacy of the 9-11 victims. The fear of the Beck rally came from experience with Beck - the fear of the mosque came from the equation of Muslims and terrorists.
ReplyDeleteSo to that extent I think there was a very real difference between opposition to the two instances. In their opposition to Glenn Beck people drew on their past experiences with Glenn Beck himself. In their opposition to the mosque people drew on an opposition to muslims in general. It's not particularly illiberal to say "that guy over there is a nasty, mean guy". It is illiberal to say "Muslims are mean people". No matter how you cut it, Xenophon, those two aren't the same.
However - any effort to restrict speech ex ante would be equally bad, in my opinion. I've used this comparison in talking to mosque opponents, actually. I asked them what they feel on the Glenn Beck rally. If "being sensitive" is grounds for not constructing a building, then they should (if they were consistent) also oppose the Beck rally.
I highly doubt that most liberals have much or any experience with Glenn Beck. He's a bad guy because that is part of the talking points. One can similar things about those who oppose the mosque/community center.
ReplyDeleteHere's Tim Cavanaugh defending Beck (sort of): http://reason.com/blog/2010/08/27/i-like-glenn-beck-because-hes
It is an argument I largely agree with.
While I've only seen clips from the rally and haven't bothered to follow up on what all happened, I have to agree with Xenophon... really it just seemed like a bunch of bland statements of vague religiosity and patriotism- nothing to get worked up about. And the short bits that I heard about Sharpton's rally also seemed to follow Xenophon's characterization of liberal reaction to Beck... all of the typical talking points, that is, but really stuff that one could say without even having much experience with Beck.
ReplyDeleteThat's not to say that I disagree with Daniel's assessment of Beck, but simply that this seems like more of a non-event than it's being made out to be. I also bristle at all these statements about who owns the Civil Rights Movement... as made by both sides of this rather goofy rally/anti-rally, mind you.
I'm getting a kick out of all the evangelical Christians who are praising Beck's call back to God, though. Considering he's a Mormon, the coalition just doesn't square. I know Beck would consider LDS a Christian Church, but all of the other Christians who like him simply wouldn't.
And to bring it back to the NYC Islamic center... all this talk of "Judeo-Christian" by the conservatives makes me wonder whether it would really be such a stretch for them to speak of an "Abrahamic" tradition. They act as if a cooperative venture with Muslims is some naive and dangerous inter-religious lovefest, but ignore the fact that they're doing much of the same thing already in their "JudeoChristianity".
Oh right - and let me be clear, I found nothing problematic about Beck's rally at all - and from the clips I've been hearing, I think Sharpton's was considerably more problematic.
ReplyDeleteI do think there was reason to be anxious - if anything more for Palin than Beck - at what they might say. It would bother me to have someone go on about how Obama hates white people or that he is a Nazi or socialist or opposed to freedom on that day, in that place. That would bother me a lot. But as far as I can tell nothing even close to that happened.
I think Beck was more of a potential liability in that sense than the mosque. That's not to say I've ever claimed it shouldn't have happened or even that its very organization was problematic. I've always had a "hmmm... let's see how this one turns out" stance on the Beck rally.
I'm still not entirely clear on the strict comparability. People get concerned about Beck because of his actual message. The concern with the mosque is a perceived identity between Muslims and terrorists. The two seem quite different to me, even if people overreact to Beck (which I think they do).
And as I said on FB - one of the saddest things about the Beck episode is that he organized a rally, at the Lincoln Memorial, on August 28th, and claims he didn't even know the significance of that date and place at the time he organized it. That's pretty sad.
ReplyDelete"People get concerned about Beck because of his actual message."
ReplyDeleteNo, they don't. They get concerned what they think his message will be ... and what they are concerned with is overblown at best.
The point is that the vast majority of liberals know nothing about Beck, and the vast majority of conservatives know nothing about Islam. If they did, then they would be far less fearful of either. In both cases we have an issue of ignorance.
"...or opposed to freedom on that day, in that place."
ReplyDeleteThat wouldn't trouble me in the least actually. Though I suspect that much of what I think of as freedom differs from what Beck thinks.
Nick Gillespie has a nice six minute video on the rally: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CY5aFvRe2E&feature=player_embedded
Maybe I should rephrase - I get concerned about Beck's actual message and I know many other people that do, so you can't just write "No they don't" with no evidence on this one.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if "fear" is the right word for you to use.
"...I get concerned about Beck's actual message and I know many other people that do..."
ReplyDeleteThe vast majority of people who are concerned have never watched the guy's program (neither have I for the record).
Fear is more than appropriate ... fear and paranoia.
The guy is well within the mainstream of American political commentators from any sort of historical perspective. Indeed, he gives voice to millions of people. I'd honestly rather that occur than the reverse.
These two scenarios illustrates one of the main differences between liberals/conservatives and libertarians ... libertarians are not concerned about speech, we assume that it will work itself out. Liberals/conservatives on the other hand are always trying to making exceptions to the free speech rule so as to benefit or bludgeon one group or speaker or another ... which ends up merely creating martyrs.
"The vast majority of people who are concerned have never watched the guy's program (neither have I for the record)."
ReplyDeleteHow could you possibly know that?
As for the freedom of speech thing - I find this very interesting that you attach that to libertarians. Do you know of anyone that has said that Beck shouldn't be allowed to speak? I haven't really heard that case made. I think you're trumping up a lot of the opposition. Be careful about people who say "Beck is wrong" or even "Beck spits on Martin Luther King's legacy" and people who say "Beck should not be allowed to speak". I think you're conflating the two. Again - this is why I see the mosque and Beck case as somewhat different. Generally you HAVEN'T seen people opposing Beck's right to speech. I personally can't think of a single person I've heard say he shouldn't speak. I'm sure they're out there, but I haven't come across any. The mosque opposition is a mix of people who say they shouldn't build but they have a right to (which is bad enough because it equates Islam with terrorism), and people who actually say they should be prevented from building there.
When the ACLU defended the KKK, they still despised the message. I think you're making the mistake of confusing people expressing concern with the message with people expressing concern with his right to speak. As far as I'm aware (feel free to prove me wrong!) no one has challenged his right to speak.
Any libertarian would be fine with having an opinion on the speech of others - you of all people should know that.
"How could you possibly know that?"
ReplyDeleteMy experience with former "culture war" issues.
"Do you know of anyone that has said that Beck shouldn't be allowed to speak? I haven't really heard that case made."
That has been the general thrust of many a critic of the rally ... "How dare they speak ... blah, blah, blah!"
"The mosque opposition is a mix of people who say they shouldn't build but they have a right to (which is bad enough because it equates Islam with terrorism), and people who actually say they should be prevented from building there."
And those who oppose Beck are a similar mix.
"Any libertarian would be fine with having an opinion on the speech of others..."
There is a distinct difference between the way libertarians and liberals/conservatives approach speech issues.
One of the more interesting stories to come put of the Beck rally:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-28/bruce-majors-an-unlikely-tea-partier/full/
What's interesting about that? Do you find the idea of a gay libertarian surprising?
ReplyDeleteThat has been the general thrust of many a critic of the rally ... "How dare they speak ... blah, blah, blah!"
Well OK - who cares? Like I said - since when is it problematic for people to find other people problematic? I'm saying I haven't heard anyone challenge his right to speak. You apparently have. Do you have examples for me?
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteWhat's interesting (and not interesting) is the tribal reaction to him.
"Like I said - since when is it problematic for people to find other people problematic?"
I already answered this.
"I already answered this."
ReplyDeleteAnd I think you answered that that's not problematic, correct? What I'm confused about, then, is why you're finding it so illiberal when people find Beck problematic. I get the sense that it's because you're confusing disapproval with him with hostility to his right to speak his piece. But you say one thing then you say another so it's hard to keep it all straight.
"I get the sense that it's because you're confusing disapproval with him with hostility to his right to speak his piece."
ReplyDeleteThere are people do both, or do one or the other. Most of them really have zero clue about what he actually thinks. Thus the confused response by the liberal commentariat when he didn't arrive on stage with pitchfork in hand.