I was sitting in the Fargo airport awhile back, and there was Glenn Beck talking with David Horowitz about Jimmy Carter. People were watching, some smiling and some grim. I couldn’t tell whether they agreed with Beck or not, but they paid attention. He’s a gadfly.
Gadflies prosper in particular circumstances. They gather fans when elements of public life strike enough people as strange, perverse, or just plain wrong, but those people don’t feel that they have the access or the influence to change them. Gadflies arise when prominent figures are aggrandized into figureheads, when dubious ideas expand into right-thinking wisdom, or when insulated groups perceived as “elites” seem unaccountable to democratic processes.
For Beck’s supporters, the last six months are a case in point. They regard Obama’s popularity as an irritating phenomenon — not the fact that people like him and his policies, but that they elevate him into “the One.” I saw many examples in academe before the election. I remember bumping into an old friend and the conversation veering into politics. I mentioned that I did, indeed, like Obama, but worried that behind the polish and eloquence may lie not all that much hard substance.
“What?” she replied with an intake of breath.
“I mean on finance and foreign policy, stuff like that,” I said. Her eyes widened, so I added, “You sure he’s not just an empty suit?” I don’t believe that at all, but her incredulousness called for a little gentle goading.
“Oh, no, no,” she said, a look of sober far-sightedness passing across her brow, “He’s something much, much more, and he’s going to fix the mess we’ve gotten into.”
That rapturous attitude toward a politician — any politician — opens the field for the gadfly. That’s what so many people who love Obama and hate Glenn Beck don’t realize. Their personal devotion to the person of the president makes him and his administration vulnerable precisely to the slings and arrows of investigative and antic critics. When reporters drop their vigilance and turn star-struck, when academics turn political disputes into Good Guys (Obama and Dems) vs. Bad Guys (Repubs) melodramas, when elite organizations award Obama prizes and honors before he deserves them, and when administration spokespersons speak too firmly convinced of their momentum, they in fact prepare the ground for gadfly criticisms.
So when Beck played a video of Anita Dunn praising Mao as one of her two “favorite political philosophers,” he scored big points. And when the White House cast Fox News as a Republican Party message-bearer, they only provided Beck with more ammunition — and higher ratings.
And so, as people denounce Glenn Beck as an abomination in the media, when they grow exasperated and astounded at his rising viewership, and when they put smart people on the side of Obama and stupid people on the side of the Right, they should recognize their own role in the effectiveness of Beck’s sallies.
27 Responses to Glenn Beck: The Advantage of the Gadfly
goxewu - November 19, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Credit to Mr. Beck for being an effective showbiz performer–as are Hannity, Olbermann, Maddow, Dobbs, Scarborough, Schulz, et al. (As I’ve said before, we’re talking more Dennis Miller than Walter Lippmann with these people, on both sides of the metaphorical aisle).But Beck and the right have a built-in tactical advantage: TV-valuable one-liners, snark, sarcasm and ridicule work better for conservatives than for liberals. That’s because they work better for advocates for the haves, against the have-nots, better than they do for advocates for the have-nots against the haves. Just as there have always been snappier jokes lines from whites about blacks, from straights about gays, from managers about workers, from gentiles about Jews, from men about women, there are snappier joke lines and cleverer political standup from the likes of Glenn Beck about the vicissitudes of liberals, than there are going the other way. (I’m not saying there are no have-not lines against the haves, just that they’re fewer and weaker.)And the Beckites have another advantage which–their being no dummies–they use rather well: posing as have-nots (“saving” the country, “taking back” the country, playing Horatio at the bridge to a tide of “socialism,” etc.) while actually being haves (vastly white, almost unanimously straight, posessors of health insurance, etc.) You can see a version of this phenomenon in the comments on “Brainstorm” (watch the ones that follow this one): the righties, who generally belong to the haves in the larger society, pose as downtrodden because, within the academy, they’re a distinct minority (and, according to them, an oppressed minority). While some of the lefties who comment can and do get quite angry and pepper their comments with invective (e.g., Willnilly), it’s the rightwingprofessors, crunchycons, and livefreeordie2s who get in the zingers. And zingers–abrupt and extended–are what have people watching Glenn Beck. OK, that and some well-performed histrionics (of which there’s a wonderful Jon Stewart parody from “The Daily Show,” available at varous places on the Internet).By the way, did you hear the one about the single Latina mother with no health insurance?
sherbygirl - November 19, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Wait. One-liners, sarcasm and zingers are more effective for the right? Have you not been watching The Daily Show for the entire Bush presidency, or more recently, The Colbert Report? Right. They’re on the “good” side of the political divide, so what they are doing is insightful, intelligent and witty. When it happens on the right, it’s opportunistic, crass and dangerous. Right or left, it’s the hypocracy of academics (and psudo-academics) I can’t stand anymore.
goxewu - November 19, 2009 at 3:25 pm
I said nothing about lefty barbs being “good” or righty barbs being “opportunistic, crass and dangerous.” (sherbygirl did, though.) I wrote only of their relative effectiveness. So, if sherbygirl wants to say that sarcasm and zingers are as effective–or maybe even more so–from the left as they are from the right, she can be my guest, and I’ll stand corrected. After all, she’s presumably on the receiving end, and should know.
livefreeordie2 - November 19, 2009 at 3:44 pm
I’ll comment on the actual blog post later, but in what can best be described as “turnabout is fair play. . .”goxewu, undoubtedly with the deep and unaffected earnestness that can only come from knowing with self-righteous conviction that the God you don’t even believe in smiles only on you, says – “But Beck and the right have a built-in tactical advantage: TV-valuable one-liners, snark, sarcasm and ridicule work better for conservatives than for liberals.”So. . . tell us, goxewu. Wasn’t it you that engaged in the snarkiest of sarcastic ridicule by saying this about Poor ol’ LiveFreeorDie2 in a different thread (rather than actually addressing the issue):”Is this guy anywhere near the academy (buildings & ground staff included), or just another disgruntled, professor-envious, pseudo-self-reliant Joe-the-Plumber has-been sitting in his rec room, waiting for the mac ‘n’ cheese to microwave, Glenn Beck on in the background, cranking out letters-to-the-editor and blog comments by the dozen? (You heard it asked here first.)”You poor have-not, you. . . tsk, tsk. I have an idea! Why don’t you give your poor downtrodden liberal brethren some lessons on snarkiness? You seem to be an expert!
markbauerlein - November 19, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Indeed, sherbygirl, one of the positions of left-of-center thought over the years (Lakoff etc) has been that while right-wing ideas are bad, the way in which the right has packaged them has been clever and catchy, enough so that they have persuaded the less-intelligent ones of our population to embrace them, even against their better interests.
goxewu - November 19, 2009 at 5:13 pm
I never said I wasn’t snarky. I am very snarky–a veritable Lewis Carroll wannabe I am–and very sarcastic, constantly trying my hand at zingers. But I’m a lefty, and my stuff isn’t as effective as parallel stuff from the right–the inherent reasons why I tried (obviously futilely) to explain in #1. (Yes, individual talent, or lack of it, has something to do with that. But I’m not the liberal counterpart to Glenn Beck. Somebody such as Ed Schultz is. And the reason he’s not as effective as Glenn Beck or Hannity is…oh, we’re going around in circles here.)But I can be absolutely sincere and straightforward, as when I say I still don’t believe a word from livefreeordie2 when he says he’s part of the academy in some closer way than buying a T-shirt at the student store.
vfichera - November 19, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Actually, much of Beck’s influence comes from his _libertarian_ stance, not a true “right-wing” position at all. Libertarianism is more likely to be the creed of the “independent” than of the “right.”That the left had been incapable of providing a platform for a “gadfly” of the stature of a Beck during the Bush years was surprising to many. But so long as the left requires genuflection before its political leaders from its major commentators, it will never have its own high-profile “gadfly” (in quotes because the word has very positive connotations not explored in the blog posting). Beck has been quite vocal in his criticism of political personages and policies on both the right and the left — an important element of “truthiness” (to borrow from Colbert) for mainstream influence. To paint him with a “right-ist” brush is to misunderstand the nature of his “success.” Beck refers to himself as a “clown” — indeed, he is fast becoming a major Bakhtinian figure on the social and political scene.
goxewu - November 19, 2009 at 9:22 pm
The “libertarianism” of Beck is fractional and/or superficial, applying mostly–to put it bluntly–to money and taxes. As for his auto-labeling of “clown,” it’s a disarming feint, similar to his calling himself a “fatty” even though (his chubby-looking face not withstanding) he’s just a few pounds to the plus side of normal weight for his height.From what I’ve heard from Beck whilst driving, he does criticize Republicans, but only because they aren’t rightwing enough. And he’s said on more than one occasion that third parties (e.g., a national libertarian party) are politically counterproductive. Of course, Beck broadcasts words by the bucketful, practically 24/7, so I’m sure his fans can find somewhere in his vast outpouring an utterance supporting whatever they, a priori, want him to support.
vfichera - November 19, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Beck’s libertarianism has also prompted him to devote a session or two on the flu vaccine controversy, presenting experts on both sides of the issue. Health care, national security — Beck’s programs have been on many issues besides money and taxes, although, in an economy where more than one in ten are unemployed, those subjects do have some traction.As for his use of the word “clown,” well, I’m not at all sure that Beck doesn’t have an intuition for the Bakhtinian sense of that role in a collective. When examining the spectacles presented to the public by the U.S. Congress, “carnival” is by no means an implausible descriptor.
macheath - November 19, 2009 at 11:59 pm
Beck funny? Sad, would be pathetic if people didn’t take him seriously.Anyway, here is the link to the Jon Stewart parody. This is hilarious. I challenge anyone to watch this and then ever take Beck seriously again. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-november-5-2009/the-11-3-project
suomynona - November 20, 2009 at 7:53 am
Not long ago I identified as a libertarian, and found myself on the same side as many on the right on a number of issues. But part of why I’ve since abandoned ‘libertarianism’ is because the populist wing of the right has largely subsumed it and transformed it into a crude and vile hatred of anything having to do with government. Beck is the posterboy for this populist right movement. To call him a libertarian is, I think, ridiculous, even ironic; because he’s co-opted libertarianism altogether. Libertarians actually have a pretty good track record, as a third option, of engaging with policy issues with policy analysis and not demagogeury. Even Ron Paul, who’s technically a Republican, is critical of rightist claptrap about devolution into socialism, communism, fascism, etc., though these things are all, politically speaking, the ultimate fears of the liberatrian (including, to some extent, ‘libertarian socialists’ like Chomsky). People like Beck trade on this outsider/libertarian label, but what they’re doing is hackwork, plain and simple.
goxewu - November 20, 2009 at 9:06 am
Howler of the week:”I’m not at all sure that Beck doesn’t have a intuition for the Bakhtinian sense of [the clown's] role in a collective.”
laoshi - November 20, 2009 at 12:12 pm
If you take Glenn Beck too seriously, maybe liberalism truly is a mental disorder, just like that right-wing whackjob Michael Savage suggests.If Glenn Beck persistently annoys you, as a gadfly does, it’s because you watch him. Watch CNN instead. There your news feed is pre-planned by Rahm Emanuel, Paul Begala, and James Carville, officially touting the Democratic Party line.Honestly, why are our two main sources of punditry a pseudoright-wing circus (FOX) and a pseudoleft-wing circus (CNN), both of which are more moderate than on the extreme fringes? Since these are both cable channels, aren’t feeding our political ideologies from these sources a bit priviledged in the first place? Perhaps the proles are smarter than us, for not submitting their brain cells to cable television.
vfichera - November 20, 2009 at 12:19 pm
“On this point what Bakhtin seems to underestimate in his architectonic formulations is the amount of abrasive representation of authority and critical spectating that went on in carnival. This is all the more surprising since in other works Bakhtin himself provides numerous instances where the footlights were operating in carnival, and where the participants were positioned as active, analytical spectators. Examples that come to mind include the proliferation of street songs and jokes which lead to ‘an objective exhibiting of discourse’ (DN, 400-1), and the self-reflexivity and mockery of officially sponsored pathos and catharsis provided by carnival humour and the disruptive acts of clowns who are granted ‘the right to act life as a comedy and to treat others as actors, the right to rip off masks [...] and[...] to betray to the public a personal life’ (FTC, 163). Finally, even in Rabelais and His World Bakhtin argues that carnival incorporated a ‘popular-festive system of images’ which mis-represented official orderings and which were ‘directed at something on a higher level, at the king’ (RQ, 197).”Rubert Cunliffe, “Carnival and Drama” in “Bakhtin: carnival and other subjects” ed. David G. Shepherd, “Critical Studies” 3/2 and 4. Editions Rodopi, 1993. (http://books.google.com/books?id=sBd0vU_WFfkC&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66&dq=Bakhtin+clown+carnival&source=bl&ots=GJyS2GyDeJ&sig=wxFHEobvRiWrzu7HFJcgDQgOzO8&hl=en&ei=bscGS6mDDZDrlAez3uTFCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Bakhtin%20clown%20carnival&f=false)”[P]opular-festive system of images”: the media “simulacrum” on FoxNews — “tea parties” as carnival, “the One” as “the king,” etc. “Howler,” indeed, not only of the week but much, much longer.Of course, the real “howler” is that the left couldn’t come up with its own mobilizing version of “carnival” and “clowns” while Bush was President. Bakhtin would have been scandalized, indeed.
new_theologian - November 20, 2009 at 12:21 pm
I can’t help notice that we frequently read the phrase, “left-of-center,” but rarely, “right-of-center.” We say, “right-wing.” The wing is an appendage. It reaches far to one side. But “left-of-center” implies, “not far to one side, but mostly in the center.” Is that really an honest description of where people who describe themselves and their allies actually stand? How are we defining the “center”? What’s our point of reference? Is it popular opinion, or who’s in power, or the people we agree with, or some ideological absolute? I suppose I might agree that “right-wing ideas are bad,” as one poster put it, if I knew what the poster meant by “right-wing ideas.” But without any definition, the point is empty in addition to being completely unsupported by argument or evidence.All of that said, I have to agree with basic assertion that idolizing Obama is creepy, and makes me deeply uncomfortable and suspicious of his administration. It’s just weird to have grade school children singing about him in public schools, and celebrities pledging their loyalty to him while images of them coalesce into a mosaic of his face. I’ve seen plenty of cheesy pictures of Christ made that way, but Christians are open about their distinctly religious belief that Christ takes all humanity up into himself as the New Adam. If we’re not saying that about Obama, then the face thing is just weird. If we are saying it about Obama, then I am justifiably creeped out.
goxewu - November 20, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Part of the howl of the Howler of the Week was the way it was said. (I did quote the whole sentence.) “I’m not at all sure…” Well, so am I, about a lot of things, especially the ones I don’t commit to print. With all the evidence proffered in #14, one would think vfichera would have been a little more, um, certain, about Bakhtin’s clown. ‘Twas a nice academic touch, though, to ref the revolutionary-counterrevolutionary-revolutionary Russian literary figure Mikahil Bakhtin to shore up the rather straightforward point that “the left couldn’t come up with its own mobilizing version of ‘carnival’ and ‘clowns’ while Bush was President.” Hey, what’s academe for?
akafka - November 20, 2009 at 2:29 pm
(I’m posting this on behalf of a commenter who had trouble with the blog-comment software. -Alex, an editor at Brainstorm)Dead-on post! Thank you for so eloquently pointing out this irony. As a reformed conservative, Obama supporter, and Beck opponent, I see how Beck’s tirades can become so popular, given how the public discourse seems to dissolve into “good guys and bad guys.” I do think Beck cultivates a mirror image of the simplistic narrative of his targets, but it’s not as though this method arose in a vacuum! Blind adoration of any figure, no matter how benevolent, is still blindness and therefore always dnagerous. Even if President Obama can save our very existence, we have an obligation to be careful up to the point we are indeed “saved.”I feel that the last few comments illustrate the type of dialogue that makes any popular gadfly possible. The notion that “the other side” has cornered the market on seductive rhetoric while “our side” cannot be heard despite representing the best interests of [the havenots, the silent majority, "real America," the "other," pick your terminology], this bias towards one’s own perspective silences the self-reflection and public scrutiny that your article endorses.
-NateMawdur
vfichera - November 20, 2009 at 5:15 pm
@ goxewuMy “I’m not at all sure” was a “polite” rhetorical response to the reductionism of “As for his auto-labeling of ‘clown,’ it’s a disarming feint, similar to his calling himself a ‘fatty’ even though (his chubby-looking face not withstanding) he’s just a few pounds to the plus side of normal weight for his height.”No one throws around the name of Bakhtin on a whim ;-).@NateMawdurIn the event my comments are being included in the characterization of “the last few comments,” I would like to state that I am not “taking sides” but rather pointing out that it is precisely the ability to not “take sides” but “take issue with” that enables a “clown” to function at his/her best in the Bakhtinian “disruptive” sense — and to provoke a dialectic.
suomynona - November 21, 2009 at 7:31 am
I’m just not seeing the blind adoration for Obama that some are laying claim to. It was certainly there during the election and briefly after, but it seems to me that reality has set in for Obama supporters (the reality that Obama is not a savior, though he may be a great president someday). I’d be more worried about the cult of demagogues than the Obama personality.
goxewu - November 21, 2009 at 9:28 am
There’s no reductionism in saying that Beck’s CALLING HIMSELF a “clown” (not, mind you, being a putatively Bakhtinian clown) is a feint. Beck calls himself a “fatty” even though he’s just slightly heavy in order to present himself to his audience as loveably self-effacing. He calls himself a “clown” for the same reason.Howler of the Week runnerup: “No one throws around the name of Bakhtin on a whim.” (I’ll bet.)
chuckkle - November 21, 2009 at 10:19 am
An excellent 3 part history of Glenn Beck as “shock jock” broadcaster at different points in his career:http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/21/glenn_beck/index.htmlChuck Kleinhans
goxewu - November 21, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Thanks much, Mr. Kleinhans. While to some of us the profile isn’t exactly an eye-opener, it confirms one salient fact about Glenn Beck:He’s an entertainer first, a pundit a distant second. Beck’s true passions are radio and television, and politics are simply what kept his career going after he aged out of being a Top40 DJ. And the talk-radio, talking-head-TV formats with an audience from the yahoo right work a lot better in the ratings than they do, pace Ed Schultz, with an audience from the wimpy, big-tent left. Which is what I said in #1.
arnoldas - November 23, 2009 at 11:24 am
Bauerlein warns academics that when “. . . academics turn political disputes into Good Guys (Obama and Dems) vs. Bad Guys (Repubs). . .” they are indulging in melodrama. I am an academic and my characterization of Dems as Good Guys and Repubs as Bad Guys has nothng to do with melodrama but merely states an obvious truth. It was the Republicans who were against the New Deal including Social Security. It was the Republicans who were against Medicare and Medicaid. It was the Republicans who were and are against the minimal wage law and against raising. It is generally the Republicans who are against emission standards, clean water policies and attempts to preserve the national parks against the oil drillers. It is the Republicans who have always fought, almost to a man, on behalf of insurance companies, against a sane health program. They have just done this again in the recent House vote. The above catalog does not represent melodrama but rather a tragedy for the American people.
markbauerlein - November 24, 2009 at 8:52 am
Do no Republicans take these positions out of principle, or are they all just plain evil, greedy, selfish, . . .?
swygant - November 24, 2009 at 2:03 pm
The “obvious truth” ground claimed by arnoldas is another evidence of the liberal arrogance which plagues so much of the academy. It also illustrates one reason that Beck is so popular with people outside the hallowed walls of the ivory tower. When opinion leaders in the media, academic and political establishments sneer at ideas that common, working, middle-class people take seriously (like keeping the rewards of their own work and constraining government activity to the functions designated by our Constitution) they look for a banner-carrier. Beck may not be the most nuanced voice in the political landscape, but he speaks to values that his fans believe make our society stable and viable. And – kudos to Bauerlein – many who hold these positions do base them in principle, long-established principles. Libs would find much more ground for conversation with conservatives if they started by taking the position of “the conservative other” seriously.
arnoldas - January 20, 2010 at 5:20 pm
“Common, working, middle-class people” are against social security, medicare and medicaid, minimum wages, emission standards, clean water acts, attempts to preserve national parks?My citation of the Dem/Repub split on these issues is an act of ‘arrogance?’ Swygant accuses me of ‘sneering’ at ideas held dear by the the overwhelming majority of ordinary folks. I wish he had mentioned some of those I sneered at. The one he cites–keeping the rewards of one’s work–has nothing to do with the legislative acts I mentioned. Swygant is involved in a verbal three-card monte ploy in his post.
arnoldas - February 2, 2010 at 11:00 am
Dear Mr. Bauerlein, I suppose it is possible to be against clean water and the other issues out of principle, although it is not clear to me what principles are being invoked, but in the end, Rupublican motives are irrelevant. I really don’t care whether a Republican is against Medicare because he or she believes big government is an inherent evil or is on the insurance companies’ payroll. The bottom line is that seniors may be forced to choose between good health and eating. The Republicans are the bad guys (relative to the issues I have referred to) however honest their motives.