glenn beck

“Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” –The Eleventh Commandment, Ronald Reagan.

Glenn beck is a sideshow. As evidenced by message boards, twitter and facebook feeds as well as numerous columns and news segments this week, Glenn Beck is the now loudest cartoon clown in modern politics. (Momentarily, Beck is greasing up Michael Moore’s head to remove the honorary crown for this illustrious title, held by Moore since 2003).

On his radio show last week, the comedian-turned Thomas Paine aspirant “begged” his fans to, “look for the words ‘social justice, or ‘economic justice,’ on your church website. If you find it, run as fast as you can!” Beck went on: “Social justice and economic justice. . . . are code words [for Communism and Socialism].”

My infrequent experiences with Glenn Beck’s shows (on radio and television) invariably leave me with the same dilemma: while I agree with most of his conclusions, I cringe at nearly all of his arguments. I’ll put it another way. It is not enough to preach that the answer to the problem in your mind is four, when only a minority of the people listening have a subjective understanding that you are working with two added to two.

First off, the modern Democratic Party is without doubt Socialist. To take a page from the Pope of “Global Climate, non-Static, Eventual Event Happening,” Al the Gore, the science has spoken and the debate is over: Democrats are Socialists.

Indeed, this Party’s answer to every social problem is this: Government. They are expanding the federal government’s regulatory role, expanding the debt limit and using public dollars to buy up and invest in private industries. They are manipulating and conniving evermore citizens onto the public dole through works projects, endless new government jobs created by endless new bureaus, and by expanding federal welfare through the creation of insanely expensive and unmanageable new SOCIAL entitlements. Soon enough, they shall be increasing the tax burden in order to pay for this government banquet.

You will not have a choice about the increasing tax burden, nor shall Obama. This is how you pay for government largesse. Without exception, the central planners in Socialist systems incrementally increase their regulatory authority over the marketplace as they strive to plan the ideal economic landscape for everyone. Without exception, the central planners fail to explain that what is best for everyone is serfdom: at a cost of, only, the product of all of your labor, the planners shall provide “equality.” For modern liberals, “social equality” is one Hell of a drug.

The Environmental Protection Agency shall have a regulatory role on par with that of the Internal Revenue Service once Cap and Trade is passed. Your home, as well as the appliances therein, shall be ‘yours’ in name only. An omnibus health care plan shall be the ultimate in Socialist coercion. Your medical decisions shall be between you and 7,000 new health boards. The drugs and treatments you will have access to shall be subject to federal rationing policies, and innovation shall slow.

These are not opinions. I defy anyone to argue that the new health program is not grounded in Socialist economic philosophy. I defy anyone to assert that rationing shall not occur, that spending shall be kept under control or that access to care shall increase.

That being said, Glen Beck’s boobery of the first order has, like usual, done little more than feed the flames of our malcontented brethren. Now Keith Olberman can add Beck to his Worst Person in the World list and bring on three or four liberal Christians to bash crazy, heartless Conservatives. The substance behind Beck’s claim notwithstanding, Beck ought to know as well as anyone that Democrats don’t argue substance to begin with. Let alone when you provide them with a month’s worth of fodder.

Thus, as a rule, I avoid terms like “Nazi,” even where I might find an apt comparison.

Last week, Sean Penn wildly raved that the American press should be jailed for calling Hugo Chavez a dictator. I’ve come to expect that liberal entertainers—our contemporary answer to Court Jesters—will take every possible chance to rape the hand that feeds them: i.e., the First Amendment. “Every day, this elected leader is called a dictator here, and we just accept it,” said Penn. “And this is mainstream media, who should – truly, there should be a bar by which one goes to prison for these kinds of lies.”

Now, one could effortlessly retort, “Yea. . . . Hitler was elected too, skippy. Guess that makes him a man of the people, no?” But I can already hear the squealing response: “Are you saying Chavez is like Hitler!?” Or worse, “Are you calling Sean Penn a Nazi?!”

Although the name “Nazi” (or maybe just good old “Fascist”) wouldn’t be totally out of line here considering that Herr Penn just single-handedly obliterated Freedom of Speech, I was actually just calling him an idiot. (By the way, can we say enough with taking celebrity commentary on law, science, politics, or any topic requiring a brain, seriously? I am almost positive Ferdinand and Isabella did not summon the Court Jesters before heading for the New World or declaring war on France. Why must the Polis be continually berated with the gibberish of sycophantic cocaine addicts?)

I could say Obama is much like Hitler: both men are Socialists, elected on a message of hope, change, egalitarian populism, and social reform. Still, shouldn’t I be aware that everyone is going to think “genocide” when I bring Hitler into the conversation? Indeed, maybe I’ll avoid that one.

But Glen Beck preaches to the Conservative choir. So he flashes images of Marx, while turning on the red lights and sinister music, as he scarily talks about Obama and the Democrats. He knows what his audience wants to hear, and he knows his audience knows where he is coming from. They can sense the, otherwise, logical argument leading to Beck’s claim that Barak Obama is a Socialist.

Unfortunately, non-Conservatives never get that argument. Rather, they witness silly theatrics and straw men, then change the channel in disgust. This is no way to change hearts and minds. Isolationism is no way to win elections.

I can’t blame liberal Christians for being immediately turned off by Beck’s remarks. However, Glenn Beck is right, in substance (trust me, its in there).

First, social justice was not the foundational message of Christ. Salvation is what Christ brought. Even all that is theologically consistent with the message of Christ remains of secondary value to His act of being crucified for the salvation of our immortal souls.

Second, there is no question that Christians ought to be concerned with “social justice,” insofar as Christ preached a Gospel of caring for the poor and the sick. We are called to be stewards of the Earth and its resources. To the extent that the Earth is divided up among us, it would be wrong to horde and deny these resources in the face of the poor and the meek. The ownership of property is only good insofar as it ensures the benefit of many. A farmer can produce food for a whole community. It would be wrong for him to produce the food and throw it away; or to produce it and charge unreasonable sums. (Luckily, in a free market, there are many farmers to keep one another honest, and selling at fair prices. We can also expect the good Christian farmers to give to the poor at no cost.)

There is no question that this mission of social justice is often distorted, by Christians and non-Christians. I will refrain from explicating the many instances of Christian groups misusing Christian ethics in the name of some very anti-Christian social missions.

Instead, I’ll examine the following passages:

All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45)

There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. (Acts 4:34-37)

These and other passages are regularly cited by Progressive Christians in support of big government taxation and welfare. Am I obtuse for not seeing the connection? Indeed, did Paul demand that Barnabas give all that he had to the Church, or threaten penalties if he refused? I am aghast. Do my liberal Christian friends consider the Church to be one with the state?

What about this passage:

Thou Shall Not Steal. (The Seventh Commandment)

Not only does this forbid the unjust and unreasonable taking of another person’s property (the product of their labor) it presupposes the notion of private property. The Bible is bursting with examples of property ownership, freedom from slavery, freedom from oppression, respect for life, and voluntary sacrifice and donation on behalf of the poor and meek. Would Christ have loved the woman in the temple who quietly gave her donation more, had she been compelled to give a fixed amount to the Roman government for the purpose of an inefficient welfare program?

Taxation is not donation; a government welfare program does not satisfy our Christian obligation to care for the meek. Let’s say a government official was assigned to enter my home each day and take money to pay for my groceries and the local police and fire. Let’s say he decided one day he was going to take $10 extra to pay for the groceries of the woman across the street. Let’s say I had no choice, and the administrative overhead cost $3. Do I say this was a very Christian act of the government official? It certainly wasn’t my Christian act: I’m being compelled at the force of law, not compassion.

Moreover, to the extent that the centrally planned welfare programs of the Great Society have, arguably, had a direct casual effect on destroying the family, with corresponding increases in drug use, violent crime, divorce and abortion, no, I don’t suppose Christ would be thrilled by Socialism.

The farmer can produce food for his whole community. But should the farmer allow a mob of homeless people to ravage his farm? Should he be allowed to charge a reasonable sum for his labor? Should a central planning authority have the power to tell him what to farm, how much to farm, how much he can keep, and how much he must give?

Communism and Socialism are theologically inconsistent with Christian ethics. Glenn Beck is right. But condescending to liberal Christians and bouncing around like a cartoon clown will not change a single mind.