Dissension, dishonourable mention
Best to ignore screwy criticisms, so as not to make them seem less screwy. However, Thomas Frank attacked Glenn Beck in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, Beck has appendicitis, and is so unable to respond. The essay maligns those who watch and/or agree with the broadcaster, which makes it personal.
Like Frank, let’s begin with the red phone, which he writes “never seems to ring.” No “seems” about it, Frank, indicating that you miss the point. The White House generalises that Beck is wrong. He has been requesting specifics. So far, the only White House correction was that he referred to special assistants as “czars,” not Beck’s term. They did not deny that these appointees skirt Congressional approval and have nebulous powers. When Anita Dunn was assigned to monitor his Fox programme, Beck installed the phone, so she could instantly correct any factual errors he makes. He promised to apologise on the air immediately.
Frank questions whether it is fair to call Dunn a Maoist for quoting the tyrant, whom she called one of her “favourite political philosophers.” In the Journal writer’s opinion, “lots of people, including conservatives, have cited Mao and Lenin and other such demonic figures in all sorts of contexts, and… they aren’t always careful, when so citing, to point out what bad people these were.” Lots of people? Name one. I have never quoted Mao, though I might to illustrate how evil he was. Anita Dunn told some news person, who asked, that she was joking. Having seen her delivering the remarks in context, I missed the humour, like her audience.
Frank mentions Mark Lloyd, Chief Diversity Officer of the FCC, who recently referred to the “incredible revolution” in Venezuela by Mao’s fellow philosopher, Hugo Chavez, which was failing until Chavez had the good sense to silence the media. There’s probably a plausible explanation for what seems an odd statement coming from a man with a mysterious job at the Federal Communications Commission. Frank e-mailed Lloyd, who said he wasn’t asked to respond. No one was stopping him, although Beck’s questions were directed at the Administration which appointed him.
Frank ignores Van Jones. Beck aired remarks Jones made on video and sound recordings, espousing the green czar’s radical ideas. Beck asked the White House if Jones still holds these views, and if they are shared by the Administration. This was before the red phone. The response was that Jones’ responsibilities weren’t related to his views, an evasion of a simple question. When Jones became infamous, he was jettisoned at midnight, on a Saturday, in an attempt to keep it quiet. No explanation.
Sure you can select embarrassing quotes from any public speaker, but Beck has a point when he says there seem to be numerous Administration figures who proudly claim to be anti-capitalist and anti-democracy. Given the choices made during the first months of Obama’s presidency, his advisers’ views seem worth examining, particular those who were not vetted.
From his shallow, misleading analysis of Beck, Frank provides the paradigm that “ideas have consequences,” which is true, especially in the case of Mao Tse-Tung. In this country, Beck has the same freedom to question as Thomas Frank. If Glenn’s curiosity seemed misplaced, millions of viewers wouldn’t be tuning in every day.
Anything said about Beck could apply to Keith Olbermann’s hateful “Countdown” programme on MSNBC, which spreads ideas like all opponents of any Obama policy are racists. I guess KO doesn’t warrant a column because hardly anyone is watching, likewise most of the media, with some exceptions, such as the Wall Street Journal.
Oops! Not Glenn Beck, Kate Beckinsale. I’m always getting those two confused.
One problem with 24/7 news coverage is that a tiny, off-year election receives the same amount of coverage as a major election. To justify blanket coverage, the talking heads must attribute major importance to the results. Whatever.
One race that received too little attention yielded the third term of Mikey Bloomberg as New York’s mayor. He’s held that office for eight years, during which the highlights seem to be restrictive social measures on diet and smoking that make San Francisco seem like a picnic. New York City is not doing well, with high unemployment, lower revenues and a $5 billion budget deficit, yet he was able to change the term limit law, so he could run again. Despite the billionaire spending over $90 million of his own money, over ten times his opponent’s expenditure, Bloomberg got a mere 51% of Tuesday’s vote.
I read that he may be weakened enough to “empower the left” to challenge his agenda. Really? His agenda is to cut crime by 15%, make the city’s schools the nation’s best and build the “largest affordable housing system” in the US by 2013. Hard to believe any leftist would oppose those lofty goals. Well, maybe Mark Lloyd. 
