Liberty MavenRon Paul vs. Glenn Beck on Foreign Policy, Different?
October 2nd, 2009 9:55 am | by Marc Gallagher | Published in Blowback, Commentary, Foreign Policy, Liberty, Maven Commentary, Philosophy, Ron Paul, War | 5 Responses
It is certainly true that Glenn Beck has been a rather vocal “warmonger” when it comes to America’s interventionism overseas. I made a comment during Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign that Beck and Paul are in 100% agreement when it comes to economics, but Beck had some work to do in order to “come around” to Ron Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy views.
While Beck may not be there yet, there is a noticeable difference in his rhetoric when it comes to foreign policy and war. This could certainly be attributed to the fact that Obama is now in the White House instead of George W. Bush who used to get endless praise from Beck on foreign policy. Or is this evidence of a core transformation in Beck toward a more non-interventionist approach?
I shamefully admit that I once supported an interventionist foreign policy but that has changed over time as I investigated and became more informed on the issue. It took months, not days. Could Beck be going through a similar transformation? Only time, and maybe another Republican President will tell.
Does it really matter what Glenn Beck thinks? I argue that it does. He has some of the highest ratings of all the political talk shows. Like it or not many people care what he says and thinks. If Beck can make the transition to non-intervention then any formerly devout neo-conservative can too. Don’t shun them with charges of distrust. Welcome them and help them along their path.
For evidence of the Beck transformation-in-process I submit the video below.
Follow LM on Twitter
October 2nd, 2009 at 2:48 pm (#)
DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990….and her name was TRUTH!
Search: glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com/
October 2nd, 2009 at 4:34 pm (#)
Don't be so sure. Ron Paul said: "If your going to have a war, it better be declared, …." Beck said "I want to win it". Where is Beck's constitutional perspective?
October 2nd, 2009 at 8:08 pm (#)
I appreciate this article. I do not yet consider myself a 100% libertarian, (yet) but feel I am in the process of one day being one… Maybe some of you in your past felt this way as well.
I read this blog daily, and love the perspective it gives me on libertarian thought. Over time, my views have been challenged in many different areas, and I considered myself a strong limited government conservative when I first began reading libertymaven.com.
For example, when I started reading I was not fully aware of the atrocity called the FED and its debasement of our currency, but through this blog, mises.org, Ron Paul, etc, I now abhor it, and hope to see it one day abolished. (Thank you by the way)
I now sit the fence on the libertarian position for ending 'the war on drugs' and 'non-intervention' foreign policy. I have not yet made a concrete decision on these 2 topics, and currently consider myself a 'very limited intervention' person, (if such a thing exists) but I am beginning to see the reasoning behind complete 'non intervention'. (so you could say I am in an inward struggle in this regards… )
My point in posting is to encourage you to continue giving the reasons behind your positions on these topics so that those who come to this blog can understand why you feel the way you do.
Many conservatives who support a intervention foreign policy are not ever presented with the alternative and especially the reasons behind it. (usually they are labeled warmongers with no other explanation) This usually turns them off because they love their country just as much as libertarians and don't feel that the US goes to war for no reasons. Typically they just believe what is presented to them from the usual conservative media and go with it. (because it is the so-called 'patriotic / conservative' way.) They don't even realize they are 'neo-cons' (as I didn't until I began exploring libertarian ideas) and that their is a 'true' conservative alternative to endless conflicts proposed by the Republicans.
Anyhow, thank you for your blog. (I find it excellent) Any essay's, websites, posts, you can point me to that would give more explanation on your reasoning behind these 2 topics would be appreciated.
Cheers,
Jason
http://patriotsmind.com
October 3rd, 2009 at 1:17 pm (#)
Similiar to Jason, I went (matured) from being a fundamentalist Christian/conservative Republican to both an Objectivist and a libertarian. The only issue I don't share with Objectivist is their quasi-neo-conservative view of the warfare sate and I don't share some of the libertarians attitutde toward open borders.
It looks to me that currently, Beck (who I agree on some issues and disagree on others) is trying to bring the G.O.P. back to a "Christian-right" base when that is exactly what has hurt the party for so long. It basically calls for a litmus test on abortion (pro-life) which I don't agree with. He offers a neo-con perspective on war whether it is constitutionally declared or not. We are obviously facing an endless policy of both warfare and welfare unless some third party can garner enough strength to at least "threaten" the other two.
October 6th, 2009 at 2:47 am (#)
turn off Fox. in fact, just turn off your tv and your path to enlightenment will be illuminated.