ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

REPORT: Glenn Beck’s Philosophy Is Opposed To Everything Martin Luther King, Jr. Stood For

MLK1 Tomorrow, Fox News host and self-professed “rodeo clown” Glenn Beck will hold his “Restoring Honor” rally in Washington, D.C. Beck initially insisted that the rally has no political significance — despite it being located at the Lincoln Memorial and taking place on the 47th anniversary of the “I Have A Dream” speech. He has increasingly claimed to be taking up the mantle of the civil rights movement. Earlier in the week, Beck boasted that the rally will “reclaim the civil rights movement” and called the current civil rights community an “abomination.”

While Beck is practically fashioning himself after revered civil rights activist Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and trying to take up the mantle of the civil rights movement, he is ultimately unfit to command such a legacy. The Fox News host’s views and actions are diametrically opposed to everything the late social justice leader fought for:

KING believed that it was America’s collective responsibility to provide economic justice for all. In 1961, the civil rights leader addressed the AFL-CIO on his vision of the American Dream. King said that his vision of America’s promise was a country where “equality of opportunity, of privilege and property [are] widely distributed; a dream of a land where men will not take necessities from the many to give luxuries to the few.” King helped launch a Poor People’s Campaign based around demanding that “President Lyndon Johnson and Congress help the poor get jobs, health care and decent homes.” The civil rights legend explained that poverty was a problem that couldn’t be solved without a “the nation spending billions of dollars — and undergoing a radical redistribution of economic power.” He spent the last days of his life campaigning on behalf of a living wage for striking sanitation workers in Memphis, Tennessee.

BECK, on the other hand, has repeatedly insulted any government attempt to help the poor. The host has offensively claimed that “Big government never lifts anybody out of poverty. It creates slaves, people who are dependent on the scraps from the government, the handouts.” The pundit has declared that President Obama “really is a Marxist” because he “believes in the redistribution of wealth.” He argued in his book An Inconvenient Book that the reason the poor are poor and can’t be helped by the government is simply because they are “lazy.” Discussing the topic of rebuilding Katrina-ravaged New Orleans, Beck said we “shouldn’t spend a single dime” and that the residents should just “move out.” Discussing the topic of jobless Americans unable to find work receiving unemployment benefits, Beck said he would be “ashamed” to call some of them Americans.

KING championed using his faith to achieve social justice. King called himself an “advocator of the social gospel,” and saw Jesus’s teachings as commanding him to take part in progressive activism to achieve “social justice.” In a 1963 speech Western Michigan University, he said that he saw an “age of social justice” as the goal of his movement. When he spoke out against the Vietnam War at Riverside Church in 1967, he quoted the first epistle of Saint John to demand an end to the fighting: “Let us love one another, for love is God.”

BECK has derided social justice and attacked Christians who want to use their faith to achieve it. The Fox News host told his audience that when they hear the words “social justice” they should “run, and don’t listen to anyone who is telling you differently.” He also accused progressives of trying to “hijack churches” with a message of social justice. He even ignorantly claimed that civil rights demonstrators “weren’t crying out for social justice.”

KING believed in loving those who disagreed with him and engaging in thoughtful dialogue. One of the hallmarks of King’s philosophy and what separated him from many other African American leaders was his advocacy for maintaining thoughtful and respectful dialogue with those who disagreed with his goals. In 1957, the civil rights leader gave a sermon titled, “Loving Your Enemies.” King said that a man must “discover the element of good in his enemy, and everytime you begin to hate that person and think of hating that person, realize that there is some good there and look at those good points which will over-balance the bad points.” He practiced nonviolence and even asked civil rights demonstrators to not fight back when attacked by white racists. He demanded of his fellow demonstrators a “refusal to hate.”

BECK, on the other hand, has repeatedly attacked his political opponents with vicious and hateful language. He has compared president Obama to the Antichrist and said that it was “approaching treason” to elect a more progressive Congress. He has said he hates the 9/11 victims’ families and derided supporters of cap-and-trade as “greedy,” “wicked,” and “treasonous.” When interviewing Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the nation’s first elected Muslim congressman, Beck told him, “[W]hat I feel like saying is, ‘Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies’.” He also speculated that Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s (D-OH) wife must have been under the influence of a “date rape drug” to marry him.

It’s difficult to find two people whose philosophies are so distinctly different than Glenn Beck and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. While King fought for all people to be able to live a decent life, championed a compassionate version of Christianity that sought to create a better world, and established dialogue with those who disagreed with him, Beck shows little compassion for those worse off, has derided the social gospel, and has viciously smeared and attacked his political opponents. As Media Matters writes, “Martin Luther King would have been on Glenn Beck’s chalkboard.”

(Big HT: Media Matters)

Politics

Health Insurers Are Backing Republicans With Campaign Donations By 8:1 Margin

Insurers became the target of the White House’s attacks in the closing days of the health reform debate and so perhaps it’s no surprise that they’re “backing Republicans with campaign donations by an 8-to- 1 margin, favoring the party that’s promised to repeal President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul if it wins back Congress.” Bloomberg’s Drew Armstrong has the scoop:

WellPoint, along with Coventry Health Care Inc. and Humana Inc., gave Republican candidates $315,000 from May through July, according to U.S. Federal Election Commission records. That compares with $41,000 given to Democrats by the three companies as the parties near November elections that will determine who controls the U.S. House and Senate next year.

While Republicans aren’t likely to win the large majorities necessary to override a presidential veto and repeal the health law Obama signed in March, they may be able to slow or stall its implementation, said James Morone, a political science professor at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. At the same time, the turn to strongly favor Republicans may anger Democrats who had been receptive to insurers’ concerns, he said.

The Wonk Room explains why insurers are donating to Republicans, the party devoted to repealing the individual health insurance mandate.

Economy

Kasich’s Claim That Tax Cuts Will Lead To Job Growth Contradicted By Ohio History

Ohio’s Republican gubernatorial candidate John Kasich is banking on a package of tax cuts to revive Ohio’s moribund economy. “Ohio’s high tax burden is hurting families, strangling businesses and stunting our ability to create jobs and revive our economy,” he claims.

Kasich’s plan is to entirely eliminate his state’s income and estate taxes, and he freely admits that he has no idea how much his plan is going to cost. “People want to know the details of my plan. I don’t have the revenues,” he said.

Not only will Kasich’s plan more than double Ohio’s budget deficit next year, but if history is any indication, that new budget hole will not by accompanied by any significant job creation. Policy Matters Ohio examined the effect of a 2005 cut in both the personal income tax and some of Ohio’s business taxes, finding that the result was billions of dollars of revenue loss and not very many jobs:

The premise of the tax overhaul was that it would spark Ohio’s economy. This was an unlikely claim to begin with, since taxes are not a key determinant of state economic performance…Sure enough, the tax cuts have not proven to be the magic potion for Ohio’s economy. Key measures of economic performance show the opposite: Ohio’s economy has produced relatively fewer jobs, fewer manufacturing jobs, less overall output and lower personal income growth than the country as a whole since the tax overhaul was approved in June 2005. Ohio’s share of the nation’s jobs has shrunk since then from 4.06 percent to 3.87 percent.

Plus, “Ohio’s real per capita Gross State Product stagnated when U.S. real per capita GDP rose.”

The tax cuts were not responsible for Ohio’s economic decline but, much like the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 at the federal level, they did not usher in the era of strong economic growth that their proponents suggested they would. This makes sense, as at the national level, job growth was stronger following President Clinton’s tax increase of 1993 than after either President Bush’s or President Reagan’s tax cuts.

So if history is any indication, Kasich’s job plan will be a dud, and simply bury Ohio in even more red ink, at which point Kasich will likely say that he has to cut services in order to balance the budget.

Yglesias

El-Erian

I wonder what the informational content of an op-ed by PIMCO’s CEO about how we shouldn’t rely on additional monetary or fiscal stimulus to revive the world economy is supposed to be. After all, if there’s a clash between what policies would be good for PIMCO’s investment positions and what policies would be good for the global economy, El-Erian has a responsibility to push for policies that would be good for PIMCO’s investment positions. Is there such a clash? Well, readers of The Washington Post op-ed page have no way of knowing. So what’s the point of publishing it?

Politics

NJ Education Commissioner Asked To Be Fired So He Could Receive Unemployment Benefits

SchundlerNew Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) today fired the state’s Education Commissioner Bret Schundler, after the state lost a $400 million Race To The Top grant due to an error made in the application process. Now, the New Jersey Star-Ledger reports that Schundler specifically asked to be fired, instead of voluntarily resigning, so that he would be able to receive unemployment benefits:

Ousted state Education Commissioner Bret Schundler today said he asked Gov. Chris Christie to be fired from the work he considered his “life’s dream,” rather than resign, so he could receive unemployment benefits to pay his bills. “I asked if they would mind writing a termination letter, instead of a resignation letter, because I do have a mortgage to pay, and I do have a daughter who’s just started college,” he said in an interview this morning. “And I, frankly, will need the unemployment insurance benefits until I find another job. … And they said fine. They said sure.” [...]

Schundler’s financial disclosure form, released Thursday by the State Ethics Commission, show he and his wife had less than $5,000 in the bank.

Schundler’s case is particularly important because the Republican Party and conservative movement he belongs to have recently made the unemployed a frequent political punching bag. For months the party has fought every vote to extend unemployment benefits, despite double-digit unemployment rates across the country.

And to add insult to injury, major Republicans have derided the character of the recipients of unemployment benefits. NY GOP gubernatorial primary candidate Carl Paladino has suggested sending people receiving unemployment benefits to prison dorms, Nixon administration official and conservative pundit Ben Stein has complained that the unemployed are “unpleasant people…who do not know how to do a day’s work,” Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN) suggested the jobless are “sitting back and waiting” instead of looking for work, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has claimed “welfare” is making the persistently unemployed lazy.

Security

The Purpose Of Israel’s Settlements Is To Be Difficult To Remove

har-homa-33

I had to read Fred Barnes’ new Weekly Standard piece “In Defense of Settlers” a few times to be sure that Fred wasn’t actually putting us on. It appears he isn’t.

Things go awry beginning with the very first paragraph, in which Barnes writes, “When direct talks begin next week between Israelis and Palestinians, the fate of Jewish settlers in the West Bank — tens of thousands of them — will be a major issue in the negotiations. But the settlers themselves won’t be part of the discussion.”

Given that Netanyahu is still in the process of choosing his negotiating team, it remains to be seen whether actual settlers will be part of the discussion. But here’s an interesting fact: Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is himself a settler, living in the settlement of Nokdim, south of Bethlehem. While it’s highly unlikely that Lieberman will himself participate in the negotiations (Netanyahu wisely does his best to keep his racist former chief of staff away from decent society as much as possible), given the extreme rightist, pro-settlement orientation of Netanyahu’s governing coalition, it’s safe to say “the settlers” will very much be at the table.

Barnes goes on to channel the usual settler claims — which mirror Hamas’ claims — of a right to all of historic Palestine, as well as the canard that the West Bank is not “occupied” but rather “disputed,” which is a neat way of saying that, having lost 75% of their homeland, the Palestinians should now have to negotiate over the “disputed” remaining 25%.

Barnes notes that “a Jewish settlement has been established in the heart of Hebron.” He does not note, however, that Palestinians in Hebron are literally forced to live in cages to avoid harassment and violence by radical settlers, who live under the protection of Israeli troops and police. Nor does he note the extent to which that violence is underwritten by American “charities” like the Hebron Fund.

Things take a darker turn, however, when settler spokesman Dani Dayyan, commenting on the prospect of a Palestinian state, “raises the long-discarded idea that Jordan might become that state”:

Though its population is predominantly Palestinian, Jordan is a Hashemite kingdom. But if Hashemite rule were ended, “that would open a new horizon of possible solutions that don’t exist today,” Dayyan says. “That’s a thought for the future.” But not one that’s on the table in the Israeli-Palestinian talks to begin next week.

There are good reasons that this idea has been long discarded. Among them: The Palestinians don’t want it. The Jordanians don’t want it. There’s also the small detail that, in addition to being enormously difficult to carry out, involuntary population transfer is a crime against humanity. So don’t let’s think about it for the future, but let’s do let it be instructive as to how some Israelis (and Americans) think. Read more

Yglesias

Parking Mandates in Toronto

New zoning code for Toronto’s largest city: “Council also adopted common parking standards, cutting up the city into five categories. New buildings that go up near subways or streetcars will now require fewer parking spaces than those that are far from rapid transit.”

The tragic thing is that this counts as a progressive, forward-thinking reform. Lower parking mandates near transit nodes! But why should there be any mandatory parking near mass transit stops? For that matter, why should there be any mandatory parking far from transit stops? Of course common sense says that if you’re building a house or an office far from mass transit you’re going to want some parking, but why not let the market decide how much is needed? And near transit this is even more pernicious. It’s entirely possible that the most economically efficient use of transit-adjacent land is to build some zero parking structures—to say nothing of ecological efficiency.

Health

Memo To The Media: Don’t Fall For Rick Scott’s Talking Points

Florida gubernatorial candidate Rick Scott (R) bills himself as a political outsider, but when it comes to answering questions about his questionable stewardship of Columbia/HCA — a for-profit hospital chain that paid a record $1.7 billion in fines for massively defrauding the Medicare program during the 1990s — Scott has one of the most polished and rehearsed answers in the business.

The Wonk Room examined three different interviews with Scott on CNN’s John King Tonight (8/26), CNN’s American Morning (8/27), and FNC’s America Live (8/28), and noticed that Scott gave an identical, formulaic 5-part reply when questioned about his business record:

1. Notes that his primary opponent, Florida AG Bill McCollum, already attacked him for his record and he lost.

2. Mentions that he invested his life savings — $125,000 — in Columbia/HCA.

3. Recites the company’s achievements: high patient satisfaction, expanded company with 285,000 employees.

4. Then, when pressed on the fraud, he explains that business people make mistakes and that he’s taken responsibility for his.

5. Conversely, Politicians never take responsibility. He has and he will as governor.

Watch a compilation:

There may be ways for journalists to avoid listening to Scott’s polished recitations. For instance, Scott should be asked:

1. You’ve said that you want to do for hospitals “what McDonald’s has done in the food business” and “what Wal-Mart has done in the retail business?” Do you still believe this?

2. You’ve said, “Where do we draw the line? Is any fast-food restaurant obligated to feed everyone who shows up?” Do you believe hospitals should treat everyone who shows up?

3. After you were ousted by the HCA/Columbia board, you received “a $9.88 million severance package, along with 10 million shares of stock worth up to $300 million at the time.” Given that you’re now admitting to mistakes, do you think you deserved so much money?

4. You say you’ve taken responsibility, but then why did you invoke your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination 75 times during a 2000 deposition about your time as head of Columbia/HCA?

5. Since you’re running for governor on your admittedly less than stellar business record and asking people to trust that you’ve learned from your past mistakes, why don’t you release the deposition you gave on behalf of Solantic, a chain of urgent care clinics that have been accused of unsavory business practices?

Politics

Will The Libertarian Party Sell Out Its Principles To Win A Senate Seat?

lisaIn a stunning upset, Tea Party activist and Sarah Palin-endorsee Joe Miller appears to have upset incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) in Tuesday’s Republican primary election. Though there are still around ten thousand absentee ballots yet to be counted, analysts agree it is unlikely Murkowski will be able to close her 1,668 vote deficit.

However, in a move reminiscent of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Gov. Charlie Crist (I-FL), Murkowski now appears to be considering a third-party run on the Libertarian Party ballot in the general election. Indeed, such a move could already be in the works; RedState’s Erick Erickson tweeted last night that “Lisa Murkowski has already gone to the Alaska Libertarian Party promising money in exchange for their spot on the general election ballot.”

Murkowski could only run on the Libertarian line if the current nominee, David Haase, were to step aside. In the meantime, the question remains: Will the Libertarian Party sell out its principles in order to win a seat in the United States Senate?

Here is a sample of issues highlighting the stark differences between Murkowski’s beliefs and the Libertarian Party platform:

Gay Marriage: Libertarians argue for repealing “any state or federal laws denying same-sex partners rights enjoyed by others,” and they “oppose any new laws or Constitutional amendments defining terms for personal, private relationships.” Sen. Murkowski voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage.

Civil Liberties: Libertarians oppose the PATRIOT Act and the REAL ID Act. Sen. Murkowski voted to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act and voted for the REAL ID Act.

Drugs: Libertarians argue we should repeal “all laws establishing criminal or civil penalties for the use of drugs” and “stop prosecuting accused non-violent drug offenders, and pardon those previously convicted.” Sen. Murkowski voted to reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Corporations: Libertarians believe we ought to repeal “all anti-trust laws.” In addition, all “federal agencies whose primary function is to make or guarantee corporate loans must be abolished or privatized.” Sen. Murkowski voted for TARP and the Foreclosure Prevention Act that saved Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Foreign Policy: Libertarians believe that we “should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances” and abstain “totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures.” Sen. Murkowski voted for the US-India nuclear treaty and voted against on redeploying non-essential American troops out of Iraq.

Trade: Libertarians believe in “the right to unrestricted trade.” Sen Murkowski voted against the US-Chile Free Trade Agreement.

Welfare: Libertarians oppose “government-enforced charity such as welfare programs and subsidies.” Sen. Murkowski voted to extend unemployment benefits to those out of work.

The Libertarian Party, which also opposes police checkpoints for drunk drivers, has never held a seat in Congress, much less the Senate. Without a doubt, this Alaska race is the best chance they’ve ever had to win a Senate seat. Will the prospect of a sitting Libertarian senator be enough for the party to abandon the principles it stands for?

Security

McCain Accuses ‘Pro-Immigration Groups’ Of Being ‘Oblivious’

Yesterday, I predicted that it was only a “matter of time” before an opportunistic lawmaker points to the tragic massacre of 72 Central and South American migrants on their way to the U.S. as yet another reason to “seal the border” and delay immigration reform. Unsurprisingly, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) stepped up to the plate on Fox News’ On the Record with Greta Van Susteren. However, McCain didn’t just use it as an opportunity to start fear-mongering about violence in Mexico hypothetically “spilling over,” he also called immigration and human rights activists “oblivious” for suggesting that “our border is more secure than ever”:

When they — this is the most cruel and brutal things that have happened in our hemisphere. And what I don’t get, Greta, is where are the immigration activists and the human rights activists and others that wouldn’t conclude that the way you stop this terrible situation — one of the ways is to secure our borders? Then this human trafficking dries up and people come to this country legally. But they don’t seem to get that. Where are the human rights activists with these terrible abuse taking place as we speak? [...]

And then [they] turn around and say, “Don’t worry, our border is more secure than ever,” is completely oblivious to what’s happening on the other side of the border and continues to happen in our own state. And the majority of the American people have it figured out. But frankly, apparently, some of these immigration groups, pro-immigration groups haven’t figured it out yet. Secure the border. Then we can address some of the other issues.

Watch it:

However, immigration activists aren’t just speculating when they suggest that the U.S. side of the border is safer than it’s been in years. The claim is actually based on hard data from the FBI and interviews with law enforcement officials. The FBI crime statistics show that as undocumented immigration has increased, crime in Arizona and other border states has gone down. Data from the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) additionally shows that the violent crime rate in Arizona has been declining since 2006 and in 2008 and is at the lowest level since 1973. Even property crime has plummeted in Arizona since 2002 and in 2008 and is at its lowest point since 1966. Clarence Dupnik, the border sheriff of Arizona’s Pima County, has stated, “I hear politicians on TV saying the border has gotten worse. Well, the fact of the matter is that the border has never been more secure.”

Finally, immigration and human rights activists are very aware that human smuggling is a “human rights crisis.” Long before the bodies of 72 murdered migrants were found, Amnesty International decried “the alarming levels of abuse faced by the tens of thousands of Central American irregular migrants that every year attempt to reach the US by crossing Mexico.” On the ground, non-profit groups such as Border Angels and the Border Action Network work to provide relief to migrants and the border towns they pass through.

Meanwhile, in Washington, DC, immigration groups continue to fight for immigration reform that would have the effect of shuttering the human smuggling business by providing economic migrants with more opportunities to legally enter the U.S. when there are jobs available for them. Meanwhile, as Wonk Room noted yesterday, the enforcement-only approach that McCain pushes exacerbates the problems and hardships migrants face. The harder it is to cross the border, the more profitable the human smuggling business becomes. And as profits rise, so does violence in Latin America. McCain, however, insisted last night that he believes the border can be made airtight, citing Israel’s impeccable border security record — underestimating the persistent ingenuity of human smugglers and ignoring both the focus of Israeli border security efforts and the human rights violations associated with them.

Surely, McCain has access to all the information cited in this post — which means either he is the one who is oblivious or he is willfully deceiving the American public.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up