Addicted to Outrage

by Glenn Beck

  And just as the echo chambers of cable TV and the Internet were becoming widely available, Osama bin Laden further split the country by attacking us on 9/11. For a very brief period of time that attack brought us together as Americans. That attack was against all of us. But then our politicians got involved and saw an opportunity to increase their power. The result was one of the worst pieces of legislation in American history, the Patriot Act. Until Congress passed the Patriot Act, America was still sort of recognizable as the republic that our Founders handed us. That legislation said essentially we’ll do whatever is necessary to defeat the bad guys, and if we have to ignore the Constitution to do it, well, if we have to give up our liberty to protect our liberty, that’s the price we’re going to have to pay to be safe.

  That was when we first heard what are arguably among the most dangerous six words in our history: If you see something, say something. Wow. The reason Americans have always been open and honest and optimistic is that we trusted our neighbors. That was one of our bedrock social principles; we meet our neighbor at the back fence to have a civil conversation. America was about the only Western country where people didn’t spy on each other and the government didn’t spy on us. Well, that’s what we thought, anyway. That ended after 9/11. Our government began telling us to keep an eye on our neighbors and if they look suspicious, report them.

  I tried to ring the warning bell when Bush said that in 2002, but the Republicans trusted the man who said it. I was told I sounded like a lefty or pro-terrorist, not a patriot. When Obama said almost the same thing and added “call the White House” in 2009, the left trusted the man who said it and called me a conspiracy theorist. We must stop looking at who is saying it and “why they are saying it” to judge validity. We need to check it against those rights we hold self-evident: the Bill of Rights. Those are inalienable or, to use a more modern word, unchangeable.

  After 9/11, just as during Vietnam, Americans had to choose sides. Were we for or against the government? Did we want to be so-called patriots and trust the government with our constitutional rights, or did we want to protect those rights and live with the potential for more attacks? We had lost the idea that made us American. As George Washington is often quoted as having said, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence—it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”

  We weren’t just being asked to be for or against the government. We were being asked to support an agenda of a now politicized government. But those who wish to rule will never let a crisis go to waste. As H. L. Mencken said, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins.” Most of the Patriot Act was written years before 9/11 by members of the Reagan and Bush administrations, but was rejected by Congress. After 9/11, those who wished to rule saw the opportunity to pass this gigantic structure and used the fears of people in the heartland and in Congress to pass what the rational and reasoned mind rejected. In 2007, when America was still in economic denial, if anyone had proposed bailing the banks out and gobbling up a huge portion of GM, we all would have said never. But within a week of a completely predictable crash, we did just that. In fact, you were patriotic if you agreed and pro misery, starvation, and poverty if you disagreed. So the banks and their regulators grew in power.

  Whatever choice people made on any of these issues was reinforced by the cable stations they chose to watch and the places they visited on the Internet.

  So, everybody picked their side, their home team. We voluntarily separated ourselves into narrow communities of shared beliefs. We joined our tribes. In some instances, members of the tribe are discouraged from having contact with outsiders. They’re not members of our tribe. They’re a danger to our tribe. They’re wrong, and we’re right. They’re bad, and we’re good. You can’t have any personal interaction with them. In fact, they are cartoonlike figures, allowing us to attribute any characteristics we want to them. Sound familiar? I have spent considerable time studying the Holocaust. In fact, when I took my family on a vacation to Poland and Israel, I insisted we stop first at Auschwitz. I mean, c’mon, who takes their family on a vacation to Auschwitz? I wanted my kids to understand Israel, and I think it’s impossible to do that without first visiting the concentration camps. But the fact—the fact—is that there have been at least twenty-four Holocausts. This insanity has been happening forever. During the Dark Ages, for example, Jews were blamed for the Black Plague because they weren’t getting sick at the same rate as others. Why? Because part of their religious ritual consisted of washing their hands. It was just that simple, but up until the late 1800s we didn’t really understand the invisible germ. And because we couldn’t see it, it was nonsense. Instead, the Jews got blamed. It must be the Jews, because they’re not dying like us. Okay, round them up and kill them.

  Spending just a few days in Poland will make you wonder, how can neighbors do that to each other? It actually isn’t that hard. It starts with isolating tribes and spreading lies. “They aren’t the same as us.” Jews are like that. Mormons are like that, as are the Amish. Illegal immigrants are like that. You know, Mexicans, Muslims, supporters of that politician, Red Sox fans, who or what they are doesn’t matter: They are not us. That’s all that matters. Once you divide people into groups, it becomes much easier to scapegoat others. It makes it acceptable to criticize them. To be outraged at everything they do. To hate them. And then, gradually, it becomes okay if bad things happen to that group.

  And then it goes even further: It’s actually okay to do bad things to that group.

  Everything we have been doing has solidified our divisions.

  We’ve done this to ourselves without any help. That’s the American way! We’re number one: No one is better at destroying our republic than we are. Abraham Lincoln made two comments that are perhaps even more relevant today than before the Civil War: “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” and “We will never be destroyed by an outside force. If America is to be defeated, it will be from within.”

  But our enemies see the opportunity and are taking advantage of it. The last thing a dictator like Vladimir Putin wants is a united America. Does the phrase “divide and conquer” sound familiar? See how beautifully it worked in Iraq, when the Shia were pitted against the Sunni? Or in Northern Ireland. Don’t say it can’t happen here—it has happened here throughout our entire history.

  I have no idea how much the Russians interfered with our 2016 election, or whether they really favored Trump. I actually believe they didn’t care who won. That wasn’t their objective. But there is no question they did it. They didn’t even try to hide it. They set out to add to the chaos, and they were more successful than even they believed was possible. I’ve been pointing out for years that Putin was sowing the seeds of discord, that he was trying to hack into our system and use disinformation to drive people even further apart. He wanted to push and prod and insult, he wanted to start arguments and reinforce prejudices. He wanted to discredit the Democrats and discredit the Republicans. The Russians took both sides of contentious debates: Russian hackers posted pro-cop propaganda as well as pro–Black Lives Matter propaganda. Those hackers were ready to fight to protect statues honoring Confederate officers, while fighting equally hard to get them taken down. The Russians were equal-opportunity haters. The just wanted to feed fires; they wanted to create chaos.

  They also wanted us to doubt our system. It is why they targeted Chicago voting centers, and why they specifically targeted the DNC. What was the big story that came from that Wikileak? That the Clinton campaign sabotaged Bernie Sanders. They split the Democrats into two groups. Regular Democratic progressives and Marxist anticapitalists. If you look at the Republicans, they have also split into traditional conservative constitutionalists and simple populist/progressive Republicans.

  It isn’t a new strategy
. In 1960, The Twilight Zone presented an episode entitled “The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street.” Written by Rod Serling, it takes place on a street in a typical suburban neighborhood one summer evening. Suddenly every mechanical or electrical device on Maple Street stops working, ranging from power lawn mowers to table lamps. Everything. The adjoining blocks are not affected. All the residents of Maple Street gather to try to figure out what is going on. A young boy suggests the outage has been caused by aliens attempting to isolate the block. The fear rises to hysteria. When a figure approaches in the dark, someone shoots and kills him—and he turns out to have been a homeowner who went to find out the extent of the blackout. The residents turn on the shooter—and then the lights go on in his house! He accuses another person, and soon the entire block is rioting, beating each other.

  The camera pulls back to a nearby hilltop to reveal two alien invaders manipulating the event. “Understand the procedure now?” the first alien explains. “Just stop a few of their machines and radios and telephones and lawn mowers . . . throw them into darkness for a few hours, and then sit back and watch the pattern.”

  “And this pattern is always the same?”

  “With few variations. They pick the most dangerous enemy they can find . . . and it’s themselves. And all we need to do is sit back and watch.”

  “Then I take it this place—this Maple Street—is not unique?”

  “By no means. Their world is full of Maple Streets. And we’ll go from one to the other and let them destroy themselves.”

  And then Rod Serling concluded, “The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices—to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own.”

  Who knew Putin was a Twilight Zone fan?

  Maybe if we had real leaders, they might have been able to hold the various factions together, but we don’t. In fact, our politicians are a significant part of the problem. Rather than working for the entire country, their primary job appears to be protecting their job. They benefit most by pulling us apart and playing to the passions of their political supporters. Several years ago I sat down with conservative Utah senator Orrin Hatch, but it could just as easily have been any number of liberals. This was at the height of my popularity on Fox; I was appearing in an arena, and he was one of several politicians who showed up to get face time with me. I don’t remember specifically what we were talking about, but whatever it was, I had my usual strong opinion. “This is what’s happening here,” I told him. “This is what people are feeling. This is what we have to do.”

  He shook his head, “Glenn,” he said, “I don’t have to worry about any of that. Look, all I have to do is introduce a flag-burning amendment. That rallies the people, and they come right back.”

  I was stunned by his cynicism, although I was somewhat pleased by his honesty. That was unusual in my experience. My experience has been that most politicians will look you right in the eye and tell you exactly what they think . . . you want to hear. So Hatch’s candor was unusual. “I’m sorry, what? A flag-burning amendment?”

  “Yup. It works every time.”

  His point was that exploiting the differences between us has real benefits to politicians from both parties, even if it hurts the country. While we should have been discussing issues that affect the future of the country—Russian cyberattacks on our electoral system, for example—we were fighting with each other about football players kneeling for the national anthem. Instead of figuring out how to deal with the opiate crisis, we’re debating whether it is acceptable to wish someone a Merry Christmas. There are a lot of reasonable conversations we should be having, but we’re not having them.

  “Chaos” is the word of our time. What people fail to understand is that, should our government collapse, chaos will rule, and at this point only the strongest will survive and will rebuild the systems of the world closer to their desire. It probably won’t be us. Some are already planning.

  Bernie Sanders recently proposed a solution to help the country deal with the financial and social turmoil that would arise from new technologies and automation. His plan was to divide the country into twelve “zones” (districts), that would each be centrally overseen by a regional manager (chief administrator), all of whom would report to a central economic czar (Coriolanus Snow) who would live in the capital city of the country (Panem). His plan did not include annual games where the districts would send children to kill one another in a series of elaborate games . . . printer must have run out of ink.

  If this weren’t my own country, it would actually be funny, but that guy was being totally serious. And 32 percent of Millennials would pick him for president if the next election were held today. In a June 2018 primary race in NYC, a young, fresh-faced Democratic socialist unseated the second-most-powerful Democrat in the House. Backlash against the status quo, just like what happened to the Republicans with the Tea Party in 2012.

  * * *

  It isn’t only politicians who profit from the chaos. We do have real disagreements about policy, but much of the dissension has been encouraged for power or money. People want to have a rooting interest. It gets them hooked emotionally. As the cable networks, talk radio stations, and online publishers have learned, there is a lot of money to be made by sowing discontent and reinforcing passionate positions. Careers have been made by telling people more of what they want to hear in a manner that ignites their passions. When you tell someone they’re absolutely right, they’re not going to argue with you. They’re going to tell you how smart you are; they are going to watch your show and buy your books.

  Some things are rare because they are limited resources, like gold or rare earth metals. Other things are rare because there is limited demand for them, and so no one is incentivized to make them. Fins for a ’58 Cadillac, an Edison wax cylinder, and the hoop and stick kids used to play with are rare because nobody seems to value them and they have fallen by the wayside. The truth and the courage to tell it? Who will tell the truth even if it hurts them or their side? Who will take the professional, economic, or popularity hit and stand against the storm? Like him or hate him, Kanye West is a good example of this. Many people believe that the entire spring 2018 Twitter storm was all about promotion of a new CD. Perhaps it was. But look at what he tweeted: “You don’t have to agree with Trump but the mob can’t make me not love him. We are both dragon energy. He is my brother. I love everyone. I don’t agree with everything anyone does. That’s what makes us individuals. And we have the right to independent thought.”

  What does it say that this made him a pariah? What did he say that was so controversial? Perhaps he would have gotten away with it if he hadn’t used the name Trump in a tweet. Shouldn’t we all be this way? This is controversial? This is the way we as humans function if we are trying to live as a group ruled by reason? After watching what happens to African Americans who dare to not vote for Democrats, I understand why they vote 95 percent for people with a D after their name. I wouldn’t want to be called an Uncle Tom, would you? The Outrage Machine is a powerful force.

  The result of all of this is a badly divided country lacking the common principles that in the past we have been able to unite behind. That’s where we are today. We’ve been broken down into groups that can be easily manipulated. Many researchers agree with the respected political scientists Alan I. Abramowitz and Kyle L. Saunders, who wrote in the Journal of Politics, “Evidence indicates that since the 1970s, ideological polarization has increased dramatically among the mass public in the United States as well as among political elites. There are now large differences in outlook between Democrats and Republicans, between red state voters and blue state voters, and between religious voters and secular voters. These divisions are not confined to a small minority of activists—they involve a large segment of the
public, and the deepest divisions are found among the most interested, informed, and active citizens.”

  As a nation we’ve become addicted to this polarization. Worse, too many of us get our kicks from attacking the other side. We’ve accepted it as a natural and normal part of our lives. Just as I believed having a few drinks after work was natural and normal. Well, it wasn’t. It was destructive. I lied for a long time and got away with it. The day I admitted I was a drug-abusing alcoholic, my life started changing. The first step toward overcoming my addiction was admitting I had a problem.

  America, we have a problem. Those people who believe saving America means defeating the other side actually are destroying this country. Those who will stand and defend the right of others to speak and be heard will save it. And if we don’t overcome the urge to preach to the choir and silence all other voices, this country will not survive as we know and love it, and time is much shorter than you think, for reasons that very few are even aware of.

  PART TWO