by Dana Milbank
The most frightening Beck assertions, though, are not about botched facts or numbers. They are assertions that would strike an ordinary person as zany—but just might be believed by a small minority, such as three million nightly Beck viewers. American liberals, he asserts, “have been raised to hate the United States government in many ways.” Union supporters “are also for one world government.” How to disprove this? Polygraphs?
Likewise, when black Democratic congressmen claimed that hecklers on Capitol Hill shouted epithets and spit on them, Beck went on air to say there’s “no proof or evidence of any spitting.” Perhaps he expected a saliva sample to be provided.
But if Beck’s more outlandish accusations and theories cannot be “proven” with things such as “facts,” they can be documented lavishly. That’s where the chalkboard comes in.
On a typical night, it contains the word “Radical?” in one corner, then the word “Obama” in big letters. Then, as if illustrating a complex scientific reaction, it has arrows pointing every which way, but all of them ultimately leading to Obama. The mad assortment of arrows goes back and forth among Beck’s usual suspects, “Communist Party,” “ACORN,” “Apollo Alliance,” and “Van Jones.”
“We have Rashid Khalidi, who is—who is a radical in his own right, tied directly to Barack Obama,” Beck will narrate, explaining the chaotic diagram. “Carl Davidson is connected to the New Party, which is connected to the Movement for Democratic Society, to progressives, to Van Jones, to Jeff Jones—it’s all connected!”
And it’s true: They are connected—by chalk arrows. But in Beck’s description, this is proof that the government is run by communists. “The radicals are all down here,” scientist Beck explains. “They start to filter up and they come to places like the Apollo Alliance and they filter up, and they’re scrubbed clean, so they don’t look like radicals anymore—but they’re all tied here.”
Arrows are a uniquely effective weapon in Beck’s quiver. He proved that Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor was connected to ACORN by drawing an arrow from “Sotomayor,” through the Capitol dome, to the ACORN logo.
And if arrows are not available, a juxtaposition of photographs is sufficient to prove connection and causality—as when Obama aide Valerie Jarrett was tied to Che Guevara. Another night, Beck put the phrase “Six Degrees of Obama” on the chalkboard. By moving photographs around, Beck was able to prove that Obama was tied to Chairman Mao, Venezuela’s Chávez, and other nasties.
“This is my theory. You can call and correct it,” he offered, over the air, to the White House. No call came in—so the theory must be accurate.
Same thing with Beck’s theory that the government was preparing to confiscate Americans’ land to pay off the federal debt. “Conjecture on my part,” he began—so it must be true! “How about we just print enough money to pay off the debt over time. Sure, I mean, it will be worthless, but we’ll be able to honor our agreement.” And how to keep the currency from collapsing? “There’s certainly enough land and resources in America that we could back our currency with. I mean, the government—the government, though, would have to own all of the land,” Beck explained. “Oh, my gosh, I just thought of something: Between Fannie and Freddie, the government already owns half of all of some of the U.S. mortgages and they’re about to buy more.”
So the federal government, through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, was about to sell Americans’ homes and property to the Chinese? “Look, America, I’m hoping that I’m wrong about this. But I can’t figure out anything else.”
Proof positive!
The conspiracy extends to every government action. ACORN designed government-run health care. The Apollo Alliance wrote the stimulus legislation. The Service Employees International Union is drafting immigration laws and consulting on Afghanistan strategy. On rare occasions there is a glimmer of self-awareness, as Beck mocks his own conspiracy talk; one night, while tying ACORN to every possible malefactor, he jokingly included a mug shot of the evil Silas, from The Da Vinci Code.
“Tonight,” Beck said one evening, “I want to talk to you about something that somebody said earlier to me today: ‘You know, Glenn, don’t you think you’re going to go into loopy territory?’ No, I think the world is moving into the loopy territory. I’m just trying to explain what’s happening.”
One of Beck’s cleverest ways to float a good conspiracy theory without fear of facts getting in the way is to say he is “not saying” that which he is saying. For example:
“I’m not saying that Obama has an enemies list, but I wouldn’t put it past him, either.”
“I’m not saying that we have a bunch of mullahs or some star chamber running the country.”
“I’m not saying that we’re like Russia. I’m not saying Obama is going to kill anybody.”
“I’m not saying being poor in America is sweet.”
“I’m not saying to shoot anybody.”
He’s just saying.
After the Fort Hood army base shooting, Beck said this was an Al-Qaeda “shark bump” presaging a bigger attack: “I’m not saying this was a coordinated shark bump, but this is a shark bump.”
One night, he alarmed his audience with a Muslim apocalyptic theory about a man who is “supposed to create a global government” and who tells Christians to “submit or he cuts their heads off.” Added Beck: “I’m not saying these things are true.”
Rallying his audience to dig up dirt on the ACORN community organization, he said: “I’m not saying there is anything nefarious here, I think there is. It smells—it smells pretty rotten here.”
Another time, he warned that the new “smart grid” electricity system could be used by the government to take “critical information out of your house.” Then came the usual disclaimer: “I’m not saying that Obama or the Democrats or the Republicans or anybody are going to take this technology and use it this way. However, you know … Who knows what could happen?”
Who knows? But, in Beck’s world, knowing is not a prerequisite to broadcasting.
This has caused some concern among Beck’s colleagues at Fox. Privately, many producers and correspondents at the cable network talk about their concerns that working on Beck’s broadcast will tarnish their reputations as journalists. Washington Post media critic Howie Kurtz reported on a “deep split” within Fox, where “many journalists are worried about the prospect that Beck is becoming the face of the network.” Fox boss Roger Ailes, though a Beck booster, “has occasionally spoken to Beck about the negative tone” of his show, Kurtz reported.
* * *
The relatively straight-shooting Fox anchor Shepard Smith once previewed Beck’s hour by telling viewers that “Glenn Beck will be live with us from his Fear Chamber.” Beck later said he preferred the term “Doom Room.”
Beck, in turn, uses Fox News as a truth shield. “Who owns this network? Rupert Murdoch,” he reminded viewers in April 2010. “Do you think he’s going to let a guy at five o’clock say a bunch of stuff, put this together, it’s completely wrong, and stay on the network? … Because Fox couldn’t allow me to say things that were wrong.”
Or could it? Bill O’Reilly, the prime-time Fox star who holds himself to a stricter factual diet than Beck, once interviewed Beck on his 8 P.M. show about his incendiary style.
“I don’t know why I’m successful,” Beck said in the interview.
“I don’t either, to tell you the truth,” O’Reilly said. “But you take it five steps further than I do.”
Might have something to do with it. One night in May 2010, Beck, in an off-camera performance for a live audience, offered a rare confession as he joked about how something “just came out of my mouth during my monologue on TV.” Oops—just popped right out. “Sometimes they come out of my mouth and I’m like, ‘Whoa! Wow. Where did that come from?’ ”
Many have asked the same question.
CHAPTER 14
A KINDRED SOUL
It was the sort of stem-winder vie
wers of the Glenn Beck show are accustomed to hearing each night.
It had hints of doom: “Tuesday of this week—Tuesday, January 29th—will be remembered by our offspring as the day which overshadowed July 4th. The one date was associated with our independence. The other with our stupid betrayal.”
It had fear of foreigners: “On Tuesday of this week the United States Senate is about to hand over our national sovereignty … Without sovereignty a nation is but a shadow. With sovereignty it is a substance capable of existing in peace and security, in law and order, free from the dictates of external powers.”
It questioned the patriotism of his opponents: “There has arisen in our midst a false philosophy which looks askance upon nationalism and disparages the realities of life … It prefers to sing the praise of the yellow peril of pacifism while it berates and belittles the vigorous valor of patriotism. It subscribes to the utopian dreams of world peace.”
It claimed the support of the Founding Fathers: “I appeal to them by the blood spilled at Valley Forge, by the fatherly admonitions of Washington and Jefferson which still ring in our ears, not to jeopardize our freedom, not to barter our sovereignty, not to entangle us with the religious, the racial, the economic, and the martial affairs of the Old World.”
It had a note of martyrdom: “Perhaps I am out of tune with the tempo of modern events in giving expression to my fears and to my patriotism … I am on the losing side and I am subjecting myself to ridicule, to ignominy, and perhaps to chastisement. But cost what it may, the American people have a right to know the unvarnished truth of facts.”
It hinted at violence: “Perhaps that is something for the Senators to think about as innocently they tie the Gordian knot … around the throat of the American public. It is easy to tie but perhaps it can be severed only by a sword. By a sword, say I? Most certainly!”
It had jingoistic notes: “I appeal to every solid American who loves democracy, who loves the United States, who loves the truth, to … fight to keep America safe for Americans.”
And, naturally, it all came down to godless communism: “I am opposed to communism as much as I am opposed to a plague … In years to come when you young men and young women who are listening to me this afternoon will have had your economic lives melted down to the standards of England, of France, of Spain, and of Mexico, when you will be marshaled into an army to fight the red ruin of communism, I pray that you will still have faith in the brotherhood of man as preached by Christ.”
In fact, the only atypical thing about this rant was that it was uttered in 1935, twenty-nine years before Beck was born. These were the words of the Reverend Charles E. Coughlin, “Father Coughlin,” the populist radio priest of the Great Depression whose denunciations of Franklin Roosevelt attracted millions.
Coughlin flamed out after embracing fascism before the Second World War. Lately, however, the ghost of Coughlin has been seen and heard often on the airwaves. Chris Matthews was doing a show on the latest outrage by Beck in late 2009 when the specter visited the set.
“What we’re seeing now is what we’ve seen before in American history,” David Brooks, the conservative New York Times columnist said of the “race-baiting” techniques of Beck and Rush Limbaugh. “What we’re seeing: Father Coughlin,” Brooks said. “That’s what these guys are … They are taking over the Republican Party. And so if the Republican Party is sane, they will say no to these people. But every single elected leader in the Republican Party is afraid to take on Rush and Glenn Beck.”
The accusation was evidently confounding to Beck, because, by his own admission, he had to figure out just who Father Coughlin was. A few months later, he went on air to report the result of his studies.
“The left loves to call me Father Coughlin,” he said, although Brooks, at least, resides on the reasonable right. “That’s a real insult. It is—especially now that I’ve done my research and I know who this man is.
“I’m called many things by the left, because of my viewpoints, but the only thing that they really love to trot out over and over again is that I’m Father Coughlin,” Beck continued. “You’ll see that it’s laughable. It’s a deep insult to be compared to him. But it’s hysterical because it’s such—it’s so ridiculously inaccurate. It doesn’t even make sense.”
Beck laid out his defense: “Yes, Father Coughlin was against communism. Yes, he was on the radio like me. Yes, he was against the sitting president, FDR. But it’s weird, because that’s where it ends—because he was initially a supporter of FDR. He was also wildly anti-Semitic. Not me. He was for big unions. You know how much I love the unions … He’s also for social justice, the union man. Yes. That’s me in a nutshell, isn’t it?”
More than he’d like to admit.
Coughlin, a small-town priest in Michigan with an Irish brogue, reached 10 million people with his radio broadcasts on an average Sunday and as many as 40 million on some. He was perhaps the most powerful voice for populism and isolationism in the 1930s, at least until he became increasingly anti-Semitic (“when we get through with the Jews in America, they’ll think the treatment they received in Germany was nothing”) and associated himself with a violent anticommunist group. The Vatican ordered him silent and radio stations refused to carry his shows.
But before he self-destructed, Coughlin had some things to say that would sound very familiar to viewers of the 5 P.M. hour on Fox News.
Beck on the Fed: “The Federal Reserve is made up of a bunch of unelected bankers. They determine the country’s monetary policy and hold the future of this country right in their hands. Now, people across the country are crawling for transparency in the Fed. A lot of people are saying, ‘Why don’t we abolish the Fed?’ ”
Coughlin on the Fed: “If we are lovers of the principle of America for the Americans, we will drive out the international bankers from their stronghold of Federal bank ownership … The Federal Reserve banking system was the conveyor of destruction. Instead of rescuing finance from the hands of politicians, it betrayed it into the bondage of financial overlords.”
Beck on Woodrow Wilson: “Woodrow Wilson ran for re-election and he just barely won. And he said we’re never going to go to war in Europe. Lo and behold, just a few months later, World War I!”
Coughlin on Woodrow Wilson: “Although elected to his high office on the promise of keeping us out of the war, he now submitted to the fallacy that it was more sacred to protect the capitalistic dollar than to preserve the life of a mother’s son!”
Beck on revolution: “My question tonight is: When do we ever run those who are bankrupting our country and literally stealing our children’s future out of town? Grab a torch.”
Coughlin on revolution: “I would ask the industrialists whether or not they and their children could logically anticipate a time in the not distant future when they will become targets for the wrath of a despoiled people.”
Beck on communists in the White House: The president “may be a full-fledged Marxist. He has surrounded himself by Marxists his whole life … His friends, his nominees and everything, they’re all Marxist.”
Coughlin on communists in the White House: The president “shares the responsibility of having endorsed a most radical leaning towards international socialism or Sovietism.”
Beck on being above partisan politics: “Stop looking at it through the partisan lens. Both parties are screwing you. Ignore the R or D next to their name.”
Coughlin on being above partisan politics: “The Democratic and Republican parties … are one, the left wing and the other right wing of the same bird of prey.”
Coughlin tended toward the dramatic oratory of his day; Beck speaks in the casual and conversational style of his. But they both were brilliant and captivating performers. “Coughlin,” writes Alan Brinkley in his book about Coughlin and Huey Long, Voices of Protest, “used a wide variety of rhetorical techniques: maudlin sentimentality, anger and invective, sober reasonableness, religious or patriotic fervor … in this unpred
ictability lay much of Coughlin’s appeal.”
Beck, likewise, is alternately funny and apocalyptic, reasonable and incendiary. Even his public weeping has a Coughlin-like precedent. With tears on his cheeks, Coughlin told a crowd in 1936: “President Roosevelt can be a dictator if he wants to.”
Beck has inherited the “dictator” meme from his radio predecessor; in one radio segment, he accused President Obama of following in the path of “many brutal dictators.”
In fairness, Beck is probably not imitating Coughlin. He’s drawing from the same strain in American politics that can be traced back to the beginning of the republic. There has always been a tension between urban elites and the rural masses, and the latter group has long had an innate fear of collusion between the government and the wealthy. This was what Richard Hofstadter described in his classic 1960s study “The Paranoid Style in American Politics.”
American political life, he wrote, “has served again and again as an arena for uncommonly angry minds … Behind such movements there is a style of mind, not always right-wing in its affiliations, that has a long and varied history. I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the qualities of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind.”
Hofstadter saw this style in the anti-Masonic movement of the 1820s, the Populist Party of the 1890s, and the McCarthy era of the 1950s. “In the 1930s, the chief vehicle of right-wing discontent was Father Coughlin’s Social Justice movement, a depression phenomenon drawing the bulk of its support from those who suffered most from bad times—the working class and the unemployed, farmers and some of the lower middle class,” he wrote. “It played on old Populist themes, attacked international bankers, demanded free silver and other changes in the money and credit system, and resorted to an anti-Semitic rhetoric far more virulent than anything the Populists would have dreamed of.”
Times change, but the demagogue’s tools are forever.