Glenn Beck: Social justice? Not on my watch!

Glenn Beck’s latest cause is social justice.  Not that you should support it, but that it (like progressivism, black people, and the federal government) is actually the root of all evil:

I beg you, look for the words ‘social justice’ or ‘economic justice’ on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words.

What are they code words for, Professor Beck?  Please, enlighten us.

Communists are on the left, and the Nazis are on the right. That’s what people say. But they both subscribe to one philosophy, and they flew one banner. . . . But on each banner, read the words, here in America: ‘social justice.’ They talked about economic justice, rights of the workers, redistribution of wealth, and surprisingly, democracy.

Right.  Clearly, the heinous policies we associate with the Nazis were the result of their social justice programs.  Therefore, social justice leads to gas chambers.  QED.

I continue to be disgusted by the utter contempt that the far right in this country has for any implication of common humanity or purpose.  Remember this?

U.S. Rep. Lynn Jenkins stood just a few feet away as a young mother expressed frustration at not being able to afford a doctor for her son, but Jenkins was not swayed from her opposition to a new government-run insurance plan.

<…>

One person in disagreement was Elizabeth Smith, a 27-year-old Ottawa waitress who wanted to know what was wrong with a government-run plan for Americans who are currently uninsured. Smith’s 2 1/2-year-old son, Jonah, sat on a nearby table, swinging his legs, as his mother questioned Jenkins.

<…>

When asked directly why she was against a government-run program, Jenkins laughed and said, “A government-run program is going to subsidize not only yours but everybody in this room. So I’m not sure what we’re talking about here.”

“In a functioning civil society, people take care of each other”, said that young mother to a reporter.  That was too much for Rep. Lynn Jenkins, and it appears to be too much for Glenn Beck.

Why anyone gives these people any sort of moral authority, I can’t fathom.

38 Responses to “Glenn Beck: Social justice? Not on my watch!”

  1. [...] I am just a posting-on-other-sites-but-not-my-own MACHINE today!  Here’s my Jewschool post on Glenn Beck’s equation of social justice with Nazism. Tags: Glenn Beck, Social Justice | Tuesday, March 9th 2010, 2:55 PM | Jewschool, [...]


    Another post on a place that isn’t here! | harpojaeger.com · March 9th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
  2. Come on, rb. The term “social justice” as used today is usually a euphemism for leftist politics.

    >>“I continue to be disgusted by the utter contempt that the far right in this country has for any implication of common humanity or purpose.”

    Well it looks like somewhere between 47% and 70% of Americans have “utter contempt for any implication of common humanity or purpose.”


    Eric · March 9th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
  3. Hitler was a mystical non-smoking pro-natural remedy vegetarian vagabond artist with a huge temper.

    Sounds like more than a few social justice activists to me.


    Dave · March 9th, 2010 at 8:14 pm
  4. Has anyone ever seen Glenn Beck and Jack Wertheimer at the same time? Just saying…


    BZ · March 9th, 2010 at 8:41 pm
  5. @ eric-
    they are completely distinct. i know republicans who engage in social justice every day. social justice is something which left leaning political perspectives may view as virtuous, and not to mention i know hundreds of leftists who have never engaged in social justice in their lives. this is nothing more than a rhetoric propaganda game which fox news has perfected to an artform.


    Justin · March 9th, 2010 at 9:11 pm
  6. There is nothing wrong with community Mr. renaissanceboy. If you want to pay for someone’s health care bills go for it. Thats great. Donate to someone in need. Just don’t force me to pay for it.


    Dave · March 9th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
  7. So, I can’t stand any of these TV political guys, of any ideological stripe, and I think that anyone striving for intellectual and moral integrity should boycott ALL of them. But having said that, Glenn Beck is a conservative, right? Given that, it’s not surprising, or horrifying, to me that he would be against “social justice,” and that’s not because he hates people, or whatever. It’s because the phrase “social justice” has taken on particular connotations, and does, as Eric said, generally refer to political positions taken by the left. That’s why people would say that someone agitating for workers’ rights is engaging in social justice, whereas someone agitating for fetal rights (i.e. against legal abortion) isn’t. Or why a person protesting funding cuts to public schools is a social justice advocate, while a person advocating private-school vouchers isn’t.

    This isn’t to criticize leftist political positions or “social justice,” but it is to point out what I think is a pretty evident linguistic/sociological reality at this point. “Engaging in social justice” is a term which refers only to certain points of view, and not others, and the things that it generally refers to are things that Glenn Beck opposes. Justin, your thing about Republicans and liberals misses the point entirely. Regardless of what certain people do or don’t do, I’m willing to bet that nearly all of them share an agreement about what “social justice” means. So maybe from now on, we should just put the phrase in quotes.


    miri · March 9th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
  8. Thank you, Miri!


    Jonathan1 · March 9th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
  9. Because the Nazis were concerned about the downtrodden and the minorities. Right.

    ‘Well it looks like somewhere between 47% and 70% of Americans have “utter contempt for any implication of common humanity or purpose.”’

    In other words, between a minority and a majority opposes some amorphous image of “Obamacare” (BOOGITYBOOGITYBOO!!!), but when told of the ACTUAL details of said bill, that turns to 70% SUPPORT! Don’t you love manipulating statistics to fit a constructed political point?


    B.BarNavi · March 10th, 2010 at 1:09 am
  10. Giving the the federal government that much control is unconstitutional. If individual states… like Massachusetts… wish to have a failure socialist healthcare system thats fine.


    Dave · March 10th, 2010 at 8:03 am
  11. [...] response to Glenn BeckTh Glenn Beck set out on a heretical publicity troll. Last Tuesday he said “the words ’social justice’ or ‘economic justice’ on your church Web [...]


    Faith’s response to Glenn BeckTh « BaptistPlanet · March 10th, 2010 at 9:47 am
  12. >>”but when told of the ACTUAL details of said bill, that turns to 70% SUPPORT!”

    Sorry BBN, that’s just not true. When attention turns to the details support drops even lower than for the general concept of “the plan” itself.

    Who would have guessed that so many Americans have “utter contempt for any implication of common humanity or purpose”?


    Eric · March 10th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
  13. Dave writes: If individual states… like Massachusetts… wish to have a failure socialist healthcare system thats fine.
    As a proud Masshole, I can say that our system is neither socialst nor a failure. It ain’t perfect, but it’s a whole lot better than the situation in, say, Texas (www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113042669).
    The health care bill we’ll be passing this month is almost identical to the MA plan. There’s nothing socialist about it, furthermore, there’s ample precedent that health care can be federally regulated.
    The reform we’re working with now actually entrenches the role of private insurers far deeper than do the systems of many other developed countries. With that deepened role, and an expanding group of people who must be covered, comes the need for more comprehensive regulations.
    But to get back to the larger point: Eric writes,
    Well it looks like somewhere between 47% and 70% of Americans have “utter contempt for any implication of common humanity or purpose.
    Okay. What’s your point? That the large amount of Americans “opposed” (although as BBN explained they’re not really) to Obama’s HCR plan prove that it’s a bad plan. I’d say it proves that a large amount of Americans watch FOX News.
    Eric, from the article you cite:
    “As a result, 66% of voters believe passage of the president’s plan will lead to higher deficits and 78% say it’s at least somewhat likely to mean higher middle-class taxes.”
    That alone should prove that the population has no idea what they’re talking about. CBO estimates that we’ll reduce the deficit by 100 billion over the next 10 years, and there will be no middle-class tax increases to pay for this bill.

    Glenn Beck is both a symptom of and a prolonging factor in the contempt our society has for welfare and other social programs, a contempt peculiar to this country. It’s an unsustainable system, and is inherently contradictory. Conservatives like Beck expect the government to enforce their concepts of wrong and right in social terms (think marriage equality, abortion), but treat other parts of public life as sacrosanct (like taxes or poor people, both of which they want left alone).


    renaissanceboy · March 10th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
  14. Eric writes:
    Sorry BBN, that’s just not true. When attention turns to the details support drops even lower than for the general concept of “the plan” itself.

    The article you link to doesn’t actually confirm that (perhaps you included the wrong link?); all of the polls cited in that article are about “the plan” in general, not specific provisions.

    The polls show that individual components of the bill are very popular, and opposition to the bill as a whole can be demonstrably attributed to ignorance and a deliberate campaign of misinformation.


    BZ · March 10th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
  15. Dave writes:
    Giving the the federal government that much control is unconstitutional.

    Would you say that Medicare is unconstitutional too? Or does the Constitution only apply to people under 65?

    If individual states… like Massachusetts… wish to have a failure socialist healthcare system thats fine.

    Insofar as “socialist” still means anything substantive (and isn’t just a synonym for “icky”), the Massachusetts system, signed by Mitt Romney, is anything but socialist — health insurance is provided almost entirely through private insurers.

    Attention Democrats: No matter how “centrist” and Republican-friendly you attempt to make your health care proposals, people like Dave are still going to brand it as “socialist”. The only way to win this game is not to play. Instead of trying to appease people who have stated clearly that nothing will appease them, how about trying to achieve the best possible policy instead (and, in time, the “Keep your government hands off my Medicare” crowd will be saying “Keep your government hands off my public option”).


    BZ · March 10th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
  16. Tzedek, Tzedek Tirdof!


    bycenator · March 10th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
  17. Attention Democrats: No matter how “centrist” and Republican-friendly you attempt to make your health care proposals, people like Dave are still going to brand it as “socialist

    Why can’t anybody just admit that socialism–certainly in theory and often in practice–is a better system than capitalism?

    When did socialism become such a dirty word?


    Jonathan1 · March 10th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
  18. Conservatives like Beck expect the government to enforce their concepts of wrong and right in social terms (think marriage equality, abortion), but treat other parts of public life as sacrosanct (like taxes or poor people, both of which they want left alone).

    The problem is somebody like Beck doesn’t really talk about economoic or social conservatism. He’s just a jackass trying to gain ratings. The same is true for somebody like Keith Oberman and true liberalism. An example of a true political conservative is George Will.

    Are “Right” and “Left” not better terms than “Conservative” and “Liberal” in these matters? For instance, people like Justices Stevens and Ginsburg are often referred to as not “conservative,” when in fact they are nothing but conservative in their manner and actions . . . while Justices Thomas and Scalia are referred to as not “liberal” when their entire adult careers have been spent approaching legal issues with open minds . . . Sorry, just a pet peeve.


    Jonathan1 · March 10th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
  19. >>”Why can’t anybody just admit that socialism–certainly in theory and often in practice–is a better system than capitalism?

    When did socialism become such a dirty word?”

    About the time it started being put into practice.


    Eric · March 10th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
  20. Eric writes:
    About the time it started being put into practice.

    And when Obama took it to its radical extremes with his socialist small-business tax cuts.


    BZ · March 10th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
  21. >>“And when Obama took it to its radical extremes with his socialist small-business tax cuts.”

    There was quite a gap between the mid-19th century and 2010! Maybe I should have said about the time the data started coming in from the first trials.

    >>“As a proud Masshole, I can say that our system is neither socialst nor a failure. It ain’t perfect, but it’s a whole lot better than the situation in, say, Texas. The health care bill we’ll be passing this month is almost identical to the MA plan.”

    Sure the Massachusetts medical model works great (unless you, er, need a doctor’s appointment…)…


    Eric · March 10th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
  22. About the time it started being put into practice

    I don’t know if the current system is working so well, Eric. Walk around Washington, DC on any afternoon and count how many middle-aged men ask you for a dollar–in the capitol of the Western world. Maybe we need less $700,000 houses and more income re-distribution?

    ((I know, I know, there are actually some generational leaders out there whose fiances might never make $100,000 as day school teachers, but such brave souls should receive income assistance from Jewish federations, and not the government))


    Jonathan1 · March 10th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
  23. “[I]t is evident that a consistent application of the Torah’s socio-economic norms is incompatible with the tenets of capitalism. The Torah’s statutory insistence [on the command] ‘thou shall do that which is right and good’ harbors such severe limitations upon private property as to render it virtually untenable and unprofitable.” -Rabbi Abraham Issac Kook.
    www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/40247


    r · March 10th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
  24. Without insurance, the wait for a doctor’s appointment is infinite!


    BZ · March 10th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
  25. Eric, look at the first paragraph of the article you linked to:
    Despite Boston’s abundance of top-notch medical specialists, the waits to see dermatologists, obstetrician-gynecologists, and orthopedic surgeons for routine care have grown longer – to as much as a year for the busiest doctors.
    Those aren’t primary care doctors. They’re specialists. Most people don’t need specialists, they need preventive care. And as the second article you linked to makes abundantly clear, there’s a shortage of those, because specialists pay so much better. Neither of those articles displays a problem inherent to the MA system. Less people with insurance means less wait time. It also means less people with insurance.
    The primary care vs. specialist issue is an underlying monetary incentive that exists nation-wide. It too is not native to the MA system. I happen to be dissatisfied with the Senate bill in that it doesn’t address this issue, but it’s going to have to wait until everyone actually has insurance.


    renaissanceboy · March 11th, 2010 at 1:17 am
  26. >>“Without insurance, the wait for a doctor’s appointment is infinite!”

    Actually the wait for a doctor’s appointment for anyone who needs it is the time it takes to go to a hospital.

    >>“Those aren’t primary care doctors. They’re specialists. Most people don’t need specialists, they need preventive care. And as the second article you linked to makes abundantly clear, there’s a shortage of those”

    Don’t worry; happily Boston also has the longest wait times in the nation for primary care doctors too; in fact, by far. The only metro area that even gets close to Boston’s GP wait times is LA.

    In any event, I hadn’t known that “most people” don’t need ob-gyn care. Although, considering that about 52% of the population is female….

    But hey — who’s got the time to worry about trifles like medical waiting times when we’re busy creating social “justice”?


    Eric · March 12th, 2010 at 2:17 am
  27. “Why can’t anybody just admit that socialism–certainly in theory and often in practice–is a better system than capitalism?”

    THANK YOU!!!!

    Socialism became a “dirty word” when conservatives decided it was politically feasible to tie American leftists to the Red Menace.

    I like it how some people play up the “long waiting periods” as nightmarish, when those uninsured and absolutely DYING to afford medical care could only WISH for a long waiting period. Fact is, throughout the industrialized world, universal health care has only worked for the benefit of each country. Even conservatives in those countries (who are generally for privatizing industry) support their health care systems! Only in this country, with its unique tradition of pharmaceutical and insurance conglomerates, does a fairly practical method seem impossible and anathema.


    B.BarNavi · March 12th, 2010 at 3:31 am
  28. “Giving the the federal government that much control is unconstitutional.”

    No It’s Not. Show me the statutes saying otherwise, including SCOTUS interpretations.

    “Just don’t force me to pay for it.”

    Don’t force me to pay for your roads, policemen, and fire departments either. Welcome to civil society, CITIZEN.


    B.BarNavi · March 12th, 2010 at 3:36 am
  29. “Hitler was a mystical non-smoking pro-natural remedy vegetarian vagabond artist with a huge temper.

    Sounds like more than a few social justice activists to me.”

    In sarcasm and logical reasoning, this is a Double Fail.


    B.BarNavi · March 12th, 2010 at 3:38 am
  30. Fact is, throughout the industrialized world, universal health care has only worked for the benefit of each country

    The reason is because Europe was more or less pummeled after WWII, and that gave its leaders the chance to shape more effective, 20th-century-style economies during the rebuilindg process. The U.S. never endured such a cataclysmic event during the past century.

    (On a side note, that’s part of the reason why the Iraq invasion was such a mistake. Those who supported that war–because of a sincere belief that the West would be able to implement some kind of Marshall Plan in Iraq afterward–failed to take into account Germany’s unique condition of absolute devastation following WWII. Hence, the analogy between those 2 post-war societies was never an accurate one.)


    Jonathan1 · March 12th, 2010 at 10:37 am
  31. >“The reason is because Europe was more or less pummeled after WWII, and that gave its leaders the chance to shape more effective, 20th-century-style economies during the rebuilindg process. The U.S. never endured such a cataclysmic event during the past century.”

    Not exactly. The idea of the cradle-to-grave caretaker state was started by Chancellor Bismarck in late 1800s Germany. It essentially let national governments take over the role that formerly belonged to the Catholic church (which certainly matches up with Bismarck’s anti-Catholicism).

    For western Europe, the secular caretaker state concept only existed during the late 20th Century because the costs of national defense were borne by outsiders — the US. And even that system is falling apart because the costs of health care alone (forget about the rest of the goodies) just aren’t sustainable.


    Eric · March 12th, 2010 at 11:39 am
  32. @Eric. I don’t think we are necessarily disagreeing about the history, only about what’s the best past forward.


    Jonathan1 · March 12th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
  33. “path”


    Jonathan1 · March 12th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
  34. Eric-
    Israel has universal health care. Why do you hate Israel?

    (And don’t say you can still be pro-Israel but oppose some Israeli government policies; that’s radical leftist talk.)


    BZ · March 12th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
  35. >>“Israel has universal health care. Why do you hate Israel?”

    O-K….. That’s by far the most bizarre contribution to this discussion.


    Eric · March 12th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
  36. Eric, as I said, the issue with wait times for primary care doctors is unrelated to way health care is paid for. It’s an issue of how many people graduating medical school go on to become primary care providers. Blaming it on the peculiarities of state systems is ridiculous.


    renaissanceboy · March 12th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
  37. [...] may recall last month when professional Fox News shit-shoveller pundit-face douchebag Glenn Beck announced that… and that if your church says anything about social justice, you should run for the [...]


    Haiku Glenn Beck! | Jewschool · April 4th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
  38. [...] actually that terrible of a governor.  Yes, our health care wait times have gone up, but, as BZ so aptly pointed out on a Jewschool comment thread, “Without insurance, the wait for a doctor’s appointment is infinite!”  If the cost [...]


    Conservative inconsistency | harpojaeger.com · April 30th, 2010 at 6:33 pm

Leave a Reply

If your comment does not immediately appear, do not freak out and repost your message a dozen times. Please note that all new visitors must have their first comment approved by the editor, and you must provide a legitimate e-mail address and use the same username for the system to "remember" you. The editor maintains the right to refuse comments deemed inappropriate or unhelpful. Users who repeatedly delve into ad hominem attacks or other troll-like behavior will be banned.

Trackback (Right-click & 'Copy Link...') | Comments RSS

"I may attack a certain point of view which I consider false, but I will never attack a person who preaches it. I have always a high regard for the individual who is honest and moral, even when I am not in agreement with him. Such a relation is in accord with the concept of kavod habriyot, for beloved is man for he is created in the image of God." —Rav Joseph Soloveitchik