Democrat Party's Best Friend

 

Fox TV personality Glenn Beck is busy providing "The fusion of entertainment and enlightenment" on his program, and I think it's the best thing that ever happened to the Democrat [sic] Party.

He's convinced that there's an insidious plot to undermine the American Way of Life, involving a loose affiliation of liberal loons, atheists, and former terrorists. This cabal wants to take over the country and force everyone to believe their lies about Obama's nationality, global climate change, and the need to "fix" our world-leading healthcare system. The silent majority of Americans -- led by his viewers -- need to go to town hall meetings and call talkradio shows to defend the Republic against these crypto-Marxist revolutionaries.

Only he's not talking to anything like a majority, but rather to a small group of right-wing loons, evangelicals, and would-be terrorists; the vast majority of Americans are truly somewhere in The Middle, and have been mostly silent lately (well, since they voted in November for the very government that Beck rails against). Not only all political democrats, but any believer in the sanctity of the public square should encourage Beck to speak to them as openly and often as possible.

Here's my logic:

• He clarifies vague fears. A lot of people fear change, and are legitimately suspicious of powerful people who presume to do things for those of us who aren't. This has been evident most recently on the subject of healthcare reform, as many of the objections arise from deep-seated emotions that have little to do with the specifics of the debate. As anyone who has ever negotiated something knows, it’s impossible to reach a conclusion unless you know (and have shared) just those specifics; you can't debate with amorphous, lingering, even passionately real points that haven't been voiced. However unhelpful the shouting might be, Beck's encouragement that his people (and those of Fox Nation) stand up and declare what they're thinking helps clarify just those points. It's good that someone feels able to stand up at a meeting and state that she's convinced that President Obama is following a Nazi playbook for mass extermination. Better that than have a dozen folks mull over some vague, imprecise fear that sort of touches on some of the same points?
• Doing so distances these positions from debate. Once revealed, you can decide what concerns can and cannot be addressed in a debate; in other words, it sets limits, or boundaries, so you can define and conduct conversations with some reasonable expectation of resolving them. Beck's viewers can simmer and shout about their belief that the government wants to run the automotive industry, for instance, or that it hires communists to do communist things, but there's not much anyone can offer to negotiate, calm, or otherwise resolve those opinions. By daring his viewers to speak up, he encourages them to self-select themselves out of conversation, not into it. This is beneficial both to those individuals, who can now spend their time wandering in an echo-chamber filled with others who choose to believe the same things, and to the majority of folks who are interested and willing to actually debate their differences on achieving commonly-shared goals. 
• It creates reference points for both political parties. Fast-forward to the mid-term elections of 2010, and consider how politicians will address the fact that a small, frightened, and angry group of people have spent the past two years being told that their worst, darkest fears are absolutely justified? Do Republicans somehow channel that fact to support their case for governance and, if so, how do they govern thereupon? Can Democratic candidates tag the anger as a rationale for their own supporters (i.e. "you want screaming, vote for my opponent, but if you want thoughtful and honest conversation, I'm your candidate")? My gut tells me that the more successful Beck can be at getting his viewership to speak up, the better it'll be for Democrats. He creates a poster child for irrational intolerance, thereby allowing the real silent majority to self-identify as neither Democrat or Republican, but rather simply as sane...and then to vote accordingly.  It'll be harder for Republicans to distance themselves from all of the nonsense (presuming they even try), so I say advantage to the Democrats.

The Bulb Asks:

• Can you reason with every constituent group, or do you have to draw the line (and, if so, how)?
• Does extremism help your business identify and nurture more middle-of-the-road, or perhaps more widely-shared opinions?
• How accountable will your brand be to conversations or ideas in which you participate?  

Comments

[Jonathan]

Really good point, Scott. I had hoped to get at that inscrutable nature of extremism, whether commercial or political.

[Scott]

Jon, clearly Beck is a great example of a cult brand. And like many cult brands, their followers tend to leave their brains at the door. Will wearing Nikes really make you a great athlete? No. Will using a Mac really make you artistic and cool? No. Will nodding your neck in agreement with Glenn Beck really make you an insightful political thinker? No. When it comes to cult brands, people don't want the truth, they want beautiful lies. And no brand lies better than Beck's.

[Jonathan]

I encourage you to unsubscribe. :)

[Jonathan]

MJM, you support my POV, though probably not on purpose. Beck represents nobody but himself, and speaks for no constituency. If you actually believe that he is saying anything relevant, or that he deserves anything more than a polite "yeah, thanks," then you've self-selected yourself out of the debate, just as I suggested in my piece. Let people who can actually converse with one another talk about fixing healthcare while Beck and whomever follows him rail about the President of the United States being a 1) racist, 2) socialist, or 3) an illegal alien.

I totally defend his right to speak. But thoughtful people don't have to listen.