When Pundits Attack: The Beck-Brooks Fight

Perhaps we still do not understand the current Obama backlash.

David Brooks caused a small stir on Friday by arguing that conservative radio hosts are, paradoxically, a lot like well-behaved children. They are seen - splashed across magazine covers and endlessly profiled - but not heard, politically, since they do not swing elections.

"The talk jocks can't even deliver the conservative voters who show up at Republican primaries," Brooks observed, reminiscing about how McCain's media detractors could not stop him in South Carolina last year.

After the summer of townhalls and what's shaping up as the autumn of Glenn Beck, however, it is hard to see things through Brooks' bifocals. Besides, as the top conservative at the Times and an alumnus of Rupert Murdoch's Weekly Standard, Brooks is peering out from within the conservative media ecosystem. He is, unavoidably, in direct competition for opinion leadership with the "talk jocks" he knocks. Which makes it especially odd for him to apply an electioneering metric to opinion media.

Even the proudest pundits would shrink from the notion that they swing elections. (Rush Limbaugh is probably the only exception.) Most members of the activist conservative media machine do not define their success by electoral results. And that is one reason they look so successful right now.

It is no accident that the two biggest forces countering the new President do not practice electoral politics. The opposition party may whither, but there is still the movement and the man. Both have the Obama administration's attention.

"We have something new in our political life," Michael Tomasky recounts in an excellent essay in the latest New York Review of Books, a "right-wing street-protest movement." The people who commandeered those August town halls and, feeling the thrill of direct action, gathered to create their own Washington rally in September - they are against something. Obama. Taxes. Government. Socialism. Treason. Nazism. Scan those signs they carried around the National Mall, and you see a bizzaro album of the people they detest and the threats, both real and imagined, that they fear.

There were few signs for alternative policies, let alone the alternative political party. The same is true, naturally, for their leader.

Glenn Beck has a long list of concerns about the country's direction. Yet since Obama's election, his most successful efforts have focused on attacking members of the administration and (putative) allies. He is trying to stop Obama, not jump-start the mid-terms.

Congressional Republicans have not exactly distinguished themselves for an enlightened posture towards the new President, but to be fair, even they do not share all of Beck's obsessions.

By his own count, Beck began assailing Van Jones on July 23 and continued for weeks, up
until the September 6 resignation. Fox aired hundreds of segments on Jones. Congressional Republicans, however, were less interested. In the past 9 months, Jones' name has only surfaced on the floor of Congress in eight instances (according to the Congressional Record). Brooks argues, however, that "Republican politicians" follow Beck at every turn:

Everyone is again convinced that Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and the rest possess real power. And the saddest thing is that even Republican politicians come to believe it... They pay more attention to Rush's imaginary millions than to the real voters down the street. The Republican Party is unpopular because it's more interested in pleasing Rush's ghosts than actual people. The party is leaderless right now because nobody has the guts to step outside the rigid parameters enforced by the radio jocks and create a new party identity. The party is losing because it has adopted a radio entertainer's niche-building strategy, while abandoning the politician's coalition-building strategy.

It's true, there is definitely a cost to governing like an entertainer, as I argued when Republicans took heat for media attacks on Sotomayor:

The incentives for niche political programming... run counter to the needs of a political party trying to crawl from 40 Senate seats to a winning national coalition.

At bottom, however, Brooks misses what's really happening beyond the cost to the GOP. The Obama backlash is about now, not future elections. It is about attacking, distracting and delegitimizing the President to thwart his agenda. It is about ratcheting up the national "discourse," such as it is, and turning the banal to controversial. It is about framing and distorting the debate -- all to impact how both parties govern in real time. Shaping public policy when you're out of power is really quite an achievement. Sometimes, just being seen is enough.

--

Ari Melber writes for The Nation, where this column first appeared.

 

 

Follow Ari Melber on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AriMelber

Comments

[January]

Americans have always loved circuses, beauty contests, and fights. So when a Beck comes along and mixes all of those, he will draw the suckers. Yes, I prefer Van Jones, ACORN, and whatever else has taken a hit from Beck. But, com'on. You are talking street fight. People get hurt in a street fight, but we don't change our form of government over it.

And what is this conservatives in the street with signs is "something new"? Have you never stood around when the KKK or the anti-abortionists or the pro-war conservatives have waved their nooses? What do you think "wing-nuts" means?

[NewsCorpse]

First of all, Brooks is not the only conservative to step back from Beck. Recently David Frum did so, and Sen. Lindsey Graham. Even Joe Scarborough and Limbaugh have distanced themselves from Beck.

Secondly, the fact that Van Jones did not become an issue on the House floor doesn't diminish the impact of Beck on conservative politicians. What about ACORN? Beck's promotion of that certainly took hold in Congress.

Finally, the goal of both Fox News and the right-wingers definitely includes electoral defeat of Democrats. It is short sighted to conclude that they are only interested in defeating Obama's legislative agenda. Along with policy defeats for the President comes electoral advantages for the right. They cannot be separated. Sen. DeMint even confessed that health care would Obama's Waterloo. That is an admission that he wants to defeat health care to harm the President's reelection prospects.

[pithy]

A sobering analysis - not from me. A poster here quoted Voltaire " If you can convince them of absurdities, you can get them to carry out atrocities­..."

[DangerClose]

I think its time we take Glenn Beck seriously. The more he gets belittled, the larger his audience becomes. He now average 3 million viewers a night, more then CCN and MSNBC COMBINED. We keep calling him "crazy and a joke" but everything this guy has touched has yielded results (ACORN, NEA, Van Jones etc.). Agree with him or not the guy is having an impact.

[billhodges]

And there are about to be even more issues exposed and a few more kicked to the curb by Obama.

All Glenn does is expose the peoples own words and beliefs. He asks questions and often the answers are not pretty.

He is passionate about his beliefs in the constitution and our founding fathers.

[aftershock]

"He is passionate about his beliefs in the constitution and our founding fathers."

And about black people being inferior to the white race. This guy is a Bircher through and through.

[pollyannish]

He is passionate in his ignorance masquerading as some sort of puerile defender of liberty. We have real problems in this country that will require some hard work, tough choices and intelligent empathetic thinking to fix. Glenn Beck purposely inflames passions to incite the mob against imaginary enemies. He might see himself as some modern day Patrick Henry i see him as a midget Robespierre fated to be hoisted on his own petard.

[Robin08]

I agree that we need to take Beck seriously, but not because Beck himself is a "serious" person, more so because he is a dangerous person (i.e., he has a national platform from which he is spreading outlandish lies).

We need to take Beck seriously in the same way we'd need to take a child wielding a machete seriously -- because of the serious danger they pose and the serious harm they could do if adult supervision does not step in and take control of the situation.

[BamBam2012]

Rather than the comparison of Beck to an out-of-control machete wielding child, I tend to see him more as a demonesque pied-piper--one who is bent on brainwashing his feeble-minded worshippers into creating mob-rule unrest, and committing any number of violent crimes.

I believe him to be a very dangerous man. He strikes me as someone who is harboring Saviour-like delusions and is therefore completely unfetter'd by any sense of societal responsibility. It is also my opinion that he's creating an army of Stepfordian drones that will be unleashed upon the apathetic masses to horrifying results...­this is his calling, afterall. A man on a mission.

[TommyMcCarthy]

Perhaps this is too simple.... (I get that alot).....­.but,

When "...even Republican politicians come to believe" ...that Lim/Beck et. al have power....

Then they DO

BTW......R­epublican Politicians?

Ask Chuck Grassley (D-Iowa)..­....if they do.

tm

[countfloyd]

The problem is that the small percentage of people the "talk jocks" reach include some serious nut jobs that are capable of almost anything including the murder of a doctor perfoming legal abortions.

[billhodges]

That is true but does not overcome the fact that Beck is reaching a wider audience than Kieth or Maddow. It is reflected in the numbers at the rallies and town halls across the country.

People are fed up and many that have never before spoken up are now doing so.

Beck does not represent the GOP and openly says that he is a constitutionalists not a Republican. So he does not wish to see the country continue to abandon the principles and freedoms we have.

[aftershock]

"People are fed up and many that have never before spoken up are now doing so."

Funny those people couldn't be bothered to "speak up" until shortly after Obama's election..­. but yeah, sure that has NOTHING to do with it ~rolls eyes~

"That is true but does not overcome the fact that Beck is reaching a wider audience than Kieth or Maddow."

This larger audience is still barely a percent of the American public, and little more than that of the voting public. He has no real power or political influence.

[pollyannish]

Beck does not represent the GOP and openly says that he is a constitutionalists not a Republican. So he does not wish to see the country continue to abandon the principles and freedoms we have

I thought Beck was a rodeo clown. I guess that just goes to show he can multi-task.

[ZenDiagram]

Beck and the town hall protestors are not "for the GOP." I'm still not sure most people understand this. If you oppose the out-of-control spending you have to oppose not only Obama's spending, but Bush's TARP program and the mindless Republicans in Congress who supported it. I think some folks from the GOP are beginning to realize that Beck is something different - a libertarian, principled against both the big government "conservatives" as well as Obama and the liberal machine. Even Lindsey Graham is waking up to the fact that the millions who support the teabagger movement aren't exactly in favor of him.

[aftershock]

"think some folks from the GOP are beginning to realize that Beck is something different - a libertarian, principled against both the big government "conservatives" as well as Obama and the liberal machine."

LMAO!!! Beck, like Limbaugh, Hannity, etc., is principled to one thing and one thing only... the almighty dollar. Whatever gets him more money, he'll do it.

"Beck and the town hall protestors are not "for the GOP."

Than why are GOP officials speaking at them frequently?

[billhodges]

You obviously have not bothered to form your opinion based on having watched the show, which is disappointing because you then are accepting others word as to what Beck is or is not. That makes you a sheeple of the left, as the left so often calls the right.

[pollyannish]

Beck is not a libertarian. He comes out of the Know-Nothing school of populist outrage.

[zest]

Brooks is "old" media; Beck is "new" media. You do the math.

[Arturo Hassan]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Obama calls it "Spreading the wealth."

Obama - with all his "intellectualism" could not escape the impact of the world - as he learned during his failed presentation in Copenhagen - a lesson of humility and prudence by the eloquence on ecumenism from president Lula of Brazil ... A wise man of little formal education, whose Character and Poise - outshined the impulse of Obama's Egocentricity as "The Anointed One" on the global scene.....

[ladyfractal]

Arturo:

Would you mind commenting on how and why the Spanish and Japanese heads of state were humiliated in Copenhagen? Since only one country was going to get the Olympics and by your calculus the other three heads of state were going to be humiliated because of that, could you please explain those? Or is it ONLY American heads of state that can be humiliated by not getting the Olympics and only then when the head of state is a Democrat? Thanks in advance for your insights.

Cheers
lf

[Bocababs]

Talking Points are power. The reason they are powerful is it condenses everything you hate into a Bumper Sticker. The Democrats tend to get all "wonky" and this is why the healthcare battle for a country who half do not know the name of their own Senator...­.let alone how legislation works in D.C. is hard to get across the message. I have written the W.H. about abbreviating Healthcare into soundbites and I believe they are starting to....poss­ibly because thousands of us wrote to do it this way.

[WilliamBradford]

One of the most deceitful tactics of the Liberalcrats right now is to characterize anything they find unpleasant as "hate". This is an effective, lazy way to dismiss the opposition and fire up the supporters in four easy letters.

Other than a few outliers, there is very little hate involved in the message of the the opposition. There is concern and frustration, maybe even fear and anger, but this is not hate.

And in all of the criticism of Glenn Beck, it is very difficult to find a valid claim that he says things that are not true. All of his personal strangeness aside, he is effective and popular because he is asking the questions that should be asked.

[billhodges]

Very Well Said, Thank You.

[pollyannish]

Very clever post. Bad arguements but clever nevertheless

[TakeSake]

For 20 years Brooks has carried lead pails of water up the stairs for the Republicans. Then he turns the corner and there's Beck riding up the elevator.

[koyak23]

Only the 30%ers value what Beck ,Hannity, Limbaugh,and Bill-O have to say .

The moderate pubs and indys are disgusted with the birthers,the 10thers, the gun toters,and Carribou Barbie.

Dems will actually gain seats in 2010 if they vote in health care reform and avoid a quagmire in Afghanistan.

[force fed up]

I prefer the term, Gunhuggers, Myself.

[billhodges]

Thomas Sowell understands this transformation well. "As a young political leftist, I saw the left as the voice of the common man. Nothing could be further from the truth," he wrote in his book aptly titled Is Reality Optional? He continued,

"Running left-wing movements has always been the prerogative of spoiled rich kids. This pattern goes all the way back to the days when an over-indulged and affluent young man named Karl Marx combined with another over-indulged youth from a wealthy family named Friedrich Engels to create the Communist ideology.

"The phoniness of the claim to be a movement of the working class was blatant from the beginning. Engels in his own words, 'a working man was proposed for appearances sake, but those who proposed him voted for me.' The anointed have always wanted to create their own kind of people, as well as their own kind of society."

Already influenced by the Communist poet, Frank Marshall Davis, Obama attended the elite Punahou School in Hawaii. He studied at prestigious universities such as Columbia and Harvard. His rise to power was funded by rich, liberal men and foundations. They sought his talents and used his rage to facilitate change.

As a "community organizer," Obama was supported by The Woods Fund, a wealthy left-wing foundation. So were Bill Ayers and two radical training organizations founded by Alinsky's disciples: "The Center for Community Change" and "The Midwest Academy."

[Asinistra]

As usual, critiques of the Rightwing Noise Machine miss its most salient feature--to move product. It's as much--if not more--a movement driven by marketing than ideology. Their followers are not so much sheep as cash cows...lot­s and lots of cash cows.

[buddy33]

Brooks isn't really a conservative. He's a libertarian with bad economic ideas.

[gbee]

Exactly, he's a conservative!

[blooddoc]

All the true libertarians I've known live much further down the Wackoid Peninsula. In recent months Brooks has moved close to the mainland, near the intersection of Grudging Respect and Seen The Light.

[WilliamBradford]

What products? I think I've seen advertising on MSNBC.

[Cambridge9]

There are complaints from both sides that all the Executive posts that require Senate approval have not yet been filled. What is seldom mentioned is the fact that the Rethugs are preventing, stalling and simply refusing to allow the names of these nominees to be presented on the floor. But because the 'shock-jocks' focus on what they term "Czars" (who are not voted on by the Senate) the administration is already short of staff.

Of course these 'shock-jocks' have influence in the political agenda. When Reps and Senators feel obliged to apologise to Limbaugh and when Beck has the power to organize all these 912 rallies - where 'name brand' Rethugs speak - then the influence is obvious.

[billhodges]

You sound very frustrated :-)

[AnnfromCA]

RL agreed with Brooks a few weeks ago. He scoffed at the notion that he altered voting. So his contradicting message over Brooks was a flip-flop.

The grassroots movement that started the tea parties really has nothing to do with talk radio or Fox or Beck. Beck is late to the party. Beck is, in fact, riding off of the coattails.

The movement remains grassroots and is reflecting anger over TARP and the stimulus plan, while massive spending bills are still be considered.

I can't figure out why anyone would suggest they can't "get it."

[vlm1948]

Had they left out the birthers, Nazi comments, witch doctor posters, joker pictures, and signs saying keep your ***government hands off my Medicare, they might have been taken seriously. We are all tired of TARPand Banks too big to fail.

[inthenitemare]

I'd also like to add that this was not and is not a grass roots movement. It was highly promoted and cheered on by FOX news (not what news organizations are suppose to do) and it was bankrolled by highly paid corp lobbiests who want to keep their bootheels on the throat of the middle class.
Also there is no common theme for this movement except for maybe hate.

[Eykis]

Ann, dense as always. Your so-called grassroots was PAID FOR BY DICK ARMEY.

Paid protesters and town hallers do not make anything grass roots.

[aftershock]

"The grassroots movement that started the tea parties really has nothing to do with talk radio or Fox or Beck."

What it started as is pointless, as it's no longer recognizable as the Libetarian movement it began as. It's now nothing more than a corporate sponsored Obama bashing fest, period. It does not remain "grassroots" PUMA, it's funded by Dick Armey and other lobbyists. And if this was over TARP, why weren't they out having "tea parties" after Bush signed TARP (interestingly, they waited until after Obama's election..­. but yeah, I'm sure it's about TARP and govt. spending ~rolls eyes~).