Pennsylvania Anarchoblogs

kathleen parker is right that there's twelve-step stuff behind beck, including a basic stance of kind of desperation for god's help. but there are also many ways and reasons that what beck is doing is bad 12-step practice, however excellent it may be in other directions, or not. one thing to say: twelve-step programs have no leaders, no one who owns the ideology. the principle of anonymity means that aa, e.g. has no spokespersons, and they constantly emphasize "principles, not personalities." i do think beck presents himself in many ways that are immediately incompatible with 12-step practice. 

parker by the end says that 12-step programs proselytize, or are "evangelical." i'd say this is a complete misunderstanding. the twelfth step inculcates "carrying the message to the alcoholic that still suffers." and helping others recover is presented as an essential dimension of one's own recovery. but this means one at a time, helping particular people who need and want help find help by sharing your story. it has absolutely nothing to do with ranting for hours on national television, or getting up on the steps of the lincoln memorial and gesticulating. at the heart of the program is a severe and serious cultivation of humility. i'm not sure that beck's declarations of his own humility are entirely sincere

glenn beck, let's say, is the opposite of bill w., who didn't even want to give his name, who never presented himself in public as a leader or spokesman: there are no leaders or spokesmen. i was perfectly serious when i said that it's likely that beck's twelve-step sponsor basically thinks that all he's doing is courting a relapse. well, we'll survive glenn beck's relapse, and twelve-step programs have a survived a thousand distortions/appropriations by a thousand egomaniacs, a thousand attempts to profit or to promote oneself.

Tradition Eleven—Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio and films.
Trad Twelve—Anonymity is the spiritual foundation of all our Traditions, ever reminding us to place principles before personalities

on individual/collective salvation i give you below a quote from kierkegaard's concluding unscientific postscript, if nothing else to show that glenn beck didn't invent this problem.

For example, what does it mean to be immortal? Socially the question cannot be answered at all, because socially it cannot even be formulated, since only the subject who wills to become subjective can grasp the question and rightly ask, Am I immortal? You know, people join up with each other in various matters. For example, several families can join together for a box at the theater, and three single gentlemen can join together for a riding horse, so that each one rides every third day. But I cannot become immortal taking turns with two other gentlemen. People who have dabbled in this and that, who have been every different thing, one day ask the pastor whether they will actually remain the same in eternity, after in this life they have not been able to stay the same for a fortnight. Immortality would admittedly be a peculiar metamorphosis if it could transform this human centipede into something with an eternal identity.

[you could find this in the hongs's translation on pp 175-176, vol. 1; i have messed about with it a bit, partly to reflect my preference for the lowrie/swenson translation, which i don't have at hand for some reason. also i've omitted some ellipses. the postscript is my usual answer to the question: what's your favorite book, asshole?] 

Beck made the remarks in answer to a question about his previous accusation that Obama was a "racist" who has "a deep-seated hatred for white people." He contended that that statement "was not accurate" and that he had "miscast" Obama's religious beliefs as racism.

now this is a remarkable critique that engages the whole history of individualism and collectivism, reaching to the heart of many political debates over the last 250 years. i imagine that proponents of collective salvation within christianity have a whole theological framework; i bet the debate is incredibly rich and complicated. but you know beck has actually been trying to do the history too, and he appeals to a certain vision of protestantism, one that among others we ought to associate with kierkegaard and emerson, figures to whose philosophy, putting it mildly, i am attracted.

but really we have quite a rich, fundamental, historically-oriented critique of obama's politics by way of his spirituality. just dismissing it as wacky birther paranoia is...not an adequate or honest actual response. it would be bizarre and amazing to see actual individualism (as opposed merely to self-seeking etc) arise again as a viable option, theologically or politically.

washpost, on the struggles of environmental groups:

Now the groups are wondering how they can keep this loss from becoming a rout as their opponents press their advantage and try to undo the Obama administration's climate efforts. At two events last week in Wisconsin, environmental groups seemed to be trying two strategies: defiance and pleading for sympathy.

right. again let me say this: recounting one quote from a dude from a year ago, and then smearing on the verbal abuse like strawberry jam on bread is lazy, self-congratulatory, and counter-productive. you had a half million people on the mall, and perhaps you had better ask why. mere abuse - know-nothings manipulated by demagogues = isn't helping you yourself understand what's happening. it is obvious to you that only an ignorant fool could possibly disagree with you, for example, on levels of federal power and spending. i congratulate you on your self-esteem, which is precisely proportional to your capacity for self-delusion, but i think you're going to get bludgeoned politically. now when you are bludgeoned, it will be unaccountable. or it will be because people are being manipulated and deceived. or it will be because people are horrendous racists and sexists. now ask yourself: why am i committed to the idea that no one could possibly genuinely or reasonably disagree with me? why would i require my beliefs to be strictly speaking rationally unassailable, not merely true?

what actually undergirds the incredible arrogance and elitism is not real commitment to truth or rational argumentation or something. that's is entirely obvious from the rhetorical moves. what drives american liberalism is extreme commitment to cultural affiliation, unanimity. everyone spends all day telling everyone else how smart they are for agreeing with one another. now really you shouldn't bother arguing with people who are that unable to think, who are that unable to stand on their own, whose entire epistemology is peer pressure and self-subordination to authority (e.g. "science"). tell you what. display some rudimentary capacity for independent thought and i will try to address you with arguments.