Glenn Beck and Framing the Scarecrow

It has been a very very long time since I have lived in the United States, but I'm watching. I see it through the screens of my television and my computer. I am seeing something that I saw when I lived there and I see it still. I see bigots.

Now there is a word not heard much of these days – bigot. A bigot is an intolerant person with strong opinions, especially on politics, religion, or ethnicity, who refuses to accept different views. However, that is not the whole of it. The connotation behind the word is found in how the bigot refuses to accept the differing views.

In the field of logic, there are several logical fallacies. One of which is called ad hominem argument. The person using this will refute the opposing view by demeaning the person making the argument. So if Adolph Hitler were to say "2+2=4", I would respond by calling him an evil fascist shit. That may be true, however it does not refute his statement, nor does it change the truth of it.

Worded this way the ad hominem argument makes no sense whatsoever. You might wonder why it is used at all, and yet it is all around us. When a person makes a statement and you are trying to decide whether or not you believe it, then it makes sense to consider who is making the statement, what is his character, what kind of people does he choose to associate with, and what are his intentions. 

So when a junkie approaches you on the street and asks you for food money it makes sense not to believe him because he is a junkie, he is with his junkie friends, and most likely wanting money for the next fix. He may in fact be hungry. He may even intend to buy food. It is up to you to decide whether you think that he will in fact buy food or the next fix.

So this sort of reasoning makes sense in everyday decision making, considering the source, however in the realm of reason, argument, and debate it devolves into little more than playground name-calling.

In the example of the junkie, it is obvious that he is a junkie. We can see the tell tale signs. However in the multimedia world we do not know the people with whom we disagree, so people make-up group stereotypes.

This ties into another logical fallacy known as the straw man argument. This is where you misrepresent your opponent's argument and then attack your version rather than the actual argument being made. So I might say, "Sometimes the sky in Los Angeles is brown" and my opponent might reply, "Logan says that the sky isn't blue, and that is simply not true".

So now let's spice-up this straw man with a little ad hominem. "Logan is a nutcase. He actually thinks that the sky isn't blue. He says it's brown". Oh, but it doesn't stop there. "Logan is an American, they are always saying stupid things." Now we've moved into the realm of prejudice. "All Americans are nutcases who believe that the sky is brown".

It's not enough for bigotry to refuse to accept the existence of contrary views; it has to justify it, which it accomplishes through straw man and ad hominem arguments. There is one more element to this fiasco of reason and it's called Frame Control.

I've written it before and I'll write it many many more times, "We live in the real world and exist within the realm of perception". Now what if someone could control how you perceive reality? For all intents and purposes this person is creating the world in which you exist. Frame control is the act of controlling the "frame" or point of view that a person has regarding reality. Some call it spin.

The easiest way to maintain frame control is to have a stronger point of view than your subject. In other words, the stronger belief wins. When you state opinion as obvious fact people are inclined to believe you, particular if they are unsure, lack information, or have no investment. Once you have lost control of the frame it is incredibly difficult to shift someone from that point of view. For individuals this is found in confidence, but in the media it is repetition. Repeat your message enough times and through enough outlets and it will be believed.

In a CBS television interview with Harry Smith on 2 April, President Obama was discussing his critics, particularly Glenn Beck and the accusation that Obama is a socialist. Obama said, "The truth is some of these comments when you actually ask, well this is based on what? This notion that Obama's a socialist, for example, nobody can really give you a good answer".

This is an example of Obama controlling the frame. He is asserting that his critics have no evidence of him being a socialist and the statement is delivered in a blasé and matter-of-fact tone with a smile. The President appears cool and in control, he is believable, and he makes his opponent look foolish. Of course, none of this is true.

When I look at the debates going on in America on the television and internet I am amazed at the levels of bigotry, ad hominem and straw man arguments, and frame control. Where this is most apparent is the ongoing storm surrounding Glenn Beck.

I have read people who write that watching him for merely a few moments makes them physically sick, he is slammed for being crazy, a nutcase, dangerous, inciting hate, and even for making a profit through his radio, television, and print works. Likewise those people who agree with him are portrayed as stupid, foolish, teabagging, racist, rednecks.

I recently saw an article in the Huffington Post in which the author declared in the first paragraph that he was going to expose Glenn Beck once and for all. The ensuing paragraphs amounted to well-written name calling. At no point were Beck's basic premises ever addressed in the article.

So what does Glenn Beck have to say? 

He claims that the political ideology known as Progressivism took root in the American system one hundred years ago, infecting both political parties, and that it has been steadily undermining the American Republic through the gradual implementation of socialist policies at the expense of the US Constitution.

He claims that Obama came from a family of 1960's era radical Marxists, pursued this path in his academic and professional life, and that he currently surrounds himself with advisors who are similar radicals, Socialists, or Communists. He supports this premise with numerous video clips, radio interviews, and published works in which Obama and his associates advocated socialists and/or socialist policies, such as the redistribution of wealth, in their own words.

He claims that Socialism as an ideology has consistently bankrupted countries, led to a lower standard of living, and in the common worst case scenarios, such as in Nazi Germany, Stalinist Soviet Union, and Maoist China, have led to mass murder.

Therefore, Beck advocates on his programs a rejection of Progressivism, among both Republican and Democrats, and encourages protests against the Obama administration and its allies in order to save the United States from becoming a socialist nation and restore the republic as established by the US Constitution.

Every attack I have ever read on Glenn Beck, and those who agree with his premises, consists of ad hominem and straw man arguments and frame control. They attack him as a person; they accuse him of profiteering, fake crying, stirring hate, racism, and being a Republican Party mouthpiece. Even if all these were true, I have never heard anyone address his arguments.

Is socialism a desirable and workable economic system? If so, then why? Answer the evidence concerning Obama, his advisors, and his allies as being socialists. Refute the evidence that the increase in social services, bureaucracy, and central government power over the last century has made America more socialist. How do you respond to the cover article in Newsweek Magazine soon after Obama's election that declared, "We Are All Socialists Now"?

Since socialism is, for the vast majority of Americans, a dirty word you tend to hear calls for the tenants of socialism but then anger when the quacking thing is called a duck. If you are pro-socialism, then what is the problem with Glenn Beck stating the obvious? Why do certain anti-war or pro-union demonstrations downplay their socialist identity in public but proclaim them on their websites only to act offended when called socialists in the media? Why do they refuse to debate the tenants of socialism? Instead they make heartfelt appeals as though they are a charity. 

The answer is frame control. They argue for their ends and take the means as a given. If you disagree with their means, then they condemn you for disagreeing with their ends. I want to relieve the suffering of the poor, but I do not think that taxes for the purpose of redistributing wealth is ethical, therefore I must hate poor people. Since many poor in America are minorities, then I must be a racist too. It is possible to debate arguments; however it is impossible to debate frames since its all subjective perception.

It's like arguing with a child. I find myself no longer arguing against the redistribution of wealth rather I am defending myself against the accusation of being a racist. This then empowers their argument, but if I ignore the accusation, then I am hiding something. You cannot win. I am not longer Logan who is against the redistribution of wealth. In the public eye I have become Logan the racist who hates poor people and wants them to die. "Logan? Yeah, I've heard of him, he's that crazy racist isn't he?"

The latest attack on Beck comes from his following premise. The term "social justice" is a common phrase referring to the idea of redistribution of wealth. Beck points out various religious groups who preach that "social justice" is a moral tenant found in their religion. He goes on to state that socialist have infiltrated certain religious groups to use them to promote their political agenda under the guise of religion and warns his viewers to be wary. This practice of infiltration has also been observed by Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, in regards to environmentalist groups.

In response, a group called Jewish Funds for Justice began a protest against Beck that they called a Twitterstorm where they inundated Beck's Twitter account with anti-Beck haikus for several days. One article claimed that they were protesting Beck for comparing them to the Nazi's. The only connection that I can see there is that both the Nazi's and the Jewish Funds for Justice (supposedly) are socialists.

So rather than answer the accusation that the Jewish Funds For Justice is a socialist front, either by denying the claim or saying , "yes we are socialist, so what." The group attacked Beck in what they called a protest. The purpose of the protest was the shut down Beck's freedom of speech without any debate or discussion and of course to promote the public image of him as a vitriolic, hate-inspiring, nutcase whose free speech is a danger to America and therefore must be silenced.

The controversy surrounding Glenn Beck is evidence of the sort of bigotry that I have seen rampant in America for decades. People of contrary views are demonised, put into some pre-conceived, pre-packaged stereotype, and then the scarecrow is publicly burned. Glenn Beck may be completely wrong, but shouldn't we argue the case before we pass judgement?

Over the past two decades I have seen news reports of people who have lost their jobs and careers because some group did not like what someone said, they protested, and the person's bosses did not like the bad publicity so the person was fired. Trial by media.

I recall one such incident when a professor was sacked for his unpopular findings. He laid out his research to the board and told them to prove him wrong. They refused to even look at it. Being right or wrong was irrelevant. The accusations and misrepresentations from others was enough. So much for the stick and stones theory. Being the victim of name-calling can ruin your career.

In debate your objective is not necessarily to convince the other person. More often than not the purpose is to convince the audience. The ad hominem and straw man arguments and the practice of framing can, if skilfully used, manipulate the audience to your side. Part of this is what I like to call the scarecrow effect.

You create a stereotype of your opponent that is socially distasteful. Tea Party Protestors are ignorant rednecks and racists. I do not want to be seen by my friends and family as an ignorant redneck or a racist, so I will avoid any sort of association with them. Thus I have rejected the ideology proposed by the group without even knowing what it is because I do not want to be associated with the popular image of people in that group. The straw man scarecrow scares people away.

The opposite is also true. Liberals are caring individuals who promote peace and love among all races, creeds, genders, and sexual orientations. They want to help the poor and heal the environment. Among their numbers are artists and intellectuals who are all working together to fight the evil people motivated by nothing more than their own greed and prejudice. I want to be associated with this group.

There is only one problem. None of this is real. It's all lies and manipulation. Being human, I am also guilty of buying into an image and I am guilty of promoting one. As any hypnotists can tell you, the idea of the thing carries more power than the thing itself. Or the salesman might tell you to sell the sizzle and not the bacon. Mark Twain is attributed with saying, "Image goes round the world twice before reality gets its shoes on."

Glenn Beck portrays himself as an everyman forced by circumstance to reluctantly take on the mantle of a modern day American patriot in the mould of the Founding Fathers. His enemies seek to portray him as a right-wing charlatan profiteering off the ignorance and fears of others. It's all image manipulation. We are not debating the issues but the image and people will align themselves with the group with the most appealing image, the one that most resonates with their values.

I confess that I have an image of socialists. I see them as either bitches or bullies. The bitches are the sentimental, bleeding-heart ones who selfishly put their feelings about reality above anything else and think that they are doing the right thing by promoting the use government force to get their way while simultaneously portraying themselves as anti-government. Many of them are well-intentioned fools living a delusional existence.

The bullies are the enforcers who try to silence any dissent by force, harassment, accusations, or threats through displays of group power (also called angry protests) in lieu of discourse. Even when wielding government power, the bullies use these same tactics but on a grander scale. That is my subjective perception.

Subjective Reality is personal. How you feel about things is very important, but only to you. Your feelings are only relevant in that little pocket universe you call reality. As the common NLP saying goes, "The map is not the terrain." If spiders scare you, that does not make spiders scary as a rule of the Objective universe. It only pertains to your subjective universe. Your feelings are yours and your responsibility. No one can "make" you feel anything that you do not already have the capacity to feel already.

As we go into the world we meet other people with their own pocket universe. Sometimes these subjective realities are similar and a rapport is established. We might even find rapport with certain images. These images may be works of art or even our ideas concerning people that we have never met. All of this is rooted in the perception of shared values, also known as love.

Sometimes we meet people or encounter images that are completely contrary to our values. We might even perceive them as a threat to our universe. How do we deal with that conflict? The bigot will use any means necessary to shut out, silence, or demean the opposing universe and will exert the superiority of their feelings-bias through all sorts of emotional means from ranging from tears to bullying. All of this is done to preserve their perception of reality.

Remember I wrote earlier of the popular image of the liberals as "caring individuals who promote peace and love among all races, creeds, genders, and sexual orientations. They want to help the poor and heal the environment". Suppose that it could be proven that this deeply held perception is wrong? Suppose it could be proven that their actions to make the world a better place will led to destruction of the very thing that they sought to preserve? Loss of belief is a soul-shattering experience. I've been there. I know. This is why any opposition is treated as a personal threat.

Romantics tell the Truth through lies. All perception of reality is merely perceptions contributing to our personal Subjective Reality. We exist among our ideas of things and the feelings that they invoke. They are nothing more than images, representations of reality with which we can interact physically, mentally, and emotionally. Romantics use and manipulate these images, these lies, to convey Objective truths.

However, these lies can be used to propagate more lies. Snake oil salesmen who distort the perceptions of reality so thoroughly that objectivity becomes irrelevant. The problem is that objectivity is the true reality and it always trumps the subjective. The bigot may ignore the facts, engage in name-calling, misrepresentation, and burn the scarecrow effigy of the messenger, but objective reality will always be reality and no amount of feelings to the contrary will change that.

I'll conclude with another selection from my internal images. When I tell people that I write on the subject of Romantic philosophy I mean all five branches, including Politics. Romanticism is historically connected to Classical Liberalism which today is Libertarianism. 

Thus my image of the Libertarian is that of the freedom-loving individualist Romantic hero, be he cowboy, pirate, dandy, or captain of industry, fighting against the meddling government and its supporters or the collectivist do-gooders trying to tell myself and others how we should live. I know that there are others who see it differently, but that's my preferred image of the Libertarian Romantic, and one that I like to promote.