It’s rare that an event can provoke columns that carry such contradictory teasers as “Don’t ridicule Glenn Beck’s tribute to MLK: Celebrate it” and “Drowning out the hate hustlers: Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck cannot steal America’s soul.”
The first comes from Slate’s William Saletan, responding to critics who decried the tribute to Martin Luther King, Jr. during Saturday’s “Restoring Honor” rally at the Lincoln Memorial by asserting, “There’s nothing unseemly about the right’s embrace of King. This is America at its best: A man once disowned as a partisan and a rebel now belong to all of us… Their invocations of his legacy were sustained and serious. They affirmed his central message—equality—and grouped him with the country’s Founding Fathers.”
The second comes from Stanley Crouch’s column in the New York Daily News, which he begins, “Now that irresponsible opportunists have brought many of the misled to Washington, we can begin to contemplate what makes bigotry so appealing. Surely, being able to exclude is one of the great joys of the species because it can give a grand identity to the average person. That identity as one of the elect made the red glow in Southern white necks.”
While blasting the event’s main speakers, Crouch did not attack them for their words that day. Instead, he attacked them for earlier “race-bating as clearly as they could” around the controversy of an Islamic center in Lower Manhattan. He would have been hard-pressed to attack the speakers on the podium, for Beck delivered a pageant that scrupulously avoided any hint of racism. As Saletan notes, in addition to the embrace of King there were references to injustices done to Native Americans.
But even if spokespeople had never made comments that could be construed as racist, it would be understandable for critics to be on the lookout for racism. This was unquestionably an event about dividing an “us” from a “them,” and race has historically been a key dividing line in the modern conservative movement. Nixon mobilized white opposition to busing, and Reagan did so around welfare. While it would be simplistic to say that the conservative coalitions these men built were merely racist, it is unquestionably true that racial grievances helped crystallize opposition to interventionist government.
Faced with scrupulously multi-racial rhetoric, observers struggled to describe the identity articulated by the event. Also writing in Slate, Christopher Hitchens contextualizes the event against the backdrop of demographic change that eventually will make whites the minority. “The overall effect was large, vague, moist, and undirected: the Waterworld of white self-pity,” he wrote, attempting to connect the day’s imagery with identity anxiety. Struggling to be more precise, he used a revealing rhetorical slight of hand:
In a rather curious and confused way, some white people are starting almost to think like a minority, even like a persecuted one. What does it take to believe that Christianity is an endangered religion in America or that the name of Jesus is insufficiently spoken or appreciated? Who wakes up believing that there is no appreciation for our veterans and our armed forces and that without a noisy speech from Sarah Palin, their sacrifice would be scorned?
Is it the same to be Christian or pro-military as it is to be white?
Taken literally, that is patently ridiculous: across town on Saturday, Rev. Al Sharpton and many other Christian African Americans were holding a tribute to another black Christian, Martin Luther King, Jr. And, of course, people of color serve disproportionately in the armed forces. But faith and pro-military sentiments were offered up at “Restoring Honor” to the crowd of conservative white rally-goers as touchstones of their identity.
As a Christian and a conservative, The New York Times’s Ross Douthat was much more sympathetic to the event than Christopher Hitchens, but he was similarly at a loss to explain Glenn Beck’s identity pageant. “This was a tent revival crossed with a pep rally intertwined with a history lecture married to a U.S.O. telethon,” that combined into “a long festival of affirmation for middle-class white Christians.”

If you want to see the America that Beck is urging to take back the country by embracing christianity, you need only read his followers’ comments on this site http://wp.me/pNmlT-mI which is critical of Beck. They are completely blind to facts presented to them if they are contrary to their beliefs. It is scary to see the hold he has over them despite him offering so little substance or truth. Worse, many are Tea Partiers who are supposed to worship the Constitution, yet they have no problem with Beck preaching religion as a prerequisite for governing while the Founding Fathers tried to establish a permanent separation of church and state.
#1 Posted by Dan H, CJR on Tue 31 Aug 2010 at 01:51 PM
Dan:
Please show us where the words "separation of church and state" occur in the US Constitution. That's right, they're not in there!
#2 Posted by Harry Lime, CJR on Tue 31 Aug 2010 at 02:45 PM
the Founding Fathers tried to establish a permanent separation of church and state.
Did they? Are you sure. Setting aside the O'Hare decision, which is only 40 something years old, take a look at history. 7 of the 13 colonies had "State" Religions when the Constitution of 1789 was signed. None of these State sponsored, State religions, were outlawed in Court. Some States maintained a State Religion until the 1840s.
So, no, the Founders had no intention of forbidding State sponsored Religion, they only wish to forbid the Federal Government from doing so.
History is so ill-taught, so ill-considered.
#3 Posted by Denver, CJR on Tue 31 Aug 2010 at 03:16 PM
To Dan:
Article 6 of the US Constitution: no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office
James Madison:
he intended for the establishment clause to prevent the government imposition of religious beliefs on individuals. The entry says: “Mr. Madison said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience
#4 Posted by Jolo5309, CJR on Tue 31 Aug 2010 at 03:52 PM
Very insightful post. Thanks. This is a good start on the topic, but I think we need more clarity on the relationship between race and religion in the current movement. (not blaming the author; this was a relatively short piece) The people who see race as salient in Glenn Beck's performance shouldn't be forced to see this as an issue of religion and not race. It seems the two (race and religion) have always traveled together in American history (along with class, gender, nationality, etc)... It does seem like we need a more sane discussion on how and why.
#5 Posted by Loren, CJR on Tue 31 Aug 2010 at 05:11 PM
You can't really watch a video like this one and not come away convinced that Tea Partiers are profoundly racist, profoundly ignorant, and wallowing in resentful self-pity. These people were forbidden to bring signs and schooled in how to act in order to hide their race-baiting hatefulness in front of the national media. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and you can see and hear their bigotry and racism in their own words here. Horrible, horrible people.
#6 Posted by James, CJR on Wed 1 Sep 2010 at 09:43 AM
And this is a story in the CJR why? Because it mentioned briefly, a newspaper, before opinionating about Beck.
I would the author to explain how this piece, or this website's many articles about Social Security, contribute anything to the study or critique of journalism.
Oh, that's right. They don't. The CJR is just another left-wing magazine, albeit it one that disguises itself as some sort of professional journal.
#7 Posted by Newspaperman, CJR on Wed 1 Sep 2010 at 10:19 AM
Though it may not be explicit in the constitution, there can be no doubt that some of the founders had precisely this intent. It was Jefferson, while President, who gave us the phrase. Madison expressed similar sentiments.
And if Glenn Beck is what it now means to be white, get me a tin of shoe polish.
#8 Posted by surlybastard, CJR on Wed 1 Sep 2010 at 11:26 AM
Jefferson said 'church and state', not 'religion and state', be it noted. He and the other founders were obviously opposed to special status for national, established churches, such as the Church of England. Massachusetts still had an 'established' church, the Congregationalists, until after Jefferson died - Jefferson was a states' rights man. There are good arguments to be made on both sides of this issue, but the argument that the writers of the Constitution thought the same way on religion/public square issues as the ACLU has always been a dubious one.
#9 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 1 Sep 2010 at 12:24 PM
While you can parse the wording of the first post about what is in the constitution, the intent was to illustrate that what the Tea Party, and many of Beck's supporters believe in are the Founding Father's who crafted the Constitution and essentially created the foundation for our democracry. And as part of that foundation, they believed strongly in the separation of church and state. Referencing Jefferson's Danbury letter intended to assuage concerns of Danbury Babtists regarding the firewalling of religion from governance he the Supreme Court has interpreted what he said, and the correspnding language in the Constitution to mean that religion and government must stay separate for the benefit of both, including the idea that the government must not impose religion on Americans nor create any law requiring it. So when Mr. Beck says the foundation for taking back our government, or our democracy, or our country REQUIRES the people to embrace Christianity, he is linking religion with governance intimately and imposing it on the people, and doing so in ways not intended by our Founding Fathers.
Now all of that is fine, but as with most things in life, you can't have it both ways. So I guess we come down to the question of which does the Tea Party choose?? Beck's Doctrine of religion as a foundation of governance or the Founding Father's doctrine of governance unencumbered by religion?
#10 Posted by Dan H, CJR on Wed 1 Sep 2010 at 05:48 PM
Could we please bring this to the real point it all comes down to? The securing of personal property and reestablishment of a sense of control in a social state that cannot be maintained due to the populist direction our nation is traveling. To speak of Glenn Beck as if he were anything more than a former "Morning Zoo Shock Jock" who, after years of failure reinvented himself in this persona and found a media niche playing to a fearful audience yearning for the times they remembered when "They were growing up" is laughable! The playbook for the reinvention was authored by Rush Limbaugh who secured his own success the same way. This "event" on the steps where MLK stood was more network promotional appearance by one of the personalities of Fox News than it was an epiphany for Mr. Beck. The weight of his words and intellect cannot be compared to Mr. King's, or be included in a discussion of the founding father's
design for the nation. He's not worthy of renewing their library card.
#11 Posted by Todd Schlatter, CJR on Wed 1 Sep 2010 at 07:17 PM
Todd
You of course are correct. In the 90's I read Al Franken's great book 'Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot' (sic). I was naive enough to think his expose on the blatant lies and distortions would signal an end to Limbaugh. Oh how wrong I was. The capacity of Americans to embrace false prophets and charlatans that play to their fears or their deepest hopes is astounding.
#12 Posted by Dan H, CJR on Wed 1 Sep 2010 at 09:41 PM
"And this is a story in the CJR why? Because it mentioned briefly, a newspaper, before opinionating about Beck. I would the author to explain how this piece, or this website's many articles about Social Security, contribute anything to the study or critique of journalism." Newspaperman
Aside from being indicative of his lack of editing skills, the statement above evidences an absence of attention to detail on the part of its author. The article makes several references to the media coverage of the event being described and how the descriptions in the media differed. That's one of the things that CJR does well, among others of course. The CJR chose to discuss Beck's media event requires no justification beyond that fact.
#13 Posted by Jack, CJR on Wed 1 Sep 2010 at 11:43 PM
"unfocused identity celebration?" can you come up with something better?
racism in disguise?
#14 Posted by dave beemon, CJR on Wed 1 Sep 2010 at 11:54 PM
A 'racist' is apparently someone who disagrees with a certain kind of bourgeois liberal. Cries of 'racism' are the flop sweat of that kind of person. Since such charges are electoral losers - most people's eyes glaze over. It's just politics. The only reason I can figure that it is used is that bourgeois liberals in this country have a desperate psychological need to feel superior, morally and intellectually, to their fellow citizens, and their language is self-reinforcing.
#15 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 2 Sep 2010 at 12:42 PM
Give Beck his due. He's found an receptiver audience for his clownish, if often obnoxious, form of entertainment. He aims at the lowest common denominator and he succedes in winning their attention and his personal income benefits greatly from their aduration of the fool he pretends, maybe portends, to be.
#16 Posted by Jack, CJR on Thu 2 Sep 2010 at 06:52 PM
With all this talk re: separation of church and state in our government, why does American currency include the declaration "In God We Trust?"
#17 Posted by John P., CJR on Fri 3 Sep 2010 at 12:28 PM
With all this talk re: separation of church and state in our government, why does American currency include the declaration "In God We Trust?"
#18 Posted by John P., CJR on Fri 3 Sep 2010 at 12:29 PM
Um, John P. John P.?
That would be from the tent revivalists of the reconstruction era.
see: http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml
See also: salesmen, snake oil
#19 Posted by edward ericson jr., CJR on Fri 3 Sep 2010 at 05:53 PM
I appreciate your hard work on this analysis, but you lost credibility with me when you wrote "slight of hand" instead of the correct phrase, "sleight of hand." That's where I stopped reading. Details matter, especially when you're writing for CJR. Don't you have copy editors?
#20 Posted by Bev C., CJR on Sun 5 Sep 2010 at 06:49 PM
Separation of Church and State:
1. Codified in the establishment clause, as if that wasn't enough.
2. The first amendment was based largely upon the Virgina Statute for Religious Freedom authored by Thomas Jefferson in 1777 - a cursory reading of which will illuminate the supposed cryptic secularism of the founders intentions.
3. Codified in the Treaty of Tripoli which, in being passed by both houses of Congress in 1797, has the force of law. Article 11 clearly states that the United States in no way considers itself a Christian nation.
4. The phrase "Wall of Separation" dates from 1802 when a letter was written to the Baptists of Danbury, CT (who were fearful of being undercut by the Danbury Congregationalists), by the sitting President of United States.
Historical revisionism on this issue is mildly interesting, but ultimately futile. No debating that American has a significant Christian population, or that the majority religion has always been Christian, but the ideals of the Enlightenment are our fortunate heritage.
#21 Posted by Matt, CJR on Sun 5 Sep 2010 at 10:09 PM
Beck? "Wreck! " He's an E N T E R T A I N E R ! That is how H E describes himself! Plus Beck is paid by "fair and balanced" Fox "news."
End of story? Nope, people take this doofus seriously...even though he says he's an entertainer. Beck sells books he doesn't write. Hustles gold shares - that are a con....for when our currency "crashes" and organic seeds for when America collapses and faces starvation.
Hello? ENTERTAINER!! Not a college grad, not a military vet, never held an elective office, never ran a large company, or a university, not a theologian (he believes Jesus taught in America) and recently admittedt he lied when he said he had held one of Gerorge Washington's speeches in his "entertaining" little hands.
E N T E R T A I N E R Beck is a "refudiating" media clown...intent on gaining ratings, attention, M O N E Y ! !
#22 Posted by john p., CJR on Mon 6 Sep 2010 at 11:06 AM