Douthat particularly grasped to explain the event’s politics: he bought Beck’s claim that the rally was “apolitical” because there was no rhetoric or signs about candidates or legislation. “The most striking thing about ‘Restoring Honor’,” he wrote, “was the way the pageant effortlessly tapped into the same rich vein of identity politics that has given us figures as diverse as Palin and Howard Dean, George W. Bush and Barack Obama — but did so, somehow, without advancing any explicitly political agenda.”
Taken literally, this is as ridiculous as the conclusion that all Christians are white. Though cloaked in the language of prayer and boosterism, there were plenty of references to issues, including abortion, marriage, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But the thrust of the event was the effort to tell participants a story about themselves that would justify their identity and legitimate their claims in the public sphere. Oddly, little reporting bothered to recount the details of Beck’s opening performance, which, while officially repudiating racism, disturbingly substituted religion as the glue that held an identity block together in a way that race has often been used.
He began with a history lesson, and the full video is worth watching, beginning about five minutes in. According to Glenn Beck, American history begins when “God’s chosen people were led out of bondage by a guy with a stick who was talking to a burning bush.” Simultaneously in the Americas, “another group of people were gathered here and they too were listening to God.” (Mormons believe Native Americans to be a lost tribe of Israel, and, interestingly, this Mormon twist to Beck’s historiography has gone almost entirely unnoticed by commentators on the event, even those who point out that Beck’s Mormon faith is regarded as heresy by evangelical Christians.) Jews and Indians were united by the Pilgrims, whom provenance led to these shores. “When people came together of different faiths in the spirit of God,” Beck concluded, “and the first thing they did was pray together.”
Again, taken literally, this is patently ridiculous. A lot of genocide preceded the happy union of these disparate groups. But the gloss is rhetorically useful: Beck told rally goers that they were the true heirs to Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and King because of their faith in God and embrace of Christian morality, not because of their race or support of specific policies.
Of course, Beck has a political agenda, as does Sarah Palin. But Beck knows that the stories we tell about ourselves and our values are far more enduring and more powerful than any campaign. Regardless of his personal racial attitudes and those of his followers, he also recognizes that the language of faith is far more potent today than the language of race. (Which accounts, for example, for his recasting what he once called Obama’s “racism” as “liberation theology.”) Faith has long been an ingredient in conservative rhetoric, but Beck is laboring to expand its use to cover terrain long addressed through symbolism that was much more directly racially charged. Commentators who mistake it either as racism by another name or as an unfocused identity celebration vastly underestimate its potential impact on our politics.

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