Glenn Beck: “Too Libertarian” for FOX

GlennBeckFormer FOX and CNN commentator and show host Glenn Beck appeared on the Howard Stern show last week. What follows is a partial transcript of those segments where he discussed “Third Party” voting as well as those portions where he explicated (his version of) libertarianism.

Stern: It’s Glenn Beck who used to be on FOX news. . .
Beck: It’s good to see you.
. . .

Beck: One of the reasons I’m here today is because we’ve got to stop. We have to find the people who may vote different, may be different, have different philosophies,  but we’ve got to sit down with each other and talk.

. . .

Stern: If you come out against gay marriage, there are people who are adamant about gay rights. I am one of them.

Beck: I am not against gay marriage.

Stern: You’re not?!?

Beck: I never have been.

Stern: I thought you were.

Beck: I never have been; I was for gay marriage long before the president. I am a libertarian.

Stern: I’ll bet you a lot of people, like me, misunderstand you. . . .

Beck: I was branded as a GOP guy. I am not a GOP guy; I hate the GOP.

Stern: Are you more Tea Party?

Beck: I am much more libertarian. . . . I hate (the Republican Party) because they are doing the exact same thing the Democratic Party does, just at a slower speed. There is no difference. They are enriching themselves, passing laws that they do not have to abide by. . . . What is that? Get out of my space! Don’t tell me who I can marry. . . Just let’s leave each other alone.

Stern: My perception of you was that you were too right-wing for FOX. . .

Beck: I was too libertarian.

Stern: Too libertarian.

. . .

Beck: I called for a meeting with the heads of GLADD here in New York three months ago. I said, “We can disagree on a lot of things. I am a libertarian, so if you do not want to make a cake for somebody, you don’t make a cake for somebody. . . . Let society sort that out. I go to the bakery or I don’t go to the bakery based on that. But in the grand scheme of things, that is not injustice compared to what is happening to the homosexuals in the Middle East today.”

. . .

Stern: Who do you like for the presidency? I know you don’t like Hillary. I assume you do not like any of the Republicans, so if you had to choose one . . .

Quivers: Rand Paul, maybe?

Beck: Ted Cruz; Rand Paul.

Stern: Why do you think those guys aren’t more popular? People think those guys are crazy, especially Ted Cruz.

Beck: The media and us. We accept the soundbite community. That’s ridiculous. You thought I have a problem with Gay people. You thought I was against gay marriage.

. . .

Stern: Who would make a worse president, Hillary or Jeb Bush?

Beck: It will be the lowest voter turnout in history.

Stern: Who will you vote for?

Beck: Third Party.

Stern: Let’s say you have got to choose between those two, who do you choose?

Beck: What is this; is this the Soviet Union?

Stern: Let’s say there is no Third Party candidate.

Beck: I will not put my name behind. . .

Stern: You won’t vote?

Quivers: He just won’t vote.

Stern: I cannot believe you said that.

Glenn: It’s like saying, “Do you want me to stab you to death or do you want a bullet?”

. . .

Stern: What about the Supreme Court? Our next president is probably going to appoint people to the Supreme Court. Hillary at least believes in a woman’s right to choose. Which I think you would probably support, I hope.

Beck: I don’t.

Stern: You don’t? You are the Libertarian?

Beck: I believe that is a life. I do believe that is murder.

. . .

Stern: You are for gay marriage; Hillary is for gay marriage so maybe you could vote for her just for that reason?

Beck:  I can’t.  Are you kidding me? The most corrupt . . . no way.

Stern: What politician isn’t corrupt under the definition of (how) they all take lobby money.

Beck: That’s the problem, isn’t it?

Stern: Gerald Ford was in Congress his entire life; he didn’t have a pot to piss in. He gets out of office? He’s a millionaire. Richard Nixon, public servant his whole life, gets out of office, he’s a millionaire. Ronald Reagan, $2,000,000.00 payment from the Japanese. They all do it.

Beck: In Congress they do not have to abide by the same laws as we do. What is that? We have got to take control of our government again.

. . .

Stern: Glennbeck.com.

Beck: We’re going to be doing something in Birmingham Alabama on 8/28.

Stern: What are you going to be doing?

Beck: I’m asking people to come together and say, “All lives matter, not just black lives, or blue lives, but all lives matter.”

Stern: Birmingham is the best place for that?

Beck: Birmingham is! Movements have started in Birmingham before, it is time to start another one – All Lives Matter.

Stern: I could certainly agree with that.

Quivers: But I ain’t going to Birmingham!

(Laughter.)

The HOWARD STERN SHOW link to audio highlights of his interview with Glenn is HERE

The GLENN BECK SHOW link to audio and Glenn’s comments about meeting Howard are HERE.

THE BLAZE also posted audio clips HERE.

40 thoughts on “Glenn Beck: “Too Libertarian” for FOX

  1. Joseph Buchman Post author

    The most interesting part of this exchange, IMO, was:

    “Stern: Who will you vote for? Beck: Third Party.”

    What happened to saying: “Libertarian Party” or “Gary Johnson.”

    It seems to me the “libertarian brand” is being/has been repositioned as “Republican who wants to smoke pot” at least in the mind of many potential voters. But Glenn must be aware of the LP and of our POTUS candidates in the past cycle or two (at least). Was that not top-of-mind, or is he intentionally funneling ill-informed/newer libertarian-leaning voters to the GOP’s libertarian-is, or LINO or RILC candidates?

    Anyone have any insight on that?

    Joe

  2. Jill Pyeatt

    This is a very interesting article, Joe. Sometimes I like Glenn Beck, but, admittedly, I usually don’t.

    As far as using “third party” instead of “Libertarian? My first thought is just that we don’t have candidates chosen yet, so he’s not being specific. I’ll ponder that for a while, though.

  3. Joseph Buchman Post author

    Jill,

    No one has candidates chosen yet (as far as I know; I believe Dr. Stein is running for the Green Party nomination, not yet as their POTUS candidate). What can the LP do to have candidates as visible as Hillary, Bernie, and the Republican Pack — or at least visible enough for someone like Glenn to have them on his radar?

  4. Robert Hansen

    Glenn Beck says he’s “‘libertarian”. Lyndon LaRouche said he was a Democrat. Rachel Dolezal says she’s black. People can say any darned thing they want. It doesn’t mean it’s true.

    If he’s libertarian, I’m the love child of Warren G. Harding.

  5. Bondurant

    Bill Maher has also claimed to be libertarian. It’s easy to just say. Beck is no libertarian.

  6. independent voter

    Glenn Beck is full of shit.

    Howard Stern once won the gubernatorial nomination from the Libertarian Party.

    Neither are particularly libertarian.

  7. Ted Brown

    I think it’s true that Glenn Beck has a lot of libertarian views. He is also extremely religious, so this colors some of his positions, such as abortion rights. But he is obviously someone we have a lot in common with and we should play up those parts and form an alliance when we can. While I want our presidential candidate and other candidates to be as close to pure Libertarians as possible, I don’t place that requirement on our allies and supporters — or even our rank-and-file membership.

  8. Ted Brown

    Robert Hansen’s post seemed to disparage Warren G. Harding. Frankly, the record shows him as one of our best presidents — from a Libertarian point of view. I know there’s a low bar in this category, but Harding, Coolidge, and Grover Cleveland probably rank at the top of my list. It’s the race to rank the worst president where there are a lot of people tied for the lead.

  9. Andy

    Libertarians should be leery about Glenn Beck. He’s been playing this “libertarian game” for years, that is acting like he’s a libertarian, or libertarian leaner, but then generally siding with neo-con Republicans. Also, Glenn Beck’s staff is filled with former CIA and FBI members.

    Does Glenn Beck ever sound good from a libertarian perspective? Sure, sometimes, but I don’t think that libertarians should trust the guy. He could be a Judas Goat whose actual goal is to march libertarians off of a cliff.

  10. Mark Axinn

    >Howard Stern once won the gubernatorial nomination from the Libertarian Party.

    That was a hostile take-over in New York in 1994.

    LPNY had its usual state convention scheduled to be held in late April in Albany, and anticipated approx. 75 people. We actually had several good candidates that year interested in running for Governor.

    The hardcore neo-conservative and fascist Republican Howard Stern (one of closest friends then was Republican Senator Alphonse Pork Barrel D’Amato) also decided he wanted to run for Governor (one of his platforms was to make the Puerto Rican Day Parade illegal), and told all his fanatics to show up, join the LPNY for $25 and vote for him at the nominating convention. About 500 of them arrived en masse in Albany that year.

    After he dropped out in the middle of the petitioning season, during which he did nothing to get us any signatures, we changed the bylaws to prevent a similar debacle from ever occurring again.

    Both my wife and I gave nominating speeches that year for anti-Stern candidates.

  11. independent voter

    We can only hope Gov. Ventura can pull off a similar campaign in 2016!

  12. Ted Brown

    @Mark Axinn: I remember when Stern did his radio show while participating in the LP of NY convention. I found his show entertaining at the time. He was talking to the audience, to Robin, to LP chair Ludwig Vogel, and others all at the same time. I remember at the time that I didn’t find his platform very libertarian, but mostly designed to get publicity for Howard Stern. He decided not to go through with the campaign when he learned he had to release his financial records, but he had signed an agreement with his broadcasting network that he was not allowed to do that. Thus, the Stern campaign was nipped in the bud before it really began. The only benefit to such a campaign might have been to gain NY ballot status that year.

  13. Andy

    Unfortunately, Donald Trump is bad on multiple issues from a libertarian perspective.

  14. William Saturn

    I believe he supports marijuana legalization so that’s better than most of the current establishment candidates running. I have not researched his issue positions at great length though.

  15. Andy

    I remember several years ago hearing about how Trump was trying to get the city council in Atlantic City to do an eminent domain of some woman’s house so that he bulldoze the house and pave it over to expand the parking lot at one of his hotel casinos.

    Trump is no libertarian.

  16. Sean Scallon

    Just remember Debra Medina thought Beck was a libertarian too until he set her up with a stupid 9-11 truth question that had nothing to do with Texas governor’s race of 2010. Then he showed what he really was about and Rick Perry went on to win the primary.

    Actually, what’s he’s really all about is being a performance artist and doing his act so his adoring millions can pay the subscriptions to his TV network and his magazine. I don’t think there is or was a sincere bone in his body for anything that doesn’t make Glen Beck money. And as he said himself “I’m just the rodeo clown.” Indeed, why should I take him seriously.

  17. Mark Axinn

    Hi Ted.

    You wrote in part:
    >He decided not to go through with the campaign when he learned he had to release his financial records, but he had signed an agreement with his broadcasting network that he was not allowed to do that.

    In fact, I spoke to Stern’s attorneys and they and he knew that from the very beginning. He just used it as an excuse when he tired of the joke of using us for his own publicity stunt.

    I believe fraud is one of the prime no-no’s in a libertarian society. Stern was, is and always will be a fraud.

    >The only benefit to such a campaign might have been to gain NY ballot status that year.

    A huge area of debate within LPNY as long as I have been involved. There are many who believe we should run a prominent Republican to get the 50,000 votes needed for ballot status. Others, such as I, want to run libertarians for the Libertarian Party nomination.

    I suspect we will continue to debate the pros and cons of that strategy for some time!

  18. Andy

    “A huge area of debate within LPNY as long as I have been involved. There are many who believe we should run a prominent Republican to get the 50,000 votes needed for ballot status. Others, such as I, want to run libertarians for the Libertarian Party nomination.

    I suspect we will continue to debate the pros and cons of that strategy for some time!”

    There’s really no point in the Libertarian Party having ballot access unless the party is going to run candidates who are actually libertarians.

  19. NewFederalist

    “There are many who believe we should run a prominent Republican to get the 50,000 votes needed for ballot status. Others, such as I, want to run libertarians for the Libertarian Party nomination.” – Mark Axinn

    Perhaps another way to go at this (in the absence of a truly libertarian candidate that can likely attain the required vote total) would be to nominate a prominent Democrat. That would accomplish two things: get the LP ballot status (which is most important) and totally bewilder the media that only looks at Libertarians as “Republicans- Lite”. I would think the issues highlighted in such a campaign would be those more appealing to the Left but the LP can certainly do that. Just a random thought.

  20. Bondurant

    Stern is not a neo-conservative. He’s a staunch support of the Clintons supports gun control and taxing sugar water.

  21. Mark Axinn

    NF–

    I tried for a while to employ a variant of your proposal, which is to run candidates with a left-libertarian agenda. Not surprisingly, the biggest problem remains getting sufficient publicity for the effort.

    Bondurant–

    You are correct that Stern has no consistent political philosophy and like one of the comments above about Beck, is really only interested in doing that which benefits his own pocketbook and obsessive desire for self-promotion.

    I do think his foreign policy, such as it is, is pretty neocon: Send all those dirty wetbacks back to Mexico, nuke the Arabs, stuff like that. But of course, he’d rather talk about three girls having sex with each other than anything that matters, so who knows?

  22. Andy

    Mark Axinn said: “You are correct that Stern has no consistent political philosophy”

    I think that Howard Stern does have some libertarian views, but he is obviously not consistent.

  23. Andy

    “paulie

    June 28, 2015 at 11:27 pm

    Almost everyone has some libertarian views, or at least the vast majority of people.”

    My point was that the only people who should be qualified to be Libertarian Party candidates are those who are at the top of the Nolan Chart, or at least a very close to being at the top of the Nolan Chart.

  24. paulie

    While that’s a good point, I don’t see how it follow from saying that Howard Stern has some libertarian views.

    And referring to a discussion further up, the main issues Trump campaigns on are anti-libertarian.

  25. langa

    …the main issues Trump campaigns on are anti-libertarian.

    True, and I would never in a million years vote for him. But I do like his presence in the field, as he is a loose cannon, and thus, he seems to make the GOP establishment very uncomfortable.

  26. Joseph Buchman Post author

    Nicholas Sarwark @ June 27, 2015 at 5:03 pm provided a link to a Facebook post by Mr. Beck. For those without Facebook, it is also posted under the title “A Reasoned Thought” at:

    http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=227735;article=562141;title=Civilized%20Personal%20Discussion

    I’ve reproduced the opening and closing lines here. For the entire article, see the link above.

    “A Reasoned Thought
    Sun Jun 28, 2015

    “I have tried to be kind to those who have written such hatred to me today.

    “I don’t understand it. As a libertarian my position on Gay marriage was that the Government should not be involved in matters of conscience at all. Years before O or Hillary.

    “My plea has been to love one another and not try to control one another’s lives.

    “The atheist florist should not have to make a funeral wreath in the shape of a cross if they don’t wish to.

    “A homosexual printer should not be forced to print signs for the Westboro baptist church,

    . . .

    “The biggest problem is the Constitution says nothing about marriage at all. We should not allow the federal government to regulate ANYTHING in our personal lives when it deals with conscience.

    “I have often said the evil libertarian plan is to slowly take over the entire world and then….
    Leave every one alone! smile emoticon.

    “Let those who are gay live their life and speak their mind with respect. Let those who are not and have a deeply held religious view live their life and speak their mind with respect. Period.

    “One planet, one life. Why waste it on war and hate when there is so much to love and such little time?”

    Glenn Beck

    http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=227735;article=562141;title=Civilized%20Personal%20Discussion

  27. independent voter

    Stern’s most notable political quality at the time was his long fight against the FCC (and his employers) on behalf of free speech, a pretty big libertarian issue.

  28. Between You, Me, and the NSA

    Glenn Beck and Howard Stern are self-contradicting small-L libertarians. Why self-contradicting? Because they are US government school graduates (if I’m wrong about this, their parents should demand the money they spent on private schooling back). The standards set by the government schools determine the level of competitiveness of the private schools as well, so there’s really no such thing as schooling that is “totally free from government interference and standard-lowering.” This is the way in which the standard (for what constitutes “the minimum human philosophy necessary for civilized society”) is slowly erased. This is the primary mover of civilization toward totalitarianism.

    Humans are willing to rebel when they are young, because that’s when they have high metabolic energy, little comfort, few investments, and often no place where they can be found with a high-degree of certainty. When Stern backed out of the race for governor, he showed his commitment to liberty was shallow: personal comfort was then (and probably still is) worth far more to him. Then, humans go through a long period (30-40 years) where they believe they’re achieving what is possible for them. They won’t be ready to rebel again until they are nearly dead, and it’s often too late for them to effectively rebel.

    The US is an unphilosophical society, because the government schools are worthless. They create the idiotic, servile Matt Damons of this life. This explains how Beck can talk about Frederick Hayek and Stern can talk about Ron Paul, and they can both fail to comprehend half of the important ideas of both of those two gentlemen. This explains how Stern can fail to follow up with obvious questions that a libertarian should ask, where they both stay on brain-damaged “single issues.” (As the political classes wish them to do.) Joe Rogan is quite a bit better than either of these two “talking heads,” but still often falls far short of what many of us would call “good conversation.”

    Would it have been hard for Stern to have asked where Beck stands in relation to several philosophers, of science and politics (Ayn Rand, Friedrich Hayek, Harry Browne, Ron Paul, Samuel Konkin III, Lysander Spooner, Henry David Thoreau, Ray Kurzweil, Norbert Weiner, Jeff Hawkins)? Well, actually, yes. It would have been impossible, because he has not read those thinkers’ material. It’s “outside of his comfort zone.” Stern himself is just one inch “outside the comfort zone” of people too stupid to call themselves libertarians –this gives him his market. Something similar is true of Beck. They both agitate just slightly outside of the (crust-trimmed-off) “Wonder Bread” mainstream.

    If anything brings even a slight shade of philosophical nuance to the questioning, these two individuals are utterly incompetent, afraid, timid, uncertain, “lost at sea.”

    Everyone is as stupid as they can be, because thinking takes time and effort. Most people can barely specialize in something enough to make a living: they adhere to the belief that they have “no time for politics.” They will continue to do so, even if it kills them (which, Historical data shows, is actually fairly likely).

    They are both hereby sentenced to remedial reading of Friedrich Hayek, Lysander Spooner, and Henry David Thoreau.

    –Between You, Me, and the NSA (and all the “first-class citizens” they share it with)

  29. Andy

    “Between You, Me, and the NSA

    June 29, 2015 at 7:34 pm

    Glenn Beck and Howard Stern are self-contradicting small-L libertarians. Why self-contradicting? Because they are US government school graduates (if I’m wrong about this, their parents should demand the money they spent on private schooling back). The standards set by the government schools determine the level of competitiveness of the private schools as well, so there’s really no such thing as schooling that is ‘totally free from government interference and standard-lowering.’ This is the way in which the standard (for what constitutes “the minimum human philosophy necessary for civilized society”) is slowly erased. This is the primary mover of civilization toward totalitarianism.”

    Most of the people who are in the Libertarian Party and movement also went to government schools, and most of the few who did not went to private schools where the government had heavy control over the curriculum. The difference between “us” and “them” is that we were able to break the conditioning.

  30. Andy

    George Phillies

    July 1, 2015 at 10:01 am

    “Trump, however, was canny enough to become wealthy.”

    The fact that Donald Trump was born into a wealthy family made this a lot easier than it would have been otherwise.

  31. Joseph Buchman Post author

    George,

    Thanks for the link to the Looneytarian response by Beck. Whatever modicum of respect I had vaporized there. Where the #$#@% did he get the idea he is a libertarian?

    Not that I am a perfect libertarian, far from it, but at some point there is a boundary, with guys with white suits and meds . . .

    Sigh

  32. paulie

    While my personal cultural preferences are vastly different, there is nothing unlibertarian about calling for a voluntary boycott of a corporation.

    That says nothing about whether Beck holds other anti-liberty views, but the boycott one is not one of them, even if most of us think it is for a silly reason or list of reasons.

    Trump’s wealth comes at least in part from government favoritism and eminent domain abuse, in addition to his inheritance (the inherited part is less bad than how he came about big chunks of the rest).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *