(Click the above link for the article. It appears in the Huffington Post, but I don't want any genetic fallacies - just read and consider the argument Palermo presents!)
Joseph Palermo, a real history professor, at a real, accredited university, who has a real (not honorary!) Ph.D. in history, takes on Glenn Beck's outrageously false historical revisionism. Beck may or may not earnestly believe the utter fictions he's spinning out, I can't claim to understand the motivations of the man, but his distortion of historical facts is arguably dangerous, and as Professor Palermo points out, appealing to the views and ideas of 18th Century men may not be the best thing for 21st Century citizens.
The Founders were not monolithic, as my Con Law professor once said, and they had a diversity of views, motivations and ideas. To appeal to what the Founders as a single entity thought or wanted is a mistake - they often disagreed sharply with one another. As a philosophic point, it's inadvisable to appeal to the authority of the Founders. I argue for this because we're trying to figure out what is best to do now, in 2010, for people with problems and issues and technology that the Founders could scarcely have dreamt of. While it's worthwhile to acknowledge the importance of what they were trying to accomplish, and also to keep their spirit of liberty for all (in a modern sense, since for example they didn't see fit to eliminate slavery when they founded the republic) as an ideal, it seems inappropriate to refer to men from the 18th Century for answers, when their lives, views, and situations were influenced by states of affairs which obtained when they were alive - well over 200 years ago. In order to determine what would best address issues and problems we have today, we need to consider what would result in the best possible outcome today.
As another point, Palermo points out the pitfalls of an unrestricted market:
"Beck, Goldberg, Shlaes and others seem to be pursuing a long-term project of their own to misinform their rather gullible audiences into believing that anytime a government imposes limits on the ability of private business (especially giant corporations) to exploit the country's land and labor it is an attack on individual "liberty." It's the identical argument that the representatives of corporate trusts deployed at the turn of the last century when they demanded the "freedom" to do anything they wished. In the wake of the Wall Street financial meltdown and the Gulf of Mexico oil spill catastrophe, both brought to us by the less than benevolent actions of unrestrained corporate power, Beck's views are not only stupid and false, but dangerous."
I acknowledge that the above quote adds another issue to this post, and could result in a couple different threats in the comments (should there be any!), but I couldn't resist it... as an egalitarian I totally agree with it!
Ok, unleash the hounds!
i must say that i agree somewhat that we can't totally look the the Founders as to what we need to do to solve things today since we are so "advanced" but in the same breath there are things that we can look back at what they did for our country and learn from them still. i'm sure we can apply some things from then to now. i would compare it to parenting.. you learn from your parents as a child and more than likely use what you learned from them on your own children. also when the government puts limits on the abilities of private business.. it's not an attack on individual "liberty".. it's a corporation!!! it's not even an attack on their corporate "liberties", it's to make sure they remain in check and follow the rules. if corporations didn't have rules and regulations it would be pretty much total chaos. same thing when our states each had their own money and some states wouldn't take other state's money... chaos!! glenn beck is a strange man in my opinion. i think he's just trying to create panic and disorder instead of truly informing people of what is really going on.
ReplyDeleteHere's my arguement: Glenn Beck is a member of the Church of Latter Day Saints of Jesus Christ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_beck
ReplyDeleteMormonism is provably false. (I'm willing to state my case further if necessary, but its not a broad step to research this fact). Since Beck is willing to profess belief in a religion that is provably, historically, false he is therefore uncredible as an expert in the scholarship of history.
Ryan John Bernfield
Ryan, not a bad argument, though it may not actually be a necessary one. I settled on this a step earlier than you: Beck presumably has no demonstrable education in history beyond the standard required of all U.S. secondary children, and possibly some college courses. Compare this with the article written by a professor of history, who has earned a doctorate in history - I think it's pretty clear who is more qualified as an authority on American History.
ReplyDeleteTo put the point more plainly: if a professional academic historian claims that Beck's account of U.S. history is erroneous or false, then that is likely the case.
Claims about religion can be tricky though, as they may not be able to be falsified easily. Of course, they aren't able to be proven either, so they reside in a murky territory when it comes to using it as an authoritative foundation. In brief, I try not to utilize religion as the basis for many of my arguments, as it can quickly side-track the debate!