A poll coming out of the NYTimes today shows some interesting characteristics and caricatures of the Tea Party movement. One such caricature, widely perceived as true and explored in this poll, is the intimate connection between Glenn Beck’s opinionated musings and said Tea Party movement. Similarly, the demographic info emerging about this movement shows that its proponents are largely wealthier and more educated than the average American, which as Nate Silver relates, “The tea-partiers skew older and college-educated: that’s basically the cable news demographic.”
I don’t think this poll implies any sort of causation – Tea Party to Beck or vice versa, but rather a relationship based upon mutual interests: Glenn Beck is scared shitless of the Federal Government when it is run by Democrats, and so is the Tea Party movement. The most apparent effect of this relationship is that both entities appear frequently willing to disregard the factual basis for a policy argument in favor of an emotionally driven argument (of the sort that frequently result in Beck sobbing like a spoiled child who doesn’t get their way).
Offered up as support for this relationship between the Tea Party and Beck, Nate Silver points to the conspicuous timing of Beck’s cable opinion show debut: the day before President Obama was inaugurated.
This begins to point to a certain opportunist impulse in one, Glenn Beck. Especially when one considers that Beck released 7 books, 3 dvds, 26 cds, and multiple subscriber-only media venues since 2007, his role as a media siphon and capitalist extraordinaire is all the more clear.
So what though? Who cares if someone on cable (news) happens to be continually expanding the franchise that is their name? It surely is within all of their legal rights and freedoms to do so.
And that is the point here. I guess that within the ever-expanding web of Beck’s media empire, he was able to instill a sense of seriousness within his pursuits. He capitalized not only on resources that were just waiting to be thrown at the next conservative darling, but also upon the lingering political self-consciousness of the conservative movement. His conspiracies, images of communist takeovers, out-of-control government, and the framing of the government versus the people do much to exploit the foibles of the modern conservative base.
So in context, does Beck matter to politics at large?
I would say no, unless people outside of the base to whom he directly speaks start to take him seriously. He obviously has no policy savvy. He has no credentials upon which to espouse one paradigm or policy over another, but he surely has the credentials to be the voice inside the base’s head.
I am comfortable discussing Beck within a context of media alone. The second that reputable or otherwise credible people begin to discuss him within a context of policy they should be rightly viewed as failing their audience. With or without Beck, I doubt the GOP base would ever have supported Health Care Reform under Obama. With or without Beck, I doubt that base would tacitly acknowledge Obama’s role in lowering their taxes. And I sincerely hope that no public officials are taking cues on policy from Beck or Beck’s audiences’ rantings, but no more than I hope that extreme right wing policies stop being perceived as so ethereally appropriate in this day and age.
Indeed, maybe Beck’s role in our politics today is just an indicator of to whom right wing politicians will have to pander when their poll numbers are down. But it isn’t like those politicians would have done anything differently with or without the presence of Beck.
Again, Beck just capitalizes upon those foibles of modern conservatism: government bad, taxes bad, guns good, and so on.
So whats new?


