(You can find a follow-up to this post here.)
Glenn Beck just nailed it. As a professional controversialist, Beck does his best to offend as many people as possible. His argument that churches that preach social justice are merely front groups for communists and Nazis is being denounced via every medium and from every perspective imaginable.
First, what did Beck actually say? Here’s a verbatim account.
“I beg you look for the words social justice or economic justice on your church Web site,” Beck told his viewers. “If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. … Am I advising people to leave their church? Yes! If they’re going to Jeremiah Wright’s church, yes! If you have a priest that is pushing social justice, go find another parish. Go alert your bishop and tell them, ‘Excuse me, are you down with this whole social justice thing?’ If it’s my church, I’m alerting the church authorities: ‘Excuse me, what’s this social justice thing?’ And if they say, ‘Yeah, we’re all in on this social justice thing,’ I am in the wrong place.”
Okay, thus far we have learned that the phrases “social justice” and “economic justice” are code words. Code words for what?
Beck didn’t leave his audience guessing. Holding up pictures of a swastika and a hammer and sickle, Beck noted that “social justice” was the stated goal of both communists and Nazis.
Ergo, if you believe in social justice, you might as well wearing a swastika armband or waving the red flag of Bolshevism.
How offensive is that?
Not offensive enough to outrage everyone. In fact, it is doubtful that any of Mr. Beck’s faithful followers were bent out of shape by their master’s incendiary rhetoric. That’s because, although few have the guts to put the matter as boldly as Beck, his rant is orthodox lunatic-fringe conservatism–the dominant philosophy in America today.
Lunatic fringe conservatism isn’t dominant because the majority of Americans embrace it (they don’t); it dominates by being so simple, bold and consistent that folks take it in by a process of osmosis. It’s in the air, the water and the soil.
Between the early 1930s and the early 1970s, the American social experiment was shaped by a moral vision that was virtually the obverse of everything Glenn Beck and the Tea Party movement subscribes to. Lets call it the social justice movement.
There were three parts to the program: religious, economic and (in the later stages) racial. The religion was liberal, moral and ecumenical. The economic program was New Deal orthodoxy. By the 1950s, ridding the world of Jim Crow apartheid had become the movement’s primary goal. Picture liberal Protestant clergymen, radical Roman Catholic priests and Jewish Rabbis marching arm-in-arm with Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy and you’ve got the idea.
The civil rights movement couldn’t have succeeded without this movement. As every white southerner realized, it took progressive rulings from the Supreme Court, progressive legislation from Congress and powerful intervention from the White House and the Justice Department to drive Jim Crow to his knees. In short, it took the government.
Why are the Tea Party people and Glenn Beck’s fans are so upset about the federal government? Because, in their view, integration was forced down their unwilling throats by judicial and legislative fiat.
The lunatic fringe conservatism that Mr. Beck espouses with such goofy eloquence is driven, among other things, by southern white resentment. Remember Beck’s weird comment about President Obama having it in for white people and white culture?
Lunatic fringe conservatism isn’t just about racial resentment. Like the social justice movement it replaced, Beckian conservatism had economic 
and religious components. The economic vision was trickle down, supply side economics–what’s go0d for General Motors is good for America so government regulation is always bad. The religious message was a sectarian form of Christian fundamentalism, (Mormons like Beck were eventually tolerated because national power needed a broad coalition).
Corporate America and American evangelicals had their own reasons for resenting, even fearing, the federal government. They just had to tap into southern white racial resentment and the conservative revolution was on. Ronald Reagan, let’s remember, kicked off his 1980 presidential campaign in Neshoba County Mississippi, sixteen short years after three civil rights workers were murdered there. You didn’t have to be a dog to hear the racial whistle.
The power shift took place during the latter years of the Jimmy Carter presidency. With each passing decade, the old social justice coalition becomes a little grayer and a bit more decrepit. Most mainline denominations (Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, the United Church of Christ etc.) retain a sentimental attachment to the old social justice movement, but most of these groups are in steep numerical decline. The passion that drove the movement in the 50s and 60s has largely dissipated. All the fire is now with the lunatic fringe conservatives.
The GOP, to the dismay of many moderate conservatives, has little choice but to play along. Without southern white racial resentment, Ronald Reagan and his latter-day compatriots wouldn’t have had a chance.
Nothing could be more natural, therefore, than for Glenn Beck to associate terms like “progressive”, “social justice” and “economic justice” with the greatest evils his feverish mind can conjure. That’s the white southern racial resentment talking.
Friends of Justice 
The other day I was listening to a Christian talk station based out of Oklahoma, rebroadcasting a show from February, where the hosts were saying the very same thing in the same terms. This line of argument has been percolating for awhile.
Dear Alan,
Thank you for exposing Glenn Beck’s Nazi/Fascist demogery. His popularity shows we are never far from anarchy; thus we Americans must be ever alert. You play an essential role.
I am planning to attend the New Orleans Law & Jazz Fest in April. Hope to see you there.
My very best,
Glen L. Houston
Ah, how quick we are to play the racist card.
To borrow a line from “The Princess Bride” – “You keep on using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.”
What nazism and fascism is to Beck, racism appears to be to the other side. Except in Beck’s case he’s at least got a little historical foundation even if he builds a lot of demagoguery upon it.
“Because, in their view, integration was forced down their unwilling throats by judicial and legislative fiat.”
That’s a very irresponsible statement. Demonizing and slander come to mind as extremes. Claiming to know someone’s motives. Do you have proof of this…or is this just what you think must be?
Or to put it another way – would you like to be convicted of a crime because of someones opinion that you had a felonious motive based on their interpretation of your actions?
Doesn’t sound like true justice to me….social or otherwise.
Debese:
Thanks for adding your thoughts. You ask how I know that southern conservatives feel integration was forced down their throats by legislative fiat. The primary reason is that, at the time the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the Voting Rights Act (1965) were passed, southern politicans lined up to say that this legislation was being forced down their throats by legislative fiat. Think of the current chorus of denunciation re: health care legislation and multiply by ten. There was nothing subtle or hidden about southern views at the time nor is there the slightest historical controversy about where the vast majority of southern opinion leaders stood at the time. If these people ever changed their minds they have kept it to themselves. Of course, over the years, people have become far more circumspect about opposing integration; but there is little suggestion that the level of resentment has diminished significantly.
Glenn Beck’s mentor is W. Cleon Skousen, a John Birch Society enthusiast who repeatedly lied about his work with the FBI. You can find my post on that subject here: https://friendsofjustice.wordpress.com/2010/03/29/weenie-roasting-and-white-resentment/#more-2542
But….does that make Glenn Beck a racist? i.e. does he think that other ethnicities are actually less human or not as important than his own?
And how is it we’re positive that our president’s communistic and socialistic mentors (Robert Ayers anyone?) aren’t significant but Beck’s are?
“but there is little suggestion that the level of resentment has diminished significantly.”
Is there evidence that the level of resentment is the same? If there is a common thread it seems to be the abuse of power and not racism.
“Why are the Tea Party people and Glenn Beck’s fans are so upset about the federal government? Because, in their view, integration was forced down their unwilling throats by judicial and legislative fiat.”- Absolutely untrue… please be more responsible with your assumptions… assertations as such only demonstrate a lack of integrity and honesty.
facism??? marx defined facism as the merging of state and corporate entities…EXACTLY what this administration is doing. i think marx knew something about facism. obama, no matter his freaking color, has marxist intentions and beck is simply calling him on it.
oh, and martin luther king was a conservative republican…good grief
Racism is not just a matter of thinking people of another race are inferior to your own race. Racism is often reflected in an inablity to fully credit the humanity, or the full citizenship of people of color. For instance, if I suggest that European Americans shaped the nation and gave America its true character and that non-Europeans played an insignificant role in that process, I am guilty of racism even if I have no particular grudge against people of color. It is the ethnocentrism of Beck’s views, not his antipathy for black people, that gives him away. If President Obama repeatedly advocated using violence against the power structure then we could reasonably conclude that Mr. Ayers might be an influence. But I haven’t heard him say that, so I conclude (a) that either Ayers no longer advocates these views and isn’t a likely source of influence or (b) Ayers continues to believe what he apparently believed in the 1960s but that nobody he knows, including Mr. Obama, takes these views seriously.
That is, if Glenn Beck distanced himself from his mentor’s paranoid worldview I would not be making the connection; but when the guy sounds like a latter day reincarnation of Mr. Skousen I think the conclusion is pretty obvious. When, additionally, Mr. Beck says that Skousen’s views were revealed from on high, I’ve got a real problem.
Interesting viewpoint on racism – to which I would humbly counter – is that what racism really is? Our wonderful post-modern age allows us to twist and shape words to all sorts of meanings. Unfortunately for us reality is neither modern nor post-modern…it simply is.
Hence – if one could deduce historically that Europeans shaped the course of this nation historically (I’m not sure if you were talking historically or present day…shaped vs. shaping), it wouldn’t mean that the person is racist. Nor would it mean they were racist if an American said that Americans should shape the course of this country in the future. What is racist is if a person says that a person is qualified to participate in the discussion only if there skin contains a certain amount of melanin.
Thanks for checking in, Mike. I would direct you to my recent comments above which, I believe, address your concerns.
Alan Bean
Jerry:
Fascism is basically the control of government by a combination of business and military interests. Are you accusing Obama of being a fascist or a marxist, the two are poles apart.
Alan Bean
Alan did address your concerns…though the fact that they are ultimately assumptions remains the same.
Or, if a person, like Beck, speaks of America in terms that exclude non-white and the non-European Americans while largely ignoring the virulent racism that has characterized our past (whatever you might think of the present). That is a racist stance because it suggests that only a select group are real Americans and their views are real American views. That’s what I hear Beck saying–loud and clear. If you hear him saying something else, that’s fine.
Alan Bean
“If you hear him saying something else, that’s fine.”
I disagree. Instead of blindly assuming things about people why don’t we actually seek out what the person means and actually is suggesting? This would be just as irresponsible for me as for anyone.
The question at present seems to be “Is Beck or someone that shares a similar ideology with the tea party-ers a racist?”
The answer is either yes or no. Not “do my interpretations of his actions mean that he’s a racist.”
Ultimately this isn’t about Beck for me. He isn’t a person who’s style I care for so apart from the news stories and a snippet here and there…I really don’t feel the need to defend him per se. What it is about is the way that the opponents of the conservative ideology attack and appear to attempt to put themselves on a moral high ground yet ignore history and facts.
So we ignore the connections between liberal socialism and marxism and fascism (there are common threads – the abuse of power being bought with social programs being one), and we demonize the opposition by calling them “lunatics”, “racists”, “white” (which almost appears to be a sin these days) among other things – instead of actually dealing with the arguments put forth.
If this is justice….
Dear Mike, and Debese,
As an American living abroad, I have found Alan’s article thoughtful, well-researched, and very helpful towards beginning to make sense of Mr. Beck’s recent behavior, which, I confess, has baffled me. I saw him on television and had the impression that he is a very fearful man. I always think fear is a poor basis on which to make any decision, whether it is a decision about leaving a church or about who to vote for, etc. Fear clouds our judgement, whereas an honest search for the truth, even when it’s not what we want to hear, leads us toward a place of personal freedom. I hear you both talking about “assertations” and assumptions: Alan’s facts seem to me to be grounded and based on firm research, and I think several of the comments you have made appear to come from anger – almost as if you decided that Alan was wrong before you read the article. But your assertions aren’t backed up by evidence that I can see…. However, I totally respect your right to have a point of view that differs from Alan’s, and from my own. I wish you the best in your search for truth. Mr. Beck’s comments about leaving churches that talk about social justice particularly disturb me, as a churchgoer, because I think a church that doesn’t stand up for justice wouldn’t be a church at all. And the word “social” is just a reference to people, to society. I can’t say I would be happy to go to a church that stood for unfairness and injustice. And our country was founded on the principles of liberty and justice for all…. Do we now turn our backs on that because we find it so hard to agree with one another and to get along and to speak respectfully to one another?
Dear Debese,
As a detached bystander, I can only marvel at your ability to subject Mr. Bean to scrupulously high journalistic standards (requiring evidence, not being allowed to make the slightest hint of an assumption, etc.) while ignoring them yourself. You accuse him of blindly assuming things about people without seeking to understand “what the person means and actually is suggesting.” But this is exactly what you are doing. You seem doggedly determined not to hear what Mr. Bean is saying; you seem to be trying to avoid understanding his point at all costs, even when it makes your comments appear to be sorely lacking in logic. May we all live up to the standards to which we hold others.
I believe that I’m only holding him to the same standards that he holds Mr. Beck.
Speaking of wild assumptions you state:
“You seem doggedly determined not to hear what Mr. Bean is saying; you seem to be trying to avoid understanding his point at all costs, even when it makes your comments appear to be sorely lacking in logic. ”
My guess (note the word), based on your level of passion, is that you are not as detached from the subject as you’d like to think.