Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Glenn Beck Incites Violence; Keith Olbermann Departs
Even as the rightwing shouters get more extreme, with Glenn Beck inciting death threats against liberal academic Frances Fox Piven, MSNBC got rid of its leading progressive voice, showing Keith Olbermann the door on Friday.
These are ominous signs.
Olbermann's star rose when he led MSNBC into its current cable niche as a liberal counterpoint to Fox News. By criticizing the Bush Administration, the Republican Party, and the increasingly nasty and outrageous spokesmen of the far right, Olbermann provided some needed balance on the skewed cable shout-a-thon that has coarsened our national political discourse. He mentored progressive commentator Rachel Maddow, who will continue her show on MSNBC, and left a lasting mark on his colleagues and the nation.
But MSNBC has chastised and suspended Olbermann in recent months--for attacking rightwing bullies like Bill O'Reilly, and, most recently, for contributing money to Democratic candidates in the last election cycle.
It was silly of Olbermann to donate money to candidates, including Gabrielle Giffords (before the terrible shooting rampage that left her incapacitated) and Progressive Caucus co-chair Raul Grijalva, Democrat of Arizona, whom he featured on his show. His individual contributions meant nothing compared with the power of his now-vacant podium. (Never mind that Fox News and the Republican Party have become virtually indistinguishable). Olbermann apologized and returned to the air.
But consider the unfortunate timing of MSNBC's decision to finally, permanently, let Olbermann go.
Immediately after the shootings in Tucson, Olbermann delivered an impassioned monologue on the need for greater civility in our political discourse. He criticized his own use of aggressive language, and called on political commentators on the left and right to tone it down.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the dial, Glenn Beck, who last year said of progressives "you're going to have to shoot them in the head," was gearing up his bizarre campaign against Frances Fox Piven, a welfare advocate and civil rights activist who did groundbreaking work in the 1960s and 1970s and recently wrote in the Nation about organizing a movement of the unemployed.
As everyone who pays any attention at all to politics knows, the current political climate is not exactly a hotbed of 1960s radicalism, particularly when it comes to welfare policy. Beck pulled out quotes from a paper Piven wrote decades ago in order to make a general case that Democrats and progressives want to overthrow capitalism. But ever since President Clinton enacted welfare reform in 1992, there has been precious little support among Democrats for emergency assistance to the poor. President Obama, the biggest recipient of Wall Street campaign contributions in the history of Presidential elections, has shown more willingness to put big banks on the dole than poor people.
But in the alternate reality inhabited by Glenn Beck and his Tea Party cronies, City University of New York professor Piven is responsible for everything from the current recession to Obama's health care reform policies to violence by rightwing extremists. She is, he said over and over on his web site and on the air, a menace to society. In an Orwellian twist, he even connected her to the shootings in Tucson because of her support for civil disobedience.
Frances Fox Piven has written for The Progressive over the years. Her compassionate and carefully documented explorations of poverty, structural inequality, and discrimination were particularly poignant in the early 1990s, when punitive and coercive welfare reform policies were sweeping the nation.
But even Piven's fans would be hard-pressed to argue that she has had a big impact on public policy in the last couple of decades. The 78-year-old professor would be completely unknown to Glenn Beck's audience if he didn't continue beating the drum about her scholarship and claiming that she is an "enemy of the Constitution." Even after death threats began pouring in, and Piven's lawyers at the Center for Constitutional Rights asked Beck to stop, he kept on targeting her with his ludicrous accusations.
In this toxic political climate we badly need a check on delusional fantasies of the far right.
MSNBC pulled the plug on Olbermann at exactly the wrong time.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
51 Comments so far
Show AllWhat is perhaps the most telling part of this article is reading that Ms. Piven's lawyers asked Beck to stop attacking Ms. Piven. One would think that instead of asking Beck to cease his assault upon the professor, Ms. Pivens's attorneys would instead DEMAND that the FCC suspend Beck for his incendiary language against Ms. Piven.
It is surprising that Ms. Piven's lawyers do not realize that asking Beck to do something like this is like pouring gasoline on a raging fire as that request will only cause Beck to attack Ms. Piven even more. If the FCC does not punish Beck then it becomes immediately evident that they are a regulatory body in name only.
Beck probably feels that he has a First Amendment right to denounce Ms Piven. If someone shoots her Beck will reject any claims that he has any responsibility. And of course, Rupert Murdoch, who once fired Keith Olbermann, saying he was crazy, will do nothing to Beck.
Can you name a current 'regulatory body' that actually, consistently regulates anything for the benefit of We the People??
Oh, well. It's just that darn old Free Speech in the Free Market wherein everyone is Free.... except maybe Ms. Piven and the others verbally assaulted by a**holes like Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, et al. Oh, and those killed and seriously injured in AZ.....
Yes, the FCC's sole mission today is to help media owners maximize profits.
AMITOLA/SHEEPHERDER: Well-stated points.
Notice how the right wing goes after Chavez BECAUSE he spreads more wealth around.
Pivens has that ideal, too.
Acorn, an organization that worked to organize the poor and provide them with better loans is also demonized by the inhabitants of "Beck-world."
The common element? Providing something in the way of decency for the poor and dispossessed.
Why do they rail against this group, apart from its relative powerlessness (always a plus when bullies are on their rampages)?
The answer stems from Calvinism, the belief system that sees prosperity as PROOF of God's affirmation. Conversely, those who are poor (according to this system of thought) must be experiencing the punishment or wrath of God. (So how dare mere mortals intercede on their behalf!)
This concept is a modern mix of "Divine Right of Kings" crossed with a whole new rationale for blaming the poor for BEING poor. In a sense, if the poor began to change their status, the tenets that support today's fiscal hierarchy would come unglued. THAT is what Beck is ranting against, for he serves his money-masters well. In the place of a heart and soul, the man owns a black hole. Yet there are many like him, and Chris Hedges defined them aptly in his important book, "American Fascists." Its thesis runs parallel with that published by John Dean in "Conservatives Without Conscience."
The enemy is within our midst.
"Conversely, those who are poor (according to this system of thought) must be experiencing the punishment or wrath of God."
Those poor bastards in Haiti must have REALLY pissed "God" off.
Christians (real Christians, the kind that love to hate) will righteously point out the (non)historical "fact" that Haitian slaves made a "pact with the devil" in order to secure their freedom from France, and therefore, it should be plain as the nose on God's face, that they deserve, no, asked for, poverty and earthquakes.
Thank you for bringing up that old "Protestant work ethic" which effectively demonizes anyone who is not "working" ... in the most narrow sense of the word. It became our national religion long ago, and it still permeates all facets of our society. It is still what drives most fundamentalist sects, as well as more "mainstream" denominations.
Many point to its influence on our society with a sense of pride. I have come to believe that it has been the source of much of the divisiveness, selfishness, and tunnel-vision that afflicts us. I'm repulsed by the insidiousness with which it has grabbed hold of the American psyche.
TRUE: I agree. It lends a cloak of legitimacy to feelings of self-righteous disregard for others' suffering.
My sister and brother-in-law are wealthy and conservative by nature. They both work long hours and have done VERY well financially; however, they are unable to view the world from a stance outside of their own experience. Their formula is very simple (as is the case for 90% of conservatives): "You work hard, you succeed." NO other variables need factor into this equation. This makes them very "sure" that people who are poor are obviously not doing enough to alter that status.
I have even met spiritual people who view the massive suffering taking place as "just some karma playing out." That is not MY view of karma, at all. Christ taught that compassion was the highest form of love; and as the Dianna Ross song goes: "What the world needs now, is love sweet love..." I'd add of the compassionate sort to this melody.
In my view, the enormous suffering taking place in Haiti is America's invitation--served on a karmic silver platter--to mitigate its own debts by doing things that are genuinely helpful. Instead, whatever money was collected appears to be spent largely on preserving a troop presence to keep untapped resources "safe for democracy."
How I remember that line all through high school... whatever America's imperial goal, the chorus sang, "To make the world safe for democracy."
In any case, thank you for responding to my post. It's a very ugly thing when religions teach the very beliefs that castigate others and negate cause for compassion... as opposed to lending others a helping hand.
Thank you for your always enlightening posts.
I hear you on the "Work hard ... succeed" point. This past summer, I had the same ugly confrontation from my brother and sister-in-law who do work very hard, but feel that others who are hard up do not work hard. Despite trying to calmly argue my take on the subject, they continued to rant. It's been hard to be together after that. I'd prefer to keep the "conversation" going, but I know they'd prefer to just forget about it, and keep to the small talk.
That bores the hell out of me, and I'm finding it more and more difficult to carve time out to be with people who avoid the subjects of politics & religion for the sake of a phony sense of "peace." With the limited time we have on this planet, it makes more sense to me to be with people with whom I generally agree politically so that we can support each other and actually take ACTION when opportunities arise.
Unfortunately I have large extended families on both sides, and when I'm with them, I feel I'm wasting my time. Sad.
TRUE: Since I am a freelance writer, I have more time than most of my friends & family members, and what that means is that I am far better informed. FEW of them have tuned into this website, and most get their "news" from the MSM. The result is not unlike families residing in two separate realities. Today I asked my sister if she ever heard of Bernays. No. She asked me what was up with the media noise about astrology? Lately a little campaign to discredit astrology (and that field represents my life work) is underway.
Similar types of insidious campaigns are being done to discredit every area of interest, service, or research that does not toe the line that American Fascists prefer. It's seen in all of the following:
1. Scientists on global climate change
2. Frances Pivens
3. Julian Assange
4. Michael Moore
5. Peace advocates
6. Justice advocates
7. Environmental Activists
8. Feminists
9. Teachers
10. Labor Unions/public workers (with decent benefits)
11. Holistic health practices/practitioners
12. Astrology/astrologers
The conjecture is being narrowed by the hour (Keith Olberman's resignation)... meanwhile, media ownership condenses and truth is made increasingly conspicuous BY its absence. Try telling that to those who think the media IS honest and serving their interests. The work and theories of Bernays-Barnum-Orwell-Pavlov are all being expertly merged to facilitate a campaign of mind (and morality) control the likes of which this world has never seen.
Keep a candle burning, friend... the dark side is doing its utmost to devour the Light.
I think the reason to embrace hard work is basic optimism: being part of something larger than yourself. But its no excuse for myopia. When I meet people who feel their hard work excuses their basic incuriosity about the world they live in, I'm reminded that the guards who fed the ovens at Auschwitz also worked hard.
Siouxrose:
It was Dionne Warwick. I know a lot about 60s music because my parents told me about those old-time tunes.
Burt Bacharach wrote the song, Warwick sung it.
Siouxrose
Good post though I wonder if you could have meant Dionne Warwick instead of Diana Ross singing What the World Needs Now...
WADE & ERROLL: Yes, you're correct. It was Dionne Warwick. My memory isn't perfect, fellas... thanks for the reminder.
Hi SiouxRose!
I don't know whether or not Diana Ross or Dionne Warwich ever sang the song you mentioned in your post, "What The World Needs Now". But I still remember where I was when I first heard it as a kid years ago. The singer's name was Jackie DeShannon.
A simple google search turns up DeShannon.
:)
From one Mad Irishman to another and I am also a great admirer of Dorothy Day.
Please do not take this as a personal criticism, but because your following statement is so commonly made by really good people I am compelled to comment on it. .........."We need to have the compassion of Christ towards those who are in need, ..........but we also need to be sure that our good intentions are not being misused by selfish people who are not interested in changing, but only milking the system for all they can get out of it".
In my mind, too many good people, included Catholics, are overly concerned with poor people who are milking the system. In some cases we may be too quick to judge as well. Regardless, such abuses are the price of the system. The systems of social welfare cannot be made perfect, unless you desire a police state.
Life is not black and white, it is all grey, and we are all broken people in a broken world. But so many of these good hard working people need to wipe these "freeloaders' from their minds. The percentages of those milking the system are so infinitesimal when compared to white collar crime and the abuses of capitalism that has created such a dysfunctional society in the first place. Dorothy Day referred to this as the "dirty rotten system". , .
There is biblical saying about this. It is about swallowing camels while straining out gnats.
Mad Irishman, you must be a great guy, the type I would love to share a beer with. Also, congratulations on your spiritual conversion.
It is our right and at the very least, our responsibility as human beings to determine our position on hate. Anyone allowing a talking head in a box to decide that for them should be declared, IMHO, mentally incompetent. I know they're out there; I worked with them. (We're in how many wars and they talk about Dancing with the Stars and bs like that at the water cooler!!!?!?!) ((If this symptom applies to you, please check yourself into the nearest mental hospital, STAY OUT OF THE VOTING BOOTH and know your global neighbor wishes you a speedy recovery)).
But remember also; you are the company you keep and those devoid of critical thought are UNARMED AND DANGEROUS. Steer clear and guide your friends with you.
dumbass comment deleted by its author
Well done and well admitted. I am going to start doing that as well when I withdraw a comment.
Thanks. Sometimes I have a bit too much of a tendency engage my mouth (keyboard) before putting my brain in gear.
Why wouldn't Olbermann be dropped by MSNBC?
Even as Olbermann is portrayed as a "progressive", he was clearly a supporter of business as usual.
He supported democrats who are actually just another arm of the beast.
MSNBC is a business and businesses LOVE "efficiency", so why would they continue paying him when they can push their agenda along more cheaply without him?
He was only there to maintain the illusion and they can continue the illusion with others, or not.
Remember Remember the 5th of November
"In this toxic political climate we badly need a check on delusional fantasies of the far right."
As long as you are a supporter of the American fascist paradigm you can do and say whatever you want.
It's just funny that people don't seem to get this simple premise.
In an inverted totalitarian society, as long as you are an ardet supporter/advocate for the economic system to which everything else is subordinate then you have carte blanche to do whatever you so choose.
POLY: Powerfully and succinctly stated, as usual. Thank you.
Glen Beck and Obama can have anybody killed.
I am a libertarian, a free market laissez-faire capitalist, and believe a smaller government is the best way to go.
I read common dreams because for the most part the intellectual level is high, and I know human nature is the same right or left. The libertarian pundits are just as likely to lie, mislead with stats, and\or distort the truth as the political left, so I try to draw conclusions after gathering opposing views. I was saddened to hear that Keith was let go. He is an impassioned voice for the left and I hope that he makes MSNBC regret their decision.
It is my hope that impassioned advocates will continue to be so. Nuts and kooks of every political persuasion have been willing to kill or die for their political beliefs since the dawn of man, and will continue to do so for a long long time to come. It just plain wrong when advocates use the actions of the violent to try to gain the upper hand in the intellectual debate.
P.S. MSMBC please change your policy to allow advocates to disclose who they are giving money to. Don't keep something as stupid as trying to make them stop donating (putting their money where their mouth is).
Liberty 1,
Years ago I had considerably stronger Libertarian sympathies than I do now. In those days I called myself a socio-libertarian. Even voted for Libertarian candidate Roger Lea McBride for president in 1976.
Given that people like Olbermann are obviously in the opinion business, I don't see any great harm if they donate money to candidates so long as they disclose that fact and there are contribution limits.
Dear Liberty 1:
That sounds logical for Olbermann to have to disclose the donation amount and if he came in under the "limits." However, I don't think that MSNBC or any other corporate entitiy has to even disclose or pay attention to limits. Isn't that what is wrong with Citizens United?
For your next job, Mr. Olbermann, please incorporate yourself before signing any agreement. It really does seem that the Bloodless Corps have more human rights.
Hello Stardust
I have not made an effort to understand the ins and outs of campaign finance law, so I can't speak with any fair amount of knowledge regarding specifics. But it seems infinitely logical that disclosure is the way to go. Why limit a citizen who gets paid to express political views from putting his money where his mouth is? It would provide quite a laugh though if it was disclosed that Keith backed Rand Paul or that Rush backed Harry Ried.
She's just the latest Emmanuel Goldstein figure the Corporatist elite needs to scapegoat. Beck's bosses knows exactly what their doing. They've been carefully and doggedly creating an entire narrative for his bozo following. I know some of these dipshits and their heads are as empty as their souls. The Reich wing has been slowly filling these people up with their venom and now they're set on terrorizing their enemies and the public.
As long as Olbermann was a House Whitey he was allowed to keep his job. Once he started criticizing Obomba his days were numbered.
The right is as callous as Obama lets them be.
Beck did not say anything like "shoot Progressives in the head". That falsehood has been promoted by many on the left, including Olbermann.
If you read the entire transcript Beck was saying the Progressives are going to have to shoot people. The video was clipped to portray opposite meaning.
Why continue to repeat this refuted claim? To give support to Olbermann when he was obviously wrong?
wlc wrote:
"If you read the entire transcript Beck was saying the Progressives are going to have to shoot people. The video was clipped to portray opposite meaning."
-
wlc,
That doesn't sound much better as far as Glenn Beck's rhetoric goes!
In any case would you care to provide a url link so that you can more effectively set the record straight.
jonabark
Well presented comparison by Ms. Coniff.
Isn't terrorism the advocacy and use of violence against civilians for political goals, and isn't Beck advocating violence on national TV for political reasons? And finally, Isn't it time for people in leadership to openly and in unity confront this national disgrace?
our leaders excell at terrorism...
they are the reigning champions...
Murdoch's Beck is on the team...until he wears out his welcome...
then, someone else...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,594343,00.html
I do not watch Beck much so I can not comment on whether this is accurate. However, from what I have seen it is typical of his style to refer to phrases past used in this manner.
In this episode, I read him as saying that radicals have taken over the Dem party and among the people that will have to be shot in the head for the kind of political change the radicals want to take place, he and others will have to be shot in the head (by the radicals).
But he was not calling for conservatives, or anyone, to actually shoot anyone.
I can understand the initial confusion. The confusion was cleared up and therefore I am surprised to see the example used again.
"Confusing" or "poor communicator" is perhaps a valid description of Beck, but I do not think here he "incites violence" as charged.
A few days ago, I watched an episode of Beck's (from around March 2010, first of the six part series at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9dnLgTo6MU ), all about the nefarious Cloward-Piven. According to the episode, McCain and Bush are progressives (presumably Nixon is too?), the Federal Reserve was made by and for progressives, all social welfare is a plot to collapse the economy "from the inside", as is the Motor Voter bill and similar pro-voter efforts. The real magic of the show is Beck's attempt to assert as uniquely his own left/libertarian critiques of the Fed, and connect them with conservative ideas about the ills of unions, pensions and social welfare. And if by jumbling it all together you can't make sense of it, case closed: progressives are out for economic sabotage!
To Quote"jonabark"
"Well presented comparison by Ms. Coniff.
Isn't terrorism the advocacy and use of violence against civilians for political goals, and isn't Beck advocating violence on national TV for political reasons? "
http://www.thenation.com/article/157292/mobilizing-jobless
Read the last two paragraphs. It is Piven in "The Nation" that is advocating Grecian style violent protests.
One more thing and then I will leave you be. Google "Casey Brezik". Certainly an attack on a governor is newsworthy. I submit that this one did not fit the views of some news agencies and therefore was ignored. Some may not like FOX or Beck, but sometimes they are just about the only ones reporting certain stories. The bottom line is that ALL news outlets are biased. Buyer beware.
It's amazing what the right-wing get away with- and they do because the MSM are their courtiers and cater to their garbage. It's not my usual approach to a problem, but at this point, with the latest threats against Mrs Fox-Piven, I think Beck needs a good old fashioned ass-whoopin'. As do a few others on that side.
On social policies, I've been surprised by this generation's indifference toward US poverty. I suppose part of the problem is that our media has been so "carefully guided" by the right wing ever since Reagan. I expected better of our progressive media, which largely evaded the issue ever since Clinton. I had hoped that progressive media would put some effort into putting socio-economic policies into context, showing how stripping out welfare to create a super-cheap involuntary workforce serves to suppress wages for all of the working class. Maybe even point out that, if we wish to acknowledge reality, we have to deal with the fact that not everyone can work, and that there aren't nearly enough jobs for all who need them. We could have figured out by now that, rather than wealth trickling down, we've only been seeing poverty trickling up. Of course, it was a lost cause from the start precisely because those who were in a position to speak, usually chose not to.
Remember hearing how AFDC was "breaking the budget," and the US simply couldn't afford it anymore? Someone could have pointed out that it only used 6% of the fed budget at its highest (compared to the over-50% used by today's military), in the 1970s. Remember the panic over "the culture of lifelong dependency"? Someone could have noted that before "reform," some 80% of AFDC recipients voluntarily quit welfare for work as soon as their children began school. Silence is a powerful thing. I don't know what Frances Fox Piven actually wrote, but if she played any role in the social policies against America's poor that came out of the Clinton administration, then Glenn Beck owes her a hug.