Posted by
Steve on Thursday, October 01, 2009 4:30:53 PM
Will Munsil wrote an article for the ASU newspaper. In the article, he laments that some of the conservative voices are not giving the conservative movement a good name. He has a lot of good things to say about Rush Limbaugh. But, he dismisses Glenn Beck, Orly Taitz, Michael Savage and the “birthers” as giving the movement a bad name.
What Mr. Munsil does not realize is that each “voice” in the movement has its place. Orly Taitz and the birthers have their place. While it is not necessarily the face that establishment conservatives would like to put before the world, they are a viable force. Establishment type conservatives generally tend to be a little more liberal than the people that support Orly Taitz and the birthers. To people more conservative than Mr. Munsil, Orly Taitz and the birthers are pursuing something they feel passionately about. Whether it will ever bear any fruit is another matter and not even the point. The birthers build a pretty convincing case based on evidence that is available to the public that there is something to their story. Let them pursue this goal and stay out of their way. If they are right, the evidence will build up and say so. If they are wrong, the evidence will eventually lead everyone to that conclusion.
Glenn Beck does not have the same function in the conservative movement that Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Prager or Michael Savage have. Limbaugh, Prager and Savage discuss the fine points of conservative orthodoxy. Glenn Beck is not in that category. Glenn Beck’s job in the grand pantheon is to be the “Town Crier”. In early America, there were people that went around the towns that gave the headlines of the news. They were known as the Town Criers. Their job was to discover news and report it, not discuss points of doctrine. I am not saying that Glenn never discusses doctrine, just that his role is more of the Town Crier than intellectual. Glenn Beck has been warning America about things that are happening and are about to happen. He does that very well. If you think that he is trying to be Rush Limbaugh or Dennis Prager, you would say he is giving us a bad name. If you understand his role, you will embrace that role and wish we had others that did just that.
Michael Savage performs the same role as Rush Limbaugh and Dennis Prager. If you listen to all three, you would be struck by how similar their messages are. Their approaches are entirely different as are all three individuals. Dennis Prager holds an intellectual discussion with you on the radio. He appeals to your intellect. Rush Limbaugh is the showman. He entertains while teaching. Michael Savage just tells you like it is. You may not like what he says, but you have to realize that what he says is true. Michael Savage does have the problem that he sometimes comes across as too negative. When I listen to Michael Savage, sometimes I have to turn him off because he is too much for me to take. That never happens with Rush because Rush is funny and makes sure you have a good time.
Will Munsil is correct in that we have to wonder about the face that we put forward. But, before we criticize we have to realize the roles each commentator plays. Why? Because if you do not understand why the radio personality says what he/she says, you miss the entire point. The why is just as important as the what.
I do commend Will Munsil on his insight. Any time you write an article and take a stand you will start to take arrows from all those that have a problem with whatever it is that you say. Liberal Republicans want their candidates to be politically correct, so they do not offend Democrats. Just being physically present is enough to offend Democrats on some issues. In other words, if you spend your life trying not to offend Democrats you will end up being a nothing.