I enjoy listening to Mr. Beck, and, as a conservative, I can adapt to his "style".  He is quite entertaining, and I can see he has a following. He also seems to be "preaching to the choir" a bit.  I think Beck would admit that...perhaps it is part of the success of many of the top conservative radio and TV programs.  I'd like to point out that, despite the fact that liberal broadcasters and pundits do the same thing with much greater amounts of air-time devoted to it, we are not getting a heck of a lot of stuff done here for the conservative movement.  Remember that thing? This was what attorney Abraham Lincoln was signing up for back when the Republican party was brand new.  He saw that the USA could be free of the evil of slavery. He has proven that he went about his efforts with essentially, evangelical zeal, and with the cleverness of a great leader.

I am concerned that, while Glen Beck and his sort are clearly making a good living (i.e. is "succeeding"), Beck is not being a good seller of his underlying philosophies.  I am aware that I do not direct Mr. Beck, but I'd like to think he may want to see a more conservative government in our country. You see, once you spend time around an evangelical church you find out that the most important thing you can do is to "bring people to Christ" (i.e. get un-churched folk in to church, since everybody  needs God, you are helping them this way). The best evangelicals point out this is exactly like selling something.  Or like marketing in general.  It is bringing often complicated individuals to a decision to try and meet up with something they only barely understand.  Like you, I am happy to say Beck appears to impart a desire to read books.  That is a good thing in every way.  By reading avidly, a person can lift their thoughts and "soar".

Now, you do a superior job of selling things, helping people, by putting audiences in a position to relate to you in at least "some" way. You defeat your sales effort by attacking and putting the audience on their "defensive" stance.  Stewart's strategic "retreat" to "Comedy-ville" achieves two things--he evokes in the audience a feeling that Jon Stewart does not take his insults too seriously, and he allows himself an excuse, much like Mr. Beck's "I'm just a Rodeo Clown" statement. He also convinces those who totally disagree with him, that he is not too darn disagreeable as a person. You see, as gregarious beings, we humans are constantly looking for a way to get along with one another, while not selling out our own sense of self.  When attacked "fundamentally", it is that same sense of "self" that goes on the defense, and causes so very little agreement and sense of relating when done today in conservative broadcasting.  I'd have to use as a set of examples of broadcasters who are probably getting more people talking and relating to them, regardless of agreement as these: Medved, Ingraham, Hewitt, Breitbart.  Those who appear to prefer pure attack and little or no relating are Beck, Limbaugh, Savage...the ones I generally do not spend much time tracking.

  A movment does a better job of promoting philosophy (and therefore succeeding STRATEGICALLY) when done as Carnegie did--"Win Friends, Influence People".  One of Carnegie's tenets and I think the most important one, is that you actually have to develop the ability to "like" other people that you really do not agree with....that you normally would simply not like.  You see, homo-sapiens is very adept at determining who to trust and to like, their senses and minds are far sharper than we give them credit for. The "common man"  will sniff out someone who simply is "tolerating" them...or who hates them, but is "using" them.  So, the best politicians and leaders achieve a sort of Buddah-like supine splendor of love for their common man. This, too, is the mission of religion, at its best and its most fundamental. After all, I have no trouble imagining that liberal households destroyed by a "dirty bomb" sent from Iran, would mourn their own, just as my household would.

This "connecting with folks", does not need to be done by speaking falsely.  I think the comedians have a leg up on this one, since comedy is essentially mining for certain odd "truths" buried in mundane daily life. Good communication also,  is not made by sacrificing principles (just a day or so ago a smart liberal friend said "you have to 'own' your words and your actions") . This, too, becomes obvious, and is sniffed out right away.  Rather, leaders achieve influence, mainly as you, Mr. Goldberg ,do: provide quality information delivered in a mature manner, and dealing with subjects of very wide interest--speaking the truth, so to speak.  Add to this, a vision of how we can get there and you may very well have a great political movement and it's leader.  Now, getting those ideas to percolate through society and become common understanding is yet another great task for the potential leader, or influential thinker.  I, for one, hope that it becomes common knowledge one day, that the German National Socialists had many party platform "planks" in common with socialists everywhere (.e.g state covered retiree care, avid gun control, state control of warehouses and industries, promotion of vast state-sponsored projects...promotion of "the people" and "the worker" over business and industry, while acting as "statist" as can be conceived)

Our movement is based not upon flight to tradition as so many have opined.  The movement is not simply "populist" or "elitist", even though we, as conservatives, do not like power to reside solely with any kind of "elite".  We seek a world where anyone who owns his words and actions may very well become the next Edison, the next Einstein, or the next great leader.  Though we look to leaders for direction, we do not accept tyranny in any form. We also do not enjoy or promote leaders or government which cannot be trusted to help mankind and protect our country.  What is needed now, is for us to send the message high and low.  We need to promote a general understanding that conservatives, agreed with or not, are seeking to reduce dependence upon a vast central government.  We are seeking a world where enterprise is common, and where those who work hard and work smart are rewarded--and this means THE LITTLE GUY.  We do not believe that these same businesses need to be allowed to take over, destroy or to be dishonest.  Rather, we would see businesses, held accountable for their actions.  That is part and parcel of the rule of law. This "rule of law" is essential to the free enterprise system.  Getting the message out high and low is our next great mission.  Next time we control Congress we need to restrain government, eliminate corruption, rampant waste, and to reign in the tendency to "bring home the bacon" regardless of the meaning and value from legislative action. Being a leader means being an adult.

Ronald Reagan did this as no other leader has in perhaps hundreds of years. He convinced vast majorities of people that his intentions were good and that there was a "meeting of the minds" between conservative and liberal, at least in intended goals and direction. At that time, many tens of millions admitted that giant Federal government was fundamentally dysfunctional. That we, as Americans, stood for  Freedom and Justice.  A very large movement occurred at that time, and a huge set of problems from a recession and a longstanding tension with a global opponent were still looming large.  Reagan was not perfect, and I'm fairly sure he would admit that.  His story is now being reshaped, and fundamentally altered, just as the story of FDR was altered.  Only this alteration is being done by the same tailor...and the story of Reagan is becoming unflattering much as the true story of FDR became much more flattering, though not always deserved.  Reagan was fundamentally a great communicator and an empathetic person.  He was someone you could disagree with and yet like.  That is important. It is an error to assume that the commentators in the media represent the millions of liberal folk in our nation.  I'd posit that the group of liberal buddies at some Starbucks somewhere would nod their heads in approbation any time I would say: "those idiot news people"...I've had this happen too many times not to know it is true. While they agree with newscaster liberal sentiment, they know they are often being fed a line of bull. Often they seek the higher quality information to be had now almost everywhere.

Facts are great things, when accepted....not when fought.  Get out the facts.  Analyze the facts.  Accept it when they do or do not support your position-study and adapt.  Show how your position grows and matures when nurtured by reality and facts.  This is what I miss when a Beck sets out a hypothesis then shows a few days later with an "Emily Latella: NEVERMIND".  You know, the only reason I really do not watch or listen to Rush is that he does not lay out sufficient supporting facts to bolster what he is saying.  Perhaps he feels factual support is boring and does not promote his show.  So be it.  He has lost me as a listener. Facts tend to support many conservative positions. This is particularly so in governing and in general public and fiscal policy.  The government which governs the best, really is the government that governs the least.  Still, justice needs to prevail, so regulation of business does not need to "go away", it needs to occur fervently and with intelligence.  Imagine what could have been averted had the SEC used aggressive and intelligent regulatory action to prevent Bernie Madoff from his horrendous actions. The fact that they did not is a sign of dysfunctional government.  The fact that they had an opportunity to act to prevent this disaster is a tribute to our having crafted a set of regulatory agencies and laws in the aftermath of the 1929 crash and subsequent depression. Regulation does not need to be eliminated it needs to get down and do some calisthenics...get rid of its flab, start thinking hard about its mission and do its duty.  There is nothing un-conservative about Justice, about following the "rule of law". 

We need to follow through with this great task of improving our government. And, like it or not, we need at least some grudging understanding and by-in from our  fellow homo-sapiens-liberalis. I happen to think that we gain great forward movement from admitting our own mistakes (we already do a much better job of this than our opponenents). What we do not do, is own our words and actions as "compassionate conservatives" in such a way that liberals must grudgingly admit that we appear to mean what we say. That we are trying in our own "misguided" way to achieve those ends.  You know, I have yet to hear someone accuse Ron Reagan of being "an elite".  The general criticism is that he was simply not smart.  That rings very hollow once examined with any care at all.  His story just does not agree with the idea that he was a dummy.  Rather, he was "folksy"...sort of like our old friend Will Rogers. There is another one who would be liked by those with whom agreement was easy and just as much by those who had very few ideas in common with him. THAT, is our acid-test.


Praying for a great 2010 in Los Angeles, CA