Dana Milbank’s Glenn Beck Rant: Scant Evidence, and a Lack of Original Thought

Attacking the messenger instead of attacking his message is old-hat. Beck has been called every bad name and has been associated with every negative label. But it’s one thing to attack the messenger instead of the message, and another thing to merely plagiarize the attacks of other attackers of the messenger. Do people really get paid for this type of work?

Milbank claims Beck’s method for success is simple, “He goes places where others are forbidden by conscience.” Or in other words, other conservative talk show hosts have standards, scruples, integrity, shame, etc., but Beck isn’t constrained by such things. Beck says whatever he wants to say for the sake of ratings and nothing else. As evidence, he brings up Beck’s mentions of “Death panels? Government health insurance for dogs? FEMA concentration camps? An Obama ‘civilian national security force’ like Hitler’s SS or Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard? An administration official advocating forced abortions and sterilization agents in drinking water?”

In other words, Milbank is implying there is no credible evidence for government-run health care death panels or any of the other items in that list. Anyone who seriously brings up these items as criticism for our government does not have a conscience, or is defying it.

But Dana, there is evidence for death panels. Obama himself gave evidence of his support for the rationing of care that would be the domain of “death panels” in his famous “take the pill” statement. Whenever a government bureaucrat makes decisions in situations that affect the life and death of a patient, rather than leaving that up to the patient and doctor to decide, then you’ve got a death panel. You might argue that it’s the same when a life insurance tells grandma to take the pill instead of getting a pace-maker, but no, it isn’t, because when the government becomes involved, there will only be one choice. The current system, with its problems, at least gives me some options, however limited and expensive they may already be due to government regulations.

As for the other items in the list, they aren’t necessarily made up, or the domain of crazy, half-brained conspiracy theorists, except for the FEMA concentration camp item, which Beck actually debunked. And just because Glenn asks a question, doesn’t mean he’s making a claim. He’s trying to figure out what’s true and what isn’t, and if something gets traction and can’t be dismissed out of hand, then he’ll do the research until he figures out what’s going on.

But the ultimate insults Milbank brings to bear, which has become the popular thing to accuse Beck of over the past year or two, is that “There’s scant evidence that Beck holds his zany views with any conviction…” That is, he doesn’t believe what he’s saying, he just says it because it works. How ironic for the left to accuse Beck of such a thing, when it is the left that engages in exactly this behavior. A case of projection, perhaps? We don’t have to look any further than Obama’s campaign statements of 2008 and compare them to his actions in 2009 to see that there are those on the left who are willing to say anything to get elected, even if it’s the opposite of what they intend to do once in office. On the other hand, what evidence does Milbank have that Beck doesn’t believe what he says? Well, to borrow Milbank’s term, it’s “scant”. Apparently so are Milbank’s journalistic qualifications.