By Mark from St Paul

June 22, 2010 11:21 PM | Link to this

Start reading 30 paragraphs into the story. weeklystandard.com/print/articles/two-faces-tea-party This is The Weekly Standard, the author is Matthew Continetti, who wrote The Persecution of Sarah Palin. He is not a liberal.

By Raoul

June 22, 2010 10:14 PM | Link to this

Mark, I hereby dub you the ‘One Who Knows the Most’. Congratulations! I think we must be polar opposites. I was raised in a big family of Irish-Catholic, blue collar, bleeding- heart liberal world of union label- buying Americans. Growing up, I believed in all the counter-culture propaganda I could read, and even though my parents were as conservative in thought and deed as you could ever be, they always voted Democrat. It wasn’t until I made my own way in the world, paid my own way (I had to) for college, got a job in the real world, made contact with Oil company executives, learned about their concerns for environment and cost consciousness, and had contact with a host of ne’er do wells who laughingly described how to screw Uncle Sam that I began to see things in a different light. Now, when my Mom tells me that (after watching Bill Moyers on PBS)W. and Cheney were shamelessly giving Halliburton ‘no bid contracts’ I point out at that well, so did Clinton and Obama, she doesn’t know what to say. So, lets just say we have arrived where we are from different, albeit just as real, life experiences. I just hope you can explain to your parents that ObamaCare will take care of all their senior ills, and that the New World Order you are working so hard to bring about will only cause them a little pain for the good of the masses, and that in short time, George Soros will make sure that the world is made right, and they will understand and cast away from evil Fox News and all other sources of lies, distortions, and outright misconeptions. And as a final note, why don’t you go ahead and tell us all of the specific lies (without just sending links to lefty websites) and deceit Joe McCarthy, Glenn Beck, and all your other enemies have poisened our minds with, instead of just calling them names?

By Mark from St Paul

June 22, 2010 11:19 AM | Link to this

Yes, Alger Hiss was a spy. That’s now a matter of proven fact. Just as it’s proven that Whittaker Chambers was a perjuring liar, Roy Cohn was gay, and Joe McCarthy was a blustering attention seeker who would lie about almost anything. History’s wonderful as it really does explain what happened, and why.

By irishguy

June 21, 2010 10:10 PM | Link to this

Mark, I’m just curious, do you believe Alger Hiss was a spy?

By Mark from St Paul

June 21, 2010 7:05 PM | Link to this

And to that I would say that I am beginning to wonder if you would recognize the truth if it took a bite out of your backside. Here’s the deal: if you want me to slack off, just name for me ONE liberal news source you respect. Bearing in mind that liberals don’t respect corporate newsers like ABC, NBC or CBS anymore than you do. The NY Times is “liberal” by conservative assertion only: on Israel, Wall Street and corruption they’re freakishly conservative, if not neo-conservative. The Washington Post is a neo-conservative Zionist newspaper that literally agitated for war with Iraq. You expect (if not demand) respect for people who have not earned or aspired to my trust. Glenn Beck is a radical Mormon extreme right ideologue. Do you have any facts to indicate otherwise? I’m not questioning his IQ, I’m questioning his basic honesty and grasp of actual facts. Sarah Palin is remarkably uninformed (seriously, I would expect over half my personal friends, Vick included, to whip her in a debate on any topic). Do you have ANY source that speaks to her qualifications to speak on any subject other than mooseburgers? Quote Chuck Grassley to me and I’ll take you at face value. Mitch McConnell also speaks for the Republican party. Why the fascination with the unhinged extremists? Am I quoting Al Franken, Michael Moore or Robert Fisk to you? The fights in these threads stem from the factcheckless rhetoric of talk radio and cable talk being dumped into a place where many of us pride ourselves on our extensive reading habits. My mom tried to argue about oil with me Saturday. She KNEW for a fact there were only a few dozen oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico (due to liberal over-regulation). She almost fainted when I sent her a map of 6,000 existing oil rigs along our coast in the Gulf. She had been grossly misinformed by Fox News, the propaganda channel for people who only want to hear what they want to hear. Sorry, I can’t respect that. There’s simply too much at stake here to give liars even standing with people who’ve busted their butts to become experts. Repeating lies doesn’t make you a liar, but after a while if you repeat enough of them people will decide not to listen to you no matter how sincerely you repeat them. In this thread you’ve blithely asserted that Joe McCarthy was proven right about the Communists. HEY DUDE — I WAS ALIVE THEN AND REPUBLICAN and I have no clue what you’re talking about! Please provide some kind of link to some sort of historian because I’ve never heard that from anyone to the left of Ann Coulter. You called the Pilgrims socialists. How can you call people a name that wasn’t invented until over two hundred years later? Sorry, I get cranky after several dozen exchanges in which I and other lefties address your points while you dodge ours.

By Raoul

June 21, 2010 12:30 PM | Link to this

Actually Mark I am impressed by your quest for information. Unfortunately, all of your energies seem directed at tearing down the voices of those you oppose, such as Fox News, Glenn Beck, etc. Beck has been hammering away at the Progressive agenda, so its your job to dig up the dirt and destroy him. Same with Sarah Palin. Why not welcome all views and debate them accordingly, instead of engaging in the politics of personal destruction? Palin is not a genious, we all agree on that. Beck is an entertainer with a history of alcohol and drug abuse. Neither may fit your personal mold for a fitting role model. But they certainly are fit for many others, all of whom have the right to their opinion. Palin is right on many issues, regardless of her IQ. I think she would have handled this oil spill at a higher level of leadership than we are seeing now. We don’t need intellectuals telling us all what is right and wrong; we need strong leadership with clear vision and strong convictions. We clearly do not have that right now.

By Mark from St Paul

June 21, 2010 11:30 AM | Link to this

TRS, please cite a specific Media Matters column you think is dishonest (I didn’t know Will Bunch wrote for them, btw). Raoul, we’ve had this discussion more than once. What part of the 18 years I spent growing up on a working Iowa corn-beans-livestock farm do you consider elitist? Or was it my nine years in the union building tractor tires that makes me insufferably arrogant? Or are those my redeeming qualities? Could be that every effort on my part to acquire more knowledge and facts is in fact what offends you? Truthfully, I think that’s it. I have risen above my station. People of my ilk are supposed to follow Sarah Brave & Truthful without question. My unwillingness to be led is the problem here, exacerbated by my SEARCH for truth. I have one dog in this fight and its my parents who’ve been bamboozled by Fox liars and talk radio propagandists into believing countless falsehoods and seditious lies. The politics of your side has poisoned this country as surely as the Confederate secessionists tried to murder our democracy 150 years ago, and by coincidence this second assault on our democracy is being led by the descendants of the first insurrectionists with the help of some truly “useful idiots” like Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, etc. Glenn Beck is the clinically insane follower of an excommunicated Mormon radical whose seditious business plan led the FBI to monitor his movements. What part of that is not factual? My “biases” did not travel back in time and put seditious words in Cleon Skousen’s mouth, and I did not make Glenn Beck become Skousen’s #1 fan. If you focused more on what we actually know and less on what others have speculated, you’d see what’s going on more clearly.

By Raoul

June 20, 2010 10:16 AM | Link to this

Mark, your review of Beck’s book is enough to keep me from reading it. In fact I could care less about his book. I am, however, concerned that you seem to have designated yourself as the purveyor of all things truthful. This seems to be a common trait among Progressives, which Beck has consistently called into question. Progressives, many of whom are college professors, Poly-Sci majors, etc., derive their politics from a self-satisfying, lofty position of intellectualism, or as I would term it, elitism. Let me remind you that Lenin once called such people “Useful Idiots”. You are too sensible to fall into that category, but you should be aware of its temptations. I, on the other hand, must guard against my penchant to remain nailed to my conservative belief that America is still the “last, best hope for mankind”. We have our work cut out for us.

By Raoul

June 20, 2010 10:13 AM | Link to this

Mark, your review of Beck’s book is enough to keep me from reading it. In fact I could care less about his book. I am, however, concerned that you seem to have designated yourself as the purveyor of all things truthful. This seems to be a common trait among Progressives, which Beck has consistently called into question. Progressives, many of whom are college professors, Poly-Sci majors, etc., derive their politics from a self-satisfying, lofty position of intellectualism, or as I would term it, elitism. Let me remind you that Lenin once called such people “Useful Idiots”. You are too sensible to fall into that category, but you should be aware of its temptations. I, on the other hand, must guard against my penchant to remain nailed to my conservative belief that America is still the “last, best hope for mankind”. We have our work cut out for us.

By TRS

June 20, 2010 1:54 AM | Link to this

Mark - I would refer you to a commentary written by Will Bunch called “Beck pushes distorted view of George Washington’s Christianity to No 1.” I refer to a response written by the writer of Sacred Fire, Dr Peter Lillback, to Bunch’s commentary. To synopsize, Bunch begins with ad hominem ridicle of Dr Lillback. He then follows by quoting everyone but George Washington himself, in effect gagging him and using words and opinions of others. He ends condemning Lillback for seemingly accurately quoting Washington because it was ture and might create a culture war, one which Bunch himself seems to have no problem creating based on his words. I have no problem with anyone saying Media Matters, Crooks and Liars and others offer a legitimiate opinion, mostly reflectly of progressive and liberal thought, much like Beck offers opinions which leans the other way. You view MM as a Gold Standard; yet, I have seen Beck use actual quotes in context (ie those of Van Jones, Anita Dunn, etc) as they were spoken, a pretty good gold standard itself. All that is OK - its part of debate; but, please Mark - don’t present MM and C&L as anything more than they are - biased sources with a point of view just like Beck. Face it - your biased - I’m biased, everyone is biased. Its who we are as people.

By Mark from St Paul

June 19, 2010 2:50 PM | Link to this

Irish, I don’t criticize that which I do not know. I’ve seen his show, I’ve seen countless clips from his show (3-5 minutes — not gotcha stuff but the whole spiel), and I’ve read countless transcripts. How much of a crap sandwich do you usually eat before you decide you’ve given it a fair try and don’t want to eat any more? HAVE ANY OF YOU TRIED TO READ THIS BOOK? Please address The Overton Window instead of Glenn’s cult of personality.

By Mark from St Paul

June 19, 2010 11:18 AM | Link to this

T, when did I say I didn’t own a TV? I do not have cable, but that doesn’t mean I can’t watch Glenn Beck in action at Crooks & Liars or at Media Matters where I can also read detailed summaries, quotes and check out direct links. I understand that you don’t like Media Matters but before you let us all know what a polluted site they run, please give me a link to ANY Media Matters post on Glenn Beck you feel is unfair or untruthful. Sorry, I refuse to let you discount all stories from a source that the right conveniently claims is politicized when in fact they are currently the gold standard for factchecking. I know that Beck has already wasted an entire show just talking about his precious book and how you can’t take it literally because it’s a novel, but you can learn enough from it to change your life and make you a more informed person! Beck’s only ideology is whatever tripe he can sell for personal gain. It’s gratifying to see someone rebuild his life after decades of cocaine addiction, but it’s sad to see them do so at the expense of civil discourse, the truth, and our national best interests.

By irishguy

June 19, 2010 11:07 AM | Link to this

TRS, Mark doesn’t have to watch Mr Beck to know he’s peddling “crackpot stuff”. I’m sure media matters and the like reinforce his already low opinion of Mr Beck. Mark, are there any English majors that aren’t lefties?

By TRS

June 19, 2010 11:02 AM | Link to this

Max - I appreciate your insights and respect them. I am not in agreement with all Beck says but I do find value in returning to the founders, particularly their actual words in the proper context. I got from your writing that Madison and Marx were products of their environment as we all are. That being said, each espoused a differing philosophy based on their experience and their core values. So which worked? I do not see Marxism, or for that matter any form of large centralized gvmt being able to succeed. To modify a Marx phrase “the gvmt becomes the opiate of the masses”. We agree the founding fathers product was brilliant; yet, what was behind that? I assume your somewhat a historian and are familiar with the saying “the living make the dead do any tricks they see necessary”. Full disclosure, Sacred Fire is on my read list as a friend has the book right now and I assume from your comments it wasn’t the greatest read; but, I am told it was well researched and footnoted with actual quotes from Washington and others. Let us read their actual words, put them into context and debate their meaning rather than rely on the words of a biased progressive or conservative. I do believe as a country we are at a crossroads. While I somewhat agree with Mark that corporate interests need to be checked, I am concerned with gvmt even more so for in them rests the components we all should truly be concerned about - pride, power and greed. This has been the downfall of many civilizations. Although you may not, many take for granted what we have. The founders challenged us to preserve it if we can, perhaps because the felt the fabric you referred to can diminish and go away. They were not perfect and neither are we; but, to examine them and their core principles is a worthwhile endeavor, particularly as we determine this country’s future.

By TRS

June 19, 2010 10:34 AM | Link to this

Mark - I’m curious, you say you don’t even have a TV. How do you know what Beck says, Media Matters?

By Mark from St Paul

June 18, 2010 3:45 PM | Link to this

Raoul, these issues are further complicated when people like Glenn Beck routinely insert false and/or malicious disinformation into the debate. When you base policy on exceptions so notable they run in your local newspaper instead of studying what’s actually happening in actual classrooms, the debate becomes hopelessly distorted. I’m old enough to remember the “teaching aids” passed out by actual communists working in the labor movement. I always thought that stuff was pretty crude propaganda-wise, but compared to the lame crapola Beck is peddling on his show and in his book, it was pretty slick stuff. The right and left should be united now in fighting corporate power grabs but the right is so confused and misled that movement stars like Michele Bachmann (who’s district is adjacent to mine) tell us to stop picking on BP because the private sector rocks! Raoul, anyone can spark a lively debate, the question is what does Beck bring to the table? Radical Mormonism? His cultlike faith in Cleon Skousen, a former FBI agent so anti-U.S. government the FBI was forced to monitor his activities, and so heretical he was excommunicated by the Mormons? Beck then takes his remarkably confused mishmash of incoherent ideology and fuses it into a turgid three-card monte remix of a novel. Can you point me to any passages in The Overton Window that will open my eyes to my apostasy? Or haven’t you read it yet?

By Raoul

June 18, 2010 1:32 PM | Link to this

Re-reading all these posts, I am struck by the following: Glenn Beck is criticised for his willingness to publicly air his impressions and ideas about the nature of how we are to be governed. Huh? What is there to criticize? You may disagree, but give the guy credit for sparking lively debate. As for believing, as I do, that Americans of all stripes have the power to empower themselves, and effectively ‘choose’ to succeed or not, there are so many examples proving my point that I find it hard to fathom anyone not agreeing with me. Our current President is perhaps the best example. Unfortunately, Max and Kevin seem to find the notion silly. Well, maybe that’s because we educate our children to believe they are victims in need of help, instead of lighting a fire in their bellies to take control of their lives. So, maybe the failure of our education system cuts both ways.

By Mark from St Paul

June 18, 2010 1:15 PM | Link to this

Speaking as an English major now and not as a lefty, I downloaded The Overton Window last night. I could not read it. I started at the beginning and then started jumping around desperately trying to find a single page well written enough to hold my attention. Flapdoodle from start to finish with a very thin veneer of faux AfterworD in which Beck is reduced to explaining the book to his readers (because frankly the book is unintelligible to anyone who doesn’t watch Beck every day and subscribe to all his cockamamie views). If this book makes sense to you, you probably couldn’t pass a Pol Sci 101 class at any university that didn’t have “Bible” in its name. This really is crackpot stuff written in a dreadful style by a truly awful person and I say that as one who has read some pretty bad novels over the years.

By Raoul

June 18, 2010 8:53 AM | Link to this

When the people on top try to use their power to maintain their position, it’s up to the people to set them straight. Have you heard of the American Civil War? We spilled a lot of blood to make sure our Constitution rings true for everyone. We have spent tons of money for welfare, food stamps, public education, you name it. It still boils down to the individual to make choices to succeed or not. There must be an incentive to get there. Welfare state nannysism does not provide it. I don’t measure success by the amount of money earned, it’s about the achievement of personal goals and objectives. Socialism, in any form, reduces people to living out unfufilled dreams, and stifles the yearning to achieve. We are all better off in a system that produces winners and losers; we just need to educate all of our children to be winners.

By Max

June 18, 2010 12:38 AM | Link to this

TRS: By the way, I finally got through Sacred Fire. What it taught me was I could peel a 1000+ page onion without tears or any other emotion. It makes me long for that Russian Literature class years ago.

By Max

June 18, 2010 12:31 AM | Link to this

Kevin, that’s a good point. Unfortunately, when we hear ‘we choose our own level of success’ we can see why our education system is in shambles. The founding fathers’ idea of equality was exclusive; landowners as voters. There was an inherent mistrust for those with no vested interest in the new Republic. While that changed, politicians pay more attention to contributors than those who are not. That we can (equally)choose is a myth though an honorable concept.

By Max

June 18, 2010 12:23 AM | Link to this

Raoul: Marxism was an ‘idealistic’ concept which NEVER reached fruition in any governmental application for all the reasons you cited. There has never been a Marxist government which tolerated the ideals from which its foundation was claimed. That is not the case with Madison, Monroe, and especially Jefferson. I have no bias against Fox but put Beck in that context. I take exception though with the notion that intellectualization is to be devalued in the interest of unearned creditability. Beck has a problem in both those arenas. You cannot seriously equivocate Pilgrims - or the Puritans for that matter - with Marxism. The Pilgrims had a ‘democratic’ agreement before they set foot here; remember the Mayflower Pact. McCarthy was ‘right?’ Tail Gunner Joe was a drunken buffoon comparable to Rush today. J. Edgar had everything under control including Joe. But, McCarthy pretty much invented the show trial which was used far more effectively, and with greater results, by later senate committees. The difference in corpus, Raoul, between the Communist Manifesto and the U.S. Constitution is one was ratified by all states and the other remained a theoretical talisman. Yep, even the hippie communes found problems with the ideals and constraints of equality. That’s where Engels and Marx fell short because they were blinded with the overthrow of Europe’s aristocracy. We did not have that problem after George III (we did have a problem with George 43). As per style of Beck, he tries to put round pegs in square holes which, I suppose for many, is entertaining when they don’t fit. Ok, now its ‘fiction.’ What better way to not be held to factual standards; create your own. Beck is not the only charlatan on cable news. The other networks have their entertainers as well. But, Beck is the one who is doing a ‘what if’ book - fictional as it may be - about Madison and Marx. As I said before, he looks like he wants to be an Umberto Eco without the skill set to pull it off. I doubt seriously even Eco - as an Medieval historian - would attempt such a project. It’s simply absurd at any level of inquiry. The Pilgrims, by the way, only survived by the graces of the Native American Indians which were later, well, you know the story from there. Marx was right about one aspect of capitalism; there’s no winners unless there’s losers. The game was rigged in Europe. It was less rigged in the U.S. but had to be worked out through the Civil War.

By Kevin S.

June 17, 2010 9:58 PM | Link to this

Raoul: “We choose our own level of success?” That’s hilarious. If everybody was allowed to choose their own level of monetary success (and I’m assuming from the content of your post that monetary is the only kind of success you’re talking about), everybody would be a millionaire. You forget that there are things besides effort that play into succsss, e.g. differences in IQ which are at least partly genetic. Furthermore, any time a system allows a great deal of inequality, the people on top will use the power of their position on top of the ladder to preserve their own position. They’ll do that at least partly by promoting measures that make it harder for others to “choose” a higher “level of success.” Thus, while the Soviet command economy was a really bad idea, maintaining social mobility requires at least a few programs that conservatives regard as socialist: e.g., low-cost public universities, scholarships for poor students, programs to feed poor children so they aren’t held back by the consequences of malnutrition.

By Raoul

June 17, 2010 4:28 PM | Link to this

Max, it seems as if Glenn Beck has got you thinking. Try not to let your bias against Fox news cloud your judgement. The difference between Marxism and the US Constitution is pretty easy to understand and your attempts to intelluctualize your opinions are noteworthy, but a little rambling. Marxism is about collective equality and elimination of the Classes. Unfortunately, the power to govern must come from somewhere. Enter Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights are the exact opoosite. The only common thread is equality. Yes, we are all equal in both systems, but in the US, we are free to choose our level of success, and free to enjoy the fruits of our labor in the way that we choose, including the right to have personal property. The power to govern lies with us. The difference between Marxist socialism/communism and the free market system was never more evident than when the Pilgrims first settled here. They tried a communal way of life, but before long the lazy minded found that they could do nothing and still enjoy the bounty offered by those that worked hard. This obviously led the rest of them to conclude that their needs would best be met by allowing for personal property and growth. The community then began to flourish when everyone was free to accumulate wealth. Since this thread seems to invoke history, I thought I would contribute this as additional food for thought. By the way, McCarthy was proven to be right about Communist infiltration in our government. I wonder if the history books will ever be revised accordingly.

By Max

June 17, 2010 9:11 AM | Link to this

In the Madison v Marx focus (I’m not sure this would get past committee approval as an academic dissertation) there are context problems, as well as authorship, concerning the resulting influence of both men. Beck well knows the era of Madison in the U.S. included expansion through the Louisianna Purchase, a national bank, and failures such as the Embargo Act which, among other sentiments, was an ‘isolationist’ position to keep us out of the European (Napoleanic) wars. Marx, however, was dealing with established aristocracies, a finite land mass, and a history of class systems designed to keep people in their economic place. It was Engels, not Marx, who was the guiding philosophical ‘author’ of the resulting manifesto (many scholars agree with this based upon Engels’ writings prior to 1848 although Engels maintained credit to Marx, which, was in keeping with the manifesto’s ‘spirit’ of the collective)while Madison’s authorship of the Bill of Rights is unquestionable. Madison’s political posture on many issues changed and adapted to the ever changiong enviroment of early America; Marx’s views remained the same and in some areas contracted placing more emphasis on ‘populist’ facets. My point here is Marxism, as it existed in the mid-19th Century in Europe, could not have been considered by Americans at the same time. In the U.S., 20th Century Communism is much different in theory and cannot be detached from the Russian Revolution in 1917 and the resulting Russian ‘flavor’ most of us came to know. Marx did not have a government position. Madison did and placing him between the ‘tutorial’ of Jefferson and Monroe does give more insight to the great expansion as well as the Monroe Doctrine. Again, to compare these two as ‘influences’ in where America ‘could have gone’ does not even rise to the level of science fiction where few rules of reason are required. My instinct which is based upon Glenn Beck’s historical, selective memory, comes down to his disdain for Barrack Obama and the misuse of ‘socialism’ - his favorite word - for policies, legislation, and reforms proposed by that administration. That his influence falls short of those who have an education and critical mind makes this book an alternative in the world of fiction. That the CPUSA had a limited shelf life - not because of McCarthy - is demonstrative that such intrusions into what William Carlos Williams, ironically, an anti-capitalism socialist, described in his 1925 book, “In The American Grain.” Beck’s political premise, shared by the Tea Party, is to go back and get into the ‘heads’ of the founding fathers. Academically, this is interesting. But, to rely on the spirits and deeds of those great people in a literal reading of their products is denying the purpose of the great, governing documents they produced; we have to face our unique problems with creativity and fairness to all (this is the ‘collective’ nature of our Constitution) while preserving the rights and dignity necessary to preserve the Union. That Beck believes the Constitution is ‘fixed’ into 18-19th ideologies which we should return to, less we become Marxists, is absurd. But, the ‘outside’ influences DID exist in the minds of many founding fathers; Hobbes, Burke, etc., were extremely well known by Paine. This is also known by Beck.

By TRS

June 16, 2010 6:06 PM | Link to this

Comparing Madison and Marx is a new twist. Even though they may have had similiar goals, there is little resembelance between the Communist Manifesto and the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and the Federalist papers. Interestingly, Beck does encourage people to look deeper, go beyond his words and research. His founder’s Friday shows bring forth authors who have thoroughly researched founders. For instance, Vick recently asked about a 1000+ page book called Sacred Fire. It was researched for 15 years, about 1/3 of the book is footnoted references and the quotes come directly from Washington. Whether you agree or disagree with it, the time, effort and research which went into such a book cannot be doubted. As for Beck’s new book, I enjoy techno thrillers, ie Vince Flynn, Tom Clancy, etc and unfortunately sometimes fiction comes close to reality. In the early 90s, Clancy wrote a book about an airliner flying into the capital bldg - sound familiar?

By Max

June 16, 2010 1:26 PM | Link to this

P.S…This sounds like (according to the interview) Beck is trying to be some sort of new age version of Umberto Eco…..Beck has neither the intellect nor insight to be more than a Fox ‘personality’ even his advertisers takes issues with. But, given more space and html freedom here I could tell you how I really feel about this charlatan…

By Max

June 16, 2010 1:17 PM | Link to this

Ok, ‘read the interview…..LOL…According to Beck the dialogue for the future is down to Marx (hopefully, Karl, not Groucho) and Madison (hopefully, James, not the avenue). Well, that’s a typical, reductive dumbing down Fox is known for. Marx was foremost an economist reacting against the restrictive European - mostly aristocracy - access to wealth. Madison, on the other hand, was aligned with the with those against a national bank, then changed, albeit out of necessity to support a 2nd National Bank. But, Beck’s interest is probably not in Madison’s political wavering before and after the War of 1812 but the attributed authorship of the Bill of Rights. When one thinks about it, Marx and Madison had nearly identical goals although were faced with different circumstances. But, Beck is a historical revisionist when it serves his ‘creative’ viewpoints. In this sense, everything Beck says and writes is fiction. It’s too bad his devotee’s haven’t the will or means to fact check. In the context of a fictional work, that is Beck’s defense; fiction. On Fox, he has no such cushion of defense. I’ll wait until the library shelves the book since I vote more with my wallet these days.