Steve Newton of Delaware Libertarian has written two recent posts (more on his latest posts at the bottom) on the Glenn Beck organization We Surround Them. In the first post Steve appears far more concerned with those who take Beck and Norris seriously, claiming that it’s those (read:us) attempting “to stereotype everybody who disagrees with them is a danger to society.” And it’s this cherry-picking of what’s dangerous that bothers me. Why aren’t both dangerous? Why aren’t both a joke? It’s this break in consistency that keeps eating at me. Now, I suppose I could view Steve’s words as a backhanded compliment, as in he expects more from us than he expects from the likes of Beck and Norris. But after reading the post several times I keep reaching the same conclusion: We are wrong (and over-reacting) for being concerned and criticizing these groups.
We are also, according to the post, late to the game. There’s a reason for that, and it’s not that we just suddenly discovered these secession groups. It’s that while we’ve been quite aware, for years, of these groups, they’ve resided on the fringe of our minds – just like they resided on the fringe of society. What has brought them to the forefront of our minds is their sudden resurgence and growing voice. Hence, our concern.
The second post attempts to legitimize these groups by citing Civil Rights and Civil Liberty concerns. In my opinion, Steve is giving the new members of these groups too much credit, simply because if they weren’t part of these organizations during Bush’s Presidency then they lose the legitimacy argument. Let’s be honest, the sudden growth and popularity of these groups has nothing to do with Civil Rights or Liberties, and everything to do with President Obama.
And that’s the point, unless… you can honestly say that the same thing would be happening under a McCain/Palin Administration. And, if you agree with me that it wouldn’t (other than what has always existed on the fringe) then the legitimacy argument doesn’t hold water. Which isn’t to say that I’m dismissing Civil Rights and Civil Liberty concerns, nor am I dismissing Steve’s arguments in relation to them. I’m not. In fact, my bet is that Steve Newton has given more thought to these issues than 95% of the We Surround Them members. What I’m dismissing is this groups attempt to wrap themselves in the cloak of these rights and liberties and claim validation for an agenda whose sole purpose is ridding the country of Obama.
So, I won’t be giving them that validation, because they don’t deserve it. Why? Because I disagree with the last line line of the post. And those civil liberties concerns are very real. True statement, but not when applied to this group. My basic problem is that Steve does all the heavy lifting for a group little interested in anything more than yelling “Socialist” and overturning an election.
But, there was one line in Steve’s first post that I kept coming back to…
But like it says at the disclaimer entrance to most adult viewing sites on the Net: I can distinguish fantasy from reality, and so can 99.9% of my fellow Americans. The ones who can’t are a tiny minority of folks who are going to crack and kill some people every now and again (bluntly put), and discredit themselves and their ideology in the actions.
That’s a given, but it isn’t my point. My point is not that this minority of people ready to crack doesn’t exist, it’s that they do exist and are being directed to a target. And Glenn Beck proves me right again.
Update: As I worked on this post Steve posted again, this time on “It’s our police state now! Supporters of Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin ID’ed as terrorists by Federally funded law enforcement organization.” If true, this deserves to be condemned. However, while I agree with Steve’s outrage (Yes, outrage) over this alleged* assault on Civil Liberties, I’m having trouble understanding why his outrage merits more credibility than mine. Seems to me both situations are outrageous and deserve swift condemnation.
*I use the term alleged because the report Steve cites (and it is pretty informative) is a history and description of the modern militia movement which includes a couple of lines that describes the typical political affiliations of these militia groups. I don’t see the call for special surveillance of anybody in that report. It is a briefing. I’m also not seeing where any of Steve’s claims have, as of yet, happened.
Update II: Honestly, I can’t type fast enough! Steve has just put up another post admitting that while his source (PrisonPlanet) is nuts his concerns are legitimate. He ends this post by saying… “So here’s my point: crackpots like Alec Jones in possession of real documents sometimes function as canaries in a coal mine or blind squirrels finding nuts. And if that causes us to look a bit closer at MIAC or DHS, and how they are subtly reshaping the contours of American life, I’m OK with that.”
I’m okay with that statement as well. It is, after all, what blogs do. But how is that any different than me looking a bit closer at crackpots like Beck and Norris who are signing up members to join their cell, organizing events, spewing talk of secession and the need to arm yourselves against the government and now offering up the shootings in Alabama to why people in his movement may take the same action?