Last night, J.E. Dyer replied to “The Point of Being Annoyed with Glenn Beck” (at HotAir here), and to related comments at her blog The Optimistic Conservative. (For anyone new to the discussion, “The Point…” was itself framed as a response to J.E.’s “Beck and the Legacy,” which had referenced my short “Bennett vs. Beck” entry of last Monday). At Zombie Contentions, we’ve had a wide-ranging discussion in the comment thread, but I’d like to consolidate the dialogue with J.E. rather than try to advance it in two or more separate venues amidst multi-sided group discussions. This approach is further justified because J.E. is such an able and articulate spokesperson: If I were Glenn Beck, I would be delighted and grateful to have J.E. speaking up for me and forcefully extending my arguments. She also concisely expresses the responses of many who disagree either with the big name/high level critics or, rather a different thing, with me.
I also think that the discussion, whose implications go well beyond what anyone thinks of Glenn Beck, or thinks of someone else for what he or she said about Glenn Beck, can be usefully divided into style and substance – even if, in the end, the two have to be considered together.
In this post, I will focus on style – that is, political rhetoric and presentation.
In the ZC comment, J.E. concedes some of her own hesitations regarding aspects of Beck’s approach (as she did, implicitly, in her “Legacy” post), then expresses incomprehension about one of my central complaints: Read more ›