Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government

... and proceed straight to the review (though some editor ought to have vetoed that dustjacket). It is, to start off with a positive point, entertainingly polemical to read. However, it is ultimately a depressing and on occasion wrong book. The treatment of handgun control in England is, for instance, fraught with inaccuracy and spin. The sad history of American gun violence speaks for itself, and frankly nothing needs to be added to the horrible statistics. Little need also be added to the debate on the true construction of the American constitution on this point, which has already been much ventilated in more learned textbooks. Suffice to say, like any text, both sides have to the debate have found a way to make the constitution (whether interpreted literally, or as a living instrument) fit their preferred case. Such interpretational language games have, however, obscured the real question, which is in this case simply whether it is desirable from a social point of view to place large numbers of powerful guns into the hands of so many people. In short, the interpretation arguments are fig-leaves to hide personal choices. Equally ludicrous was the treatment of the National Health Service in the recent debate about reform of medical provision in the US. But never mind that.

What this book does - quite clearly - is show what the symptoms of the illness are which presently ravage American politics.

The first problem is the retreat to extremism in American policital discourse - which, to be clear, includes both left and right - which is disturbing, and on occasion calls to mind the ideological struggles in Europe of the 1930s (which, of course, the mocking cover chillingly evokes). America is presently caught in an age of extremes, at least as far as the rhetoric is concerned. It is, frankly, mind-boggling that a politician can be abused as a "communist" and a "fascist" at the same time. This belies a total lack of understanding of either term. Use of such divisive labels obscures the fact that the various factions in America in fact share much common ground, and share the same values on any number of issues. This need to present an "us v them" society and to treat politics as if it were a football match with two implacably opposed teams, might sell books, but in truth it only divides and weakens the country. Is that what you want?

The second problem is the co-opting of religious arguments to try and resolve political issues. The American consitution - the product of intelligent enlightment minds - carefully separates the political from the spiritual, and with good reason. Invoking God is merely an attempt to avoid clear and critical thinking and to abrogate personal responsibility for one's own choices; it is the ultimate retreat of the intellectually lazy. It also provides an unfortunate comparsion with the sorts of theocratic regimes abroad of which the United States - and the majority of the rest of the world - is rightly critical. There is no opposition between religion and politics, but they are not, and must not be, identical.

The third problem is parochialism. The US remains a super-power. It is still associated with the qualities of tolerance and opportunity, and the US remains one of the most diverse countries in the world (even if its diversity is sometimes as imperfect as it is anywhere else). Yet the political discussion - if we wish to dignify what sometimes is little more than name-calling with that label - rarely transcends the playground and rarely looks beyond the tip of its own nose. The Coulters and Frankens, the Foxes and the MSNBCs, all share a terrible burden for that. America is a global player, not that one would think that from its printed and broadcast press. This obsession with meaningless detail (whether we should call someone in public office a "Czar", who wore a flag pin and who didn't, what a group of unqualified but syndicated people said on an obviously partisan news channel discussion) is the worst kind of trivialisation of political debate. The fact is that most of today's American politicians and alleged "thinkers" will never produce the Federalist Papers, and lack the wit to write Common Sense or Walden.

These authors have made their money. They have had their fun. It is time to wake up. The vice of books like this is that they create the impression that your neighbour is your hated enemy, that your family members with whom you disagree are "idiots". They are not. They just don't share all of your views. The vituperative language of these books stifles and stunts debate and the exchange of ideas. The sooner America is roused from this illness, the better it will be for America, and the world at large. I fear many who read this book will simply pour the "thoughts" of Beck, and others left and right, into the political void in their heads.

During the Middle Ages, it was somewhat common for religious arguments to be presented in written form. This format usually involved two characters, each with a different point of view. There would be questions or statements by one character which were refuted by the other character, who was a stand-in for the author's belief. With this book, Glenn Beck has revived an old format for a new age.

The book is divided into ten chapters, each one covering a single topic, and there are questions which are responded to by Beck's character. In addition, there are also little side comments, sometimes called "A.D.D. Moments" and sometimes direct quotes by people Beck doesn't agree with, said quotes putting those people in the worst possilbe light.

Love him or hate him (there appears to be no middle ground) Beck wirtes cogently (if often humorously) and well. He states his point of view on one subject and then moves on to another. Beck claims that he is a Libertarian rather than either a Democrat or a Rebublican, but I'm sure liberal readers (if there are any who actually finish this book) will be coinvinced that Beck is just another member of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" to quote Hillary Clinton at the beginning of the Monica fiasco. I don't know what he is, because he takes almost as many shots at the GOP as he does at the Dems, so I'll take him at his word about his party leanings.

Beck is conservative in the sense that he opposes "big government" and what he calls the "Nanny State", which is one that hovers over just about every aspect of American life. He fears that we are going into that situation, and there are enough signs around (for those who want to recognise them) that he might (just might) be correct. I'm a big believer in the policy of "wait and see" so I don't make any judgments on his theories and opinions.

The book will infuriate some (liberals) and comfort others (conservatives and libertarians) but it certainly is not a boring read. For those who publish reviews on Amazon or elsewhere, please at least read the entire book before opining. It's the only fair way to do it!

...the uneducated, gullible idiots who oppose Obama--and support everyone else who oppose him--because he is a black man who is the president. I mean, I do not think anyone really thought that there are no racists in the U.S. Beck does great work at shoring them together and showing them off on Faux News at the "totally improvised, unplanned, grass roots tea parties" that magically happened to all coincide on the same day around the U.S. with so many people raising signs about Beck and Faux News.

Well, one thing is certain--Beck is laughing all the way to the bank.

Yes, go by a bunch of gold, because the U.S. is turning into a socialist republic and the dollar will become useless and you will need to use gold coins to pay the socialist doctors not to kill your grandma. Go buy that gold, because you are just giving Beck more money. What fools you are. You praise Beck as some honest guy who gives you the truth, when everything he gives you is far from it. You are scared because he makes you scared, not because there is really anything happening that you need to be scared about. Beck works for Goldline and did a video commercial for them. Most of the sponsors of Faux News and Beck's show are gold companies. So, while you "think" you are getting the "truth" from a "trustworthy" person, he is just laughing at you fools with those beady little eyes and counting his money...all the way to the bank.

They should call this the Fool's Gold Rush. Oh, don't get me started on Rush.

Well, Glenn Beck is a busy man, but he has a new book out, and it is here to entertain and inform you. Beck's boss Rupert Murdoch is the world's wealthiest, most powerful owner of television and radio stations, newspapers, news wire services, and satellite companies. Glenn Beck is one of us, however, and Beck is strong and clear on issues that divide Americans. He is not here to find common ground, not when it is US against them.

He would remind me of Sean Hannity, except that Hannity was all this and pro-government (or at least pro-Bush administration). When the government wanted to spy on us to keep us free, Hannity was there to remind us that we must support our President. Well, Beck has risen to the top now, and Hannity has taken a back seat. If it is not a coincidence, it is just in time. A Democrat is in the White House. Bennito Mussolini invented the term fascism and he and it became popular in Italy after factory owners wanted to put a stop to worker strikes. So normally, fascism is wealth and corporations controlling government, but to Beck, it is something different.

At least Beck can argue about issues that might divide us and that will distract me. Maybe I will forget that while inflation remains steady, wages are stagnant, so Americans borrow more.

Corporations exist to make a profit. When a corporation takes over a job my government used to do, my taxes go up to pay for the job and the profit. Beck still has to convince me on how that is better. Why did Exxon make the most profit in history when gas prices went up? If gas prices go up, it is supposed to be from costs going up - so how did Exxon make a record profit? And why is capitalism supported by a taxpayer safety net? If he wants to tell me that Health care from a bureaucrat making a profit is better than a bureacrat who can lose his job in the next election, I'd like some convincing of that. He complains about the Nanny state, and I agree. I DON'T want my taxes to compensate GM for 10 years of tax breaks to put a Saturn plant in Tennessee. GM was profitable that whole time and listed as a Dow Jones Blue Chip, now they de-listed just in time to close the plant and ask for another handout.

Energy? Well, once we're sold an Electric car we can fill up at home, work, or the store that wants us to spend time shopping, the weekly captive gas pump customer has a new way to generate competition for the (already) lower cost of filling his car - or swapping the battery quicker than a gas fill-up. Renewable energy is less profitable for everyone except the homeowner who can contribute to the grid. Of course, then we might not want to pay that nuclear power subsidy that big business was counting on... Nanny state, indeed. It's not what the people behind this book want you to hear, but it is the truth.

Beck doesn't mention that small businesses employ the most people but they struggle to compete against the handouts that Walmart and other large corporations get. He fails to mention government creates the most jobs by funding new, publicly available research, and by creating markets for new products (defense spending and land use are just two).

I know Beck is wealthy now, and I think there is nothing wrong with that - good for him, but did he get that way by being one of us? Or by getting his job by supporting people who really want his message to get out to us regular folk? Beck, can you be funnier? We could really use a clown.

I like this book only because it presents an alternate perspective that is extremely uncommon in media today. I consider myself a classical liberal that will listen to all perspectives and parse out the propaganda from the truth if possible. I LOVE THE LUXURY OF FREE SPEECH. Trashing others because they have a different opinion without proper debate exposes a narrow mind. Arguing with personal insults and slogans is NOT proper debate. I see this in previous reviews of this book. I'm especially irked by this because I am Chinese American & I've heard from my older relatives that this was what the Maoists did in the Cultural Revolution. This is a really dangerous way to go & I wish people would refrain from such barbaric behavior.

This book does coverage on political issues and does cite references that are difficult to find in the local newspapers or national magazines. In fact I've noticed that many of the news articles in my local newspaper (e.g. from AP, etc.) will omit key facts in news coverage. In my own independent spot checks on facts, this book is much more correct than it is incorrect! It's not because Glenn Beck is such a great journalist. Its because the news media is doing such a lousy job in journalism. Even amateurs are better than 'professional' journalists with an agenda to shape the political will of their readers. There is a difference between objective journalism & suave propaganda. Readers have to work to discern the difference.

It's unfortunate that books like Arguing With Idiots is needed just to get an alternate view for a balanced perspective. It takes a lot of discipline to be well informed today. Bottom line: Buy this book.