About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

Glenn Beck, constitutional scholar

September 18, 2009 2:04 pm ET by John V. Santore

Glenn Beck fashions himself a proud and vocal defender of the Constitution, and yesterday, his self-appointed duties led him to attack President Obama's understanding of and commitment to that very document.

Beck began by presenting a montage of the Founding Fathers, and then cut to Obama's inauguration. After showing the president taking the oath of office, Beck played audio taken from a September 2001 radio interview Obama conducted with the public radio station WBEZ in Chicago. (The relevant portion of the discussion, if you would like to hear it, is in the "Slavery and the Constitution" clip on the page linked to above, 45 minutes and 20 seconds in.)

Played over the obligatory scary music, here is what Beck excerpted from the interview:

OBAMA: The original Constitution [edit] I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture -- the colonial culture nascent at that time. [edit] I think we can say that the Constitution reflected a enormous blind spot in this culture [edit] and that the framers had that same blind spot. [edit] It also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.

Now compare that with what Obama actually said:

HOST: Barack Obama, what are your thoughts on the Declaration and Constitution?

OBAMA: Well, you know, I think it's a remarkable document. I think --

HOST: Which one?

OBAMA: The original Constitution, as well as -- as well as the Civil War amendments, but I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture -- the colonial culture nascent at that time.

African-Americans were not -- first of all, they weren't African-Americans. The Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the framers. I think that, as [program co-panelist] Richard [John] said, it was a nagging problem in the same way that, these days, we might think of environmental issues or some other problem that, where you have to balance, you know, cost-benefits, as opposed to seeing it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth.

And, in that sense, I think we can say that the Constitution reflected a enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the framers had that same blind spot. I don't think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.

What did Beck leave out? For one, he ignored the fact that Obama twice referred to the Constitution as "remarkable." More important, Beck eliminated Obama's highly targeted explanation of what he felt was the Constitution's imperfection: that "African-Americans were not ... considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the framers."

Such a reality is undeniable. The original version of the Constitution listed slaves as three-fifths of a human being for purposes of appointing representation (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3); prohibited Congress from outlawing the slave trade before 1808 (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 and Article V); and required all states to return fugitive slaves to wherever they had fled from (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3). It's worth noting that Condoleezza Rice made the same point Obama did when she delivered the commencement address at Boston College in 2006, saying, "We have thrived despite the fact that when the Founding Fathers said, 'We, the people,' they didn't mean me."

Does Beck really believe that such original elements of the Constitution should not be considered imperfections -- imperfections that were indeed the product of a cultural "blind spot" shared by the 18th century individuals who authored it?

Even if he doesn't, the intent of a segment such as this one is still clear. Beck isn't interested in seriously examining the Constitution, nor does he care to honestly reflect on race in America. Instead, he wants to portray Obama as a man who harbors a generalized and racially motivated resentment toward the Founding Fathers and the document they authored -- exactly the kind of person who would seek to exact race-based justice through reparations, which Beck has already declared to be at the heart of Obama's entire agenda.

This isn't the first time that conservatives have deliberately distorted this interview to make the exact same point. Rush Limbaugh did so last October, and the RNC did it again in May. It's the sort of willfully ignorant, historically inaccurate, deliberately deceptive, and racially provocative argument that has become common in the modern conservative movement. And it shows how untrustworthy individuals like Beck truly are.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Bad News (September 18, 2009 2:11 pm ET)
      1  
      Glenn Beck, Keep pushing your hate to the Masses.
      Spreading your Fear and Distrust to the different Classes.
      You call yourself a Rodeo Clown.
      I wish i could shove that cattle Prod in your own personal "Lost & Found"

      Speak truth to power.


      Mr. News
      Report Abuse
    • Author by neon desert (September 18, 2009 2:28 pm ET)
      3  
      You know, it's almost like Beck intentionally edited Obama's comments in order to create a "pseudo quote" with a meaning different from that of their origination. Quelle suprise! But that would mean he was actually trying to mislead his audience. And why would he do that? They already know Obama's a racist alien Nazi communist with terrorist sympathies.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by achorn316 (September 18, 2009 2:30 pm ET)
      1  
      We know why Beck LOVES the founding fathers.

      They didnt like black people either.

      Some of the founding fathers in fact OWNED black people.

      Beck wants us to go back to their America.. maybe because he wants to own slaves too?

      Just "questioning with boldness" like Beck wants us to do.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Victor Colorado (September 18, 2009 2:39 pm ET)
        1  
        More bold questions:

        MC Hammer has over 11 times as many Twitter followers then Glenn Beck; Why is that and how freighted by this fact is Glenn Beck?

        Report Abuse
      • Author by conservativegirl (September 19, 2009 5:22 am ET)
           
        Exposing corruption and fraud in an Organization that is going to conduct the Census and is fixing to get 8.5 BILLION via the stimulus Bill from tax payers of all races does not equal racism. The constitution nor the bill of rights advocate slavery or racism of any form. In fact, it was the Constitution and Bill of Rights on which the Courts based their rulings that forced the south to recognize Black Americans equal citizens with rights and mandated desegregation. It was human beings, not the constitution that owned slaves and horribly oppressed Black Americans. The Founding Fathers Changed the wording of the Constitution to ensure that Slave Owners COULD NOT use it to protect slavery. Some may have owned slaves, but they knew in their hearts it was wrong or they would not have changed the words, life, liberty, and the ownership of property to "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness." If they wanted slavery mandated, the phrase "all men are created equal" would never have appeared as guaranteed rights.
        Many of the people questioning Obama's policies voted for him. Opposition does not equal racism. The Left hated Bush. He was compared to Hitler constantly.
        We have gone to town hall and yelled at our elected officials for not answering our questions and for not doing their jobs by knowing the contents of the bills they are passing. This is not racism. We are concerned about appointees that are either openly communist, have close ties to socialist organizations, or have extreme or radical views on issues that will impact Americans for generations to come. This is responsible accountability, not racism. Stop using the race card and start listening to our words. You might actually learn something. We are in a dangerous time when our elected officials use their position, power and media relations to openly mock, ridicule and call Americans names and openly work turn the public against these Americans simply because they disagree with Administrations' position.
        I do not believe in any manner that Obama could ever be a "Hitler" but it took Hitler just three years to mentally condition the German People for the persecution and extermination of the Jews. He did it by constantly and publicly calling them names, vilifying them, labeling them and encouraging the populous to hate them. Think about this and what is occurring right now against anyone who disagrees.
        At no time in our nations history has the White House and members of Congress verbally attack, vilified and disparaged individuals or groups American Citizens using their access and position to the media to accomplish this goal, but it is happening right now. Please lets stop the race debate and start examining the issues we are trying to address. I am not asking anyone to believe as I do, but I am asking for mutual respect to disagree with this Administration's policies as the Left did with Bush without being called names the media or by Gibbs and Pelosi.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by epkklk851 (September 18, 2009 2:39 pm ET)
      6  
      I had a very heated conversation with a colleague yesterday. He is scared, he thinks the country is headed for trouble, and he is utterly unconcerned with history. He demands to know why the Democrats haven't fixed everything and passed laws, and he refuses to accept the effects of decisions made during the Reagan Administration as being at the root of current problems. He believes Fox, and he refuses to accept any facts I have to offer because just because I read them in books doesn't make them true. This is the kind of person Glenn is appealing to, since facts don't matter, and knee-jerk emotional reactions and unfounded opinions carry more weight, what else can we expect?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by PurpleState (September 18, 2009 3:02 pm ET)
        2  
        My guess is that the conversations with this colleague ought to focus more on sports and entertainment than politics in the future.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by epkklk851 (September 18, 2009 3:08 pm ET)
          3  
          I don't like sports, and I don't really follow entertainment. So, I guess, I don't really need to talk to him, do I?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by PurpleState (September 18, 2009 4:01 pm ET)
               
            If you work with him, talk work with him. You don't need to befriend everyone at work, but it's important to stabilize work environments too.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by epkklk851 (September 18, 2009 5:31 pm ET)
              1  
              I kinda have a dysfunctional office. No one really talks about anything even work, it makes learning the job hard.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by bilbo_dies (September 18, 2009 6:40 pm ET)
          1  
          That is why I tend to stay away from religion and politics at work.

          They are both no win debates. I will point out occassional untruths that I hear someone spout but; other than that I stay quite to keep the peace.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by MiddleLeft (September 18, 2009 4:58 pm ET)
        1  
        This is the kind of person Glenn is appealing to, since facts don't matter,

        "I agree that your facts are true, but I just believe......."
        Report Abuse
      • Author by steeve (September 18, 2009 6:19 pm ET)
        1  
        The country was "headed for trouble" in the Clinton years, except that it wasn't. And when the country wasn't headed for trouble (Bush), it actually was, in a very obvious way.

        Your colleague doesn't have to believe a book. He just has to look around and remember what he saw more than two months ago.

        Ask your colleague why he gets his news from constantly-wrong morons.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (September 19, 2009 12:43 am ET)
        1  
        Yeah, my ex-husband and his brother are just the same. I can do research, and use Politifact and FactCheck as resources to his opinion-based screeds that distort reality, and provide links and everything to him, and yet he'll still come back and tell me that it is I who is having a knee-jerk reaction to something! There was a recent email about how the Cars for Cash program will only save a few hundred million in gas savings from better mileage, and he and others are upset. I explained that the purpose of the program wasn't to save gas (although that's a nice side benefit, along with greater safety and less pollution), but it was to stimulate the car industry and save jobs at car dealerships. I made the same arguments that Snopes eventually did a couple of days later, including the glaring math mistake that the author of the email made, which required quite a bit of research before I could understand what the issue was. He still won't admit that he was wrong. Since he's an engineer and I am in marketing, he thinks that he has to be better at math than I am - we are talking about coming up with mileage numbers and barrels of oil being saved, so it's simple multiplication and division, which I can do just as well as he can. And Snopes can too. The email screed, however, had 2 glaring math errors in it - because the author of it had a knee-jerk reaction!!!!!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by PurpleState (September 18, 2009 3:05 pm ET)
         
      Personally, I have yet to watch any of Glenn's early CNN reels, but I wonder just how much editing like this was done. If there was very little clip clipping done, then I think it's pretty obvious who is pulling the strings on Glenn's show.

      And it's likely not him working the marionette.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by historygeek001 (September 18, 2009 4:05 pm ET)
         
      C'mon wingnuts--defend this! How will you claim that this cutting and pasting of Obama's comments is legitimate?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by MiddleLeft (September 18, 2009 5:00 pm ET)
           
        How about this: Beck is simply trying to make a point and all those other quotes only confuse and hide the issue. OK?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by vysotsky (September 18, 2009 5:20 pm ET)
          1  
          If by "confuse and hide the issue" you mean "would fairly portray what Obama actually argued in his 2001 discussion" then yes, certainly I agree.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by fawltylogic (September 19, 2009 1:25 am ET)
             
          Yes, it's obvious that he is trying to make a point, and all those other quotes would invalidate his point.

          Is that really how you DEFEND this?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by thebewilderness (September 19, 2009 3:34 pm ET)
             
          "How about this: Beck is simply trying to make a point and all those other quotes only confuse and hide the issue. OK?"

          May I suggest that if you have to edit a persons words to leave out the subject under discussion, as well as what the person thinks about the subject, the point you are attempting to make is invalid, incorrect, and bloody dishonest.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by fawltylogic (September 19, 2009 1:25 am ET)
           
        ACORN!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by thebewilderness (September 18, 2009 4:10 pm ET)
      1  
      I rather suspected that Beck was an originalist, and would have us return to the day of only white male property owners being eligible to vote or run for office.
      He is certainly one very special snow flake.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mikelartist (September 18, 2009 4:36 pm ET)
      1  
      You can bet this drooling, booze-addled moron, Beck had to scamper to the dictionary several times to looks up many of the words in President Obama's answers.

      Anyone else embarrassed that this weepy, angry, bi-polar train wreck of a man is being broadcast across the world as a representative of the United States?

      I am.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by diamonds (September 18, 2009 6:32 pm ET)
         
      Slavery was absolutely not up for debate at the time - it was non-negotiable. Of course it was flawed, but that was the cost of creating otherwise the very best, freest constitution this world has ever seen. Neither Beck nor Obama have been misrepresented here or by each other. Obama is entirely correct it was flawed, but wrong in the implication they could have done something else, and Beck is entirely right to point that out.

      Why are we pointing out this one, very tiny, mischaracterization? What about the other portions of the Constitution? The general welfare clause, the tenth amendment, only congress shall declare war, the fourth amendment, interstate trade, or gold or silver as legal tender? You can't pick and choose what it means, otherwise you will quickly find you cannot use it for your defense at all.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Craig (September 19, 2009 12:49 am ET)
           
        Wow.

        Thanks to Media Matters you know that Obama was referring to slavery. Beck's audience didn't because of Beck's creative editing. It's a jaw-dropping, deliberate distortion that should by itself be reason to fire Beck, though I know it's SOP at Fox.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by diamonds (September 19, 2009 5:36 am ET)
             
          No, he was pointing out the very strong implication the founders designed it wrong, which I believe he was correct to point out.

          I just now watched the whole segment, and it covers a whole bunch more quotes from different politicians. Why single out only one segment of the video? Why are we saying "context matters" and then turn around and take things out of context?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Craig (September 19, 2009 11:22 am ET)
               
            Aside from the issue of slavery, which you have agreed is a flaw, there is no implication that Obama has a problem with Constitution. That's why Beck edited out the slavery references and Obama's view that the document is remarkable. He wants his audience to believe that Obama opposes the Constitution. It's despicable behavior by Beck.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by fawltylogic (September 19, 2009 1:23 am ET)
         
      Does Beck really believe that such original elements of the Constitution should not be considered imperfections -- imperfections that were indeed the product of a cultural "blind spot" shared by the 18th century individuals who authored it?


      I would say that yes, that's exactly what he believes.

      But moreover, he doesn't posses the intellectual capacity to talk about the constitution and the society and circumstances in which it was created, beyond soundbites. It's a lot easier to just edit some stuff together, throw it out there and hope it sticks. Beck is a man without intellectual curiosity, integrity and decency. Why would he NOT do exactly what he did?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by conservativegirl (September 19, 2009 4:50 am ET)
         
      Obama says the Constitution is a Remarkable document, but in the next breath he states it is racist. The Founding Fathers actually changed the wording from life, liberty, and the pursuit of property ownership to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". They did this to PREVENT slave owners from claiming slavery a constitutional right. The Constitution does not promote racism and is not a racist document. This assertion is offensive and unfounded. I am really disgusted and saddened by the blind rage demonstrated by the left at anyone who disagrees with there position. I am an American and I love my country. I think our Constitution is a wonderful document that has helped our nation become the World Leader. The self- loathing of some in our nation for who we are sad. The rest of the world has struggled to attain our success and many people have lost their lives trying to make it to our shores. If the US is such a loathed nation, someone needs to tell the majority of the world because they do not share your opinion. Why else has there been a Freedom/Conservative Movement sweeping the globe every our freedom and Constitution have come under attack by the extreme left? The people of Spain, Venezuela, Iran and other nations' have started Tea Party Movements patterned after the US movement, in their own nations.
      I find it amazing that Americans who disagree with the policies of this President are automatically labeled as racists without question. I am not a racist. I have a biracial family. Numerous members of the tea party movement are minorities. The issues with ACORN have nothing to do with race. It has to do with corruption. This organization has committed voter fraud using tax dollars. My tax dollars. I find it stunning that Congress saw the need to cut there funding, States and cities across the nation are severing ties over confirmed corruption that includes numerous convictions, this organization was scheduled to conduct the census, and no other Media Outlet has covered this except Fox. Yet you are calling them racist and other unbelievable names. The 2 students that did the video did the exact same thing that 60 minutes does in undercover investigations. Dateline and 48 hours does the same thing. Remember the "To Catch A Predator Series"? Rush did not misquote Obama. Yes he thinks the Constitution is a Remarkable Document, but Rush and Glenn's point was, the fact that he and other Progressives do not like the fact that the Constitution limits their powers and want to alter or amend it.
      Instead of trashing Beck and Fox for actually conducting investigative journalism, you might want to try it yourself. If a 20 and 24 year old can get the story they got with no experience or backing, imagine what real media outlets could find out. Americans are simply asking our elected official to be accountable to us, their constituents, to read or at least know the contents of the bills they are voting on, and there is nothing racist about that. We find it disturbing that the Stimulus Bill was written by the Apollo Alliance, a special interest lobby. They will make BILLIONS off of the stimulus bill. It has yet stimulated the economy and was basically a slush fund for everything but REAL economic stimulus. These are not unreasonable concerns. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Momo1 (September 20, 2009 3:41 am ET)
         
      Beck is pointing out that Obama's veiws on the racial flaws are the main things he sees in regards to the constitution, sure he says its remarkable but doesnt mention why.

      He is not really complimenting and saying 'its remarkable' either as he said its 'contradictionary' to do so.
      Report Abuse