Publisher: Mercury Radio Arts

Copyright: 2010

ISBN: 9781439184301

I like Glenn Beck but sometimes I don't like him for the same reason I dislike Jon Stewart.  Most of my conservative friends don't like Jon Stewart because he is too liberal.  I don't like him because he takes himself too seriously.  If you are going to be an entertainer... entertain me but don't ask me to take you seriously.  If you want to be taken seriously... then stop hiding behind humor and enter a serious dialogue.  Glenn Beck isn't necessarily a humorist but he is firmly ensconced in the role of entertainer and with The Overton Window he did nothing to distance himself from that position. 

The Constitution, Living Document or Monument?

Rather than ticking off a list of things I agree with or disagree with in the book, let me address a general idea that seems to permeate his thinking and certainly came across in this book.  Glenn Beck (and a large number of those on the right) hold the Constitution up as a monument of perfection in human government.  This seems a bit odd to me given the fact that even the Founding Fathers weren't sure they quite had it right.

Please don't get me wrong, I have a copy of the Constitution on my phone, I read it through quite often and I refer to it when thinking or writing about political issues.  In addition I have a copy of the Federalist papers on my phone and a copy in print in my personal library.  (I do not read through that tome quite as often!) Reading the Federalist Papers however will give you a very good glimpse into the nature of the debate and contention that these men went through when forging the Constitution. 

Given that these reasonable men disagreed, sometimes quite vehemently, over the solutions to human government, it seems reasonable to me that after nearly two centuries of thought and contemplation, serious and reasonable minds can still disagree.  At one point in the book Beck even points out that Thomas Jefferson, the man who had a large part in penning the document declaring that "all men are created equal" owned slaves.  No doubt if Jefferson were alive today he would reverse his position on slavery and disagree with the provision in Article 1, Section 2 that only allowed for three-fifths of slaves to be counted toward representation and didn't allow for any Indians.  For it's time and in the social environment that the document was forged, this probably seemed to be the best compromise for governance but only the most hard-core racist can get on board with these ideas today. 

Given that the Founding Fathers tacitly admitted to the living nature of the document by providing for amendments, I find it odd that conservatives are rushing to embrace the original document.  Certainly we need a solid foundation but to say that it can never be improved upon is either naivette or hubris, I can't decide which. 

Of particular concern to me is the length to which Conservatives go to "prove" that their ideals are rooted in the Constitution.  In The Overton Window Glenn Beck has one of the characters exclaim, "Do you know why it's so small?  Because the government itself was meant to be small!"  I read that and thought "or maybe it's small because the Founding Fathers were not so arrogant as to think they had all the answers?"  How can we infer from the length of the document what the Founders intended as the size of government?  Much like some preachers twist the Scriptures to mean what they want them to say, Conservative pundits have taken to twisting the words of the Founding Fathers to give some sort of moral heft to their arguments. 

The question ultimately comes down to this: is the Constitution a living document or a Final Monument to a Republic?  Much has changed in the world since the words were penned, not the least of which is the number and density of our population along with an increased understanding of humanity.  When Conservatives try to claim Capitalist principles from the Constitution, I wonder if they realize that Adam Smith didn't even publish The Wealth of Nations until the same years as we declared our Independence?  Ideas didn't spread as quickly back then in the days before the internet, telephones, electricity, automobiles, locomotives and CNN.  Certainly some of the ideas were brewing about during that time but to use the Constitution to support our current understanding of an economic system is a bit of a stretch.

So if times have changed, why shouldn't our conception of good government change?  Some will argue that "principles should never change" but when the rubber meets the road, most of the arguments about the Constitution focus on the particulars ("right to bear arms") rather than the principles ("the folks have to be able to defend themselves"). 

The Crisis (of radio talk shows)

Rush Limbaugh made his career while President Clinton was in office.  It was much easier for him to garner an audience while a foe was in power.  Similarly, Glenn Beck seems to have seized the opportunity of the Democrats coming to power in 2006 in Congress and then taking the White House in 2008.  He operates his radio and TV show with an intensity that indicates that if you don't listen to what he has to say, the evil Democrats are going to destroy the world.  Listening to Glenn Beck sometimes I check the sky to make sure it is still up there.  Have you ever wondered why there were so many commercials for gold investment firms during the last year or so on Glenn Beck's show?  His entire show was a "the sky is falling so you should invest in gold" fun fest. 

In other words, Glenn Beck likes a crisis.  Millions of folks tune in every day to get their daily dose of crisis news.  The urgent and the immediate tends to sell.  The problem he has had is giving people an outlet: what can I do right now to help with the crisis?  The Overton Window is a not-so-subtle attempt to convince folks that he is definitely not advocating violence.  But the question I have is this: "what should I do?" 

I have incredibly strong disagreements with Liberals and Progressives.  I can argue all day long against the weaknesses of Keynesian economics.  But at the same time I can also understand and respect their viewpoint and I don't think these are evil and desperate people out to destroy the world as I know it.  They are simply in disagreement with me as to what is the best way to build a government and an economy.

Conclusion

The plot of the book is decent although it is broken up too much by stilted dialogue while Glenn makes his political points.  To his credit, Beck must have known he would get beat up over the conspiratorial nature of this book and yet he went down that road.  Perhaps he had a higher goal in mind but at least it made for a better plot!