The liberty movement has been grumbling loudly about Glenn Beck‘s recent revelation to the public that he is a libertarian. After a segment on John Stossel‘s show where Ann Coulter called libertarians “pu**ies”, Beck took to the airwaves to complain about how exclusive the liberty movement has been to him since he came around to our ideas. The hostility displayed by his conversion to liberty ideals over the last few years has been a little baffling considering how few allies we have in the media.

My first experience with Glenn Beck harkens back to the heady days of 2007 when I first began organizing for Congressman Ron Paul‘s 2008 Presidential campaign. That fall Beck implied that Ron Paul supporters were domestic enemies or terrorists. He then brought David Horowitz on to discuss the topic. A former Marxist, Horowitz goes on to say that libertarians are worse than the Communists of the 60’s. Horowitz is an expert on Communism as he was once personally dedicated to the destruction of the United States and capitalism stating, ‘Even if we never encountered a Soviet agent or engaged in a single illegal act, each of us knew that our commitment to socialism implied the obligation to commit treason, too.” Horowitz openly reviles libertarians claiming that we are “totally in bed with the Islamo-fascists”.

Probably not the best start to friendly relations with libertarians on Beck’s part.



After this segment, many libertarians saw Beck as not just a bad guy, but an open enemy to the liberty movement. His meteoric rise to fame in the years after this was punctuated by subtle jabs at libertarians in his segments. But there was always the hint that he might be swayed to our side. Glenn became a champion of the conservative movement when he revealed that one of President Obama’s closest allies, Van Jones, was a 9/11 truther who signed a petition that implied that George W. Bush perpetrated the attacks on the World Trade Center.

While an anchor on Fox News, he used his platform not to advocate solely for conservative causes however. He featured a segment about a book from a little known economist called “The Road To Serfdom”. Libertarians around the world were astonished as Beck began telling America the real truth about the history of Progressivism in the United States. He blasted Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, claiming that the Progressives of both parties contributed to the destruction of the American system of free markets. He was the first major media figure to come out against both parties and to shed light on the unitary big government agenda held by both major political parties. He embraced Friedrich Hayek and laid bare the lie that Republicans are for limited government. It seemed as if he was coming along our way.

And then in 2012 he endorsed Rick Santorum. Santorum is a rabid Social Conservative who arguably embodies the worst qualities of the conservative movement. A rabid Prohibitionist, Santorum also has voted for expansions of Medicare, the Bridge to Nowhere and to raise the debt ceiling. Beck’s endorsement of Santorum seemed to be the final straw for many libertarians who were hoping he might be convinced to support Ron Paul instead.

But the reasoning for Beck’s dismissal of Paul was made clear when the Texas congressman tweeted an immensely harsh statement regarding the death of Sniper Chris Kyle. Paul wrote of the sniper less than 24 hours after his murder by another soldier suffering from PTSD that “He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.” The reaction divided the liberty movement clearly between those who blindly support everything Ron Paul does, and those who are willing to disagree with the man when his tactics or rhetoric are unwise or harmful to the cause. Beck made a public statement soon after explaining that this type of hateful rhetoric was precisely the reason for why he could not support Ron Paul. It was a very sobering experience for this libertarian as it gave me a rare glimpse at why so many conservatives have trouble bridging the gap from conservatism to libertarianism.

And libertarians have made it even more difficult for Beck to shift our way. Mediaite’s Andrew Kirell, a strong libertarian (and good friend), harshly chastised Beck in a column stating,

I know I speak for many libertarians when I say we were horrified when you once identified as vaguely “libertarian.” Your sometimes poisonous rhetoric and conspiracy-mongering is in some ways more harmful to the smaller-government movement than the very bumbling politicians in Washington we battle. You make it harder for us serious small government advocates to win the Battle of Ideas. You make it harder for anyone who criticizes big government to be taken seriously.To quote William F. Buckley: you, sir, are “a pyromaniac in a field of straw men.”

At a recent libertarian conference in Washington D.C., the Executive Director of the Students for Liberty Alexander McCobin (another good friend) echoed Kirell’s complaints saying, “I am fine with Glenn Beck becoming a libertarian, but you can’t just apply that term to yourself and expect it to be accurate unless you have the right stances that agree with libertarianism. [Beck] needs to renounce the social conservatism and neoconservatism that have been hallmarks of his persona. Libertarianism does not support these things in government. If people want to be socially conservative in their private lives, that’s fine. Don’t mandate it for everybody else, though.”

Ouch. That certainly was harsh. But is it inaccurate? It is true that libertarians believe that neoconservatism and social conservatism when applied to government policy is tyrannical. But does Beck really believe in mandating his personal belief system? Is he really a neoconservative?

After years of abuse by Beck, libertarians are understandably gun shy. But how long will we fight amongst each other to hold sway over a movement that commands a whopping 1% of the vote? Can we really afford to brush aside people who want to join us and help spread the message of liberty, even if we don’t agree 100% on all issues? Glenn Beck recently came out and said he’s a Rand Paul guy and chastised Republicans like Marco Rubio and Chris Christie. He has shifted his position on many major issues that libertarians hold dear, including the PATRIOT Act, the NDAA and the extrajudicial killing of American citizens by drone strikes. Is he really that far off from our point of view? And if he’s not far off, why are we attempting to push him out instead of pull him our way? Do we ingratiate ourselves with new audiences by displaying a hatefulness towards Beck that mirrors his original attitude towards us?

I believe it’s high time that some of the more high profile members of the liberty movement and Glenn Beck have a frank and honest discussion about what we believe, why we believe it and how we might work together to achieve our common goals of limiting government. I don’t believe that fighting over a label endlessly is a way to advance our cause. I would love to have a discussion with Glenn on his show about what it means to be a libertarian. We should discuss the role of Israel and foreign aid. We should discuss war and terrorism, the PATRIOT Act, the NDAA and drones. We should talk about conservatism and progressivism. We should talk about Abraham Lincoln. We should talk about faith and non-faith. We should talk about what it means to be a libertarian.

Glenn… we should talk.

Glenn Beck addressed this issue this morning on his show. The video is below.