Why Glenn Beck Is Always Right

I’ve been listening to a lot of talk radio lately, liberal and conservative. I’ve decided that “talk” radio is actually a misnomer. I think “shout” radio would be a much better name. Anyway, the trip from Jefferson City to Columbia and back again provides ample time to hear what people have to shout about.

It always amazes me when I hear the pundits, liberal and conservative, defending their positions against callers and guests who would challenge the agendas they promote on their shows. They’re never defeated in an argument. They never concede a point. Glenn Beck is always right. So is Sean Hannity. And all the conservatives on 93.9 The Eagle. But equally so are Joy Behar, Rosie O’Donnell, and all the liberals who display their wears on 89.9 KOPN. They’re never wrong. Ever.

What I’ve found is a microcosm of our government. We’ve got the conservatives, the liberals, and those fewer and fewer in the middle. We’ve got gridlock threatening “government shutdown.” We’ve got absolutely nothing getting accomplished (which admittedly, I normally prefer as the government’s modus operandi, but with the fiscal crisis in which our country is currently, inaction does not bode well at this time). Why is there so much gridlock, not just in the government, but on talk radio? Why aren’t these pundits ever wrong?

I decided to listen more carefully, not to the subject matter of the argument, but to the actual manner of argument. I made an interesting discovery.

A presupposition is defined by 2 main characteristics. 1) A presupposition is something that you assume to be true, but that cannot be proven by tangible, observable data. 2) A presupposition is the foundation upon which you build your arguments.

Why is it important to understand what a presupposition is? Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Joy Behar, Katie Couric, and all the other pundits out there, conservative and liberal, argue from presuppositions. They do not allow their presuppositions to be challenged, and because they do not allow their presuppositions to be challenged, they cannot lose an argument.

This is the way it works.

I accuse you of hitting your spouse. You say, “I don’t hit my spouse.” I say, “Well, when did you stop hitting your spouse.” You start to say that you have never hit your spouse, but I interrupt you and demand that you answer a simple question, “When did you stop hitting your spouse? Answer the question. Give me a date.” You continue to attempt to inform me that you have never hit your spouse, but I continue to interrupt you, “Look, it’s a simple question. When did you stop hitting your spouse? Either you’ve stopped hitting your spouse, or you haven’t. I’ll make it even simpler, have you stopped hitting your spouse? Yes or no.” Now you can’t answer, so I call you a spouse abuser and refuse to talk to you further because I don’t waste my time talking to people who abuse their spouses.

My presupposition is that you hit your spouse, and I do not allow you to challenge my presupposition. During the course of the argument, I only ask questions that, no matter what answer you give, require you to accept my basic presupposition. You cannot win that argument against me.

That’s why Glenn Beck is always right. That’s why Joy Behar is always right. That’s why Bill O’Reilly never loses and argument. That’s why Rosie O’Donnell cannot lose an argument. They all argue in such a way that they force those with whom they argue to accept their basic presuppositions, without ever allowing their presuppositions to be challenged.

On a practical level, why is this important?

Our presuppositions form the basis of how we interpret our experiences on a fundamental, moral level. They guide our beliefs about what is right and what is wrong. For example, if your fundamental belief is that one is personally responsible for him or herself under all circumstances, the concept of the government providing health care will be repugnant to you. If, however, you believe that society has a responsibility to assist those who, for whatever reason, cannot provide for themselves, then you would believe that the government has not only the right, but the obligation to provide healthcare for those whom it governs. Another example: if you believe that one’s gender is an essential element in one’s personhood, then you would reason that marriage should be defined as only existing between a man and a woman, because only in that complementarity of the genders can a true marriage bond exist. If you believe, on the other hand, that one’s gender is inconsequential to the person’s fundamental identity, then you would believe that marriage can be defined as existing between any two people, no matter what their gender happens to be.

These core beliefs are presuppositions. They cannot be proven by tangible, observable date. They form the foundation of a line of argument that governs our actions and thoughts.

Our presuppositions govern our actions on a very practical level. The problem comes when we, like those pundits in the media, refuse to allow our presuppositions to be challenged. They are fundamental beliefs to us. We don’t like having them challenged. Just because they are beliefs, though, does not mean that they are correct.

I see bumper stickers that say, “Question Authority.” I hear it talked about, how we should “fight the power.” I rarely hear anyone talk about questioning the self. Are we as willing to put our own beliefs under the scalpel as we are everyone else’s?
One way of doing this is to find a basic presupposition we hold, and carry it out to its logical conclusion. If the line of reasoning leads to chaos, the chance is that our basic presupposition or belief is incorrect. For example, a presupposition that I’ve heard over and over is, “The government cannot legislate morality.” This is normally stated in more libertarian circles regarding illegal drugs, prostitution, the adult sex industry and other types of similar activities. The government should stay out of people’s personal lives. It cannot legislate morality.

Let’s follow that out. Morality is that system or code which tells me what I ought to do and what I ought not to do. If something is moral, it is something that I ought to do. If something is immoral, then it is something that I ought not to do. So to say that the government cannot legislate morality is to say that the government cannot tell me that there are things that I ought to do, and things that I ought not to do.

Well, the government tells me that I ought not to drive over 70 miles per hour. By legislating that, it has become an issue of morality. Someone decided for me that I should not ride my motorcycle 98 miles per hour up highway 63. I have personal health insurance. I wear a helmet. I have enough life insurance that my wife and children would be very comfortable if I were to die. It’s my life. Who is the government to tell me that I ought not to do this?

What’s more, there are certain people that I think would be just better off dead. Or at least, I would be better off if they were dead. Who is the government to tell me that killing people is something I ought not to do? If someone gets mad at me for killing his cousin, who’s the government to say that dude shouldn’t come to kill me? After all, the government cannot legislate morality.

The fact is that any act of legislation is ultimately a legislation of morality. The government is telling me that there are things that I ought to do (pay taxes, drive a certain speed) and things that I ought not to do (drive without insurance, yell, “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater). So the basic presupposition, “The government cannot legislate morality,” is an erroneous belief. If it were to be fully implemented, there would be chaos. The question then is not, “Can the government legislate morality?” but rather, “Since every act of legislation is a moral matter, what should be the moral standard by which the government legislates?”

The bottom line is this. If we are to ever get anywhere in this mixed up government, religion, you name it, we need to be willing to have our fundamental beliefs, those pesky presuppositions, questioned.

I believe in truth. Not my presuppositions. If my presuppositions are true, then carried out logically they will lead to harmony, (true) diversity, peace, and joy. You will know a tree by its fruits. If my presuppositions are erroneous, I would want someone to correct them, because what is not true will only lead to chaos and self-defeat. So from now on, I invite you with me, before we decide to dismiss Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Joy Behar, Rosie O’Donnell, Pope Benedict, Bill Maher, Sarah Palin, Barack Obama or whoever we find irritates us the most, to question the self. I’ll question my own presuppositions. You question yours. Let’s see whose presuppositions lead to the greater good. It might not be mine, but it might not be yours either.