
What disturbed me about the Facebook meeting - sunils34
https://medium.com/@glennbeck/what-disturbed-me-about-the-facebook-meeting-3bbe0b96b87f#.p9qj1m32z
======
elgabogringo
I'm a Republican. Been working in or for valley companies since 1998.
Engineering then business. The last five years I've felt my views become
increasingly marginalized. The left in the valley has become increasingly
vocal, from the c-suite down, and I've been reluctant to express my views for
fear of retaliation (See Mozilla's ex-CEO.)

The valley isn't a place focused on the innovation and free thinking that gave
it a rep as libertarian. It's focused on money and power at an international
level and it's found the left worldwide as the most amenable to that path.

Zuckerberg, Eric Schmidt, Benioff, Tim Cook... These are the narcissistic,
self-righteous, power-obsessed business leaders from almost every dystopian
novel or movie the last 100 years - and they are creating the very technology
to give themselves real, orwellian, big-brother control, hand-in-hand with
governments.

I fear my future, my children's, and their grand-children.

~~~
YPCrumble
Do you have any proposed solutions to these issues? I'm asking because I can't
think of any that aren't extremely liberal in character, like government
putting limits on these businesses or affirmative action for conservatives, as
Beck discusses in the article.

Perhaps he's wrong but your complaints of being "marginalized" and against the
"money and power" of big business don't sound traditionally conservative. The
traditional conservative line would be that you should stop complaining. Mark
Zuckerberg et al are more talented and deserve the money and power they've
attained because they worked harder and smarter than you have. If you would
just work harder and smarter you would easily overcome these problems on your
own.

~~~
elgabogringo
Can't reply to all the comments here, but yours is very worthy of a reply. If
I have time today, I will get to it, but very busy at work already.

On one hand, I understand why you have that perception of conservatives. We
haven't done a good job of communicating our principles lately (which is why
Trump won the nomination, in large part - but in fairness it's also a tough
thing to do with so many institutions stacked against us: media, academia,
govt administration, etc.)

On the other hand, that's not quite a conservative viewpoint, and you've also
picked up on the wrong threads in the fabric of my dystopian nightmare.

In short... I wouldn't punish them for being successful. I just don't want the
government helping them or working with them. The government exists to protect
our rights - especially from infringement by the powerful (in business or
government.)

Instead the power hungry in business and government are teaming up. Teaming up
to spy on us, control us, and enriching the businesses and cementing the
control of bureaucracy at the same time.

Eg. in spying and violating rights, where does the government end and business
begin?

~~~
YPCrumble
Thanks for your reply! What you're describing is very close to what
Tocqueville describes in Democracy in America - that the US has achieved a
balance between three parts of society: political society (the gov't),
economic society (business) and civil society (social bonds that tie people
together in their communities or the judiciary).

I can appreciate your self-description as "conservative" vs. "Republican",
because they're very different. The Republican party has tried to so simplify
their message to "lower taxes", "let the market decide", and "small
government" in such a way that they're only really representing economic
society. That means that they're also ignoring important checks on economic
society that Tocqueville noticed were key to avoiding something like the
French Revolution. (Tocqueville also speaks at length at the need for a
balance between complete equality and complete inequality to avoid unrest).

Republicans have eviscerated taxes on business and created economic imbalances
like lower taxes for capital gains, inability to discharge student loans in
bankruptcy, bailouts to banks "too big to fail", restrictions on aspects of
civil society like unions, "trickle-down economics", etc. These once added
checks and balances to economic society and helped preserve civil society.

Strong civil society is what lead to a Great America of small towns, family
businesses, and general prosperity for hard working people....all of which are
in danger today. Wal-Mart is the antithesis of a strong American Civil
Society. You simply can't have a company propped up by government welfare and
anti-union legislation like Wal-Mart and a culture of successful small
businesses at the same time. It's an oxymoron.

I think what conservatives are seeing is that the Republican ideal to simply
remove all checks and balances on the free market has been poisoning the
strong civil society they're trying to rescussitate. When you're feeling like
the government is working against you, it's true. Civil society is getting
eviscerated and your ideal "equality of opportunity" is getting b-slapped by
the invisible hand of the rich and powerful capitalists.

Even Adam Smith made great points for the necessity to check the invisible
hand in the Wealth of Nations. He describes the necessity of gov't sponsored
public works projects, of checking monopolies, and of public education to
avoid the "torpor of the mind" that economic society would lead us to without
any checks to it.

Unfortunately few Republicans clamoring for lower taxes and free market
economy know anything about the Wealth of Nations. Their one-dimensional
policy opinions are creating more of a problem and hopefully more people will
start calling themselves "conservatives" because they're trying to conserve
equality of opportunity instead of simply parroting "Lower taxes", "Free
market", and "Who is John Galt".

------
FussyZeus
> "What happened to us?"

The thing that drove me, a lifelong conservative, into the arms of Bernie
Sanders; the Republican party (and the conservative group in particular) are
so hard core on social issues that are to be blunt, disgusting (things like
preventing homosexual marriage and abortion) and completely antithetical to
the idea of "keeping government out of things." No I don't like everything the
Left wants to do, but I also have no love left for the Bible thumping
I'm-ignorant-and-proud-of-it crowd.

I have too many homosexual friends who I know are good people. I have too many
friends who had their contraception fail and aren't in any position to raise a
child, recognize that, and want to wait to accept abortion. And more and more
I'm realizing that the party of "leave us alone" wants the Government involved
in way more things than the other one.

I don't know when this happened, I don't know why, but if you want the
explanation there it is. You guys bank harder and harder on ignorance and fear
every year until now you've got a candidate like Trump, with practically no
ideas and nothing to offer except new things to fear.

I won't belong to the party of fear.

~~~
slowernet
Your question is probably rhetorical, but it happened because the Republican
party decided they needed to bring social conservatives (especially Southern
whites disaffected by the Civil Rights Act) into their coalition. See
"Southern strategy" [1].

I believe anti-choice specifically was brought into the party platform during
the Ford years. Outright homophobia was pretty mainstream until well into the
90s, and wasn't much of a differentiator between the parties. Democrats just
soft-pedaled their position while the Republicans, specifically the
fundamentalists who had grown in power since the 80s, made AIDS and gay
marriage boogeyman issues in the "culture wars" [2].

For the record, both parties are coalitions and involve this kind of
compromise between different constituencies (see Dems and organized labor, et
al.)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy)
[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_war#1990s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_war#1990s)

~~~
FussyZeus
Actually it wasn't, I appreciate the links. Thanks.

------
okket
Previous:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11732166](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11732166)
(10 comments)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11732430](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11732430)
(2 comments)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11734973](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11734973)
(1 comment)

------
zelias
I find this article a bit ironic, given that Glenn Beck spent years at Fox
News stirring up the ornery attitudes that he denounces here.

~~~
toyg
Well, his point is that he thought he was attacking people who wanted a
special treatment in life, and now he found himself aligned with people who
were doing that exact thing. It wasn't really about being aggressive _per se_.

He's always been an ultraconservative nutjob and I don't see that changing,
but it's refreshing to see someone showing he can see the problems with his
own argument and can self-criticize a bit. Tomorrow we'll go back to our
scheduled program of people shouting at each other, but can't we happy that
today is a good day, for once? :)

------
hellbanner
This page contains a link in the first paragraphs that links to
[http://www.glennbeck.com/2016/05/19/what-disturbed-glenn-
abo...](http://www.glennbeck.com/2016/05/19/what-disturbed-glenn-about-the-
facebook-meeting/?utm_source=Medium&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=Medium-
post20160519) , which appears to have the same text.

~~~
oarsinsync
Yeah that's confused me too. I don't understand why, other than advertising, I
suppose

------
wmeredith
I enjoyed this piece a lot. The introspection is real. Also, what the hell is
the controversy at the core here? It was never linked referenced. What spawned
the meeting?

~~~
oarsinsync
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11726588](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11726588)

------
swehner
To pretend or make out that you're some kind of marginalized group, that
you're being ignored or exploited or taken advantage of or just not getting
what you're supposed to be entitled to, and that you're afraid and worried and
unhappy -- it sounds so lame and cheap, and in the end, boring.

Never heared of this guy, but doesn't seem I missed anything.

------
kelukelugames
Throws a lot of shade. He is good at the "I don't enjoy feeling like a victim.
Victims are bad. Here is a list of why we are victimized."

------
perseusprime11
Can you remind me again about 1984? What happened then?

~~~
GFK_of_xmaspast
Reagan got re-elected.

~~~
perseusprime11
Was that good or bad?

~~~
dang
If you're trolling, please don't.

~~~
perseusprime11
I am trying to simply understand the true significance of 1984. Most online
searches point me to George Orwell's book. I am definitely not trolling. Being
young and born in the 80s it is hard to understand these kind of things.

~~~
dang
Your best bet is to continue your online searches, as they are pointing you in
the right direction.

~~~
perseusprime11
:) I think it is the book but I have heard folks use it in a different context
like the other guy who said Reagan.

------
specialist
Please add the pundit's name [Glenn Beck] in the submission.

~~~
010a
Its hilarious how this comment alone exemplifies exactly what he's talking
about when he says that conservative voices are being marginalized in silicon
valley. We need to make sure we brand the post with his name so us cushy
liberals can be protected from these mean and different viewpoints, right?

~~~
pigpaws
yes, but at the same time, Glen Beck represents the more 'religious' aspect of
the far-right. That's the whole issue with the right (IMO) is that it was
hijacked by the (Hypocritical) religious people, whereas there was almost NO
ONE representing the right-center folks who are fiscally conservative, yet
socially liberal/acceptable (live and let live).

I already know who my state with vote for, which allows me to vote who I want
to (Gary Johnson). The 2-party setup (debates, etc...) won't allow anyone in
who doesn't identify to one extreme or the other.

~~~
LyndsySimon
> Glen[sic] Beck represents the more 'religious' aspect of the far-right

The article linked is not based on a religious view. In fact, the only mention
of religion is a comment intended to ridicule the comments of others at the
table from the right who Beck implies are being morally inconsistent.

