Why Sarah Palin Should Not Defend Glenn Beck

Sarah Palin takes to the digital pages of Facebook in praise of embattled and boycotted TV host Glenn Beck:

FOX News' Glenn Beck is doing an extraordinary job this week walking America behind the scenes of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and outlining who is actually running the White House.

Monday night he asked us to invite one friend to watch; tonight I invite all my friends to watch.

Palin thus ensures that the current Beck controversy will continue for at least another week. And I continue to be impressed and befuddled by two features of this controversy. The first is the degree to which Beck's supporters are largely unwilling to defend or engage with what Beck actually said to start the boycott. (Namely, that Obama is a "racist" with a "a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.") The vast majority of what you hear from Beck supporters is that the left has been mendacious in handling the boycott campaign, by listing among the boycott signatories some companies that never advertised with Beck to begin with. But even if this were entirely true (it's partially true), it misses the point: The factual question of whether the boycott is calculating is unrelated to the interpretive question of whether what Beck said is defensible. And what Beck said was, I submit, stupid and indefensible. Does anyone disagree?
The second surprising feature is the degree to which this is wrongly described as a free-speech issue. This is a pretty big, basic misunderstanding of how free speech works. Free speech is a "negative" right: It prevents the government from silencing you. But it doesn't guarantee you the right to a soapbox or a megaphone or an audience. And it certainly doesn't guarantee a gigantic corporate paycheck for speaking your mind.

You might believe, as Charles Warner apparently does, that the Beck boycott is counterproductive because it gives Beck additional attention and notoriety -- which are Beck's bread and butter. Perhaps that's right. But this tactical debate -- what's the fastest way to have Beck wither on the vine? -- shouldn't be confused with a debate over whether losing an advertiser is like a chunk of the Bill of Rights. On that subject, there's really nothing to debate.  

Presented by

Conor Clarke is the editor, with Michael Kinsley, of Creative Capitalism. He was previously a fellow at The Atlantic and an editor at The Guardian. More

Conor Clarke is the editor, with Michael Kinsley, of Creative Capitalism, an economics blog that was recently published in book form by Simon and Schuster. He was previously a fellow at The Atlantic and an editor at The Guardian. He is also on Twitter.

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register with Disqus.

Please note that The Atlantic's account system is separate from our commenting system. To log in or register with The Atlantic, use the Sign In button at the top of every page.

blog comments powered by Disqus


A Stop-Motion Tour of New York City

A filmmaker animated hundreds of still photographs to create this Big Apple flip book


The Absurd Psychology of Restaurant Menus

Would people eat healthier if celery was called "cool celery?"


This Japanese Inn Has Been Open For 1,300 Years

It's one of the oldest family businesses in the world.


What Happens Inside a Dying Mind?

Science cannot fully explain near-death experiences.

More in Politics

Just In