Glenn's definition of a conservative


Glenn Beck is seen here on the Insider Webcam, an exclusive feature available only to Glenn Beck Insiders. Learn more...

GLENN:  888-727-BECK.  Welcome to news radio 750 KXL in Portland, Oregon.  Thanks for joining the family of Glenn Beck program.  Glad you're here.  Let me go to Ken in Philadelphia.  Hello, Ken thanks for listening to WPHT.  What's up?

CALLER:  Hi, Glenn.  I've been listening to your program on and off for years and I'm not sure anymore what it means to be a conservative.  I was wondering if you would actually have a dialogue with me about what that means.

GLENN:  Sure.

CALLER:  Okay.  Because, like, for instance I don't -- I hear talk about a lot, like I guess soon that it means like being conservative financially.  You know, I understand that it means pro business, so you don't want to limit business maybe.  Does it mean being religious?  What does it mean?

GLENN:  Well, let me ask you, Ken.  Are we having an honest dialogue here or do you have an agenda?

CALLER:  No, an honest dialogue because like, for instance, one of the things I can't understand is it seems like religion is associated with conservatism and yet like a lot of the business that you do is judging and throwing first stones and I don't see that as a religious value as Jesus taught it.  And so I don't understand that as a basis for your program.  But I also don't understand the dividing of the country as a basis for it.  So in order for me to understand what conservatism is and its use of the word is used a lot.  And a lot of times if somebody disagrees with you on the station or with any of the hosts, it seems like if somebody disagrees, you are automatically branded a liberal and even if you are not, and you are thrown off the station and then talked over.  So I don't really have an agenda.  I just want to know what it means because it makes it difficult for me to understand and have a conversation with somebody when I don't know what the words mean and what people are talking about.

GLENN:  Sure, okay.  So now we understand your agenda, that you do have an axe to grind.  And that's fine.  I don't know what your political background is.  I'm not going to call you a liberal.  I have no idea if you're a liberal.  So I have no idea, but I appreciate you being honest and telling me where you're coming from and showing me that we're not having an honest dialogue.

So instead of operating under the cloak of, gee, Glenn, what is a conservative, why don't we just take these issues that you have that is really the reason for your phone call and take them one by one.  Let's start with the religion thing.  What is your question again on the religion issue and how it revolves -- I cannot answer for any other show.  I can answer for my actions.  So let's be specific on my actions, Ken.

CALLER:  Okay.  So you're -- you're letting me talk now.  That's nice.  It's not like I -- you think I have an axe to grind.  Maybe you can just tell me what your belief is on conservatives and I won't even -- I won't grind my axe.  Just tell me what it is and then let me talk about it.

GLENN:  Ken, you don't set the rules for the program.  And first of all, nobody is shutting you down.  I let you talk for three minutes.  So I'm not here to play a game with you.  It is a total waste of time.  If you'd like to have a real dialogue and make progress on something, we can.  You're not really interested in what a conservative means.  You have problems and issues with what I do on the air.  So let's deal with those.  Why play a game?

CALLER:  Okay.  So you're thinking that this is an agenda thing.  I just honestly think that it feels like a lot of your work divides the country.  It sets people against each other.  And like, for instance your --

GLENN:  Give me the examples.  Let's deal in specifics here.

CALLER:  Well, for example, you were just talking about some woman with -- previously to me coming on here and you were talking about her situation and yet without actually knowing the person, knowing their actual -- the depth of their situation when you speak sort of glossing over the information just based on maybe some information that's been filtered through the liberal media as it were.

GLENN:  Right.  No, I -- here's --

CALLER:  Under the circumstance it seems hard to really understand what their situation is.

GLENN:  Sure.

CALLER:  So in judging that person, in judging the situation, you are really not being fair to that individual or the story.

GLENN:  Sure.  I'm not judging anybody in the article.  What I was quoting is a story that ran in the Washington Post.  Now, I'm sorry if you think I'm being divisive by reading verbatim a story that ran in the Washington Post, but I don't know how I can be accused of being divisive by, again, reading the story verbatim.

CALLER:  Well, it's your tone, what you choose to read and how you say it in such a way where you're casting, obviously you are opining and setting the judgment on that person.

GLENN:  No, I'm not setting a judgment on any person.  I don't even know who wrote that story.  I know it ran in the Washington Post.  I am making a comment by reading that story, I'm making a comment on how is it the media would like to paint Americans as racist.  Yesterday, if you listened to yesterday's show, the story yesterday in the media was how all of the white people in West Virginia are racist because Hillary is winning by such an overwhelming number there.  The story on Friday in the media was how, by Hillary Clinton saying that she has the white vote, he has the black vote, that she somehow or another is a racist for pointing out that fact.  Today is just the third day in a very, very long cycle to come, about anybody who is against Barack Obama.  Again, the stories -- the story's facts were little, a little thin to be able to paint anybody who's against Barack Obama as a racist.  Even the campaign will not do that and yet the media needs to paint people against Barack Obama as a racist.

CALLER:  Well, I understand your point about that the story and unfortunately I didn't hear it yesterday.  And I'm actually not calling to grind an axe about racism.  My actual intention here was literally to find out what it means to be a conservative so when I'm listening to you, I can understand --

GLENN:  Yeah, I don't believe that.

CALLER:  -- I can understand what it means.

GLENN:  I wish I believed you on that, but I don't.

CALLER:  I wish you did.

GLENN:  I do, too, and we can all sing Kumbayah.  Ken, here is the question.  So let's go back to where you said I was being divisive.  Again, how was I being divisive by reading the story and trying to make the point that the media is saying that we are -- that if you're against Barack Obama, you're a racist, when that is not true.

CALLER:  You are absolutely right.  If I had been calling about that comment and I was talking about that --

GLENN:  Well, that was the comment that you used.  Would you like to try another one and maybe we could take that one away.

CALLER:  Well, no, no, no, no, no.

GLENN:  No, no, no.  Let's -- I mean, if you are going to say that I'm divisive and that was just a bad example but it was the one that you brought up, let's go with another example of yours.  Because if I'm divisive, then let's go with another example because maybe you've just misunderstood.  You said there were a lot of things that I do that are divisive.  So just give me another one and let's take that one on.

CALLER:  Well, I think, like, for instance when you said that you'd like to believe that I didn't have an agenda and stuff like that.  You say I'm being Kumbayah, you are sort of implying --

GLENN:  That would happen after your phone call.  So how would that be a motivation of something that bothers you when that happened after you made the phone call?

CALLER:  Well, you are sort of making it an implication here that I'm a liberal by being --

GLENN:  No, I never said you were a liberal.  I have no idea.  I plainly said that to you.  I don't know if you are a liberal or not.  I don't really care if you're a liberal or not.

CALLER:  Aren't you trying to by saying the Kumbayah thing and making people think that I'm --

GLENN:  No, sir.  Look, you are not disagreeing with me?  I'm having a hard time following this conversation.  So are you not disagreeing with me?

CALLER:  Actually all I asked you in the original, you know, question was what is it to be a conservative.

GLENN:  And you know what, Ken, I wanted to take your phone call because when I saw it said, "What is the definition of a conservative, what does it mean anymore," I took your phone call first because I would love to talk about that.  But I will only discuss that with an honest broker.  You are not an honest broker.  You are immediately coming and saying, "But a lot of people tie religion in, and I see you do things that don't coincide with what I believe is religion."  Well, give me one of those examples.  Because what I want to do is have the conversation of what a conservative is, but you don't want to really have that.  You'd like to try to pin me in a corner.  So that's fine.  Now that we know what your intent is, let's just have an honest conversation and tell me what your problem is on the show because -- or on me because maybe, like we've seen in the only example that you've given me so far, you were wrong.

CALLER:  Well, that's an interesting way of dealing with it, but you are still not answering my question.  What is it to be a conservative?  There it is.  You ask me what it is.  Go for it.

GLENN:  Ken, here it is.  To be a conservative is, in my definition, is somebody that believes in the power of the individual, somebody that believes, please let me make my decisions, that I have a right to succeed and not be penalized for it.  I have a right to fail and have no one run to me if I don't want them to run to me.  A conservative believes I have a right to manage my family, I have a right to discipline my family in the way I see fit, as long as it is not criminal.  A conservative believes I have the right to worship God, I have a right to worship the God of my understanding, and I do not have the right to jam my version of God down anybody else's throat or my version of no God down anybody's throat.  A conservative believes live and let live.  That's what a conservative believes.  A conservative believes in the smallest amount of government, the smallest government you can get without anarchy.  That's what a conservative believes.

CALLER:  Then I'm a conservative.  Nice talking to you.  Thank you very much for --

GLENN:  You bet, Ken.  See?  And who thought he was a liberal?  Not me.  He just ended it, "I guess I'm a conservative."  Well, good.  Then we agree.

In light of the national conversation surrounding the rights of free speech, religion and self-defense, Mercury One is thrilled to announce a brand new initiative launching this Father's Day weekend: a three-day museum exhibition in Dallas, Texas focused on the rights and responsibilities of American citizens.

This event seeks to answer three fundamental questions:

  1. As Americans, what responsibility do we shoulder when it comes to defending our rights?
  2. Do we as a nation still agree on the core principles and values laid out by our founding fathers?
  3. How can we move forward amidst uncertainty surrounding the intent of our founding ideals?

Attendees will be able to view historical artifacts and documents that reveal what has made America unique and the most innovative nation on earth. Here's a hint: it all goes back to the core principles and values this nation was founded on as laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Exhibits will show what the world was like before mankind had rights and how Americans realized there was a better way to govern. Throughout the weekend, Glenn Beck, David Barton, Stu Burguiere, Doc Thompson, Jeffy Fisher and Brad Staggs will lead private tours through the museum, each providing their own unique perspectives on our rights and responsibilities.

Schedule a private tour or purchase general admission ticket below:

Dates:
June 15-17

Location:

Mercury Studios

6301 Riverside Drive, Irving, TX 75039

Learn more about the event here.

About Mercury One: Mercury One is a 501(c)(3) charity founded in 2011 by Glenn Beck. Mercury One was built to inspire the world in the same way the United States space program shaped America's national destiny and the world. The organization seeks to restore the human spirit by helping individuals and communities help themselves through honor, faith, courage, hope and love. In the words of Glenn Beck:

We don't stand between government aid and people in need. We stand with people in need so they no longer need the government

Some of Mercury One's core initiatives include assisting our nation's veterans, providing aid to those in crisis and restoring the lives of Christians and other persecuted religious minorities. When evil prevails, the best way to overcome it is for regular people to do good. Mercury One is committed to helping sustain the good actions of regular people who want to make a difference through humanitarian aid and education initiatives. Mercury One will stand, speak and act when no one else will.

Support Mercury One's mission to restore the human spirit by making an online donation or calling 972-499-4747. Together, we can make a difference.

What happened?

A New York judge ruled Tuesday that a 30-year-old still living in his parents' home must move out, CNN reported.

Failure to launch …

Michael Rotondo, who had been living in a room in his parents' house for eight years, claims that he is owed a six-month notice even though they gave him five notices about moving out and offered to help him find a place and to help pay for repairs on his car.

RELATED: It's sad 'free-range parenting' has to be legislated, it used to be common sense

“I think the notice is sufficient," New York State Supreme Court Judge Donald Greenwood said.

What did the son say?

Rotondo “has never been expected to contribute to household expenses, or assisted with chores and the maintenance of the premises, and claims that this is simply a component of his living agreement," he claimed in court filings.

He told reporters that he plans to appeal the “ridiculous" ruling.

Reform Conservatism and Reaganomics: A middle road?

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Senator Marco Rubio broke Republican ranks recently when he criticized the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by stating that “there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker." Rubio is wrong on this point, as millions of workers have received major raises, while the corporate tax cuts have led to a spike in capital expenditure (investment on new projects) of 39 percent. However, the Florida senator is revisiting an idea that was front and center in the conservative movement before Donald Trump rode down an escalator in June of 2015: reform conservatism.

RELATED: The problem with asking what has conservatism conserved

The "reformicons," like Rubio, supported moving away from conservative or supply-side orthodoxy and toward policies such as the expansion of the child and earned income tax credits. On the other hand, longstanding conservative economic theory indicates that corporate tax cuts, by lowering disincentives on investment, will lead to long-run economic growth that will end up being much more beneficial to the middle class than tax credits.

But asking people to choose between free market economic orthodoxy and policies guided towards addressing inequality and the concerns of the middle class is a false dichotomy.

Instead of advocating policies that many conservatives might dismiss as redistributionist, reformicons should look at the ways government action hinders economic opportunity and exacerbates income inequality. Changing policies that worsen inequality satisfies limited government conservatives' desire for free markets and reformicons' quest for a more egalitarian America. Furthermore, pushing for market policies that reduce the unequal distribution of wealth would help attract left-leaning people and millennials to small government principles.

Criminal justice reform is an area that reformicons and free marketers should come together around. The drug war has been a disaster, and the burden of this misguided government approach have fallen on impoverished minority communities disproportionately, in the form of mass incarceration and lower social mobility. Not only has the drug war been terrible for these communities, it's proved costly to the taxpayer––well over a trillion dollars has gone into the drug war since its inception, and $80 billion dollars a year goes into mass incarceration.

Prioritizing retraining and rehabilitation instead of overcriminalization would help address inequality, fitting reformicons' goals, and promote a better-trained workforce and lower government spending, appealing to basic conservative preferences.

Government regulations tend to disproportionately hurt small businesses and new or would-be entrepreneurs. In no area is this more egregious than occupational licensing––the practice of requiring a government-issued license to perform a job. The percentage of jobs that require licenses has risen from five percent to 30 percent since 1950. Ostensibly justified by public health concerns, occupational licensing laws have, broadly, been shown to neither promote public health nor improve the quality of service. Instead, they serve to provide a 15 percent wage boost to licensed barbers and florists, while, thanks to the hundreds of hours and expensive fees required to attain the licenses, suppressing low-income entrepreneurship, and costing the economy $200 billion dollars annually.

Those economic losses tend to primarily hurt low-income people who both can't start businesses and have to pay more for essential services. Rolling back occupational licenses will satisfy the business wing's desire for deregulation and a more free market and the reformicons' support for addressing income inequality and increasing opportunity.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality.

Tax expenditures form another opportunity for common ground between the Rubio types and the mainstream. Tax deductions and exclusions, both on the individual and corporate sides of the tax code, remain in place after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Itemized deductions on the individual side disproportionately benefit the wealthy, while corporate tax expenditures help well-connected corporations and sectors, such as the fossil fuel industry.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality. Additionally, a more complicated tax code is less conducive to economic growth than one with lower tax rates and fewer exemptions. Therefore, a simpler tax code with fewer deductions and exclusions would not only create a more level playing field, as the reformicons desire, but also additional economic growth.

A forward-thinking economic program for the Republican Party should marry the best ideas put forward by both supply-siders and reform conservatives. It's possible to take the issues of income inequality and lack of social mobility seriously, while also keeping mainstay conservative economic ideas about the importance of less cumbersome regulations and lower taxes.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate studying economics at Tufts University. He is a contributor for Lone Conservative, and his writing has appeared in Townhall and The Daily Caller. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Is this what inclusivity and tolerance look like? Fox News host Tomi Lahren was at a weekend brunch with her mom in Minnesota when other patrons started yelling obscenities and harassing her. After a confrontation, someone threw a drink at her, the moment captured on video for social media.

RELATED: Glenn Addresses Tomi Lahren's Pro-Choice Stance on 'The View'

On today's show, Pat and Jeffy talked about this uncomfortable moment and why it shows that supposedly “tolerant" liberals have to resort to physical violence in response to ideas they don't like.