I made it down to DC for the Restoring Honor rally Saturday. I spent my time down there mostly walking around, never did commit myself to sitting down anywhere. Any reports of "tens of thousands" of people would be akin to saying Bill Gates has "tens of thousands" of dollars. Technically true, but "hundreds of thousands" would be a better way of stating the obvious. I think the 500,000 figure is much more accurate than "tens of thousands". At any rate, there were a lot of people there. And it was mostly a white crowd, which is disappointing, but in the end, so what? I suspect that Al Sharpton's rally was mostly black, but you probably won't hear that as the media describes the Restoring Honor rally as mostly white. As I walked the crowd though, I kept wondering if these were the same people the Dems believe are extremists, haters, bigots, and astroturf. Can Obama and the Dems actually look into these people's eyes and say they are not representative of a large section of America, or that their beliefs are no longer welcome in America?
As for the tone and message of the event, I am a bit conflicted. I give Glenn Beck a great deal of credit for putting on this event. He laid a lot on the line both financially and personally. My question going into Saturday though was how much of this event was going to be about Beck. If I had my way, Beck would have gotten up and spoken for about 5-6 minutes at the beginning, laying the framework for the reason for the event. For the next 2 hours, 45 minutes, the people he selected would speak and perform, all building the case for restoring honor. Beck would then get up at the end and speak for 10 minutes, challenging the crowd to respond. With this kind of format, in the end Beck could effectively say that this event was not about him, but instead about restoring honor in America. It would have spoken volumes to the crowd and to the critics.
I don't think the event became a full blown "we love you Glenn" event. Thematically everything seemed to stay on course. But there were multiple times when speakers heaped praised on Beck for his efforts, and in the end Beck's voice was heard during more than one third of the program. With 20 hours of on air time during the week, do we really need to hear more from him?
Time will tell whether this event will have any lasting affect. In the immediate aftermath, it seems much of the analysis revolves around the personality and celebrity of Glenn Beck rather than about the message. Where the message is discussed, specifically the importance of God in our culture, it inevitably ends back with whether Beck is the right person delivering that message. All of this makes it difficult for Beck to ever effectively claim that it is not about him. When Obama says it is not about him, how many of us actually believe him? I want to believe that Beck is sincere and really is a humble man. I just think a more humble man would not have taken such a large role on stage. As he stood there among the giants, Beck could have stepped aside and let the people speak.
No comments:
Post a Comment