Last winter – back in the day – Glenn Beck was a roaring tiger. His claws were thought so bloody that when he attacked Frances Fox Piven, one of the leading activist scholars of social movements, a string of professional organizations rose to the lady’s defense, including the American Sociological Association and the Society for the Study of Social Problems. After the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, many progressives concluded that Professor Piven was next in line for assassination from the rightists roiled and boiled by Beck.

Today we frame Glenn Beck’s symmetry as less fearful. Those who worried that Professor Piven was walking on a knife’s edge might be surprised that her latest book, published in August, is entitled Who’s Afraid of Frances Fox Piven: The Essential Writings of the Professor Glenn Beck Loves to Hate. Glenn Beck has become Professor Piven’s marketing tool. Without Glenn Beck’s opposition, Piven’s writings might seem less essential. (As a fellow former president of the Society for the Study of Social Problems, I am pleased that her deservedly influential writings have become essential. I am attempting to find someone of equal stature to hate me. The placid readers of this flying seminar know that I try my best.)

However, my point is not to critique the pas de deux of Beck and Piven. Rather it is to recall that in my earlier musing on Glenn Beck, I confessed to having become addicted to his rants, his startling readings of American intellectual history. However, beginning early in 2011, sparked by the demonstrations of the Arab Spring, first in Tunisia, then in Tahir Square, spreading to Tripoli and Syria, Beck began warning that these demonstrations were a clarion call to global rebellion. He promised viewers that an uprising was coming to a park near you, reporting every small and inconsequential gathering throughout Europe throughout the spring.

Listening to his fervid predictions, I came to feel that this represented a tea-laced fantasy. Beck had fallen off the dark edge. And perhaps Roger Ailes agreed with me. Beck was escorted out of the Fox studies and into his own Internet redoubt (“the fusion of entertainment and enlightenment”). As he was no longer close by my remote, my addiction ebbed.

Yet, examining the world of November, I can see the outlines of Beck’s vision from January. He informed us – warned us actually – that we would see an uprising on the streets of America. This uprising would not be an occasional frat party, but a hard and determined thing. Beck instructed us that the movement would be global – London, Rome, Athens, Bahrain, Oakland, Atlanta, and Zuccotti Park. What could Glenn Beck see that I could not? What could Glenn Beck see that progressives throughout America missed last spring? Was he a broken clock right twice a decade?

One need not agree that this exuberance of protest is as frightening or destructive as Beck would have us believe. Liberals, libertarians, and perhaps even some brave conservatives might agree with Thomas Jefferson, speaking of Shays’ Rebellion in 1787 that “the tree of liberty needs to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” The Arab Spring reminds us of this same reality, and slowly, imperceptibly those images proved to be a model for actions in Europe and America. When the Occupy Wall Street movement began in September, New Yorkers were primed, and soon others were. But along with the Arab Spring, the Tea Party movement also provided a model. Progressives felt a gathering envy, and OWS was the result. The problem, as I see it, is that while there was a legitimate drive to gather to protest grievances, practical solutions remained distant for the well-intentioned mandarins of the movement.

What Glenn Beck recognized, first through Tea Party Summer, then Arab Spring, then Manhattan Autumn, was that moments of profound discontent, helplessness, and resentment at distant control produce an insistent demand for communal action, a call from agitators left and right. Glenn Beck’s own 8/28/10 Washington gathering to “Restore Honor,” ostensibly an opportunity for faith and commitment, mimicking that of the Reverend King, arose from the same forces.

Beck recognized an emergent power in these hard times: groups sharing common concerns,  gathering, angry, frustrated, and perhaps hopeful. These groups view a cloudy future for which they lack answers, but know that their questions cannot be ignored.

In his remarks at the Iftar Dinner at the State Dining Room of the White House, President Obama continued to discharge his responsibilities as Storyteller-in-Chief with distinction.

He clearly illuminated fundamental principles of the American polity. He highlighted their long history, and he applied the principles with their historical resonance to a pressing problem of the day.
Yet, the politics of the day, concerning the so called “Ground Zero Mosque,” confused matters, and his attempt to respond to the politics has added to the confusion.  I hope in the coming days and months he addresses the confusion.   But, in the meanwhile, we need to remember what the issues are apart from the silly interpretations of the 24/7 news machine.  His remarks should be deliberately considered.

Today, remembering the significance of the speech.  Tomorrow, a consideration of the confusion which followed. Obama welcomed his guests, including members of the diplomatic corps, his administration and Congress, and offered his best wishes to Muslims from around the world for the holy month of Ramadan.  He recalled the several years that the Iftar dinner has been held at the White House, as similar events have been hosted to celebrate Christmas, Passover and Diwali.  He observed how these events mark the role of faith in the lives of the American people and affirm “the basic truth that we are all children of God, and we all draw strength and a sense of purpose from our beliefs.”  The events are “an affirmation of who we are as Americans,” with a long history, illuminated by Obama by citing the words of Thomas Jefferson in the Virginia Act of Establishing Religious Freedom and remembering the First Amendment of the Constitution.

This tradition of religious diversity and respect has made the United States politically strong and open to vibrant and multiple religious traditions, the President noted, making us “a nation where the ability of peoples of different faiths to coexist peacefully and with mutual respect for one another stands in stark contrast to the religious conflict that persists elsewhere around the globe.”

Yet, he recalled, there have been controversies, most recently concerning “the construction of mosques in certain communities -– particularly New York.”

And then he pronounced his strong commitment.  “As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. (Applause.)  And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.  This is America.  And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.  The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are.  The writ of the Founders must endure.”

He continued to explain the implications of his commitment.  We must remember the tragedy of 9/11 and honor those who risked their lives in response to the attacks.  We must remember that our enemies do not respect the rights that are fundamental to our country.  “In fact, al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion – and that list of victims includes innocent Muslims killed on 9/11.”  And recalling his Inaugural Address, he emphasized that “our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus —- and non-believers.”
Did the President then endorse the Park51 community center?  Actually if one reads carefully, he did not. But he did, more importantly, declare that he viewed the building of such a center as not only an American right, but also as an affirmation of American political identity –  this without endorsing the specific details of the construction of such a building in such a place.