Steve Beren, changer extraordinaire: from Socialist to Republican
When I read that ultraliberal Jim McDermott‘s eminently safe seat in the mostly-Seattle 7th District of Washington was being challenged by a Republican who was actually attempting to mount some sort of viable campaign, I was intrigued. And I was further intrigued when I learned that the challenger, Steve Beren, is no ordinary Republican.
McDermott, one of the most antiwar and far Left members of Congress, has got himself quite an opponent, one who is aware of the steeply uphill battle he faces and but is nonetheless uniquely equipped to fight it with vigor. And that is because Beren himself is no stranger to the far Left. In fact, he was a card-carrying member of it–and I mean that quite literally.
I wondered how this former Marxist, former atheist, and former antiwar activist ended up a hawkish Republican as well as a self-described patriot and Christian. I decided to interview Mr. Beren, who graciously consented to allow himself to be recorded. Here is an approximate transcript of the first portion of that interview (the second will follow tomorrow).
My emphasis was less on the Congressional campaign itself–although you can (and should! Beren for Congress!!!) follow the Beren link and read all about it–than on Beren’s remarkable process of change, both political and personal.
NEO (N): What influenced the formation of your early political opinions?
BEREN (B): I was a high school junior and senior in 1967-1968, and the Vietnam War was the main political issue of the day, bar none. At that time I was–not unlike most members of my generation–near draft age, and vulnerable to pacifist arguments that war was unjustified. Around that time I also read Orwell’s 1984””which of course is a critique of dictatorships, but also of any government, the false intentions of government, and the misuse of language by government.
Lyndon Johnson’s government was under a barrage of criticism for the war, and that book made me susceptible to arguments that our government had bad intent. I took part in demonstrations in high school, and I witnessed clashes with police. The demonstrators may have purposely clashed with them, but that wasn’t apparent to me as a participant””-and so the accusations that fascism was around us seemed true. Then I got on a lot of committees, including the Peace and Freedom Party, and eventually I joined the Young Socialist Alliance in 1968, my freshman year at City College of New York. I was ready for far Left activity and I stayed committed to that for a goodly amount of time.
[N]: Do you think you were rebelling against your family? Or were you raised in this sort of political atmosphere?
[B]: My own family were Democrats; a little bit antiwar, but not activists of any sort. Initially, at 12 or 14 I’d supported the war, back when Johnson was first sending more troops. I remember having a discussion with my mother in the 1964 campaign–she supported Johnson because she thought Goldwater was going to send troops. But I told her Johnson was likely to do the same thing.
[N}: So it turned out you were a good prognosticator, even at that age. When did your change happen, and why?
[B]: Well, I was a Young Socialist, as I said””-obviously, I didn’t remain a young Socialist””but I joined the Socialist Party in 1970. And I was a supporter till early 1991. In December of 1990 I resigned, stating I hadn’t changed my mind–I was still a committed Socialist, I’ve been doing this 22 years. But now I’ll do it from the sidelines and be an active supporter, but not a member anymore.
[N]: So your fling with Socialism wasn’t just a youthful flirtation–you were in for the long haul.
[B]: You know, when you go to college campuses these days, you’d think the Greens were the future of the electorate. Well, when I joined the Socialists, you’d think the same thing. It was the heyday of Cleaver and the Black Panthers and you’d wonder–is that the future of the country? The answer is yes, unless they change their minds and vote for Reagan twice. Most people change their minds.
A lot of people went from Socialism to left liberalism, and those people went into Hollywood, or teaching, or social work, for example. But some continued their activities. In my case, I had no other career. I didn’t do what normal people do—have a career, a family, establish oneself. Most people may have political views, but they’re a human being first. But I was a Socialist organizer first””
[N]: So you were a true believer–
[B]: Yes, an activist and a believer.
1990 was the year that Socialism was failing all over world. I didn’t think that way, but in retrospect it affected me, as great events do. So I finally did what most people do when they graduate college—got a middle class job, saved money, and I found out I was good at it. I was making the transition most people make after college.
1n 1992 I still thought about voting Socialist””but I voted for Clinton. I became a Democrat almost out of reflex. Around 1993 I did another thing (at 40) that most people do when younger—I examined spirituality, thought about religion, read about religion. 1993-1995 was a very heavy transition period for me, and in 1995 I became evangelical, and I started attending church.
My career advanced and my Christianity advanced. Over the next few years I considered myself no longer a Socialist, I was a patriot, pro-military. I considered this compatible with liberalism, and I described myself as a liberal Democrat. I was also a managerial worker. My ex-Socialist friends broke off relationships with me””-you didn’t get that sort of job unless you were undercover.
[N]: To your friends you’d already gone over to the dark side. But it seems your change process happened fairly slowly.
[B]: Yes. Some say it was like Paul on the road to Damascus, but it took much longer.
[N]: It was a long and winding road to Damascus.
[B]: When I speak from knowledge on my tour, as an insider, people say, “Oh great, 180-degree turn overnight.” But it wasn’t; it was a slow and gradual turn. I didn’t become a Republican till the Bush reelection campaign in ’04.
[N]: That turn—liberal Democrat to Republican Bush-supporter—was almost as big a turn as the other, Socialist to liberal Democrat. How did the recent one come about?
[B]: We all were traumatized by 9/11. I’m a native New Yorker who’s lived in Seattle since 1987. I knew people who died at the WTC. It was impossible to believe, shocking. The difference between 9/11 and 12/7/41 [Pearl Harbor] is that with 9/11 some people went into denial, and therein lies our disunity.
After 9/11, I was thinking “I’m a patriot.” To me it was a December 7th moment. But I knew there was an antiwar movement waiting in the wings, who would seek to disrupt the unity. When I mentioned that fact back then, everyone was shocked. It was thought to be a quirky point of view. I called up Barry Farber, a New York talk show host from the past whose show I’d appeared on before. He’d been the voice of New York talk radio for conservatives in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.
I called him—he was elderly now—and asked, “Do you remember me?” I’d been on his show a lot in the past as a Socialist, a union guy. I said I want to speak as a former antiwar person on why I support this war, and against disunity. That started to lead to my transition. At that time everyone was still agreeing. But soon the antiwar movement grew and disunity began.
I contacted every blogger and talk show I knew of, and Young Democrat and Young Republican chapters, saying, “Here’s my bio, here’s my website, I want to come to your campus and speak.” And already, at that early time, I got lots of hate mail from the Young Democrats: don’t send me that, you’re a traitor.
[In Part II, Beren describes his post-9/11 activities and further change experience, and how his knowledge of thinking and strategies on the Left—gleaned from two decades of his own intense Leftist activism and study—gives him a special knowledge of the tactics, goals, and arguments on the Left.]
Very useful information, neo-neocon. The quip about the long and winding road to Damascus, also brings back memories.
Man, that is fascinating. I spend a lot of time in Seattle for work. It’s a loopy-left place, but still kinda libertarian….
… So I finally did what most people do when they graduate college…
That is amazing–at 40…. He didn’t so much change as grow up.
I’m 38: Gen-X. Mommy worked and then divorced daddy in my generation–we kinda had to grow up fast.
Any left wing democrat or normal democrat for that matter that would spend as little as ten minutes looking at the facts, without the hype of the anti-americans, would never vote for a democrat in their lifetime. Is that too much to ask of the mental retards?
Very interesting Neo, I look forward to the next installment.
He has what I call the “Horowitz Syndrome.” If political ideology is shaped like a horseshoe, he simply turned 180 degrees and took one step. Hardly a transformation. He claims to be a christian. Simple question, what is christian about torture. Neo, I’m sure in your part 2 interview we won’t get an answer to that question. He also uses the word unity, rather than democracy or accountability. Also telling. You did’nt ask him what we should have done to win in Vietnam. That would yield a telling answer. If you were honest, you would admit this interview is about yourself. Most of your posts are about your apostate navel-gazing. The person, questions and subject matter of the interview are secondary.
I don’t know what your day job is, but I recommend you hold onto it.
Good Night and Good Luck
“DonkeyKong”
Yes, knew there was an ass in there somewhere…
I hope you did’nt give yourself a nose bleed thinking up that riposte stumbley.
I dont know where the spiritualism comes in, not being a Christian Conservative myself. I dont know that David Horowitz found Jesus, (great new book; “The Professors” BTW), I grew up a Catholic in a family of Democrat voters and rejected both religion and the Democrats. Id be interested in knowing why the religious conversion. Its not like its a prerequisite.
I also dont weep for Islamic fundamentalist being water-boarded or having to listen to loud “Red Hot Chili Peppers”.
The Beach Boys would make me wig out though. Now thats inhumane.
Simple question, what is christian about torture. Neo, I’m sure in your part 2 interview we won’t get an answer to that question. He also uses the word unity, rather than democracy or accountability. Also telling. You did’nt ask him what we should have done to win in Vietnam. That would yield a telling answer. If you were honest, you would admit this interview is about yourself.
You should do your own interview, as you clearly have a very different set of information you seek to obtain than what Neo did. I thought it was rather obvious that the primary point of the interview was to find out why and how he changed sides, as that is what’s particularly relevant to Neo, but apparently that isn’t obvious to everyone.
No, really, you should ask him. Those questions don’t have any relevance to the topic of this post, but are useful for other things.
Most of your posts are about your apostate navel-gazing. The person, questions and subject matter of the interview are secondary.
Errr… you’d prefer she stop thinking and instead spend all her time at Republican rallies?
How about we ask Mr Beren about DonkeyKong’s tactics. I’m betting he is familiar with those.
These types of posts are amusing. I’m never really sure if the person posting is serious or is play acting. It’s like accusing Islam of being a religion of violence and to show you wrong they will behead you.
Unfortunatly too many *do* believe like that and is accurate. It doesn’t matter what questions you *ever* ask. There will always be another set that is telling and proves you are an evil warmonger.
I’ve never really gotten the whole “Jesus was a ” argument either. 99.9% of the time if you are even half way informed of what the Bible says you know they are idiots and if you do not know they aren’t swaying any opinion anyway. It comes off as one of the more insane things people talk about. And I know quite a few people who talk about things like that *constantly* (you would not believe what Christians think! And do not *ever* bring in things about problems with translations and paying attention to the context – the says so and only that single verse in that translation matters!).
Also I’m betting DonkeyKong is one of our sock puppets. He/she writes awfully similar to another long time one.
Attacking Democrats is always a worthwhile endeavour. It’s great to have operatives in the enemy’s organization as well. Expands the options a lot.
“Errr… you’d prefer she stop thinking and instead spend all her time at Republican rallies?”
He probably would. The reason “apostates” to any orthodoxy MUST be persecuted is that their understanding of the religion they turned away from, often deeper than that of the adherents themselves, allows them to counter the actions the believers take against them, in ways no mindless throng can deal with.
Apostates are thus the most dangerous enemy any religion has. They have always been the primary means by which religions lose their absolute control over the minds of their followers, and it’s rare for any religion, and unheard of for cults of peronality built around human leaders rather than mythological beings, as the cult of socialism is, to relinquish their control peacefully.
I still like Pete…
So he switched from socialist to democrat, then got involved in a cult and transformed into a pro-military patriot.
Really, if it weren’t for your betters’ willingness to fight for your freedoms, harvest your food and police your streets, your little leftist world would pop like a soap bubble.
The left no longer contibutes anything at all to our culture….
The reason “apostates” to any orthodoxy MUST be persecuted is that their understanding of the religion they turned away from, often deeper than that of the adherents themselves, allows them to counter the actions the believers take against them, in ways no mindless throng can deal with.
Persecuted? Posting is now seen as persecution. You guys like to play “limbo stick” with your definitions. Lower and lower….
Bottom line kids, you want others to fight a war, future generations to pay, to hold nobody accountable and follow the worst of the enemy into a depraved spiral.
What are you willing to sacrifice beyond civil liberties, accountabilty and human decency. Those sacrifices come naturally to all of you. Is your self identity as a neocon, republican, or conservative anything more than a team jersey.
Is everything just dull witted ripostes, rationalizing and group think?
DK:
And just what kind of “group think” are you practicing? What are your solutions (I’ve asked before) other than allowing the corrupt and ineffectual UN to mess things up even further?
Really, do you do anything other than ask rhetorical questions? Do YOU have a plan for the world?
The CPA certainly was more “effective” than the UN! Plans for the world? Don’t try to run it! That’s a start. WW2 is often cited by most neo’s and cons as an example of what cann be done right. I agree. You need alliances. We may not see eye to eye with europe however they are important funding and logistical allies. Within the region, India has the troops. If we are to create a NATO structure in the region it will involve India. As far as the “more troops!” ghost dance we keep hearing (40% of the national guard is in country.) We don’t have anymore. Talk draft. This would mean we are serious. Put active duty soldiers on four year stints. Stop firing gay translators. Put state and defense on equal footing when it comes to funding and logistics. On 9/11 when we were attacked we had the chance to roll back the tax cuts and put our economy on war footing (Able to absorb economic warfare from Saudi Arabia and Iran.) We choose not to do that. The party you support WOULD NOT do it.
Bottom line is this. Are you commited to America and its standing and values, or chickenhawk parasites.
Patriotism is more than a bumpersticker, and calling democrats “commie pooh pooh faces”
Really, if it weren’t for your betters’ willingness to fight for your freedoms, harvest your food and police your streets, your little leftist world would pop like a soap bubble.
Well said. The left would be less inferior if they were concerned for people in low-wage jobs — like soldiers, farmers and cops — but they have have no understanding of the issues faced by the typical blue-collar worker. Really, what does the left know about labour?
I have heard there is an English proverb “A former poacher makes the best forest warden”, or something like this. It certainly true in the case of Horovitz. I also note, that the fist Russian anti-leftist ideological manifest, “Milestones”, was written by former social-democrats (party, to which Lenin beloged) in 1907 and was a bomb to Russian intelligentia, accusing its authors in “apostasy”. They, in turn, described themselves as new-born Christians. History again repeats itself.
DonkeyKong – you accuse the “right wing” of supporting torture and ask if that is “Christian.”
Well, no, obviously it isn’t. But keep in mind that intense military conflicts in all places and at all times in human history (especially those involving a deeper conflict of ideas) have resulted in mass torture. It is human nature that these things occur. The relevant question isn’t to compare our behavior to your idea of perfection. The relevant question is how well we’ve managed to corral and defeat these impulses given our ideals. And the answer is that we’ve made enormous progress in this direction despite obvious flaws and backsliding (did you know that the ratio of detainees dying in this war is the lowest of any war where such stats were ever kept?)
Torture occurred at Abu Ghraib. In response to this kind of torture, most people at most times would look away or even exult in the torture of enemies. In contrast, we identified the responsible parties, tried them in a court of law, found them guilty and imprisoned them. I know you grant no credit for this. I’m pretty sure that you’d rather take it as “evidence” that a coverup occurred (surely Rumsfeld approved!!). But you are sadly wrong and out of touch.
With the recent wrangling over interrogation methods, the Bush administration has refused to just posture and said that they want a definitive structure governing the application of force during questionning. Is inflicting grievous wounds ok? Well, no. Is rape Ok? Well, no. Is yelling at people ok? How about keeping them awake? Well, yes. TORTURE!
I’m sure that you’ve concluded by now that all right-wingers are blood thirsty fascists and you’ve surely read plenty of “literature” filled with “facts” that bolsters your view.
The problem is that, bearing no actual responsibility to ensure the long-term health or survival of the society or nation, you can afford to ignore the gritty, nasty reality of war and indulge yourself in faux outrage over each and every departure from the pristine perfection of your vision of society. You can pretend that 9/11 was just an isolated, one-off success of a very few fanatics and conveniently ignore the looming demographic and ideological threat to our liberal, democratic order.
In short, you can be an ideological baby, continually flinging verbal feces at people who are actually struggling to deal with the “adult” world. *That* is why we ignore you and not out of any misguided moral failings.
Wildmonk: Don’t bother with him. He won’t read that whole spiel – just scan it looking for statements that he can undercut with his sarcasm and all-too-obvious inherent moral superiority.
Wildmonk, both of these subjects, this …
I’m sure that you’ve concluded by now that all right-wingers are blood thirsty fascists and you’ve surely read plenty of “literature” filled with “facts” that bolsters your view.
and this …
In short, you can be an ideological baby, continually flinging verbal feces at people who are actually struggling to deal with the “adult” world. *That* is why we ignore you and not out of any misguided moral failings.
… were addressed in a post and accompanying thread earlier in the spring.
The only informed rebuttal to the SDO findings I brought forward came from Brad, who eventually retreated to an irrational position of dismissing social science — the field — of bias. You can’t make the sweeping “psychological” assessment of the left consisting of children rebelling against their parents, while dismissing the body of SDO research (and, by extension, the entire peer review structure behind it) that’s drawing far more rigorous arguments about the personality attributes on the right.
The only informed rebuttal to the SDO findings I brought forward came from Brad, who eventually retreated to an irrational position of dismissing social science — the field — of bias.
Wait, were you the same anon that said “Good rebuttal. I’ll reply Wednesday afternoon/evening.” then completely disappeared from the debate?
Well, the debate was over, wasn’t it? Grackle had conceded that SDO studies were “entrenched and numerous” and Brad had echoed, “this stuff is indeed pervasive.”
So where does the argument go from there? They attack the source of the SDO studies, those corrupt folks in higher education and their witless conspiracy. That, as the saying goes, is “moving the goalposts.” I was (am) interested in talking about personality theory, and possibly the effects of echo chambers and media balkanization on the health of debate and civil society. But I didn’t (and don’t) want to entertain the silly direction that argument was headed.
Well, the debate was over, wasn’t it? Grackle had conceded that SDO studies were “entrenched and numerous” and Brad had echoed, “this stuff is indeed pervasive.”
Lacking omniscience of the subject, I couldn’t say. I was merely noting something that didn’t seem to add up: you indicating that he has something that warranted a rebuttal, and then never actually offering a rebuttal. That wouldn’t add up, would it?
Grackle rebutted himself (hence saving me time). From this:
It’s all dressed up in scientific jargon & in the past(not so much now) has been mentioned in some scientific venues & that’s good enough for Anon.
to this:
I’m having to amend my first impressions of SDO. After reading some criticisms my first feeling was that the concept of using SDO to flog conservatives was “petering out.” I should have held off with that opinion because now that I’ve had 2 more days of research I have discovered that SDO studies that attempt to link SDO to negative social traits are entrenched & numerous.
After that the argument gets silly.
“After that the argument gets silly.”
Yeah, because the possibility that the entire range of post-modern social science might actually be invalid from top to bottom is just un-possible. I mean, it’s not like entire communities of well-respected social scientists have ever promoted pseudo-science for political gain.
Tatterdemalian, do you really think that’s likely?
Yes. The entirety of post-modern philosophy is built on the principle that belief alone can control reality, so controlling the narrative is more important than examining actual events. This core assertation has been proven false every time it has been tested, and the only reason why it is still entertained as an actual science is because it promises miracles with no effort on the part of its adherents.
Tadderdemalian, you’re right. Forget I mentioned it.