^ Oh I never thought he
doesn't have a thick southern accent, I just pick up on enhancements here and there, randomly. Entirely subjective & the only way I could prove it would be to skim through several hours in different contexts & compare - which might be impossible to do. Idek if other contexts exist. (I'd try it if I could.)
Also, I don't think I know his actual politics. I would
assume he's a lefty, but that's neither here nor there, because you can project whatever you want in a 1-man show. Unless he also does unrehearsed conversations with ppl, I think of this as a performance. Kinda like an instagram or facebook diary. I've only seen a few of his (a dozen?) scattered over a couple years... it's comfortably liberal. Could find a lot of liberal talking heads in the mainstream who say what he says (in the handful of vids I've seen of his). Can only infer it from what he chooses to cover & how he frames his argument. Maybe I need to find the right mix of videos, but there's nothing particularly leftist about his content or the framing of it... so far, it seems aimed mainly at beltway liberals & white guilt. (My drive-by critique of how he frames the
TX abortion law is minor. If I could latch on to any exception to what I think is his general approach to political commentary, I wouldn't even mention it... just haven't found one yet.)
There's nothing wrong with 'division'. Another way to describe it is 'strongly defending a position', or 'partisan politics'. That these concepts have become a dirty word is most of what's wrong with American politics (and much of what's wrong with liberal politics specifically - it's no wonder standard liberalism is so strong in this country... there's no place left for middle class white people who don't want to be labelled 'racist' but who don't want to see systemic change that affects them). In fact, liberal 'division' is the problem... it's division on superficial grounds, so it's manipulative in the worst sense. The goal of it is to keep people divided in order to
avoid change. You'd have a point if that's the division you mean, but it doesn't sound like it. I think the whole point of leftist politics is that there are clear positions over which to demand that the system change. It becomes pretty easy to spot 'liberal' from 'leftist' positions - you just follow the money. American liberals hide in leftist jargon but never concede the need for tax hikes, universal housing/healthcare/education, various forms of financial reparations, and a scaling back of the military & police state. All of that costs them money. It's possible Beau is all for these thing$, and I can quickly be convinced of it.
Not sure who the other person is you're referring to, I'll assume it's Greenwald, let me know if I'm wrong. The contrast is unnecessary. Also, it's illogical... you suggest Beau's decor & affect are consciously intended to draw in conservatives in order to expose them to radical left views, but Greenwald's mere presence on a right-wing talk show somehow doesn't do that. (I think he avoids political labels for himself. He calls himself a civil libertarian iirc... a bit like how Chomsky stops at "anarchist"... it's a conscious distancing from political parties, one for journalistic reasons, the other academic.) Also, you might be unaware of his career, if you don't see 'accomplishments' for "the little guy".
Lula is free largely because of Greenwald. Lula & his party presided over maybe the biggest uplift of people out of poverty in the last 40 years, outside of China. Millions of people, including millions of children, have not gone to bed hungry in the past decade, have had regular schooling for the first time in generations, have been able to travel & do commerce, and live with dignity because of the PT's policies... then a liberal soft coup happened (backed by our government, and funded by American conservatives and libs alike) specifically to put those people back into poverty. Greenwald almost single-handedly exposed it, forcing the Brasilian supreme court to release Lula. He's poised to return to politics next year & undo the damage. I don't think I can point to any journalist/pundit/politician in this country who's done a tiny fraction of that much good for "the little guy" in a lifetime, much less in a single project. Can you?
There's also
Snowden's revelations about government abuse of power (over you, me and everyone we know). Snowden's determined to keep the abuses in the spotlight, while facing a life sentence (he's even willing to face trial if it is a public trial & not a secret spy trial... that's for
our benefit). Greenwald is still his biggest advocate afaik. There's also Assange, who exposed our government's war crimes and dirty politics (including the rigging of Bernie's campaign in 2016, which is half of why liberals want to see him imprisoned... the other half being the military-CIA graft they're waist-deep in). Greenwald is still his biggest advocate afaik. No liberal network wants to expose Americans to Snowden & Assange and related topics about press freedom/free speech, the surveillance state, and war crimes... and neither does Fox News afaik, meaning the talk show has enough pull within the network to force that kind of exposure. There are literally billions of "little guy" people who stand to benefit from that exposure. It's amazing to me that anyone has to point this out.
by 
He's in Florida now. He's also not one who does things just for clicks, he hasn't changed much since his channel was hardly known. I don't perceive any change at all. He uses his appearance and background to get clicks...from right wingers and he hopes to open their eyes to the facts. He's a solid ally unlike some others who try to sow division and frequent Tucker Carlson's show and fail to accomplish any one thing for the little guy.
