Mark Levin Part II: The Dispatcher Is Dispatched
It began when I criticized Mark Levin, prompting David Frum and Rod Dreher to pile on. Enter Dan Reihl, who defended Mr. Levin. Incredulous, I challenged Mr. Riehl to a debate, offering an opening salvo here, and welcoming his rebuttal.
That’s when things got interesting — Mr. Levin himself responded (don’t miss the comments on that post), though I fear that he hasn’t done himself any favors by doing so. The argumentative approach he uses is striking given that he is a trained lawyer, intelligent enough to know the difference between a fallacious argument and a sound one. Even so, his initial defense against Rod Dreher is that “I don’t know Dreher and as best I can tell, most nobody does.” It’s the same nonsensical distraction that Mr. Levin used when he debated David Frum: your platform isn’t very big, therefore you’re obviously wrong. Needless to say, Mr. Dreher’s fame hasn’t any bearing on the matter at hand, nor does my obscurity (though I suspect that Mr. Levin won’t soon forget my name).
I’ll now restate the original criticisms made of Mr. Levin, and reprint his responses so that the reader can consider them.
Criticism # 1
It relates to the following exchange:
LEVIN: Answer me this, are you a married woman? Yes or no?
CALLER: Yes.
LEVIN: Well I don’t know why your husband doesn’t put a gun to his temple. Get the hell out of here.
Mr. Levin’s critics contend his behavior in that exchange is hateful, destructive of healthy political discourse, and likely to alienate people from conservatism. He offers several rebuttals in the course of his post and subsequent comments. Let’s take them one by one.
Mr. Levin writes:
Oh my. How brutish of me.
You would have thought I had spent the last 25 years befriending the likes of Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, or had driven the car that ended Mary Jo Kopechne’s life. But no, those are the leaders of the Democratic Party.
A transparently irrelevant argument — as if the good or bad behavior of Democrats has any bearing on Mr. Levin’s behavior.
Another defense offered by Mr. Levin:
Rod wonders, among other things, “Think about what WFB would say about Levin’s rhetoric. I bet he’d be embarrassed by the low-class schlock of it all.” Well, Rod, WFB is a hero to all sound-thinking conservatives. But I do recall an exchange between Gore Vidal and Bill Buckley in which Buckley called Vidal a “queer.” Maybe Rod missed it while doing his vast research for his post about me. Well, here it is. Buckley was a brilliant and complex man, unlike Rod. He was also a fighter who knew his adversaries, unlike Rod. It was certainly wrong and offensive for Buckley to say what he did; yet Rod intones Buckley to admonish me. He wants readers to think Buckley would stand with him and against me. How cheap and pathetic.
Hmmm. As a friend of mine noted in an e-mail, John Judis wrote in his Buckley bio that WFB “felt ashamed at ‘having blown his cool’ and having ‘misbehaved on the air.’” Perhaps Levin noticed that hectoring guests—and challenging their spouses to top themselves—was not a tactic he often deployed while hosting Firing Line.
Still later, Mr. Levin offers a different defense of the “gun to his temple” remark:
Ok, let’s debate your point Conor. I told the caller she way extremely annoying. That is what any sensible person would have understood the comment to mean. Now, you don’t like it. You don’t like the way I said it. So what? If you were a dear friend or someone I knew and admired, I might think about it. But you are none of those things. I don’t know who you are and I don’t care if you don’t like it. My purpose was not to win over converts or represent the Republican Party. It was to dispatch this caller as I chose to. As for appealing to people, if I say I have a very large following in broadcast and print media, the likely response would be, “well, what does that have to do with the substance of my criticism.” So, you will have created your own maze of logic by shifting points.
I’ve no doubt that Mr. Levin found the caller annoying, and meant to communicate that fact to her. The criticism is that he chose a needlessly hateful way to dispatch her — human beings owe one another better than that, and vitriol of that kind is destructive to public discourse. I’m not sure why Mr. Levin thinks his lack of admiration for me bears on the rightness of that criticism.
Mr. Levin also says that his purpose wasn’t to win converts or represent the GOP. But his purpose is irrelevant to the question of whether his behavior hurts the ideological movement with which he affiliates himself. It is probably most harmful to conservatism insofar as Mr. Levin’s legion listeners mimic his off-putting, illogical approach to public discourse. As one of his listeners states in comments, “He has taught me how to go to battle against the enemy.”
Finally, Mr. Levin’s sizable audience is testament to his popularity among people who already self-identify as conservatives, not his ability to persuade new folks to switch their ideological allegiance. Grasping the distinction is hardly akin to navigating a maze.
Criticism #2
This concerns the following exchange on Mr. Levin’s show:
HOST: My God. He’s so smart. His own party voted against him on Guantanamo Bay. How stupid was that, Cindy? His own party refused to fund the closing of Guantanamo Bay.
CALLER. Yeah but you know he can just move those people over here anyway. He’s already doing it with the one guy.
HOST: Yeah, sure, he can do whatever he wants. Let me ask you a question. Why do you hate this country?
CALLER: No, I love this country.
HOST: (angrily shouting) I SAID WHY DO YOU HATE MY COUNTRY! WHY DO YOU HATE MY CONSTITUTION? WHY DO YOU HATE MY DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE? You just said it. He can blow off Congress. He can do whatever he wants, right?
In this exchange, Mr. Levin berates the caller for asserting that Barack Obama can move Gitmo detainees to the United States, even though Congress objects to the transfer. His logic seems apparent: the caller is saying that President Obama can “blow off Congress” and “do whatever he wants,” therefore she is anti-American and anti-constitution — she’d just give President Obama whatever power he wants to transgress against the rule of law.
What a weird argument for Mr. Levin to make, I thought. A person opposed to executive power might well argue that it’s anti-Constitution to say the president can move detainees, Congress be damned. As I noted in my original post, however, “the host is weirdly blind to the irony that he himself thinks a wartime president possesses the power to house detainees where he sees fit… by the host’s own standard of executive power—not to mention Dick Cheney’s standard — President Obama possesses the inherent power to close Gitmo, what Congress says be damned.” How could Mr. Levin berate a caller as anti-American for articulating his own view of executive power, albeit applied to a new president?
Well. Here’s how Mr. Levin responded to my criticism:
Where did I say the president does not have the power to move the prisoners to the United States? The reason they were housed at GITMO was because of a 1950 Supreme Court decision (Eisentrger) in which Justice Jackson made clear that the court had no jurisdiction over detainees held outside the United States. I have written at length about it. The issue of the Constitution, the nation, and the Declaration relates to the danger moving terrorists into this country would pose to the country, a fact that even the Democrat-controlled Congress somewhat understands, and is the reason they voted down Obama’s $80 million request to shut GITMO. And, yes, Conor, I believe such a mindless position is unpatriotic. That may offend you, but it seems you are easily offended, except by your own accusations.
Is it just me, or is Mr. Levin clearly fudging what the exchange with the caller was really about? After all, he stated on his show that the caller is anti-American and anti-Constitution not for thinking that Obama SHOULD move Gitmo detainees to the United States, but because she thought HE POSSESSED THE POWER TO DO SO. “You just said it. He can blow off Congress. He can do whatever he wants, right?” What Mr. Levin claims after the fact makes no sense given the language that he used.
Having established that, let’s assume the point he meant to make is his latest offering. As far as I can tell, Mr. Levin’s position is now as follows: Under the Constitution, President Obama possesses the inherent power as Commander in Chief to move Gitmo detainees to America — and if he exercises that inherent constitutional power, he is anti-constitution.
To sum up, I think that all of the original criticisms I made about Mr. Levin stand, that his efforts to rebut them are so obviously weak that any independent observer would regard them as failures, and that he is additionally guilty of shamelessly using transparently fallacious rhetorical techniques to attack his interlocutors rather than addressing their arguments. As I hope this exchange demonstrates, one can argue civilly and logically, and nevertheless systematically devastate the credibility of opposing arguments.
Conor:
This whole thing still seems like much ado about nothing. In view of all the outrageous behavior, especially by liberal Democrats and our community organizer president, you spend all this time on Levin. It makes no sense at all. I think many of us conservatives, who by no means think any conservative is perfect or perfectible, are totally disgusted with your constant bashing of conservatives. I’ve heard it said that you are defending conservatives from other conservatives like Levin. Is there any reason at all that anyone would consider YOU conservative? What is it you believe in, other than Joe the Plumber is bad, waterboarding is bad and people like Mark Levin are bad?
You remind me of the people in my particular church denomination, which prided itself on its intellectual tradition, who were said to have argued about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.
You also remind me of John McCain, who gained much fame and cred with the press because he was willing to bash his own party every chance he got. In fact, he seems to be exactly the candidate that people like you say represent the direction the conservative movement should move. How did HE work out for us?
You don’t like the way Rush and Levin talk. Unfortunately, NO ONE else out there on our side is saying anything that can cut through the crap that comes out of Obama’s mouth. The man is dishonest about what he really wants for this country and almost everyone is afraid to stand up to the guy.
And you choose to beat up on our strongest voices.
— jd · May 26, 03:55 PM · #
“Is there any reason at all that anyone would consider YOU conservative? What is it you believe in, other than Joe the Plumber is bad, waterboarding is bad and people like Mark Levin are bad?”
Isn’t the answer in the question, jd? The conservative movement has staked its reputation on JTP, waterboarding, and Mark Levin (etc.) If somebody doesn’t save them from themselves (as Conor is attempting) than they are lost entirely. Truly, nothing is more loyal to conservatism than weeding out the nonsense that has usurped it and pretends to bear its standard.
If Conor is beating up your “strongest voices” then perhaps those voices, strength aside, are simply not the correct voices to begin with. And as long as they remain the only ones at the megaphone, no valid, viable conservatism will be able to grow. Conservatism is a garden of weeds, and pointing fingers at other gardens will never change that fact.
— E.D. Kain · May 26, 04:01 PM · #
Conor wrote:
“Having established that, let’s assume the point he meant to make is his latest offering. As far as I can tell, Mr. Levin’s position is now as follows: Under the Constitution, President Obama possesses the inherent power as Commander in Chief to move Gitmo detainees to America — and if he exercises that inherent constitutional power, he is anti-constitution.”
Perhaps he simply believes that it is a constitutional power, but that no President would be (or should be) dumb enough to do it.
— jd · May 26, 04:07 PM · #
Kain:
Thanks for your concern. Yours is a truly magnanimous spirit and I have the same warm feelings for you and all the rest of your wonderful well-wishers. It is so good when people of opposing sides can offer advice and counsel in a spirit of bi-partisanship and good will. I am so glad we’ve had this chance to share. Hope and change.
— jd · May 26, 04:17 PM · #
JD,
Because I am invested in the future of conservatism, I critique the flaws I see in the movement. I hope it improves as a result, and is better able to advance those conservative aims that I favor. But look, I don’t really care if you consider me a conservative, or an independent, or a Rastafarian. I tire of arguing about my ideological identity when it hasn’t any bearing on the substantive points I am making.
— Conor Friedersdorf · May 26, 04:21 PM · #
E.D. It makes little sense to me for conservatives to expend a great deal of energy attempting to eliminate what they consider the weeds. Conor’s decision to batter conservative voices will not advance conservatism. It may help liberalism, it may even help Coner, but it will not help the conservative movement in America. The conservative movement has not staked it’s movement on JTP or Carrie Prejean. These were just common people who were pushed into an argument, gave their honest opinion and were assaulted for it. As conservatives, the time for naval gazing is behind us. It’s time to recognize that any and every voice that comes to prominence supporting a conservative will be roundly impugned and derided. What are we supposed to do, hang our heads in shame, “You’re right, we are less than perfect” What a load of crap. To let those efforts stand unanswered is for yesterday. If anything, the mirror of self-reflection needs to be directed back to the left. If you don’t see it, then perhaps your flower is more dandelion that tulip.
— nicholas · May 26, 04:35 PM · #
In view of all the outrageous behavior, especially by liberal Democrats and our community organizer president
jd, the other guy does it is simply not an excuse.
Once I thought it was dangerous for America to devolve into a single party state….I have changed my mind. This is a natural process, like what happened to the Whig party. The more shrill and angry the GOP becomes, the more moderates and independents are turned off. Cultural evolution in action.
Conor and the young conservative cohort are nobly trying emergency resuscitation….but I think its too late.
The smart conservatives have already left the building.
In the Major’s crystal ball, I see at least one more kerbstomping at the polls before the base gets a glimmer.
Slow learners.
— matoko_chan · May 26, 04:40 PM · #
No, apparently they’ve staked it on Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh.
Good luck with that.
— Chet · May 26, 04:59 PM · #
Matoko – Don’t let the door hit you on your way out.
You will find yourself well cared for by your friends in the expansionist socialist democratic party of O. And don’t worry, those constitutionally guaranteed freedoms that you’re losing – you won’t need em.
— nicholas · May 26, 05:01 PM · #
Chet – I’ll take em.
Did you notice how in the recent homeland security “debate” that Vice President Cheney was not actually the angry old oil man that he has been portrayed to be? Did you pick up that he is actually a well considered, serious, reasoned proponent for keeping America safe? And the President sounded a tad airy and tinny in contrast. That contrast was enginered by the President himself. How did that work out?
You know the saying – the truth will out. You will find Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin are not as the media (and Mr. Freidersdorf) have lead you to believe.
— nicholas · May 26, 05:11 PM · #
So depressing that this whole thing exploded into such a mess all because Conor made the apparently controversial point that imploring someone’s spouse to shoot himself in the head is probably not a good thing.
— nate · May 26, 05:17 PM · #
Conor:
I’m a flaming liberal who reads this blog because it is good, so I don’t have your stake in the future of the conservative movement. Since I can put the conservative movement aside, I can repeat old folk wisdom: don’t lie down with dogs—you’ll get up with fleas.
There is no personal point in wrestling with jerkazoids. Even if you win, they won’t be abashed. You’re the one with credibility: not them. Engaging them in discourse only legitimates them. And people who don’t look too closely might think that you are one of them.
— Joe S. · May 26, 05:19 PM · #
Does the “flaming” part help with the flea problem?
— nicholas · May 26, 05:35 PM · #
… so now let me spend 20 minutes defending a radio celebrity who thinks suicide is a good punchline. I’m pretty sure “positive self-regard” was a component of the original meaning of “navel gazing,” as is this philosophical attempt to redefine the conservative movement in terms of mass media. Make no mistake, the radio hosts and big media companies behind them are making a play to control the conservative movement through these skirmishes. It’ll be up to conservatives themselves to decide if their goals and ideals are bigger than some guy on AM radio.
Can’t we all just agree he says unreasonable things and he doesn’t speak for Us and move on, or is this the latest litmus test?
— j · May 26, 05:39 PM · #
Please do!
No, but then, I actually watched his speech. I didn’t notice anybody portraying him as “angry”; he was portrayed as self-dealing, disingenuous, and dishonest – because that’s exactly what he was. There was nothing serious about his remarks save that they represented an absolutely unprecedented and serious breach of class and decorum.
Look, if Republicans want to line up behind the world’s must unpopular vice-president since Ghengis Khan Jr., by all means. If you want to pretend that the administration that allowed anthrax attacks on the government, snipers in DC, 9/11, and nearly lost the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is the “serious” advocate for American foreign policy, please do that, as well. Apparently I don’t think the American people are as stupid as you must think.
— Chet · May 26, 05:46 PM · #
Mr. Friedersdorf wrote: “Because I am invested in the future of conservatism, I critique the flaws I see in the movement. I hope it improves as a result, and is better able to advance those conservative aims that I favor. But look, I don’t really care if you consider me a conservative, or an independent, or a Rastafarian. I tire of arguing about my ideological identity when it hasn’t any bearing on the substantive points I am making.”
Me:
The last sentence takes back the premise of the first. You start quite explicitly by identifying yourself as an X, and say you attack fellow X-es only because you want X to be successful. While I agree that defending one’s bona fides and poring over one’s own intellectual identity can get very tiresome and/or self-involved, whether one is, in fact, an X has a lot of “bearing on the substantive points [you are] making.”
— Victor Morton · May 26, 06:22 PM · #
Chet defends Conor thusly:
“if Republicans want to line up behind the world’s must unpopular vice-president since Ghengis Khan Jr., by all means. If you want to pretend that the administration that allowed anthrax attacks on the government, snipers in DC, 9/11, and nearly lost the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is the “serious” advocate for American foreign policy, please do that, as well.”
I wonder if Conor gets at all queasy when a 9/11 truther defends him.
And of course a commenter like Sudoku chan adds credibility to any debate.
— jd · May 26, 06:38 PM · #
Conor, very well done. Don’t listen to Joe S. This is important. Up to today, I didn’t know that Mark Levin behaves like a bullying jerkazoid in a dispute, that he is a man who refuses to admit that he may have gone too far. In the past, Mr. Levin has posted good comments on NRO, the one time I listened to his show it was of pretty high quality. I knew his Men in Black book was shamefully thin, which made me naturally wonder about the quality of his current best-seller, but I was nonetheless grateful he was getting the public thinking about the founding and the constitution.
From my comment below, you can see that I have SOME sympathy for Levin and the Levinites’ being irked at the stances “reformist conservatives” have taken over the past few years, particularly regarding a certain smugness in the criticism of Bush and his foreign policy, (I still love Douthat, though) but the whole possible Levinite case against those stances is here being shoved forward by Levin (and in a most unseemly way) not to air that legitimate beef/issue but to DISTRACT everyone from HIS screw-up.
Intelligent conservatives accept the need for popularizers. And even, to some extent, they must accept the inevitability of and need for conservative anger-merchants. Persons who stir the spirited side. Much of the criticism of Rush Limbaugh has struck me as wimpy, two-faced, ungrateful, convenient, and thus suspect, even though I don’t really like his personality or the way he has often treated callers. Folks like Hannity and Ingraham seem all right to me, and sometimes are quite good, especially the former. Yes, sometimes they are predictable and lame. I know less about Beck, but the latest critiques of him have seemed strained from what I have seen of his show. Michael Savage, the man with the golden radio voice and a canny intelligence, is genuinely a moral problem and embarrassment for conservatives, in that he is about anger manipulation first, foremost, and final, and worse, he’s quite good at it. It’s all about his little theatrical world and sucking his audience into that. With the others, I sense more of a desire to work for the good of the country, I sense a spirit that is more John Adams than it is Sam Adams, i.e., a spirit primed to fight and desiring a boisterous crowd behind its back, but resolved to always lead the fight legally, democratically, and honorably. It is typically a spirit that in the media house of mirrors gets a bit too self-absorbed and defensive of itself, but it has a legitimate place in our politics.
So where does Mark Levin fit in here? Until today, I thought I could place him with the mainstream of conservative talk radio. I think I still place him there, but with the knowledge that, yes, he is a jerk. I don’t think he is a little black-hole of self-regard and manipulation the way someone like Savage is, but I do detect a spirit that is more Sam Adams than it is John Adams. And as Levin should know, that ain’t a compliment. Hopefully, my judgment mainly reflects the Mark Levin of an off moment; i.e., hopefully, he can beat a retreat or otherwise put this shameful episode and shameful defense behind him and learn a lesson or two.
But if the deal of his brand of popularizing is, “you more intellectual and more scrupulously fair conservatives need to swallow my excesses or I’ll make you out to be faux conservatives,” then it’s a genuinely dangerous deal for America.
— Carl Scott · May 26, 06:46 PM · #
jd,
I’ll let Chet speak for himself, but 9/11 DID happen on the Bush administration’s watch — regardless of what followed (or didn’t follow, as the case may be). That’s not a conspiracy theory; that’s reality.
— Conrad · May 26, 06:52 PM · #
Mr. Levin’s comment to the caller communicated to all the audience that he was frustrated and the call was at an end. He did so in a joking fashion that he undoubtedly hoped might be somewhat entertaining. He was not making an argument for violence or spousal abuse. Further, his point that he has no reason to pay heed to your critiques of his conversations is that you are not a confident of his. There are a lot of voices out there, some suggesting very harmful things to Mr. Levin, and to any other person who would be so bold as to admit to holding a conservative position. He is correct in censoring who he does and does not take advice from. You undoubted do the same, as you should.
You feel that human beings should not speak to one another in the fashion that he did, which is a fine belief to have. It is irrelevant in this context. You suggest civil debate is best. I would agree, but I am not in Mr. Levins position and I do not have the same concerns. How he manages his business is his business, not mine and definitely not yours.
Whether his behavior hurts the ideological movement with which he affiliates himself, I don’t think it does.
“let’s assume the point he meant to make is his latest offering:
“Under the Constitution, President Obama possesses the inherent power as Commander in Chief to move Gitmo detainees to America — and if he exercises that inherent constitutional power, he is anti-constitution.”
Nope.
Mr. Levin’s point is that if he exercises that option he is needlessly and senselessly putting American lives in danger. The President has sworn to protect and defend the constitution of the United States. The assumption is that he will also protect America and American lives. As you are well aware, this action of prisoner transfer onto the mainland of the United States would be undertaken for purely political purposes. The elevation of Mr. Obama’s politics over his constitutionally mandated duties is found by Mr. Levin to be … objectionable.
If putting Mr. Levin’s comments under the microscope and finding them to be less than a perfect argument is an achievement, then you have succeeded. You have taken pains to point out “apparent” inconsistencies in the things said in passing as part of a phone call in the midst of a three hour program.
I don’t think that is what this is all about, but nevertheless it is an achievement indeed.
— nicholas · May 26, 06:54 PM · #
Oops, bad post. I just wanted to provide two, fundamentally conservative links against complacency about anger-merchandising. Here they are:
http://www.amazon.com/Bee-Mouth-Anger-America-Now/dp/1594030537/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243364017&sr=1-1http://www.amazon.com/Thanatos-Syndrome-Novel-Walker-Percy/dp/0312243324/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243364070&sr=1-1
— Carl Scott · May 26, 07:07 PM · #
Yeesh. Are we all still in high school? A guy points out the obvious fact that the popular jock has behaved like an ass and all the pathetic hangers-on are waiting behind the gym to jump him and put him back in his place. Get a life and grow a moral backbone.
— annoyed conservative · May 26, 07:07 PM · #
Oops, bad post. Here are the two conservative links against complacency about anger-indulgence that I meant to share:
<p>http://www.amazon.com/Bee-Mouth-Anger-America-Now/dp/1594030537/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243364017&sr=1-1</p>
<p>http://www.amazon.com/Thanatos-Syndrome-Novel-Walker-Percy/dp/0312243324/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243364070&sr=1-1</p>
And a final caveat—regardless of my dislike and criticisms, I believe Rush Limbaugh has done his country far more political good than he has done harm.
— Carl Scott · May 26, 07:16 PM · #
One would think that a conservative male married to a woman holding similarly confused, puerile, and distorted opinions as the woman “caller” in question has experienced, on numerous occasions, thoughts that mirror the suggestion/solution proposed by Levin.
Hopefully we can appreciate Levin’s honesty; I always appreciate an honest, straightforward socialist, but they are so hard to find.
— Bob Cheeks · May 26, 07:27 PM · #
Chet
“I actually watched his speech.”
Did you, really? Well where the hell have you been in all the post speech discussion. Must have missed it. Put it this way – it did not go well for the POTUS. If people are lining up behind your guy in the homeland security debate, there is not a lot of evidence of it. Even President Obama does not agree with President Obama, summarized thus:
“Torture is a very bad thing. Waterboarding is torture. We, as Americans, should never have used waterboarding. I will reserve that right for myself, in the distant future, depending on the situation”It’s a serious situation, Chet. Those abroad that hate the United States don’t care if President Obama is in office or if President Bush is in office.
— nicholas · May 26, 07:27 PM · #
Conor, your argument boils down to “heeey, that’s not nice!” And then you dress it up in sophomore-year-in-college language to give it a little heft. As for your comment that he won’t soon forget your name…Levin is about as likely to remember you as he is any caller to his show.
— Doug · May 26, 07:55 PM · #
Well, still no response from Conor Freidersdorf on my earlier comment at 2:54 pm. Should I take his tactic and claim that he has conceded my point? Nope.
Maybe he just has other things to do.
— nicholas · May 26, 07:58 PM · #
Perhaps related: Conor I just noticed the lights went dark at culture11.com. Is there any plan to keep it alive so one can visit the old material, or is it just gone now except for complicated internet archive searches? I really find that a depressing part of the internet, the way so much work can just disappear. It isn’t like there are backissues laying around my house or anything.
Meanwhile Mark Levin is #2 on the bestseller list. Welcome to the future of the perpetuation and cultivation of conservative ideals.
Conor are you more disappointed with the base than with the talk show hosts? Considering how personality driven the appeal of Levin/Beck/etc. are (that Levin as gangsta rapper comment still holds), it’s tough for me to distinguish a critique between the two. If Levin didn’t exist the base would have to create him.
— Rortybomb · May 26, 08:01 PM · #
nicholas wrote: “Did you pick up that he is actually a well considered, serious, reasoned proponent for keeping America safe? “
Safe? Where was Cheney in 2001?
— Jon H · May 26, 08:08 PM · #
“The President has sworn to protect and defend the constitution of the United States. The assumption is that he will also protect America and American lives. As you are well aware, this action of prisoner transfer onto the mainland of the United States would be undertaken for purely political purposes. The elevation of Mr. Obama’s politics over his constitutionally mandated duties is found by Mr. Levin to be … objectionable.”
1. That doesn’t have any resemblance to what Levin actually said.
2. When you define the other guy’s stance as completely wrong and your position as completely right, it’s hardly surprising that you’ll win every argument. It’s also an infantile way to discuss anything.
Mike
— MBunge · May 26, 08:15 PM · #
Conor:
Care to explain how it is that you’re invested in conservatism? What exactly does that mean? I’m trying to imagine what the Friedersdorf conservative investment portfolio looks like. What was the first deposit you ever made? Been investing long? I know it’s personal, but have your investments been successful?
Care to say what you’re buying these days? Selling short on limited government?
— jd · May 26, 08:49 PM · #
Mike, you’re right.
“Under the Constitution, President Obama possesses the inherent power as Commander in Chief to move Gitmo detainees to America — and if he exercises that inherent constitutional power, he is anti-constitution.”That is not what Mr. Levin said. That is what Conor said Mr. Levin said. It was his attempt to correctly interpret Mr. Levin’s words, and their meaning. I pointed out that his interpretation was incorrect, and now it seems, you second me.
On your second point
“When you define the other guy’s stance as completely wrong and your position as completely right, it’s hardly surprising that you’ll win every argument. It’s also an infantile way to discuss anything.”
Again, I would tend to agree with you, but it is not clear if you are criticizing me or Mr. Friedersdorf. Also, be careful of terms like “infantile” as that is a bit heated for Mr. Friedersdorf.
As for you Jon, I suppose Vice President Cheney should have stopped the attacks on the World Trade Center? The problems with Islamic terrorists started with the 2000 election of George Bush and Dick Cheney?
Our nation as a whole is having a hard tome getting up to seed on what is going on in the world around us. The problems did not start on 9/11/01, and they will not go away with the election of Barrack Obama.
— nicholas · May 26, 09:00 PM · #
Once again members of the conservative movement think they own what it means to be conservative. Hey, just because you’re part of the movement doesn’t mean you own the definition. The movement is a farce in any case. You have your talking points, and your talk radio pundits, and look where it’s getting you? Supporting Cheney? How can you at the same time support limited government and the most radical expansion of executive power since FDR?
I don’t get it. I guess it’s more important to cheer-lead than it is to think critically.
— E.D. Kain · May 26, 09:05 PM · #
Ed, you’ve got to be kidding. Are you refering to the increased Federal spending under President Bush, or the measures taken to keep the nation safe? And it’s not Cheney that is being supported so much as conservatism, and anyone with enough fortitude to speak up for it.
“You don’t own the movement” “The movement’s a farce in any case” and so forth.
Reading through your comments it seems odd to hear you decry a lack of critical thinking.
— nicholas · May 26, 09:40 PM · #
- Moving the detainees to US soil is problematic, to say the least. This is what Levin was responding to, not the PotUS’ legal right to make the move. Levin has articulated his reasoning on the matter quite often and in depth.
– If the method of Levin’s dismissal of the woman is objectionable, is that really all this is about? When dealing with close-minded individuals that lack any forethought or reason, do you not get disgruntled yourself? Mr. Levin has little patience for such persons, and if these buffoons insist on calling him and spouting such drivel, he should be free to abuse them as he sees fit once he discerns that they are there to espouse some idiotic idea and not exchange ideas. – You can question Levin’s methodology, that’s fine, he’s an acquired taste and not for everyone. Do you have anything else you want to add, or is that the extent of your objections? If you have differences of opinion on conservative principles, then by all means debate the man. Fair warning though, you are in over your head. – Levin’s points about you, Dreher and Frum not having an audience is important in that your ideas do not attract the conservative base to you. You are not popular because you offer nothing of interest to the principled conservative, you do not state a position that anyone finds valuable or considered, whereas Mark obviously does. If you pick some ethereal moderate position, then you attract no one, which seems to be something that ‘moderates’ just don’t seem to comprehend. You would think that after Ford and McCain that you would learn, but obviously not. Basically, if you had any chops, you’d be ‘known’, since you aren’t, you must not have anything worthwhile to contribute. Thus, you are just an irritant and not really a player worth listening to (by Mark or others) and your spit-ball throwing can only be viewed as someone desperate to get attention by deriding Levin because he’s popular.Lastly, if you’re a conservative, tear apart the liberals for their ideas that are destroying America. Smaller government, fiscal responsibility, strong defense, these are the cornerstones of conservativism. Why are you wrangling with a strong conservative (because he represents “us” improperly?!?) when there is so much ammunition to be used against current in-power party? Why are you complaining about the color of the fireman’s socks when the house is ablaze?
Get busy on the real enemy or you won’t have anything left to fight for.
— Gemini · May 26, 09:46 PM · #
“Why are you complaining about the color of the fireman’s socks when the house is ablaze?”
Exactly. That is why this whole bruhaha is a tempest in a teapot. Here I am still banging around here waiting for Mr. Friedersdorf to answer my query at 2:54, so I can move on to the greater point summed up so nicely by Gemini. No sense in telling me the windows are dirty when I am trying to stop the house from burning down. The things President Obama has been doing should be exremely alarming to anyone who considers themselves to be a lover of freedom.
— nicholas · May 26, 10:09 PM · #
“Mr. Levin’s point is that if he exercises that option he is needlessly and senselessly putting American lives in danger. The President has sworn to protect and defend the constitution of the United States. The assumption is that he will also protect America and American lives. As you are well aware, this action of prisoner transfer onto the mainland of the United States would be undertaken for purely political purposes. The elevation of Mr. Obama’s politics over his constitutionally mandated duties is found by Mr. Levin to be … objectionable.”
nicholas, since you’re so riled up about Conor not responding to this, I’ll give it more attention than it deserves.
If that’s what Levin meant, he’s a complete and utter moron, and possibly suffering from paranoid delusions. Gitmo prisoners being incarcerated in a SuperMax prison somewhere in the continental US does not in any way, shape or form endanger American citizens.
— Erik Siegrist · May 26, 10:11 PM · #
nicholas, the difference between Conor’s rephrasing of Levin’s words and your rephrasing is pretty clear. He was trying to put in stark relief the actualy meaning of Levin’s statements. You’re trying to erase the deranged leap where Levin starting yelling at a guy, implying that he hated America for expressing WHAT LEVIN HIMSELF BELIEVES. Levin didn’t try and make any distinction between what Obama could and should do and you’re trying to pretend he was.
Mike
— MBunge · May 26, 10:19 PM · #
I can’t get enough of this Republican infighting. More popcorn, please.
— Gus · May 26, 10:29 PM · #
Nicholas…I left the building when I voted for O.
Je suis Obamacon!
lol
I really like the gangsta rap analogy. The black ghetto culture warriors were powerless and disrespected, like the GOP. Now Rush and Beck and Levin are anger-whiggas. But its all frontin’. All they got is bourgie blow….not a genuine thug among them.
Hehe, and they will nevah be cooltown, like Obama.
— matoko_chan · May 26, 10:35 PM · #
This rhetoric and (especially) that in response to Levin’s post at Riehl’s site are just a stone’s throw from political violence. When everyone who disagrees with you is either an enemy or a collaborator actively seeking the destruction of the country and deserving of whatever abuse they “force” you to inflict upon them then there’s a problem. Unconscionable.
— annoyed conservative · May 26, 10:40 PM · #
As a disinterested observer (I prefer TAS and Culture11 to any talk radio, but I’m a liberal anyway), can I ask any of the fervent Levin defenders what purpose he serves? I don’t deny that Levin or Limbaugh speak to the “movement” more than anything like the somewhat unorthodox TAS ever will, but what good does that really do? Is there some great purpose in defending a more crass versions of the same arguments you can find in NRO or the Weekly Standard? Does he mobilize voters or public sentiment in some way that I just can’t see? I’m sincerely asking, because I don’t recall myself ever feeling the need to reflexively defend Keith Olberman behaving like a jerk.
— Nelson · May 26, 11:10 PM · #
Mike
“As far as I can tell, Mr. Levin’s position is now as follows: Under the Constitution, President Obama possesses the inherent power as Commander in Chief to move Gitmo detainees to America — and if he exercises that inherent constitutional power, he is anti-constitution.”
The quote is lifted right off the article above. It is Mr. Friedersdorf’s summation of Mr. Levin’s position. I don’t quite follow your answer, perhaps because I am not sure which summation you are referring to. But Levin can’t possibly believe that it is unconstitutional for the president to transfer Gitmo detainees to the United States mainland. He must be speaking of the consequence of such a move.
Erik, your case is a little more serious. Have you not heard Harry Reid’s comment about terrorists held in US prisons? Something like “If we put them into prison we have to let them out.” The Democrats in mass voted down the funds to close Gitmo. What are they aware of that you seem to not be aware of? That door being slammed shut, I wouldn’t bother trying to focus any more of your attention here.
Annoyed – this is alright.
Gus – just sit quietly and listen.
— nicholas · May 26, 11:12 PM · #
“Truther”? I guess I don’t understand. It’s now a “truther” thing to assert that 9/11 occurred on September 11th, 2001?
Either you’ve misunderstood me, JD, or I’ve dramatically misunderstood your capacity for dishonesty.
— Chet · May 26, 11:15 PM · #
Maybe you didn’t notice, but we had this election, and the guy you say isn’t winning the “homeland security debate” did, in fact, win it. By the largest margin of votes for any non-incumbent Presidential candidate in American history, incidentally.
What’s your evidence that he’s losing, exactly? That Cheney was allowed to go on TV and make a speech? That’s a pretty chilling criteria for political victory, if you ask me.
— Chet · May 26, 11:26 PM · #
The overall theme I’m sensing is that support for acting like an ass on the radio is actually a fairly controversial position even among conservatives. That makes all the conservatives jumping up to write it into the conservative canon somewhat mystifying. They would undoubtedly be better served politically by conceding this issue to concentrate on the liberty, strong defense and low taxes issues that are relatively uncontroversial among conservatives. That’s not even considering the moderates, whose support is needed for conservatives to win elections. And who I can guarantee prefer a low taxes platform to an assholes on the radio platform. Considering the current weakened state of conservatism, it just doesn’t make sense to throw more conservatives out, or alienate more moderates, over an issue that, despite its proven ability to ignite conservative dissension, is actually completely trivial.
Or I could just be stirring the shit ;)
— Bo · May 26, 11:49 PM · #
Chet, you’ve compared Vice President Cheney to Ghengis Khan Jr (as if there was such a person). You have blamed the Bush administration for everything from anthrax to DC snipers to the 9/11 WTC attacks. The trouble with making such statements is that you undermine your credibility, as either you refuse to view events in their proper context, do not have the intellectual means to do so, or have concluded to view it any other way does not support your political position, and you are simply not willing to do that. That strikes me as dishonest.
The election was yesterday Chet. Before any of us really knew how much your guy was keen on expanding the government into the private sector. And as you like stats, more people voted against President Obama than any other previous President. Hmmm.
jd reads like a straight shooter, as does Mike.Bo – you’re essentially right. That is why people like jd, Gemini and myself are at odds with another effort to impugn a conservative. There isn’t much value in pointing out that a radio host got short with a provocative caller. Who cares? Making out that conservtives have to lead perfect lives to be able speak there mind is crap. Don’t stir it!
— nicholas · May 27, 12:10 AM · #
But Bo…conservatives can’t get either respect or fundage that way. That is why Sykes and SNL mockery drive them crazy. The conservative movement will either reform[evolve] or go the way of the Whigs, and a new party will arise from the ashes. Cultural evolution in action.
— matoko_chan · May 27, 12:15 AM · #
“There isn’t much value in pointing out that a radio host got short with a provocative caller”
Dude, that almost the only thing Levin does. Do you listen to Levin? He’s constantly yelling at callers he doesn’t like. That’s his thing. It is nothing like Rush; Levin may have better written books, but Rush on the radio is Socrates compared to Levin.
— JC · May 27, 12:32 AM · #
It would nice if Levin would use his supposedly brillant mind to pursuade rather than yell.
— JC · May 27, 12:34 AM · #
“It would nice if Levin would use his supposedly brillant mind to pursuade rather than yell.”
JC – I totally agree. But that’s not the argument. The fact is that Mr. Friedersdorf has made it an issue, and I am at issue with him taking it to issue! Though I do tire of the endless cultural debasement of conservatives, what I really tire of is the willingness on the part of conservatives to let their proponents bleed out in the gutter when an error or inconsistency is discovered, as though only perfect people can argue for conservartive principles.
As the left has no standard of behavior (except for strict observance of the moraes of political correctness) pretty much anything goes over there. Well, that game is over. You come at my guy you are going to get a push back. What else would you expect?
Matoko – conservatives can’t get no fundage? Please.
— nicholas · May 27, 12:59 AM · #
nicholas -” I don’t quite follow your answer, perhaps because I am not sure which summation you are referring to. But Levin can’t possibly believe that it is unconstitutional for the president to transfer Gitmo detainees to the United States mainland. He must be speaking of the consequence of such a move.”
No, you got the summation I’m referring to. Again, the difference is that Conor is rephrasing what Levin actually said. You say that can’t possibly be what Levin meant, but Conor’s interpretation matches up with Levin’s words. Your summation doesn’t do that. It’s a different argument that has no resemblance to the point Levin seemed to be making when he yelled at the caller “WHY DO YOU HATE MY CONSTITUTION? WHY DO YOU HATE MY DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE?” That’s not Levin complaining that moving Gitmo Guys to U.S. soil is physically dangerous. He’s clearly trying to imply that there’s something legally or ethically wrong with Obama’s action, even though Levin believes a President has the right and power to do what Obama is doing.
Let’s cut to the chase. Levin didn’t like hearing his authoritarian beliefs thrown back in his face when it was Obama exercising the authority, so he threw a tantrum like a spoiled child.
Mike
— MBunge · May 27, 01:26 AM · #
“The conservative movement will either reform[evolve] or go the way of the Whigs, and a new party will arise from the ashes. Cultural evolution in action.”
— Matoko, why should the conservative movement take the advice of someone who can’t “evolve” past the same statement, the same phrases, the same point, repeated unceasingly as though they weren’t utterly banal the first fifty times they were uttered?
— Kate Marie · May 27, 01:27 AM · #
I’ve become old waiting for this guy.
I’m going to have to leave the arena of ideas for another day. Gemini, jd, and Victor – you fellas keep the faith. Mike, good banging heads with you. Night all.
— nicholas · May 27, 01:30 AM · #
“Have you not heard Harry Reid’s comment about terrorists held in US prisons? Something like “If we put them into prison we have to let them out.” The Democrats in mass voted down the funds to close Gitmo. What are they aware of that you seem to not be aware of?”
Suddenly Harry Reid is someone whose opinion is not completely worthless, and the Congressional Democrats are a group of people capable of finding their own asses with one hand, much less two? How convenient for you that they discovered this sudden competence just in time for their actions to support your argument, nicholas.
We’ve imprisoned other terrorists before without calamity. In fact, we’ve got some locked up right now, yet we’re still here to talk about it. I’m sure we have Cheney to thank for that somehow.
Do you have anything to offer other than the pearls of Harry Reid (I mean the ones he’s clutching, not those ‘of wisdom’) and Arkham Asylum-inspired fantasies of mass jailbreaks and armed insurrection in the heartland, nicholas?
— Erik Siegrist · May 27, 01:35 AM · #
“Smaller government, fiscal responsibility, strong defense, these are the cornerstones of conservativism.” — nicholas
This is exactly why true conservatives reject not just Bush and Cheney, but their entire Straussian approach to governance. Among other issues, true conservatives understand that increasing government debt to pay private contractors to do governmental work IS BIGGER GOVERNMENT, and fiscally IRRESPONSIBLE (especially when the contracts are either explicitly or indirectly no-bid).
Real conservatives know that being allowed to break the law when deemed “necessary” means there is no rule of law at all. Wasn’t Newt Gingrich lecturing Jiang Zemin about the distinguished history of habeas corpus back in 1997? Seems like he’s changed his mind on that one, at least when it comes to Republicans.
They also realize that torture makes us less safe. Sadism is a poor substitute for professional competence.
“Reagan Republicans”, at this point, are American Putinistas. Eager to promote the power of the executive branch and corporate oligarchs in the name of national prestige, and perhaps the desire to one day wield the lash themselves.
— Mason · May 27, 02:10 AM · #
Matoko – conservatives can’t get no fundage? Please.
— nicholas · May 26, 08:59 PM · #
I was replyin’ to Bo, I meant moderate conservatives get no fundage.
OTOH, Moron-at-Large Sarah Palin is the biggest fundraiser in the party.
The frothers and ravers whip up the base, and they open their pockets.
Raise all the fundage you want, as long as you have no candidate, you’re toast.
I dunno katemarie, I am formulating a hypothesis on how Ross and Reihan killed the GOP with Palinism.
That will be something new.
;)
— matoko_chan · May 27, 02:31 AM · #
Yeah, that was a joke. I would have thought the “Jr.” would have made that obvious, but I didn’t realize I was talking to someone whose sense of humor had been surgically removed.
Blamed? No, I’ve simply noted that these are all things that occurred during on the watch of the administration that is now attempting to hold itself up as the Terror Experts. Cheney’s claim is that no terrorists attacks happened in the US after 9/11, but
1) That’s demonstratively false, and
2) Even if it were true, that’s a pretty substantial looming caveat. “If you ignore the greatest, most destructive failure of American anti-terrorism in our entire history, we’ve got a perfect record on protecting the American people.” 9/11 happened on Cheney’s watch, after both the FBI and CIA were given ample warning and the Clinton administration said “hey, maybe you should watch these guys.” Also, I recall a memo entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the US.” Then, after 9/11 should have woken people up, we still had fatal anthrax attacks against prominent members of Congress and the media and terrorist-style sniper killings in DC.
How can Cheney possibly be taken seriously in the field of terrorism policy? Because he’s a conservative, and it doesn’t matter how far conservatives fail – you still have to have one to “balance” a liberal. Thus, disgraced idiot Cheney is given equal time to the President of the United States; thus, disgraced idiot Alberto Gonzales is given the opportunity to respond to the Sotomayor pick.
Call it wingnut welfare, I guess – affirmative action for conservatives.
What? Come on. You knew what you were going to get from Obama – government intervention in health care, government intervention in markets, regulation of carbon, etc. None of that stuff is a surprise; that’s what the American people voted for. If you don’t like it – well, try not losing the election next time. A good way to win is to engage in effective governance, not governance that allows 3000 Americans to die in the single worst domestic attack ever and never brings the man responsible to justice (for instance. I could go on but as I’ve been reminded, conservatives are “done apologizing for their mistakes” as if they were ever doing that.)
And yet, more people voted for him than against. We Democrats call that “winning the election.” I’m aware that conservatives (like Norm Coleman and George Bush) have a different definition.
— Chet · May 27, 03:33 AM · #
Mr. Friederdorf
When will you respond to my many posts re my disabusing yourself of the voltage required to fund the libuplican party? HAVeing been alerted to your dastardly shenanigans I have journeyed all the way from RETARD.COM to query you sir. Have you not the decency to respond, SIR? Nay, twill never be so. AND the reason is clear. You sir, are a MUDBLOOD!
j’ccuse!!!!
It is well know that YOUR MOTHER once dated BILLY CARTER! In fact you are the spanw of the aformentioned liberal HILLBILLY! IT is out! ANd now, as our fair lady of the north might diegn to phrase it accessing her charming, earthy elequence: You are in for a world of hurt, buddy! You ahve insulted not one, not tow, but threee of conservaitvisms finest, and you have refused repeatedly to respond to my scathing rebuke of you nonsensical positions!!!
And to my compatriots: Nicholas, JD, Gemini, Victor, Kate Marie, Billy Bob, Tawny, PB’N‘J, Dick “Johnston” Cheny, and last but not least, Mr. Mittens: I SUALUTE THEE!!! I weep at the thought of service with such noble comrades. TOgether we shall pare the world, dispersing the brown maggot filled spots into the ether of space, where they wil be denied for all eternity the warmth of GODS OWN BOSSOM!
Keep up the god fight Gentlemen (to to mention those who comprise our Ladie’s Auxillery). Ours is a nobel crusade! I shall return tomorrow to reengage the enemy. But tonight I repair to my sleeping chambers for a glass of the finest port and a my well thumbed volume of Tacitus.
— cw · May 27, 03:36 AM · #
Stopped back in for a nightcap, and look what a mess you get into when left on your own.
Erik – Well, what they are all aware of that you still seem to be utterly in the dark about is that it would be politically untenable for any of the Dems to have terrorists in their back yards. It is politically highly dangerous, Erik, because not one of the Democrats is willing to be responsible for their release into their state. As Mr. Levin stated
“Where did I say the president does not have the power to move the prisoners to the United States? The reason they were housed at GITMO was because of a 1950 Supreme Court decision (Eisentrger) in which Justice Jackson made clear that the court had no jurisdiction over detainees held outside the United States.”
Terrorists in the United States proper would ultimately fall under US laws, and thus would be able to demand a trial for their crimes, and seek parole if they are convicted.
And what do prisons do when their convicts are awarded parole, Erik?
“Gitmo prisoners being incarcerated in a SuperMax prison somewhere in the continental US does not in any way, shape or form endanger American citizens”They open the door, and..let…them…out.
Well, the powers that be on capital hill do not agree with you. No one up there wants to be responsible for such a thing, and that is why they stone-walled their president.
Chet – So much of your comment is pure crap that it is hard to wade through the slime. Let’s just take a few little gems, shall we:
”I’ve simply noted that these are all things that occurred during on the watch of the administration”
Nice. Very keenly observant. A lot of US servicemen lost there lives in 1944. What would you have said then?
“I’ve simply noted all these things occurred on the watch of FDR – Chet”
Very good, Chet. You can sit down now.
If you fail to understand the context of the events that occurred, but limit yourself to seeing the changes going on in the world in four or eight year intervals, you will be completely unable to comprehend the world you are a part of. The Islamists do not particularly care that Cheney is Vice President or not. It matters little to them. And yet to you, that is the fulcrum point. It is so limited in its scope that it is dumbfounding.
Here’s another:
“What? Come on. You knew what you were going to get from Obama.”
Yeah, I had an idea. But the country certainly didn’t. Pushing through the porkulous bill, taking over the auto makers, handing majority ownership to his buddies at the UAW, this guy is a nightmare, and this is not what the country voted for, is it Chet? We voted for Hope and Change, a fresh start, a pat on our collective backs for voting for a man that “didn’t look like the guys on the bills”. What we got was Chicago style favoritism and thug politics. Everybody is running scared of this guy, and that’s bad news – even for you.
And Chet, when you want to draw a comparison to historical figures, go with the ones that can be found in history. That way, you can keep the disbelief going a little longer, and people will not be immediately tipped off that you’ve got nothing substantive to say.
cw – last in and the least to say.
Well, I can’t spend any more time with you guys. You’ll have to work it out on your own.
(I’m done now cw. It’s safe for you to write…whatever it is that you write – creative fiction, with cw as the great seer? Perhaps that fiction stuff works best…in your own mind).
— nicholas · May 27, 06:35 AM · #
Hi Conor,
Thanks for kicking off an interesting discussion. As a liberal Democrat I realise that a lot of your readers will think I’m being disingenuous with my concern for improved discourse among the right. And since right wing commentators like Levin help my side a lot more than they do yours, maybe I shouldn’t wade in at all.
But it seems to me that you miss the crucial point in your analysis of Levin’s boorish behaviour – especially the gratitous insults to the woman.
The issue is that Limbaugh, Levin and others (as well as yes, sometimes Moore and others on my side) are rejecting the idea that the function of political discussion can ever be persuasion – or even clarification – in favor of the belief that it is war.
The woman on Levin’s show, for instance, could have been the starting point for a very illuminating discussion about constitutional executive power. In fact, as you point out, the two appear to agree on several important ideas relating to that. I think Levin would have had the tools to surprise that woman by engaging with her seriously, and she could have walked away feeling – perhaps not convinced but realising that there are in fact arguments on the other side. Instead, he insulted her (with violent imagery, no less).
Insults don’t just shut down an argument, they shut down the possibility of persuasion, because structurally the person now has every incentive to believe you wrong.
I very rarely have the opportunity to engage in real two-way dialog with intelligent Conservatives who treat me with respect and take my arguments seriously. When I do, though I almost always walk away with a new way of thinking about an issue. Sometimes (not often) I even walk away annoyed because I can’t refute thier arguments. On very rare occassions I wind up changing my mind.
Levin is shutting down that possibility, not just for that particular caller but for any non-right wing listeners who may happen to tune into his show. They may even still listen in, but it will be for the purpose of enjoying some riteous anger, not for the possibility of learning anything.
Obama’s emphasis on respectful dialog isn’t pure idealism – it’s also a pragmatic understanding that ONLY in that way can you persuade non-believers.
Anyway, I wish you well in your ongoing effort to restore respectful dialog to your idealogical cohorts (even if I can’t wish you ultimate success in achieving your ideas).
Best wishes,
Karin
— KarinJR · May 27, 09:38 AM · #
Karin, that is absolutely right…..but the right is no longer interested in discourse, persuasion or moderation. I once was concerned about the prospect of a one party system, but after studying the degeneration of the Whig party, I have become convinced a new party will arise, more healthy and vital than the ossified GOP, incorporating the successful memes and discarding the outdated trash memes.
Posner pointed out one meme that is simply fatal to the GOP….that WILL can be substituted for intellect. I call that Palinism— the idea that all men are created equal without consideration for substrate, be it genetic, acquired, or memetic. Joe the Plumber goes to Israel, for example.
The other meme that is killing the GOP is the idea that religious thought is peer with scientific and intellectual thought. It is not.
In a pluralist republic in the 21st century, that is memetic suicide for a political movement that needs to court an electoral majority.
This nation survived the Whigs becoming irrelevent, and she will survive the devolution of the GOP.
— matoko_chan · May 27, 01:25 PM · #
Matoko, please define “intellectual thought” (fat chance, I know, but I thought I’d ask.) Whatever “intellectual thought” is, there are plenty of religious thinkers whose “religious thought” is synonymous with “intellectual thought.” See Nicholas Wolterstorff, for example.
Second, that “all men are created equal” thing. There certainly is a sense in which all men are created equal without consideration for your precious substrate. Actually, most Americans (Democrats and Republicans alike) seem pretty attached to the idea. You’ve got substrate, Matoko; surely you can figure out the distinction between equal under the law/equal in moral worth and equal in “substrate”/athletic ability/talent/etc. There is a certain faction of thinkers who come dangerously close to forgetting the distinction between those two kinds of equality, such that superior substrate seems to equal superior moral worth and all pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others. Ironically, it’s the utterly mediocre intellects among the Democrats who seem most drawn to that kind of thinking.
— Kate Marie · May 27, 01:53 PM · #
katemarie just validated both my major themes. She believes that religious thought and scholarship are peer to scientific and academic thought and scholarship. This is why Kass and Rumsfeld were able to inform GW’s presidential policy with bible quotes.
katemarie, unable to read as usual, infers that I am stating Palinism advocates that all men are NOT equal under the law. False. Palinism is the belief that will equals intellect. As a rational sapient, I know that all men are created equal under the law, but no man is created equal under the genes.
— matoko_chan · May 27, 02:03 PM · #
.
— nicholas · May 27, 02:35 AM · #
ummm….nicholas? That would be brilliant satire, even down to the clever deliberate mispellings and faux deepsouth accent. Sadly, you have neither the substrate to get it or to be amused by it.
More validation of my studied hypothesis that the right has no self-deprecating sense of humor.
Dark Lord, that was very habinar.
You are truly meme-l33t.
— matoko_chan · May 27, 02:13 PM · #
So Nicholas Wolterstorff’s scholarship is not academic, Matoko? Please answer. I see you failed to define “intellectual thought.” No surprise.
Someone is unable to read carefully or write clearly here. I’m not sure it’s me.
— Kate Marie · May 27, 02:13 PM · #
P.S. Maybe I can nudge you along a bit in the reading comprehension, Matoko. My comment made and intended no reference to “Palinism” at all. I find “Palinism” and “Whiggery” and all the rest of your endlessly repeated catch phrases, frankly, boring.
P.S. LOL! ;)
— Kate Marie · May 27, 02:20 PM · #
Finally, Matoko, “Palinism” sounds kind of familiar. Maybe I’m confused, but isn’t there a substantial strain in philosophical thought that posits that will is actually superior to intellect? You’re actually giving Palin a lot more credit than she deserves, I’d say.
— Kate Marie · May 27, 02:26 PM · #
Palinism from the horse’s mouth.
And no, Wolterschorff is a religious scholar…he has a joint appointment in the school of divinity….his intellect is informed by religious thought, just like Jerry Falwell’s and Pat Robertson’s.
Palinism is exactly like Kylonism.
It is the reason the republicans can’t beat the democrats anymore….traditionally GOP leaders have to pretend to be one with the base, to pretend they are not elite…..while the democrats can be elites and just bribe their base.
I predicted Palin would split the GOP right down the intellectual fault line.
And she did. All the “real” conservatives left are those that supported and continue to support Palin.
The rest have been excommunicated by the base.
More cogently, the conservatives left in the party are those willing to lie to the base for solidarity, while the truthsayers have been cast out.
— matoko_chan · May 27, 02:46 PM · #
Linker has a nice summation of the current state of the GOP in this slice of spacetime.
— matoko_chan · May 27, 02:51 PM · #
Bzzzzt! Try again, Matoko.
Some facts about Wolterstorff:
Harvard University, (PhD) in philosophy 1956
University Positions:
* Professor of Philosophy, Calvin College (1959-1989) * Noah Porter Professor of Philosophical Theology, Yale University (1989-2001) and, concurrently, Adjunct Professor in the Philosophy Department and the Religious Studies DepartmentVisiting Professorships:
* Harvard University, Princeton University, Yale University, Oxford University, the Free University of Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit), and the University of Virginia.Professional distinctions
* President of the American Philosophical Association (Central Division) * President of the Society of Christian PhilosophersSounds pretty academic to me, unless you’re going to define “intellectual” or academic thought as thought which is never informed by religious thought. Why, that’s not circular reasoning . . . it’s substratastic!
I take it you’ve read Wolterstorff, then?
;) LOL!
— Kate Marie · May 27, 02:57 PM · #
Woltershorff has a joint appoint in a school of divinity……. a seminary.
Why on earth would I read him? He is a religious scholar.
— matoko_chan · May 27, 03:15 PM · #
Not productive or intellectual discourse, but here it goes. I sometimes listen to Mark Levin, just to see if I’ll catch him on-air when the vein in his temple finally pops during one of his hysterical tirades. But, the tone of his discourse inevitably reduces me to stunned anger, and so I turn off. I guess I’ll hear it on YouTube when it eventually happens.
— SeeingI · May 27, 03:15 PM · #
“Terrorists in the United States proper would ultimately fall under US laws, and thus would be able to demand a trial for their crimes, and seek parole if they are convicted.
And what do prisons do when their convicts are awarded parole, Erik?
They open the door, and..let…them…out.”
Just to point out, but nicholas is ignorantly touching on the fundamental problem that Obama is now having to deal with. Why didn’t the Nazis held on U.S. soil during WWII simply go to court? Because they were prisoners of war. If Bush/Cheney had simpled declared the Gitmo Guys POWs, virtually all of this crap could have been avoided. Certainly Congress would have gone along with passing any resolution or declaration to make that possible.
But Bush/Cheney didn’t want to give the Gitmo Guys POW status or any other legal status. They wanted to hold them in an anti-constitutional, anti-legal limbo out of both fear and as an expression of their “unitary executive” obsessions. The only reason a Gitmo Guy could get released by a court today is because of the illegal actions of Bush/Cheney. That’s why Obama is talking about preventative detention, because he doesn’t want to let dangerous terrorists go free but recognizes that Bush/Cheney might have made it impossible for him to hold them legally.
Mike
— MBunge · May 27, 03:30 PM · #
I don’t understand the question, I guess. I would have bemoaned the loss of American lives due to the war, but unlike the war in Iraq we really had no choice but to get involved – we had been attacked, and we had to go after who was responsible. And the rise of the Third Reich in Europe was a clear and present threat to the democratic world.
And I would have wondered what had to go wrong with our intelligence service that Japan could park an invasion fleet off of Hawaii and cripple our Pacific Navy without so much as an hour’s warning. But I think 60 years is a little long to hold onto a grudge, don’t you?
Well, then his policies weren’t very successful, were they? I mean what kind of Terror Warrior could Cheney possibly be if our Islamist foes didn’t even notice a difference? You’re making my case for me; Cheney’s prominence as a national security pundit is just a form of affirmative action, not a function of any sort of expertise or success he’s enjoyed.
To the contrary – we did vote for economic stimulus, we did vote for support for unions and working Americans, we did vote for prudent management of an economic crisis he inherited from his predecessor.
You may not have, but then – your guy lost. Americans, like it or not, voted for the Democratic agenda – regulation, management, competent, funded government. I hope it’s your nightmare, because everything you know about governing was proven completely wrong.
I wasn’t, in fact, drawing a parallel to any historical figure. I was, in fact, making a joke. The fact that you don’t recognize jokes is a testament to how completely backwards you’ve got the terms of the debate.
— Chet · May 27, 05:12 PM · #
“Woltershorff has a joint appoint in a school of divinity……. a seminary.
Why on earth would I read him? He is a religious scholar.”
— Hey, I believe there’s a term for this kind of facile, ill-informed, and ideologically rigid rejection of a rigorous academic/philosophical body of work. It’s called “Palinism!”
And I suppose — to follow your “logic” — you refuse to read, say, Kierkegaard, too. How very sub-sapient of you.
— Kate Marie · May 27, 05:44 PM · #
Nicholas every one of your comments is idiotic.
— mattw · May 27, 08:23 PM · #
katemarie, in the bad old days there was no separation of church and state, no separtion of science and religion.
I am explaining the two current problems I personally see as the most relevent to the 21st century troubles of the GOP.
1. Palinism, as I have explained, is the idea that will can be substituted for intellect, that all men are created equal without regard to memetic and genetic inheritance, and acquired skillz.
2. The idea that religious thought is peer to scientific and academic thought. IDT as posed as counter to ToE is a good example of this idiocy.
The only reason I would read a contemporary religious thinker like Woltershorff would be if I was contemplating attending a seminary or teaching world history and comparative religions or philosophy.
I am not.
— matoko_chan · May 27, 08:29 PM · #
Where did all these Levin defenders come from?
Conor, it’s a real pleasure to read your work, and as someone who is still willing to listen to talk radio, Levin is revolting, and I’m glad someone called him on it.
This will all be interesting to read in 5-6 years. I know a lot of our new voices are convinced the GOP is out for a good while, but I think the case is exaggerated. Still, part of the good of this sabbatical is to chase some of our tinfoil hat types out, or at least away from the microphones/keyboards/etc.
— Dustin · May 27, 10:47 PM · #
“The only reason I would read a contemporary religious thinker like Woltershorff would be if I was contemplating attending a seminary or teaching world history and comparative religions or philosophy.
I am not.”
— Fine, Matoko. You’re certainly not required to read Woltershorff or any other serious religious philosopher, but in that case I think you have very little basis for suggesting that “religious thought” or religious philosophy is necessarily not “peer” to “intellectual thought” (your phrase, which you have yet to define). And it makes very little sense to me to suggest that somehow “in the bad old days” Kierkegaard’s thought could be considered “peer” to Nietzsche’s, but now — because we have separation of church and state? — Wolterschorff’s thought is necessarily inferior to, say, Rawls’s.
As for your numbered points:
1. As I have explained, the idea that — to put it crudely — will is actually superior to intellect is not some concept that has sprung brand new from the soil of “Palinism” (I’m not even sure how the idea works in your definition of Palinism, but leave that aside for now); in fact, some such idea was (is?) — at least theoretically — fairly common among the academic left decades ago. (See, for example, Allan Bloom’s chapter on the Nietzscheanization of the Left in The Closing of the American Mind). What’s new about this? Also, as I have said before most Americans believe that “all men are created equal” under the law, and as moral beings. So far, so good. I see no more evidence that the mainstream of the current G.O.P. denies the existence of inequalities of intellect/talent/etc., or believes that will can overcome such inequalities, than that the mainstream of the current Democratic party does the same.
2. I agree that IDT should not and cannot be considered a scientific theory that competes with ToE. But you made a sweeping claim that “religious thought” could not be “peer” to” “intellectual thought.” I think that’s patently false.
While I’m at it, perhaps I should explain a problem that I personally see as most relevant to to the current state of the “intellectual elite” or substrate-privileged, if you prefer. If I’m remembering correctly, you yourself in previous threads have admitted that religion and religious precepts offer a means by which the “substrate-challenged” can situate themselves in the world with a modicum of stability. I agree with you there (leaving aside the truth claims of religion). It used to be that the intellectual aristocracy understood that a certain smiling tolerance of the “superstitions” of the “substrate-challenged” was required in order to maintain social stability. The problem with the current state of the intellectual aristocracy is that they have forgotten this most basic principle. If you are going constantly to mock religious people as stupid, you are undermining the social stability that “religious superstition” helps to preserve. And — not to get too Biblical on your hindquarters — you are going to reap the whirlwind.
P.S. Nothing I’ve said in this thread should be construed as an apology for Mark Levin.
— Kate Marie · May 27, 11:20 PM · #
you are going to reap the whirlwind.
I thought voting Bush in already was that whirlwind; now we learn you’re already planning another one. Man, you let a few hundred million Christians into the country, and suddenly they’re whirlwinding like they own the place.
I do sow wind from time to time, for which I apologize. It’s the lactose intolerance.
— Bo · May 28, 12:54 AM · #
Cute, Bo. Very Blazing Saddles meets smartass cyber-dude.
But — and it’s kind of sad that I even have to make this explanation — I mined that phrase from the Bible as a literary reference. I wasn’t speaking in tongues and calling down the Apocalypse. Sheesh. Some people’s antipathy to all things religious makes them as embarrassingly literal as the fundamentalists who ban Harry Potter books.
— Kate Marie · May 28, 01:13 AM · #
Apologies for misspelling Nicholas Wolterstorff’s name in the comment above.
— Kate Marie · May 28, 01:20 AM · #
Mike, what are you saying?
“Certainly Congress would have gone along with passing any resolution or declaration to make that possible.”
Bull. Congress would have gone along with a declaration of war…with whom? What nation would you have them declare war on, Mike? How long has it been since the last time the nation made a formal declaration of war? And for that matter, has congress been consulted and the use of force authorized for the current conflict? Stumped? Well let me make it easy for you, <a “href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States”> Mike.</a>
To suggest such nonsense shows you have yet to come to grips with the situation. Clinton was dead wrong thinking the terrorist problem was a law enforcement issue. It is not, and cannot be addressed with police, lawyers and trials. That path results in thousands of US citizens being murdered, as we have seen. This also not a traditional war like WWII, as there is no defined enemy nation state that we could be considered at war with. I feel like I am explaining the most basic of things. And the fact that I have to explain it tells me that I am dealing with a bunch of dolts. (Hey Matt – that includes you!).
Prisoners of War? No again, Mike.
All the detainees in GITMO were out of “uniform” when captured. In WWII, our military had to deal with German soldiers and officers who set ambushes and fouled communications by wearing civilian clothes and US army uniforms. Did we bring these fellas back to POW camps in the US, Bunge? Nope. They were shot in the field. As were snipers.
If you are so keen on formal declarations of war and WWII style practices, following US military prisoner protocol in the current war, there wouldn’t be any detainees at GITMO. If they weren’t useful they’d be shot. That’s it. So it would be an empty camp by WWII standard practice.
What do you really know about how WWII was fought? Anything?
So it comes down to this, Conor Friedorsdorf takes Mark Levin to task for being abrasive on the radio, and then states Mr. Levin failed to adequetly defend his statements in the call, wherein he implored the caller “Why do you hate my country? Why do you hate my constitution?”
The fact is, Mr. Levin readily agreed in the call in question that the president has the right to move the detainees anywhere he likes, as follows:
CALLER. Yeah but you know he can just move those people over here anyway. He’s already doing it with the one guy.
HOST: Yeah, sure, he can do whatever he wants.
So his statement has nothing to do with problems in understanding presidential powers. It is properly understood as an expression of fear of harm to those things he loves. I might say “Why do you hate my country? Why do you hate my daughter?” He says “Why do you hate my country? Why do you hate my constitution?” because those are the things that he loves. And no Mike, I have not missed anything here. You have.
I never listen to Mark Levin. But I “<b>” have “</b>” been reading what you guys write, and I have to say I am not impressed. The underlying point of Conor’s piece was that we are more effective in argument if we avoid offending our audience. Yet here his followers rarely drop a comment without stating the person they are responding to is infantile, stupid, retarded (thanks c.w. – might as well offend as many people as possible)and ignorant. Quite a powerful group of rhetorical aces.
Well, I’ll never get through to him by commenting on his blog articles, so tell Conor Friedersdorf from me, Nicholas, that his piece on Mark Levin missed the mark, was self-serving, and small. As for his followers, he can read what they have said in his stead and he will need no further comment from me.
Now let me help all you Friedersdorfies out:
WE DON’T LISTEN TO YOU, NICHOLAS! YOU’RE AN IDIOT! NOTHING THAT YOU SAY HAS ANY RELEVENCE! I’VE NEVER SEEN SUCH PATHETIC IGNORANCE! DON’T EVA COME BACK HERE OR WE WILL REALLY SHOW YOU WHAT WE ARE MADE OF!!!
I can already see what you are made of.
— nicholas · May 28, 01:33 AM · #
I know, Kate. My jokes always end up too shallow. If I was actually clever, I would have made a joke about your metaphor. And it would have been hilarious.
But hey, I’m here making Biblical fart jokes, and your using words like ‘literary’ and ‘reference’ and ‘literary reference’ on me. I’m obviously not the elitist you’re looking for.
— Bo · May 28, 01:45 AM · #
Meh.
Of course religion is the ultimate fitness enhancer for the leftside of the bellcurve. Obviouso. It is when religious thought attempts to compete with scientific or academic thought in the public arena that problems arise, like Leon Kass and Don Rumsfeld influencing Bush’s presidential policy with bible quotes.
Keep religious thought in churches where it belongs.
I took the substitution of will for intellect from Posner.
And we do have a smiling tolerance for things religious until those things are forced on us by crypto-neanderthals quoting 2000 year old books as reasons to deny minority citizen rights in a free Republic and influence a substrate challenged president to fight and perpetuate a war of choice and to block scientific research on the basis of “ignorant monkish superstitions.”
We will respect you when you quit prancing and braying in the public square, and keep your religious thought in churches where it belongs.
What I SAID was conservatives want religious thought to be considered the peer of scientific thought and…secular intellectual thought. To have religious thought inform decisions about science or law or war or society.
No.
Godsmart is not equivalent to science smart and academic smart.
It just isn’t.
And you are right katemarie, it is all about respect.
We shall respect you when you keep it in your churches and bible colleges, and quit attempting to force your ignorant superstions on the rest of us.
Deal.
— matoko_chan · May 28, 01:55 AM · #
nicholas,
We make fun of you because we find you intimidating.
— cw · May 28, 01:59 AM · #
“We will respect you when you quit prancing and braying in the public square, and keep your religious thought in churches where it belongs.”
— Back to “prancing and braying,” Matoko? I’ve missed that one. ;)
I agree, too. It was really annoying, all that prancing and braying MLK and his substrate-challenged cohorts did in the Sixties, wasn’t it? Take your dream, Dr. King, and shove it back into the shadows (the churches and bible colleges) where it belongs.
“What I SAID was conservatives want religious thought to be considered the peer of scientific thought and…secular intellectual thought.”
— And what I said was “religious thought” (with Wolterstorff as an example) is clearly the “peer” of academic thought, in areas like philosophy, ethics, etc.
Is “Godsmart” equivalent to science smart and academic smart? No. But Godsmart, science smart and academic smart are not mutually exclusive.
Serious and, yes, intellectual religious philosophy has as much right to inform certain kinds of decisions about science, law, war, and society as any other (ultimately unprovable) ethical system.
— Kate Marie · May 28, 02:32 AM · #
You stupid ignorant dishonest twodigit LIAR!
How dare you invoke Dr. King!
The white christian church-going bigots of the south were the enforcers of segration academies and anti-miscegenation laws.
We don’t want your stupid crank superstion and your crappy 2000 year old book.
intellectual religious philosophy has as much right to inform certain kinds of decisions about science, law, war, and society as any other (ultimately unprovable) ethical system.
No it doesn’t.
Separation of church and state, moron.
— matoko_chan · May 28, 03:10 AM · #
Blah Blah Blah
— Art Deco · May 28, 03:12 AM · #
I know, I know, I need to get over this, it’s just how people are, and it’s not like there aren’t equally stupid inanities among liberals…but I can’t believe there’s an argument here.
Levin claims that Obama is in some kind of strange Constitutional quantum superposition, in which his actions are both Constitutional and anti-Constitutional. In which the problem is overruling Congress and yet the president has every right to overrule Congress. And any woman who can’t understand this can expect to lose their spouse to suicide.
I just can’t believe anyone would defend any part of this, morally or intellectually.
— Consumatopia · May 28, 04:14 AM · #
Now, now, Matoko . . . I would think that all that substrate would have stood you in better stead when you’re confronted with facts that you simply don’t like. Next thing you know, you’ll be accusing me of despising “messican anchor babies,” as you did — completely out of the blue — on another thread. Maybe it’s a high IQ thing . . . ;)
So it’s a lie that Dr. King was a Christian preacher who invoked the name of God and words of scripture all the time in his speeches and writings? He wasn’t a Christian? What, pray tell, was he? I’m sure all of the African Americans who continue to go to church and to believe in God will be interested to hear that not only was Dr. King not a proud Christian in the public square, but that they are prohibited by the Substrate Brigade from following in his footsteps and invoking their own religious beliefs should they decide to enter the public square.
“Separation of church and state” — you keep using that phrase. In the words of the great Inigo Montoya, I do not think it means what you think it means. I’d suggest you read up a bit on constitutional law and American history.
“… intellectual religious philosophy has as much right to inform certain kinds of decisions about science, law, war, and society as any other (ultimately unprovable) ethical system.” Your brilliant response is “No, it doesn’t.” I’m afraid I’m going to have to use the dreaded Matoko maneuver and insist that, on the contrary and as a matter of constitutional law, yes it most certainly does. You may not like it. You may think it’s irrational. You may think “religious thought” should not be allowed to inform certain kinds of decisions we make in those areas, but unfortunately for you, as a matter of “rights” it is quite clear that, not only is the electorate allowed to use whatever ethical or religious criteria they want in voting on such issues, but public figures have an honest-to-goodness right to invoke religious ideas and principles in making arguments for or against any public policy. See Dr. King. See the abolitionists.
You have the right to mock, scorn, spit, wail, and gnash your teeth at the stupidity, the utter two-digit sub-sapient injustice, of it all.
Ain’t it grand? ;)
P.S. LOL!
— Kate Marie · May 28, 04:50 AM · #
Religious superstition of the biggest mob supported slavery, anti-miscegenation laws, and segregation academies with bible quotes, all of which were trumped by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
But mob rule only works when you are the biggest mob.
You aren’t anymore.
SSM will eventually be legal.
And abortion will remain legal.
You may want to give to equal weight to religious thought along with the rest of your dimishing cohort.
Tant pis, the majority of the electorate does not.
My point was never that you do not have the right to freely practice your religion, including trying to influence oppression of the civil rights of minorities, like gheys, women and blacks. My point is that religious thought no longer gets the respect, the peer treatment that it once enjoyed and you seem to feel it still deserves.
Your analogy of Dr. King and the abolistionists is a false one, since there was a majority of religious thought on the side of slavery and discrimination, fenestrated with bible quotes to prove it.
I am often shocked at the dishonesty of your arguments.
Many people think I am an atheist, when I am actually a practicing Sufi.
Religion should be personal and private.
I find the constant rude thrusting of christian religious thought into the public square to be crude verging on obscene.
IMHO, I would think christians would be embarassed by the performance of their religious belief in this great country, and seek avoid looking like rude ignoramuses.
w/e
— matoko_chan · May 28, 11:22 AM · #
So to return to topic, my hypoth is that the right is angry because—
1. they have no power
2. they are not respected
They are unlikey to return to power because they are ritually purging elites and academic intellectuals from the party, and because the only kind of intellectuals they value, religious intellectuals, are simply not influential in the 21st century, and are not regarded as the peers of scientific and academic intellectuals. There are vanishingly few scientific intellectuals on the right, and I have heard Dr. Manzi ritually excoriated for his series on torture.
With us or against us.
In cognitive anthropolgy this is recognized fundamentalist behavior. When a movement perceives its core memes as being under attack, it doubles down on message purity and purges heretics and apostates, both to resist dilution of its core memes and to prevent the spread of viral memetic defection within its ranks.
— matoko_chan · May 28, 11:37 AM · #
matoko_chan said “There are vanishingly few scientific intellectuals on the right”
that’s not true…there are MANY scientific intellectuals on the “right” ie if you mean those who believe in intelligent design and don’t fall for the scientific flavor of the day in regards to the environment. The problem is they don’t get any press….but then neither would Francis Bacon the father of modern science, and who was a devout Christian been recognized in today’s political and social climate which I think is not so much about “right” or “left” but about life or death.
And unfortunately, much of the left is caught up in the culture of death.
As far as the discussion about Mr. Levin, I have had my own doubts about him and I have heard him myself many times seem to deliberately misunderstand and misrepresent a callers statement and I think he is an agent provocateur to says things like he does so those on the left will say: “See how insane he sounds, all conservatives are like him!!!”
If its not deliberate, then he is getting some kind of brain disease and someone should do the kind thing and take him off the air.
dina little
— dina Little · May 28, 12:32 PM · #
It is true.
See Nate.
60% of those with postgrad vote democratic.
Given the convolution of the republican party with the religious right, this is also interesting.
“Although it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God — as some scientists seem to manage it — there is no question that an engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith. Taking the U.S. population as an example: Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God; yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.”
“In 15 years of polling, scientists “have always stood out as among the most Democratic of the elites,” Michael Dimock, associate director of the Pew Research Center, said in an interview.”
From that Pew poll, 87% of scientists vote democratic.
— matoko_chan · May 28, 01:16 PM · #
BTW, Dina, anyone that believes in IDT is not a scientific intellectual, but a religious intellectual.
— matoko_chan · May 28, 01:26 PM · #
— matoko_chan:;“BTW, Dina, anyone that believes in IDT is not a scientific intellectual, but a religious intellectual.”
No…that would be a theologian.
I guess I would have to clarify myself by saying ‘persons who are formed by a faith in a Creator in the scientific community. Francis Collins — head of the Human Genome Project is just such a person…and you could not argue that he is not a scientific intellectual.
well…you could, but you would be wrong.
Robert Boyle, Newton, Mendel,John Ray—founder of biology,Erwin Schrodinger (Catholic but he also allowed some eastern mysticism shape his ideas), Nikolai Tesla (Serbian Orthodox) and Louis Pasteur were all people who let their faith in a creator inform their ideas and choices in life, and they were all intellectual giants in scientific history.
dina
— dina Little · May 28, 02:42 PM · #
you could not argue that he is not a scientific intellectual.
Dr. Collins does not believe in IDT as oppositionary to ToE. Neither does Dr. Miller, although they are both nominal catholics. IDT is religious theology, not science.
We are discussing 21st century science and academics.
You simply prove my point.
Palinism dictates the expulsion of “elites” from the GOP, except for religious elites.
The GOP base resents that religious intellectuals (elites) are not accorded the same respect as scientific and academic intellectuals, although they were in the past.
— matoko_chan · May 28, 03:12 PM · #
I hear this strain of paranoia quite a bit; the idea that we on the Left are sending over clowns to make you look bad is quite hilarious.
The truth is, we don’t have to. You conservatives grow your own – like dina little, for instance.
— Chet · May 28, 04:35 PM · #
I just can’t believe anyone would defend any part of this, morally or intellectually.
I would be happy to. The 2 word version is: It’s entertainment. A lot of people are confused because of all the conservative this and conservative that being thrown around. But it’s not politics. It’s not philosophy. It’s entertainment. That may offend the conservatives that are engaged in politics or philosophy, or just not engaged in making asses of themselves, but that’s what it is any way.
I can hear you saying, ‘But Bo, shouldn’t entertainment be, ahem, entertaining? If obnoxious, unfunny things can be entertainment, then that time on my 15th birthday when I threw up in my parents’ car after finding their liquor stash should have counted as entertainment rather than grounded for a month.’ No reason it can’t be both, completely hypothetical questioner. Is it really that surprising that people can be entertained by things that would offend other people? And not in spite of the offense, but because of it? That’s why, even ignoring the rest of the skit, just hearing George Carlin say the 7 words you can’t say is completely hilarious to me. Which means that the same thing that we’re sitting here whining about are what Levin’s listeners are actually being entertained by. For a more intellectual take, you can peruse the wikipedia entry for Transgressive Art. Levin’s fans aren’t being entertained by his non-existent wit or intellect, but by his transgressions, his flouting of social mores.
Now obviously, David Frum is correct that taking this kind of ‘art’ and labeling it conservative is inevitably going to damage the reputation of those conservatives who are not engaged in transgressive endeavors. Such as politicians, for example. The nature of transgressive art is that it has to be patently offensive to a lot of people in order to be any sort of art at all. Personally, I doubt it’s that bad, since politicians get to choose how closely to associate with (or disassociate from) these people, and, frankly, since I’m not a conservative, I don’t particularly care.
I should caveat that, while I’ll defend Levin’s remarks, his defense is indefensible: A clueless, humorless harangue vacillating between unwarranted self-regard and unwarranted self-pity. Don’t worry, Mr. Levin; stay at this long enough, and you’ll get to be an embarrassment to conservatives far more important than you.
— Bo · May 28, 04:43 PM · #
Good points all, Bo.
As for the sputtering Matoko:
“Your analogy of Dr. King and the abolistionists is a false one, since there was a majority of religious thought on the side of slavery and discrimination, fenestrated with bible quotes to prove it.”
Um, first of all, I wasn’t making an analogy. Nothing I said was false. The abolitionists and Dr. King were very much in the public square. They were very much religious (so was Gandhi for that matter, but let’s stick to the U.S.). Your insistence that religion remain a private matter would apply to them just as surely as it would apply to the “bigger mob” of Christian bigots. As for your insistence that the pro-slavery Christians comprised the bigger mob, I must confess that I was ignorant of that fact. Could you provide some evidence (a link to a book, for instance) that supports your claim? If Christian abolitionists were in the minority, that argues all the more for the importance of their presence in the public square, where they were able to greatly amplify their ideas (see, to take an obvious example, Uncle Tom’s Cabin). When the “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” of the pro-SSM movement comes along, you want to rule it out of the public square, not me.
P.S. ;)
P.P.S. LOL!
— Kate Marie · May 28, 05:20 PM · #
Besides, Matoko, you act as though scientists and secular intellectuals have covered themselves in glory in the century just past. I’ll take Dietrich Bonhoeffer over Martin Heidegger any day.
— Kate Marie · May 28, 06:02 PM · #
matoko_chan:
<i>You stupid ignorant dishonest twodigit LIAR!
How dare you invoke Dr. King!
The white christian church-going bigots of the south were the enforcers of segration academies and anti-miscegenation laws.
We don’t want your stupid crank superstion and your crappy 2000 year old book.</i>
Aww, baby gonna cry? Kate just slapped you down; deal with it and move on. Whether you like it or not, King argued, publicly and flagrantly, from an explicitly religious premise. If religious arguments are all invalid and ought to be forced out of the public square, then logic dictates that King’s arguments would be forced out of the public square.
Whether or not the religious civil rights proponents were “outnumbered” by people making pro-slavery religious arguments is of zero relevance to this discussion. However, I notice that this is a claim for which you offer no evidence, and which seems to be contradicted by the fact that the civil rights proponents actually won.
Finally, judging by your near illiteracy and grammatical errors, cognitive inability to follow or make logical arguments, and inability to back up any of your assertions with relevant facts, it is highly unlikely that your IQ is as high as Kate’s. This is particularly clear in light of her comparative ability to speak clearly and construct logical arguments from supporting premises.
I’ve seen you comment in other threads before. At first I assumed you were a troll simply trying to push peoples’ buttons, because I found it unlikely that a person would really combine such glaring cognitive and verbal deficiency with such a comically high opinion of themselves. Now, however, I’m pretty nearly convinced that you’re just an ignorant moron who has convinced yourself you are smart because you can mindlessly parrot the beliefs of other people you think are smart.
— The Deuce · May 28, 06:24 PM · #
Sure, along with the arguments against him. This isn’t an argument so much as an attempt at a “gotcha!”; you know that Matoko respects King Jr., as any decent person would; ergo it’s a pretty cheap point to say “look how your own argument is turned against a historical figure you respect.”
I don’t see how it can be taken seriously. Kate is, of course, the master of the cheap point; it’s unnecessary to cheerlead for her, Deuce. But then that’s really all that ever happens at the end of these long threads – Kate Marie and her cheerleaders, completely absent from the real discussion at the beginning, show up for cheap shots at whoever is left.
— Chet · May 28, 06:38 PM · #
Katemarie did not slap me down.
The point I am making is that a good part of conservative anger stems from the fact that religious intellect is no longer esteemed as peer to scientific and academic intellect in 21st century America.
Palinism dictates tossing the “elites” out of the tent, except for religious elites.
But religious elites are not valued or respected in 21st century American culture except by their diminshing congregations and the socons.
Katemarie validated my hypothesis by frantically arguing that theologians RELLY ARE peer to scientific and academic intellectuals.
They are not. In 21st century America the SES of religious intellectuals is far lower that scientific intellectuals and academic intellectuals.
I did lose my temper over Dr. King.
I blame the aspergers.
…and I’m not sorry….and it won’t stop…. —Samara, The Ring
— matoko_chan · May 28, 07:37 PM · #
Thanks, Deuce.
Dear, sweet Chet. Tell me, dear boy, what is Matoko’s argument? If it’s anything more complicated than “Two-digit, sub-sapient, superstitious religious mouth breathers need to shut the hell up!” I’d be surprised to learn it. Perhaps you could enlighten me, though.
And … I don’t want to get too Matoko on you, but I have to confess that the “ergo” in your comment above really cracked me up. Would my point not be a cheap one if we didn’t just know that Matoko respects Dr. King? Hey, I respect Dr. King, ergo . . . I need to shut the hell up?
On another thread, in a discussion mostly about abortion, Matoko claimed (for no reason that I could fathom) that I despised “messican anchor babies.” But I’m the master of the cheap shot. Um, okay.
By the way, I like the idea of having cheerleaders:
We’ve got substrate!
Yes, we do!
We’ve got substrate!
How about you?!
— Kate Marie · May 28, 07:40 PM · #
Matoko,
I would like for the name-caller and spouter of epithets (you, that is) to point to the part of my argument that was “frantic.”
Define academic intellectual, please. I’ve asked you several times. There are many “religious thinkers” who are clearly academics, and clearly intellectuals.
Who is valued and respected by 21st century American culture, Matoko? By your logic, any party that wants to maintain their electoral advantage should have Oprah as their leading intellectual. I’ll take Wolterstorff and exile.
— Kate Marie · May 28, 07:52 PM · #
Sure, along with the arguments against him. This isn’t an argument so much as an attempt at a “gotcha!”; you know that Matoko respects King Jr., as any decent person would; ergo it’s a pretty cheap point to say “look how your own argument is turned against a historical figure you respect.”
Absolutely it’s an argument. It shows that Matoko’s case is self-contradictory. She wants to say that people making religious arguments in public are bad and should be shut up, and she also wants to say that King is great and should be revered. She can’t have it both ways. She either needs to clarify her position to state that some religious arguments are okay in public, or she needs to revise her position to say that King isn’t an admirable figure, and that people making arguments like him should be shut up. Or she could just admit that her assertions are inconsistent, emotive jibberish with no rational support.
If in fact religion and religious people are stupid and inferior, and ought not be allowed in the public square, then no, “any decent person” shouldn’t revere King.
I don’t see how it can be taken seriously. Kate is, of course, the master of the cheap point; it’s unnecessary to cheerlead for her, Deuce.
Hey, I’m simply going by what I’ve seen in this thread. I’ve never seen Kate before this, though I have seen Matoko a couple of times in other places. At least in this thread, one is a competent writer and capable of logical argument with supporting evidence, and the other is a gaseous moron who merely emotes and asserts things, while apparently believing herself highly intelligent (the same behavior exhibited the other times I’ve seen her). If you want to criticize cheap shots and non-arguments, Matoko has given you plenty to work with in this thread. For starters, how about her emotional shrieking (“How dare you invoke Dr. King!”) in lieu of making an argument, spurious accusations (“LIAR”), and inability to tell an example from an analogy? She’s made a total jackass of herself, and she deserves some ridicule for it.
completely absent from the real discussion at the beginning
Whatever. Like I said, I’ve seen Matoko a couple times before, and it appears that it’s her who tries to turn every discussion into an off-topic “religious people are stupid and should be forcibly shut up” hatefest, while providing ample evidence for her own lack of intelligence. If people decide to have a little fun and kick her around for it, I see no problem with that.
— The Deuce · May 28, 07:54 PM · #
But Dr. King’s religious argument failed. The judiciary overruled the religious argument of the mob. The judiciary didn’t say…“OH! Rev. King’s religious thought has persuaded us!”
The judiciary said Brown v Board, said Loving v Virginia.
Again, my point is religious intellectuals are no longer considered the peer of scientific and academic intellectuals, and all the GOP “owns” anymore are religious intellectuals, because the GOP is throwing the scientific and academic intellectuals out of the tent.
Neither katemarie or deuce have offered any evidence contra my hypothesis— intellectuals, with the exception of religious intellectuals, are leaving the GOP, and religious thought is not considered the peer of academic or scientific thought in contemporary America. I actually offered empirical evidence in the form of Pew polls showing 87% of scientists vote democratic and 538 data that shows individuals having postgrad degrees voting democratic has gone from 40% in 1980 to 60% today.
— matoko_chan · May 28, 09:41 PM · #
And I think religious people should be as vociferous as they please, within their churches, their homes, and their bible colleges.
Because of the separation of church and state, and because the empirical evidence is that christians have repeatedly attempted to impose their personal superstitions on unwilling minority citizens in a free republic.
— matoko_chan · May 28, 09:55 PM · #
“But Dr. King’s religious argument failed.”
— It did? You mean Brown v. Board of Education was entirely responsible for the successes of the civil rights era? Who knew? And now you’re admitting that MLK should have shut up and kept to his bible colleges and his church? My head is spinning.
By the way, throughout the history of the world, the empirical evidence is that non-Christians and atheists have also repeatedly attempted to impose their personal superstitions on unwilling minority (and heck, even majority) citizens. I blame it on Palinism! ;)
— Kate Marie · May 28, 10:49 PM · #
katemarie, you have not addressed my argument which is on topic to this thread, and which I supported with linkage and actual data.
But that is the way you always do.
All you have are adhoms.
As near as I can tell, you’re just Glenn Beck in drag.
— matoko_chan · May 29, 02:01 AM · #
“All you have are adhoms . . .
As near as I can tell, you’re just Glenn Beck in drag.”
LOL!!!
— Kate Marie · May 29, 02:04 AM · #
And guess what!
We will soon see another antique superstition fall to the rule of law, the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
So delicious
Do you know my favorite Bacon quote, katemarie?
Revenge is kind of wild justice.
— matoko_chan · May 29, 02:50 AM · #
Matoko —
What makes you think I’m against SSM? I guess it’s another one of those high I.Q. Vulcan mind melds like the one where you divined that I despise “messican anchor babies.” ;)
P.S. LOL!
— Kate Marie · May 29, 03:40 AM · #
I couldn’t for the life of me tell you, sweetheart; I’m just somewhat tired of seeing your disingenuously cheap shots over and over again because you wait to post them on threads that have outlived everybody else’s interest. Well, everybody needs something to aspire to, I guess.
Only if Dr. King Jr’s arguments for civil equality were purely religious; that’s not the case. He certainly appealed to religion, and used his position as a pastor to magnify his voice; but appeals to religion were not the only tool in his pocket.
Whatever. You’re using the epithet “moron” on someone with an autism spectrum disorder, and I find that in bad taste. If you think seizing on someone’s mental issues in order to call them names is appropriate, mature behavior, then you’re simply no one I care to speak to.
— Chet · May 29, 07:44 AM · #
Look Chet……merci mille fois but I don’t need a preux chevalier.
I can take care of myself.
My hypothesis is that conservative talkshow anger (which we can admit is lowbrow) derives in part from powerlessness (which Bo mentioned) and part from the perception (which may be true) that the conservative movement is disrespected.
I think the only intellectuals that still “officially” qualify for memberstatus in the GOP with the majority are religious intellectuals, religious elites, and in 21st century America religious intellectuals are not accorded peer status with scientific and academic intellectuals.
Because “pointy-headed intellectuals” and non-religious elites are being tossed out of the GOP tent. Look at Levin’s comments on Dreher for example.
I offered actual data in the form of linkage, including relative SES and the preponderance of citizens with postgraduate education, and academics and scientists that vote democratic.
Katemarie has not offered a nanoparticle of evidence contradicting my thesis.
I am not the jackass here.
— matoko_chan · May 29, 01:20 PM · #
And in just case you still don’t understand how Obama won, and how he will keep on winning, jd et al, just watch how he prepares to seduce religious intellectuals as well.
— matoko_chan · May 29, 01:34 PM · #
And I have, actually written a paper for school on the globalization of hiphop, and the two common themes that represent world wide are powerlessness of the underclass and lack of societal respect.
Sad for the GOP, I don’t think they can get to cooltown from here….
— matoko_chan · May 29, 03:12 PM · #
“Whatever. You’re using the epithet ‘moron’ on someone with an autism spectrum disorder, and I find that in bad taste. If you think seizing on someone’s mental issues in order to call them names is appropriate, mature behavior, then you’re simply no one I care to speak to.”
Who used the epithet “moron,” besides Matoko? In any case, I certainly didn’t. I find it absolutely rich, though, that you’re clutching your pearls about the name-calling, when Matoko herself is the queen of such tactics. I have been called a two-digit liar, a moron, a despiser of “messican anchor babies” — the list goes on. But tell me, Chet, why is it worse to call someone with Asperger’s a “moron” than to call someone you consider a “moron” a “moron”?
“Only if Dr. King Jr’s arguments for civil equality were purely religious …”
— Snort. Oh, I see . . . only if Dr. King’s arguments were purely religious. And I’ll just bet that the ultimate arbiter of what’s “purely religious” is . . . wait for it . . . Chet! MLK’s arguments for civil rights were founded and premised on his religious beliefs. You can’t get past that or argue around it; you only make yourself look silly when you try.
— Kate Marie · May 29, 05:00 PM · #
Matoko,
Where I come from, “academic intellectuals” define their terms. You scrupulously avoid doing so. How convenient . . .
The evidence you offered was that “scientists” and post-grads vote Democratic. How do you get from there to the proof that scientists and “academic intellectuals” are being deliberately tossed out of the Republican tent? Correlation, causation . . . what’s the difference, right?
“In 21st century America religious intellectuals are not accorded peer status with scientific and academic intellectuals.”
— Define “academic intellectual.” Prove your statement. Do you have some charts for me — some survey proving, for instance, that Wolterstorff isn’t accorded peer status by non-religious philosophers?
— Kate Marie · May 29, 05:08 PM · #
Chet versus Chet:
LOL!!
In a comment to Conor Friedersdorf’s post, “In Defense of Flawed Things,” Chet said the following on March 6, 2009, at 10:07 pm:
“Kate Marie –
It is possible, I assure you, to be utterly convinced that you and your ilk are the most absurd and vulgar type of moron, and yet not think that you should be killed for it.”
My response? I’ll gasp and clutch my pearls and quote Chet, “You’re using the epithet ‘moron’ on someone [who has — according to you — a low I.Q.], and I find that in bad taste. If you think seizing on someone’s mental issues in order to call them names is appropriate, mature behavior, then you’re simply no one I care to speak to.”
Priceless! ;)
And once again, LOL!!
— Kate Marie · May 29, 06:05 PM · #
“Bull. Congress would have gone along with a declaration of war…with whom? What nation would you have them declare war on, Mike?”
I’m not sure if you’re still paying attention, nicholas, but it’s comments like that which make me insult your intellect. Look up the Barbary pirates, for pity’s sake.
Mike
— MBunge · May 29, 06:49 PM · #
Deuce, which is who (ahem) that remark was directed at.
— Chet · May 29, 08:12 PM · #
Wolterstorff isn’t accorded peer status by non-religious philosophers?
Doesn’t matter if he is.
It is the perception of disrespect, and that is measured by SES, socio-economic status.
Are theologians accorded the rock-star status of, say, Brian Greene or Sir Richard Dawkins or Sir Roger Penrose? Nope.
A lot of the brouhaha about wedging (heh) IDT into schools is about IDT being respected as a peer theory to ToE. It isn’t. It is mocked and satirized.
In the 21st century religious thought simply doesn’t garner the respect that academic or scientific thought does.
And this whole thread is about throwing the pointy-headed elites out of the tent.
How did you miss that?
— matoko_chan · May 29, 09:12 PM · #
and….. scientific intellectuals and academic intellectuals are SECULAR intellectuals.
I thought that was obvious.
— matoko_chan · May 30, 01:33 AM · #
OW OW OW!
zomg make it stop! its WORSE than torture!
that is awfulawful, lol!
:)
— matoko_chan · May 30, 02:35 AM · #
Matoko,
Have you ever heard of circular reasoning? If you define an academic intellectual as a secular intellectual, well, then, by golly and shazam, you’re going to prove your point every time. Funny how that works. But for someone of your stellar substrate, I would have thought that was obvious.
Are you kidding me with the socio-economic status? By your logic Rick Warren (or Mark Levin, for that matter) is as well respected as Richard Dawkins.
And no, this thread was supposed to be about how Mark Levin is a boorish, uncivil interlocutor and an inauspicious “representative” of conservatism. But for you every thread is about “throwing the pointy headed elites out of the tent” and how those two-digit, sub-sapient, Palinist, prancing and braying, superstitious socon mouth breathers are so stuuuuuupid and need to shut the hell up. And I would ask how you missed that, but I’m beginning to think it’s all too clear how you missed that.
— Kate Marie · May 30, 07:27 AM · #
And Chet, dear boy, it makes no difference to whom your remark was directed. The fact that you and Lady Matoko have used the same epithet that so shocked your tender sensibilities when it was wielded against your lady fair lends a powerful odor of hypocrisy to your precious “outrage.”
— Kate Marie · May 30, 07:41 AM · #
As a field lab test in cog anthro, I think I have proved katemarie (at least) keenly feels the lack of respect.
;)
— matoko_chan · May 30, 05:08 PM · #
I notice your disrespect, Matoko. Do I feel it keenly? Um, don’t you think the results are — at best — inconclusive? Get back to us when I start spitting and sputtering and shouting “How dare you?” and calling you a “stupid ignorant dishonest twodigit LIAR!”
What is interesting is how little you are able to distinguish between your own state of mind and the state of mind of others, such that you project your own sputtering, irrational hatred onto the scientific and “academic” community in which you desperately desire to signal your “membership.”
— Kate Marie · May 30, 05:40 PM · #
I never quite understood the MLK/Bonhoeffer defense. After all, the more general historical record of Christianity w/r/t both segregation and Nazism was varied with a seriously embarrassing level of support for both practices.
But, imagine if there was a philosophy that had been undeniably right about both of these. In America, let’s imagine it denounced segregation and preached racial equality from its founding, and, in Europe, it raised an army to fight against Nazism. Wouldn’t that be a philosophy to look to for moral guidance? In truth, no; that philosophy was called Communism.
— Bo · May 31, 05:52 PM · #
Bo,
I don’t think you’re understanding the point of my references to Bonhoeffer and MLK. I’m not mounting a general defense of all Christians everywhere or suggesting that Christians have been undeniably right about the great moral issues of the ages. I’m defending the principle of religiously-informed speech in the public square, and it seems to me that MLK and Bonhoeffer and the abolitionists are — with respect to that principle — apposite examples. Very few people, for example — and especially few Germans — covered themselves in glory in their response to the rise of Nazism, but Bonhoeffer was one of them. I use him as an example to those (like Matoko) who would have Bonhoeffer shut up or keep religion in church where it can’t infect the rest of us. That’s a high price to pay to rein in the bigots and the idiots, especially since there is absolutely no guarantee that the non-religious or the “secular academics” aren’t just as likely to be bigots and moral idiots (thus the example of Heidegger).
— Kate Marie · Jun 1, 02:42 AM · #