Under His Skin
Talk radio host Mark Levin hates arguing with anyone less famous than he is. At the same time, he cannot resist responding when his critics are making salient points about his indefensible behavior. Thus he has decided to raise our profiles. I appreciate the gesture, especially since I’ve lately granted his request that I evaluate his show by listening to more than 15 minutes of it. As a result, I’ve come to better understand how his style of rhetoric undermines certain causes he purports to champion.
In a few future posts, I’ll cite specific instances where Mr. Levin misleads his listeners about reality, undermines their ability to understand ideological opponents, and thereby harms the conservative movement. A broader critique of Mr. Levin is that he is destructive of the reasoned public discourse that democracies require to flourish, but I intend to make the narrower case that even listeners of his whose primary goal is to defeat misguided liberal policies would do far better if he stripped certain rhetoric from his program. It is gratifying to see that I’ll enjoy the attention of his listeners as I present my critique.
They’re your brain cells, but wouldn’t they be more usefully employed refuting (or trying to refute) Prof. Paulsen or someone of that caliber than some talk radio host?
— y81 · Jun 2, 11:35 PM · #
Conor Frieders“dork.”
I think it would be useful to analysis why his rhetoric is popular as opposed to ‘wrong.’ What is it doing for its audience?
— Rortybomb · Jun 3, 12:04 AM · #
I’m going to have to stop reading your posts. They are going to soaked in retard.
— cw · Jun 3, 12:30 AM · #
i think you’re performing a needed public service conor. keep at it.
— ron · Jun 3, 12:55 AM · #
Very funny.
It’s hilarious to me that all of his “most deranged bloggers” are conservative (ok, Sullivan’s debatable, and I despise him, too, but he’s not far-left).
— JAB · Jun 3, 01:43 AM · #
Bring it on! I’ll give you more than 15 minutes to make your point.
— Mike · Jun 3, 01:44 AM · #
Go Fuck Yourself, Pansy Ass
— Dan Hanson · Jun 3, 01:59 AM · #
Don’t worry CW, those particular posts won’t be at The Scene.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Jun 3, 02:01 AM · #
Those posts won’t be here? Where can I find them? Where else are you posting these days?
— Steve Ely · Jun 3, 02:26 AM · #
Did Levin seriously refer to you as “Conor FriedersDORK” on his web site?
Either he already proved your thesis before you even made your argument or Levin is, in fact, in 4th grade.
— JB · Jun 3, 02:33 AM · #
I didn’t mean to suggest that your posts would be soaked in retard, but that the comments section would be.
— cw · Jun 3, 03:02 AM · #
Yeah, no worries, I know what you meant CW.
Steve, I’ll be starting a 6 week blogging gig on June 15. I’ll let readers here know when it begins.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Jun 3, 03:13 AM · #
There are people less famous than Mark Levin?
— tgb1000 · Jun 3, 03:34 AM · #
I’ll bring the popcorn.
;)
— matoko_chan · Jun 3, 03:52 AM · #
Qoute “In a few future posts, I’ll cite specific instances where Mr. Levin misleads his listeners about reality, undermines their ability to understand ideological opponents, and thereby harms the conservative movement.”
Awwww. Why not start now. I’m curious as to what your readership is?
You can’t touch Mark Levin, so why try.
— joe · Jun 3, 04:36 AM · #
I think you are trying to do the same thing to Mark Levin that you say he does to his listeners. Kinda pathetic. Btw, I got to this website from a link on his. I don’t see the reverse, maybe you’re more partisan than you think?
— Vic · Jun 3, 04:41 AM · #
Vic,
Did you try, you know, clicking on the link in Conor’s post?
Sheesh.
— Kate Marie · Jun 3, 04:47 AM · #
I’ve decided I could handle being stuck in an elevator with Mr. Levin if we talked about dogs and if he promised to use a normal tone of voice. His is the only radio talk show my autistic son begs me to turn off—the few times I’ve listened while channel surfing. Fridersdork? Really? Is that the best they can do?
— Joules · Jun 3, 04:48 AM · #
yawn
Now I know what Levin means when he talks about ‘backbenchers’.
— Zack · Jun 3, 09:45 AM · #
I think it is superawesome that people like Conor and Henke are going to go to war for what they believe in…. like memetic knights….
Throngs of knights and barons bold
In weeds of peace high triumphs hold
With store of ladies whose bright eyes
Rain influence and judge the prize
Of wit or arms while both contend
To win her grace, whom all commend
lol, I think Levin is somewhat under-armored in the wit category.
— matoko_chan · Jun 3, 10:51 AM · #
Conor the future of the Republican party lies with true conservatism, period. Obama is not a moderate, he is an extreme left-wing radical that is destroying the fabric of our nation. You don’t run a ‘big tent’ moderate to defeat that, a perfect example is Colin Powell. McCain should have been his perfect candidate, another ‘big tent’ moderate and yet he endorsed Obama. We fight this with Reagan conservatism, 2 landslide victories, no ‘big tent’ Kowtowing to moderates … Conor you can’t be a good egg all your life … at some point you either hatch or rot.
— Doug Lynch · Jun 3, 11:55 AM · #
Doug, cher ….
Obama is actually a machiavellian pragmatist with liberal tendencies.
In this slice of spacetime (meaning the current demographic landscape and the current cultural environment), you can only beat him with another machiavellian pragmatist with conservative tendencies.
— matoko_chan · Jun 3, 12:06 PM · #
Summoning a zombie Reagan to run in 2012 is not going to cut it.
— matoko_chan · Jun 3, 12:08 PM · #
Mr. Friedersdorf:
I know you don’t need my encouragement, but yes, please keep at it. I think your tone is perfect.
“Yawn”? Not even close.
— wjs · Jun 3, 12:20 PM · #
I’ve only had an opportunity to listen to Mark Levin once or twice. Laughed my ass off. Great stuff. That aside, today’s world is awash with guys fighting the fight (Levin), and guys who sit in front of computers going “hmmm…now listen here, he’s not doing it right…” That’s fine. It’s boring, but fine. I blame it on the rise of literary criticism as a substitute for literature in the 1980’s and 1990’s.
— Doug · Jun 3, 02:34 PM · #
Why exactly would you want to go to war w/ Dr. Levin? Why do some of you care that he raises his voice? That’s what passionate/opinionated people do.
And why on Earth would you purposely try to undermine Levin a real Conservative? B/c YOU ARE NOT CONSERVATIVE and nothing more than a RINO! (Republican In Name Only)
Now thank me you drone!
— stldynamite · Jun 3, 02:39 PM · #
Until thirty seconds ago, I had never heard so much as a snippet of Mark Levin’s radio show. Now, having just perused some excerpts on YouTube, what strikes me most is the discrepancy between Levin’s pseudo-populist rhetoric and his speaking voice. If one were casting voice-over actors for a cartoon with a caricature of “a typical liberal” or what was called, where I grew up, a Yankee — i.e. someone who represents the worst as opposed to the best of what “the blue states” can be — then Levin’s shrill and prissy nasality would land him the role. As for the “content,” as opposed to the style of Levin’s rhetoric, my snap impression is that it is was as dreary and as witless as I feared it would be and as I was warned it would be.
— Bill Butler · Jun 3, 02:52 PM · #
Note that Levin insult-modified Conor’s name but left “The American Scene” unmolested, but left Dreher, Frum and Sullivan’s name alone while he mock-spelled the name of their blogs.
Possible explanations:
1) “Friedersdork” just too clever to pass up.
2) Conor is so famous that there’s no need to spell his name correctly for everyone to know who we’re talking about.
3) Levin is still cool with all the other American Scene bloggers. But everyone at the New Bizarrity is Dead To Him.
— Consumatopia · Jun 3, 03:12 PM · #
“Obama is not a moderate, he is an extreme left-wing radical that is destroying the fabric of our nation.”
I think I can safely speak for other extreme left-wing radicals when I say, “What?”
The Levinites have prompted me to re-read Hoffer’s “The True Believer.”
— James F. Elliott · Jun 3, 04:44 PM · #
stldynamite,
I’ve never claimed to be a Republican, and if memory serves I am currently registered as an independent, so I am hardly a RINO.
As for why I “want to go to war w/ Dr. Levin,” the answer is simple — I don’t. One thing I’m struck by is how often Dr. Levin and his listeners use war metaphors when they are talking about public discourse, as if disagreeing with someone and saying so is somehow akin to waging an all out battle to destroy them.
I think certain rhetorical techniques and substantive errors that I’ve observed on Mr. Levin’s radio show harm public discourse and conservatism, two things I care about a great deal. Thus I am making a case for my position, in hopes that Mr. Levin reforms his show, whether by being convinced that I am correct, or by being persuaded by his listeners that he should change.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Jun 3, 05:42 PM · #
C’mon Conor, it’s “true” conservatism that matters, not whatever it is that you are peddling. Palin, JtP, Limbaugh, Levin, and the like. Get with ‘em or get out of the way. Oh and Michelle Bachmann, too. She’s awesome.
— tgb1000 · Jun 3, 06:39 PM · #
If you don’t like his show don’t listen. He’s not for wussies. He has a massive audience for a reason. Instead of alot of talking points shows (or blogs) he digs in deep and give alot of history and clarity on exactly what’s going on. In addition he gets his points across in a passionate way. His show is the only one I absolutely never miss. Thank me and god bless us.
— Eric Wickel · Jun 3, 07:22 PM · #
Eric,
You say that his show is “not for wussies.” This seems to imply that it requires some kind of strength, fortitude or guts to listen as Mr. Levin talks over the radio. This seems as strange and inapt to me as the war metaphors used by Levin listeners.
Why on earth wouldn’t a “wussie” be able to listen to Levin’s show along with everyone else? This mythology that the whole collective enterprise is a courageous one is just strange.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Jun 3, 09:02 PM · #
Conor,
That’s the wussiest thing I’ve ever heard. What do you eat? Vanilla yogurt sucked from a straw at room temperature?
— Doug · Jun 3, 09:58 PM · #
Doug,
Is room temperature less wussie than slightly chilled? I’ve got a lot to learn about this topic. What about a mango lassie on ice?
— Conor Friedersdorf · Jun 3, 10:33 PM · #
Ahhhhhh, sweet, sweet retard. No one does it better than the right.
— cw · Jun 3, 10:42 PM · #
I’ll tell you why Conor. There are all different personalities out there in talk radio. You got the dry talking point guys. (not for me) You have good substance with not much entertainment.(not for me) You have those who have a great show and little respect for the audience.(not for me) You have all different types. I think what draws the listener is the one who most matches the way you feel about things and expresses them in a way you want them expressed. Mark is pissed off at these drones as many of us are. They are undermining our freedom and liberty. I take this stuff seriously so I like things said the way I want them said (which is how Mark says them). On the other hand, if you were a regular Levin listener, you’d realize that those Democrats who come through with an actual definitive point or side to an argument, he gives them respect and time. In addition he is very sincere and caring to his listeners. He’s like a brother to millions of us out here.
— Eric Wickel · Jun 3, 10:50 PM · #
But Eric ….Levin isn’t isn’t telling you the truth ….he’s telling you what you want to hear for audience share.
— matoko_chan · Jun 3, 11:10 PM · #
He’s not telling me the truth huh. You’re going to have to do better than that. Have at it. Give me one example.
— Eric Wickel · Jun 3, 11:21 PM · #
So motoko_chan knows better…….
— Eric Wickel · Jun 4, 12:09 AM · #
Well for one thing a risen zombie of Ronald Regan isn’t going to win in 2012. Times have changed. Doubling down on message purity and diving to the right is a pure electoral loozer in the 21st century.
If he is telling you you can hold the line on SSM, that is a lie too. If he is telling you Roe can be overturned during Obamas presidency that is a lie.
If he is telling you the America is still a center right nation, that is a lie.
If he is telling you that the pure conservative message is going to win over youth, college-grads, women and blacks and hispanics. That is also false.
Hasn’t worked so far.
— matoko_chan · Jun 4, 01:30 AM · #
Erick,
That explains why you like Mark Levin — he adopts the style you would use, he is angry, and he cares about his listeners. Okay, fair enough.
But that doesn’t explain why you wrote that “he’s not for wussies.” Do you imagine that a wuss is too cowardly to listen to an angry man who cares about his listeners shout on the radio? Because I think there are total wussies who listen to angry men on the radio every day.
It just doesn’t require any courage or backbone or whatever to listen to anyone talk on the radio. You just turn it on, and the sound comes out of your speakers.
So I am puzzled and curious anyone someone casts being a Mark Levin listener as if it is a brave enterprise, and imagines those who don’t like him are somehow cowardly.
It doesn’t make logical sense, and it isn’t even a particularly plausible or convincing myth.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Jun 4, 05:09 AM · #
What’s this crap about “a risen zombie of Ronald Regan isn’t going to win in 2012”? Well a risen zombie of Lenin won in 2008 so it could happen.
— Robert Lynn · Jun 4, 06:56 AM · #
My use of the word “Wussie” implies nothing more than character preference. Read it in context with the rest of my reply. What I’m trying to say is, if you don’t like to hear harsh to the point rhetoric,what some may consider offensive don’t listen. There are lots of talk radio personalities out there to choose from. Nobody is forcing any of you to listen to someone you may find offensive. That’s what your radio dial is for. My use of the word “wussie” has nothing to do with the sense you are implying. You on the other hand shouldn’t be attacking him for something you heard him say that offended you. We’re supposed to be on the say team here. He appeals to the circle of those who like the way he conducts himself on the air. I think it’s very important to have many different personalities on the air to choose from. Conservatives need to reach as many people as possible don’t you agree?
— Eric Wickel · Jun 4, 09:40 AM · #
Matoco, your type is a big part of the problem. First off, this country IS center right. Second, from your comments I can tell you never even listen to Levin. Why are you so quick to jump out and say he’s lying to his audience? A Reagan would win a landslide in 2012. Why? Because he could explain Conservatism in a way that people got it and understood it. The mixed signals we’ve seen since him from so called Conservatives have done damage to the Conservative movement.
— Eric Wickel · Jun 4, 09:50 AM · #
Because he could explain Conservatism in a way that people got it and understood it.
Riiight.
Okfine. I guess it is going to take at least one more kerbstomping at the polls.
Good luck with that!
;)
— matoko_chan · Jun 4, 12:31 PM · #
One more kerstomping at the polls? Where was the conservative in the last election? McCain? He was terrible at articulating a Conservative position. Why? He is not conservative just like Bush wasn’t conservative in many respects.
— Eric Wickel · Jun 4, 12:45 PM · #
Eric,
Perhaps Ronald Reagan could win in 2012, insofar as he was the most talented conservative politician in his generation and the lifetime of most Americans. Then again, maybe FDR could win in 2012, since he was the most talented liberal politician. And maybe John F. Kennedy could win too, being the most charismatic politician in recent memory.
If what it takes for your movement to win is a once in a generation, exceptionally talented politician, you’re only going to win once in a generation. That’s not a very good strategy for effecting the long term change you want to see.
I’ll be addressing your other points in a piece of writing I’m working on now, so I’ll hold off for the time being, but thanks for the conversation.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Jun 4, 01:51 PM · #
Friedersdork,
Mark despises people like you because all you care about is winning elections. Mark tries to point out to all of you hacks that there is no point in winning elections if you compromise your principles. Sacrificing conservative values for the sake of winning elections is sacrificing the liberty of ourselves and our posterity. This country may be so brain-washed by pop culture, academia, post-modernist rhetoric, and the left wing press that American Conservatism may be lost and our liberty may be surrendered. That may be so, but I’ll be damned if I don’t go down without a fight! This is also what Mark believes. However, Mark is still optimistic that we can educate enough people about conservatism/classical liberalism that the pendulum can swing back in our favor. His style is his own, and if you don’t like it, tough shit. The First Amendment is there to protect offensive speech. It wouldn’t be necessary if nothing we said was offensive. Say what you want, but Mark Levin is a modern day Patrick Henry. Maybe some day you’ll discover the true value of liberty and Constitutionalism. There is something to be said about having solid principles that can’t be compromised. It’s actually very liberating. What are your principles anyway, Friedersdork? I believe you have none. I believe you’re a hack that is more concerned with being well-liked by liberals and winning elections than standing up for true liberty and limited government. It is people like you that have caused us to get where we are in the first place, by compromising your principles (if you have any) and allowing the left to go unchecked over the past 80 years (and especially the last 20 years). I don’t care about being well-liked by idiots who seek to compromise liberty. Those who espouse ideas that are contrary to individual liberty are my enemy, and I don’t care about being “well-liked” or “respected” by my enemy. As I stated earlier, there is no point to getting RINOs and phony conservatives elected if it results in losing our liberty. Now go watch MSNBC, nod in agreement with the “moderates”, and keep launching your “spitballs from the backbenches”.
Do you not like that tone? Well tough crap because I don’t like you! And I won’t hide behind a phony name like most bloggers. I’ve given you my name and email. Hell, I’ll even give you my phone number if you ask. Perhaps I can educate you a little on liberty. It’s a damn shame. I’m 22, and I get this stuff better than you. I understand how crucial it is to articulate true Reagan-conservatism in these trying times. You think that has earned me a lot of friends on campus? Hell no! But I’m happy with myself because I have PRINCIPLES, and I don’t compromise them just to make friends or be in good favor with my professors. Try it sometime. In the mean time though, enjoy the view from the back benches. I’ll be on the front-line in the War of Ideas trying to defend your liberty. In the words of Mark, “Thank me!”.
— Dan Heister · Jun 4, 05:52 PM · #
You think that has earned me a lot of friends on campus?
Oh, please don’t give us the answer. Let us guess.
— Wrongshore · Jun 4, 06:18 PM · #
Wrongshore,
Very clever (insert sarcasm). Do you have something intelligent to add? Or are you going to launch spitballs behind the protection of your screen name? I’m waiting.
— Dan Heister · Jun 4, 06:53 PM · #
One more thing, Wrongshore… If I cared about my views alienating people, I’d hide behind a screen name like you. However, some of us have to be on the front-line in this War of Ideas, and I’m proud to be one of them. I’d spend more time on here and give you and Friedersdork an ideological beat-down, but: 1) it’s too easy to do, and 2) I’m going to go wash my car because I have a date tonight. I’ll let you know how it goes.
— Dan Heister · Jun 4, 07:01 PM · #
Hey Conor, sorry but Mark Levin has connected with the conservative base and, on the whole, there are not many other legitimate media outlets that are able to do so. On top of that, his book “Liberty and Tyranny” is well written, well researched and is is full of information that can be effectively used to understand and refute ideological opponents.
As for his rhetoric, frankly, when I see what the democrats are doing to this nation I get angry too and I don’t blame Mr. Levin for blasting the drones. I too am frustrated with the double-standard of media coverage with the Sotomayor appointment (especially when contrasted with the way the democrats & the media reacted to the Roberts & Alito appointments) and Levin and Limbaugh are leading the charge in exposing the hypocrisy. It’s maddening and I can relate to Levin’s angry outbursts.
As far as “reasoned public discourse” is concerned, I’m sorry but that didn’t do much good for John McCain. He was the Maverick and he reached across the aisle and that certainly didn’t help his presidential bid.
Reasoned Public discourse didn’t apply to the left’s attacks on Sarah Palin, either. All of her “shortcomings” can easily be swatted away, especially when compared to those of our president. Inexperience, youth, lack of foreign policy gravitas. . . why wasn’t that a problem for Mr. Obama an why was she attacked so vociferously? That wasn’t reasoned public discourse, either.
Cap-and-trade, socialized medicine, trillion dollar deficits, the world apology tours, coddling Iran and chastising Israel, intimidation of auto execs and investors….the list goes on and on. There’s a lot to be angry about and Levin educates, informs and entertains us on a nightly basis.
Finally, if a democrat is stupid enough to call his show and wait 40 minutes to be ridiculed on a nationally syndicated radio program then, I’m sorry, he gets what he deserves. Reasoned public discourse be damned — I’ll take Levin over NPR any day!
— Whyte Narf · Jun 4, 07:18 PM · #
Sir Richard famously said this….
If a meme is to dominate the attention of a human brain, it must do so at the expense of “rival” memes.
What is the difference between inferior memes and memes that have no one capable of articulating them?
I hear a lot about the innate superiority of “conservative memes” but I do not know what they are.
Dan Heister has obviously never been stalked. I have, which is why I deleted my Facebook page.
Chacun a son goute
— matoko_chan · Jun 4, 07:30 PM · #
Whyte Narf,
Just out of curiosity, have you ever listened to Planet Money or This American Life on NPR? I guarantee you that either program would afford a much richer understanding of our present economic situation than Mr. Levin’s show (which isn’t a knock on Levin — they are doing better financial coverage than any other journalistic outlet in America).
W/r/t your other explanations, I am struck by how strongly your tastes, approach to rhetoric, and ethical standards are determined by your impression of the way that liberals are behaving.
Does it ever feel unnerving to give your ideological adversaries so much power over your life?
— Conor Friedersdorf · Jun 4, 08:16 PM · #
Conor,
It is unnerving that my ideological adversaries have power over my life. My ideological adversaries control the House, Senate, and the Presidency. However, I didn’t “give” them that power. I didn’t vote for them. And the Constitution I stand for is supposed to protect me from giving despots so much power in the first place.
I know what you meant by saying that. But the sad truth is that our ideological adversaries are trying to impose carbon taxes, government run health care, and overall economic control on us. And many “moderates” like yourself are doing nothing to stop it. You cave in to their demands.
— Dan Heister · Jun 4, 08:25 PM · #
I didn’t even realize you were one of the “Move to the Left, throw your principles under the bus, backbenchers” I was responding to your attacks on Levin for his rhetoric. I should have guessed. Anyway, so I guess we’re not on the same team. You can go ahead and move to the left right into the Democratic party with Powell and Specter and the rest of the nut jobs.
— Eric Wickel · Jun 4, 08:33 PM · #
Thanks for replying to my post! I appreciate that.
No to Planet Money but, Heavens to Betsy, a resounding “Yes” to T.A.L. I do enjoy Ira Glass but, hafta admit it, I find Mark Levin more informative and entertaining (except maybe when David Sedaris is on TAL). Personal preference, my friend.
I’ll have to read over what I wrote again but I think it’s presumptuous of you to assume that my ideological adversaries have any power at all in my life. I happen to have strong conservative opinions and there is no shame in feeling some heat inside when the dems are mucking things up and not being challenged by the national press corps. They politicians are out of my sphere of influence and I acknowledge that I have no control over their actions. At the same time, I don’t have to approve of those actions and I can attempt to exert some influence on those that don’t share my outlook and that I do come in contact with (like my brother in law — he’s a real drone).
Levin keeps me informed and entertained so I’ll keep listening and laughing at the occasional “get off the phone, you dummy” outburst. If you don’t like his rhetoric or is methods, turn him off & find another outlet.
Hey, maybe you’re the one that gives others too much power over your life! Remember what teacher told you in grade school: when your pointing your finger at someone else there are three other fingers pointing back at you.
— Whyte Narf · Jun 4, 09:49 PM · #
Whyte Narf:
You should listen to the episode Giant Pool of Money. If it doesn’t teach you more about the financial crisis than what is broadcast on Mr. Levin’s show I’d be shocked.
Then listen to The Super, not because it’s particularly informative, but because it’s hilarious.
Erik,
What does this term “backbencher” mean? I understand it is a phrase that Mr. Levin uses a lot, but when you’re communicating with the outside world, you’ve got to define your insider jargon or we won’t know what you’re talking about.
Also, please cite any instance in which I’ve “thrown my principles under the bus” (though I won’t hold my breath).
— Conor Friedersdorf · Jun 4, 10:01 PM · #
While Dr. Levin can be a bit on the coarse side, the real problem we need to focus on is that we have a strong divide amongst conservatives; those who are willing to fight, and those who are not. Those who think that we need to include more people and those that think we already include more people, if they only knew that we already included them. Dr. Levin’s language and hubris often result (if you actually listened to the show) from two very common and human areas. The first is his frustration with callers who are unwilling to use reason and logic (much like you Mr. Friedersdorf) to answer the most basic and simplest of questions. The second, is his genuine fear for his beloved county (which I share) along with his contempt for those who are doing near irreparable harm to it, and he expresses this in a manner similar to comics such as George Carlin. For someone who has their own website, it is rather disappointing that you lack the intellect, or capacity to comprehend what should otherwise be a very clear understanding of the Great One’s very powerful and well thought out political tactics.
I ask that you be part of the solution not part of the problem. It will make winning the 2010 midterm elections all that much easier.
— Thomas Hamilton · Jun 4, 10:07 PM · #
Hey, you’re not such a jerk after all (for a back-bencher). Anyone that enjoys TAL can’t be all bad. I don’t know if there are many of us Conservatives in that audience but, hey, it’s a free country (for now anyway). I’ve listened to the eps you referred to – they were tremendous. Problem is, TAL is broadcast weekly (with occasional repeat performances) and the rivetingly informative & entertaining Mark Levin show is a nightly occurrence.
Let’s agree to disagree here, Conor with one “N”. I think that Mark Levin is a tremendous talent. I think the media & the libs like to point at his outbursts and call him names but, at the same time, he scares the wits out of them. I look forward to reading your future posts because I think Mr. Levin is a straight shooter and that he routinely backs up his assertions with cold, hard facts.
Gotta go…the Great One is on the air now!
— Whyte Narf · Jun 4, 10:26 PM · #
Dr. Levin??????
Of what????
You can go ahead and move to the left right into the Democratic party with Powell and Specter and the rest of the nut jobs.
Well….ok….but…. we are taking General Petraeus with us too.
;)
— matoko_chan · Jun 4, 11:31 PM · #
He has a Jurist Doctorate, or don’t you know that is the degree you get when you graduate law school.
— Thomas Hamilton · Jun 5, 08:13 PM · #
Very clever (insert sarcasm).
Where would you like that inserted?
— Wrongshore · Jun 6, 12:03 AM · #
/shrug
Didn’t know he had a law degree…he sounds just like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck to meh.
Conspiracy, polls lie, conservative ideas will win if we jus get them out,obamasiah-media-bias-telepromper-nazi-stalin-ecession-socialism-ayers-communityorganizer-centerrightnation-wright-pointyheadedintellectuals-blah blah blah….blah de blahblah….BLAH!
…and no, tyvm, I’d rather poke lit bamboo slivers under my fingernails than either buy or read his book.
I just finished American Lion and I’m starting on The Complete Letters: Jefferson and Adams.
I can say with authority that Andy Jackson (war hero, patriot, and anti-secessionist) would have had Levin shot on sight and Jefferson (polymath, diplomat, and libertarian) would have utterly despised Levin as a populist demogogue.
— matoko_chan · Jun 6, 01:27 AM · #
Dr. Levin is not a conspiracy hack as you so claim. He hits almost everything right on point. He does not think that the US GOV or the Democrats are out to get anyone or try and seize and gain unlimited power subversively. He borrows from Alexis De Tocqueville and makes the claim that Obama is pushing this country in the direction of a soft tyranny.
Consider this; do you like the DMV? Do you think it is a great American institution? If not then why would we want more DMV’s? In the simplest of ways, that is what The Great One is saying. As far as our founders are concerned they would more likely then not have enjoyed the company of Levin, he is a hardworking constitutional lawyer who works toward less government (our founders had similar views).
And just to clarify
Populism- any of various, often antiestablishment or anti-intellectual political movements or philosophies that offer unorthodox solutions or policies and appeal to the common person RATHER than according with traditional party or partisan ideologies.
grass-roots democracy; working-class activism; egalitarianism.
representation or extolling of the common person, the working class, the underdog, etc.: populism in the arts.
Demagogue- a person, esp. an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, AND prejudices of the people.
To suggest that Dr. Levin is a populist is simply wrong as he suggests the party line, and actually proposes that the party go back to its founding (nothing especially unorthodox about that). Additionally Dr. Levin makes no direct references to anything other than grass roots movements but not because the people are working class but because he feels that the current administration is dangerous and needs to be changed. Again not for or about the working class but for all of the country rich, poor, ect. Obama could be defined as a populist not Levin.
Demagogue; while I guess he could be considered a demagogue, but by the strict definitional standards so is Obama, John F. Kennedy, and even your great Andrew Jackson, and many others founders and great presidents of our country; Teddy would be another good example of this. One uses oration to persuade, by logic AND emotion. Dr. Levin uses both he sites both original and 3rd party sources, and uses a combination of humor and angered vocal variety to persuade his audience. More than that though; in many instances he actually denounces prejudice, with much passion; which is key to the definition. It is not prejudice to strongly rather than weakly disagree.
One need not be Jim Leher to not be considered a demagogue.
— Thomas Hamilton · Jun 6, 05:44 PM · #
Shorter Hamilton— Levin strokes wounded conservative egos by telling us what we want to hear.
Memes are competitive—in this environment your memes sukk.
That is why you lost.
The last election was the political equivalent of the extinction event at the K-T boundary.
Refusal to evolve is not exactly a viable option, but you and Levin go right ahead, knock your bigselves out.
The dinosaurs failed to evolve too.
;)
— matoko_chan · Jun 6, 06:26 PM · #
And Levin is actually an Anger Whigga.
Like the black ghetto rappers in hiphop culture, the middleaged white guyz are powerless and disrespected.
What they representin’ is just anger and disenfranchisement. Thass all.
Like the Monster-shouter in Stepen King’s The Stand, the Anger Whiggas stand on radio/tv soapboxes and shout about Obama.
— matoko_chan · Jun 6, 06:35 PM · #
I have little response to your rather mediocre personal attacks at both Dr. Levin and possibly myself (I’m not sure as you were rather unclear). Try attacking the concepts of less government and free market solutions on point, rather than resorting to asinine personal attacks. We conservatives can and NEED to disagree on the various ways of executing policy solutions to the ubiquitous problems that beset our great country.
Why elect conservatives who are not conservative on anything? Why elect those who want to make government larger and more intrusive? Why not bring to the table that which we conservatives have lost? Finally why do self-hating conservatives always say they want change and new ideas and yet rally around the intellect and stability of the very thing that they supposedly oppose; free market/less government?
— Thomas Hamilton · Jun 6, 07:58 PM · #
Because, like Gen. Powell said, the electorate wants more government in the aftermath of the Econopalypse.
The electorate WANTS universal healthcare.
The electorate WANTS more regulation of free market capitalism, or as I prefer, survival of the greediest.
Free market/less government were failmemes.
That is why you lost. Evolve or go extinct works for memetic evolution also.
And here is a clearer and more detailed attack.
— matoko_chan · Jun 6, 09:59 PM · #
Perhaps rather than initiating more government as the ubiquitous fix for these various issues, we should take a look at what the root cause of the various failures have been. With the already heavy involvement of the government in the issues mentioned, there is inevitably finger pointing and grandstanding by the political figures involved, and a decided effort to cloud the issue if it plays out against the actions of one’s given party. Even in the dialogue of this post we have trouble seeing these issues in anything other than their political terms. We will need to make a decided effort to depoliticize the evaluation if we ever hope to arrive at answers that would be useful in understanding the problems.
We then would be better prepared to advance on a corrective action.
— nicholas · Jun 7, 01:37 AM · #
Why is it that liberals and self-hating conservatives always resort to misleading the rest of the world? Obama said that if we didn’t pass the stimulus bill unemployment would rise to 9% it’s 9.4% failed big government. The CBO is telling Obama that his spending plans are unsustainable yet he is trying to spend more. To make matters worse there is only one social welfare program to have ever had any shred of success; the federal unemployment program.
Social Security- Bankrupt for all intensive purposes
Medicare- Bankrupt for all intensive purposes
Medicaid- Bankrupt for all intensive purposes
Welfare- Useless it didn’t work until it kept getting revised, by house conservatives.
Then there’s Europe which has had sub par economic growth due to its burdensome taxation and social programs that simply don’t work the way they are supposed to.
While Collin Powell is right that America needs to change, but not by getting more liberal.
Conservatives need to add new fresh ideas and programs, but our values do not need to change. For example why not, instead of universal healthcare a critical care program, the government doesn’t cover everything; in fact it covers only expensive medical procedures. Adjustment from just coal and rather than cap and trade, or simple drilling why not use nuclear, or hard water nuclear (a cleaner type of nuclear). Pass flat tax or fair tax legislation.
Getting more liberal will not solve America’s problems it will only make them worse, especially when there are conservative solutions out there.
To make matters worse allowing public fear and animosity to control governmental policy making is a dangerous prospect. Republicans are evolving but we are going to evolve to find ourselves conservative with new ideas, but the discourse is still on going; but doesn’t include getting more liberal, it does include new ideas, and maybe even some old ones that make just as much sense as they did when were new.
— Thomas Hamilton · Jun 7, 01:51 AM · #
Republicans are evolving but we are going to evolve to find ourselves conservative with new ideas
But you jus’ told meh you don’t need new ideas..the old ideas will win…and that is simply not true.
Not in this environment.
And Levin is is selling you snake oil if you buy that.
— matoko_chan · Jun 7, 12:35 PM · #
Wakeup Conor Friedersdorf, it has been 5 days since your “under his skin” post. I’m waiting for your “future posts” on Levin. Why the delay? By any chance did someone send you Levin’s book: Liberty and Tyranny? Perhaps, you should critique his book. Critiquing printed material is more challenging than commenting on sound-bytes taken out of context. I challenge you to critique his book.
— Mike · Jun 7, 02:29 PM · #
Mike,
You’ll see my promised posts the week of June 15.
CRF
— Conor Friedersdorf · Jun 7, 05:47 PM · #
If you examine Levin very carefully what he is “selling” are values and principles, not significant policy suggestions. What I talked about were policy suggestions not values or principles. For example in the conservative Manifesto section of his book he asks that conservatives adopt new tax reform ideas. He doesn’t specifically say what, but he views taxation as a reducer of liberty, and therefore something that conservatives must reform again asking that conservatives become the party of more liberty. This also begs the value judgment that they are currently not, and two that democrats are not as concerned with liberty as conservatives. There are those that advocate specific policy change such as Neil Boortz.
There is one notable exception that I can think of and that is his stance on the Supreme Court. He advocates a constitutional amendment to make all Supreme Court decisions overturn able by a 2/3 majority in both the house and senate.
I didn’t say there was no need for change; I (and Dr. Levin) simply say that the change cannot come at the sacrifice of conservative principles and values.
I suggest that if you really want to know what Dr. Levin stands for that you pick up a copy of his book from e-bay/Amazon, or listen to the entire show for about 6 weeks otherwise you will simply get snippets of him getting fresh with callers.
— Thomas Hamilton · Jun 8, 01:54 PM · #
He advocates a constitutional amendment to make all Supreme Court decisions overturn able by a 2/3 majority in both the house and senate.
And you don’t find that horrifying?
Actually mob-rule has always been a conservative value….federalism is just localized mob-rule isn’t it?
Pardon, but that is simply moronic.
I will never read Levin just based on that idiocy.
— matoko_chan · Jun 9, 04:09 PM · #
Not that idiotic if you think about it in terms of our constitution.
In order to overturn a supreme court ruling the normal process is to amend the constitution (I site the 19th amendment as a perfect example). Dr. Levin is just suggesting that we skip the 2/3 approval by the states. The suggestion is not that radical even if I personally find the suggestion a little less than palatable.
But a RADICAL stretch not so much.
— Thomas Hamilton · Jun 9, 08:39 PM · #
I would like to comment that a 2/3 vote in both houses of congress is a very intriguing idea. What we have to remember is that the power of the court to overturn act’s of Congress as unconstitutional is not mentioned in the Constitution, and was in essence rammed through my John Marshall, the courts most important Chief Justice. That is not saying that it’s not a bad idea for the court to have this power, you just have to recognize the historical fact that is not an agreed upon aspect of our constitutional frame work. The great debate is, if we assume that the Constitution is the highest law of the land, which branch of government should have the authority to enforce that? Should it be the court? Should the President’s veto power represent the authority to veto unconstitutional acts? So as we can see, the idea that the Congress could overturn a SCOTUS decision by 2/3 is hardly radical, and actually makes sense considering the historical development of our Constitution.
— Cliff · Jun 9, 11:46 PM · #