Is It Possible to Call Yourself "The Great One" Without Growing Dogmatic?
“Conservatism should be held out as the only example of the antidote to tyranny.”
— Mark Levin (posted on his Twitter and Facebook feeds)
Even at the height of my feud with Mr. Levin, when I critiqued his rhetoric and he made fun of my name, I credited the talk radio host with possessing one of the most impressive intellects among his colleagues in right-wing media. Liberty and Tyranny may waste most of its attacks on straw men, but it ably lays out certain basic tenets of conservatism, so we know that its author is perfectly capable of conceiving pithy paeans to his belief system that are true.
But for some reason he is prone to making dogmatic statements so dubious that it is impossible to treat them charitably, because either the man is asserting things he doesn’t believe, or else his ideology has utterly blinded him to reality. Conservatism is one important factor that prevents free societies from becoming tyrannical. But it is not the only antidote to tyranny. Did conservatism end apartheid in South Africa? Or drive the British from India? Did the Allied powers led by Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin triumph over the tyranny of Nazi Germany via the antidote of conservatism? In the Spanish Civil War weren’t the eventual tyrants and the conservatives on the same side?
Mr. Levin’s statement may seem like a harmless untruth, especially if you’re someone who finds value in “rallying the base.” Upon reflection, however, it ought to be clear that it’s not only false, but harmful. Slowly but steadily, words like those turn thinking conservatives with defensible, reality-based beliefs into human talking points with an increasingly tenuous grasp on the comparative strengths and weaknesses of their belief system, and what it has to offer the world.
Convince a conservative that his belief system is the only method of ending tyranny the world has ever known and he will become hubristic, arrogant, and condescending, qualities that shrink movements rather than growing them. Whereas someone with a more realistic assessment of conservatism can persuasively articulate its actual strengths. Ever sat next to that uncle at Thanksgiving? The one you can’t talk to about politics? The guy whose pronouncements are so absurd that there isn’t even enough common ground for conversation?
I know how he got that way.
He listened to people like Mr. Levin. On doing so, he heard absurdities like, “Conservatism should be held out as the only example of the antidote to tyranny.” Several weeks later, sitting at the dinner table, his dogmatically liberal niece mentions something she’s been reading at college about Andrew Jackson’s execrable treatment of Native Americans.
“He was a tyrant,” she insists.
“Well, those Indians had their faults too,” the uncle replies, “—and another thing, they would’ve wound up better off if they were conservatives.”
“What does that even mean?” the niece says.
“It’s a fact,” he replies. “Conservatism is the only antidote to tyranny.”
Behold the many Mark Levin sycophants who, by lauding an absurd assertion, prove that they are the crazy aunts and uncles of American politics — well-meaning, lovable enough when they aren’t talking politics, and frighteningly able to suspend their critical thinking.
I’m no fan of Levin at all, but you seem to have contempt for non-intellectuals who consider themselves conservatives, such as “that uncle” type. Its apparent in many of your posts. You actually seem to relish these sorts of take downs more than fighting big government policies. To me the main issue of the day is fixing the economy and pushing back against the government expansion that has been going on for some time, but has now reached a certain critical mass. It is very ironic that writers like you and Frum are calling for a more broad-based conservativism or GOP. But you both do this by consistently attacking major chunks of the GOP’s and/or conservativism’s base. I understand that Levin isn’t broadening the base. But neither are you. I just find it odd – I look around and see an aggressive government expansion and an intelligencia that supports this expansion. Instead of taking up the debate, and doing it better and more accurately than the Levin-types, you are content to just mock the Levin-types. It just seems to be a waste of effot. Oh well…
— JC39 · Apr 2, 11:01 PM · #
JC39,
One of my projects is working to improve political discourse, especially on the right.
Another is opposing big government policies.
I don’t see these projects as being at odds with one another, and I think both are valuable, so I engage in both.
I’m also attuned to the fact that there are lots of folks on the right who are capably writing about policy — Reihan, Ross, Jim Manzi, Ramesh Ponnuru, Peter Suderman, and many others are adept at getting deep in the weeds on policy — whereas very few writers on the right consistently opine on public discourse, criticize those who do damage to it, or try to persuade people that they are doing damage, explaining why in specific terms, citing specific examples.
This is a worthwhile project for me in particular both because I am especially interested in public discourse, and because I don’t live in Washington DC, or aspire to a career in the conservative movement, or give a damn if Mark Levin or Glenn Beck invites me on his show to plug my book, or whatever. Someone like Jonah Goldberg is just never going to call these guys out… and SOMEONE has to do it, or their idiocies go unchallenged.
I’d prefer that it be me, as opposed to other scrupulously honest, honorable writers like Reihan, Peter, or Jim, because in my estimation — I haven’t spoken to them about this — they’re doing exceptional work within the movement, AND criticizing popular conservatives as much as I do both interests them less and would hurt their ability to have their excellent, necessary ideas taken seriously, assuming that they even agree with most of my critiques, which they may not.
That’s my always evolving thinking on this subject, anyway.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Apr 3, 12:03 AM · #
You realize, Conor, your chances of landing that nice AEI gig get slimmer every time you post like this?
— shecky · Apr 3, 05:57 AM · #
Thanks for your comment on your motivation. I actually entered the comment-section to write something similar to the first comment. I agree that discourse is an important topic, and I think it is right that you try and police it. But you might get more traction among conservatives if you posted sometimes on the vile discourse that can be found on the Left. (See, for example, Breitbart’s writeup at bigjournalism of the attempt to link the healthcare reform with civil rights, and then trying to bait protesters into making racist statements, and then lying about it when nothing happened).
You might say that this is already being done by other conservatives. True, but I think it is important for you to do it too because while Mark Levin is obnoxious, he does not currently have access to power. The discourse of Nancy Pelosi et al surely is worth some consideration, especially when it is being used to pass massive pieces of legislation. That you rarely, at least that I am aware of, comment on left-wing discourse makes it seem like you just snipe at conservatives when real, fundamental changes are occurring in this country. It would help your credibility (with me, at least) if your commentary on political discourse covered the people who actually govern in addition to conservatives.
— Peter · Apr 4, 12:57 AM · #
“(See, for example, Breitbart’s writeup at bigjournalism of the attempt to link the healthcare reform with civil rights, and then trying to bait protesters into making racist statements, and then lying about it when nothing happened).”
And here’s a nice example of the sort of intellectual degeneration that listening to right wing media can produce.
1. Linking health care reform may be dubious and overblown, but “vile”?
2. While it wouldn’t suprise me that liberals have tried to bait protestors into making fools of themselves, it’s pretty hard to be tricked into making a racist statement. How exactly do you “bait” a non-bigot into saying something racist?
3. Breitbart is a propagandist. Whatever else you might say about him, Friedersdorf is not.
Mike
— MBunge · Apr 4, 09:05 PM · #
What Peter said.
Also, in response to Mike, yes, linking the passage of health care reform with civil rights is vile and Breitbart is a new media pioneer who is doing great things for the conservative movement. Breitbart’s point about the John Lewis/CBC infamous walk is that they knew the images of their walk through the crowd would be provocative and they knew the media would pick up their story about racist statements without doing due diligence — which is what Breitbart actually did and found that Lewis and gang were a bunch of liars.
— Arminius · Apr 5, 01:58 AM · #
Arminius,
What exactly are the great things Mr. Breitbart has done for the conservative movement?
— Conor Friedersdorf · Apr 5, 03:02 AM · #
Great thing Mr. Breitbart has done for conservatives and conservatism: Investigative journalism, providing information that wouldn’t otherwise be available.
And no, Conor doesn’t know how the crazy uncle got to be that way, or even if there was a crazy uncle who said that. He made that story up. If he wants to preen his ego with conservative-bashing, he ought to stick to actual cases. He could also try setting a good example.
— The Reticulator · Apr 5, 05:25 AM · #
The Reticulator,
What information do we now have that wouldn’t otherwise be available? Recall that the ACORN videos were made by an independent activist filmmaker before the Big sites launched.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Apr 5, 09:59 AM · #
This improves discourse? Or is it the bitter fruit of having tried to improve the discourse of others through polemics?
How have you improved Levin, his listeners, or discourse through these unseemly rants?
If his book is so impressive, then tel me what is so well-said, or not, and why? Is it worth my time?
Levin obviously is not, so why are you telling me about him? His listeners are dumb, unthinking parrots? Is this breaking news, the funniest thing on facebook this week, or are you just helping us all reaffirm our presumptions that we are better than those who are so astonishingly foul?
My uncle always said, if you can’t find something constructive to say about something your’re probably wasting your words on it. He said that a lot. About the only thing I ever heard him say.
I suppose saying conservatism should be held out as the only antidote to tyranny requires a lot of elaboration. But since when was tyranny not the ultimate, extreme radicalization of politics? And isn’t radicalism exactly what conservatism is against?
But since I’m just an ignorant uncle, I’ll take it for granted you’ve already articulated to yourself why, despite how provocative and potentially profound it may seem to us dolts, it is a patently absurd assertion.
But I still don’t think it is quite as silly as saying that someone who thinks “that his belief system is the only method of ending tyranny the world has ever known and he will become hubristic, arrogant, and condescending, qualities that shrink movements rather than growing them. Whereas someone with a more realistic assessment of conservatism can persuasively articulate its actual strengths.”
In what political world has it ever been true in that those with strong dogmatic conviction don’t convince more people and win more victories than those who are always going around articulating actual reality?
— Uncle Blimpy · Apr 5, 03:26 PM · #
The problem with the critics in these comments is that they view every aspect of the public debate as a matter of teams. Wouldn’t it be more productive to criticize the left? Maybe it would be or maybe someone needs to shake up the bubble in which Levin and his fans live.
In either case, it is not the responsibility of every writer on the right to tow the line and behave like a team player, if only because there aren’t always teams. There are people who agree with one another and people who come together on campaigns or simply to vote for the same candidate, but the public discourse is seriously stifled when writers feel they can only make statements and observations that make their ideological compatriots look good.
You end up with meaningless platitudes, self-serving analysis of the motives of the other side and generally unenlightening dreck masquerading as discussion. Nobody learns anything about the world around them and nobody is forced to take a harder look at their own positions. It’s 90% of what passes for discussion these days and it’s poisonous.
— rj · Apr 7, 03:05 PM · #