Afraid of Mark Levin at The Corner
On the part of The Corner where Kathryn Jean Lopez, Andrew McCarthy, and Jonah Goldberg stand, political discourse operates according to a stark, indefensible double-standard whereby conservative entertainers with large audiences must be handled with kid gloves, if criticism is permitted at all, whereas tough rhetoric aimed at anyone else is perfectly acceptable, and popular conservative entertainers themselves engage in the most outrageous rhetoric imaginable over a period of many years with nary a word of objection. [UPDATE: On reflection, I think it is a bit unfair to lump Mr. Goldberg’s post in with that of his colleagues — though ultimately flawed for reasons I get into below, it is the least unfair of the three by a wide margin.]
Only in this rigged universe could Jim Manzi find himself chided for being impolite to Mark Levin, the man who literally maintains a Web page that mocks the names of people who have argued with him in the past — one that includes at least two former contributers to National Review, though that affiliation didn’t do them any good when the neighborhood bully who actually calls himself “The Great One” last attacked, and no one on The Corner stood up to him. This kind of double-standard is what allows Mr. McCarthy to criticize intemperance one minute, and in his very next post on the subject to call Mr. Manzi’s post “appalling” and “pompous,” and imply that it is characterized by “illogic, nastiness and outright dishonesty” — apparently that doesn’t bother Mr. McCarthy, or upset Ms. Lopez or Mr. Goldberg enough to chide the former prosecutor for his rhetoric.
This kind of exchange causes everyone who writes for The Corner to wonder what exactly they’re “allowed” to say without certain of their colleagues scolding them, focusing on their tone while utterly ignoring the substance of what they say, and otherwise making it appear as though untouchable status at National Review is granted via some formula: it considers size of radio audience, quantity of additional books one expects to sell on being invited on their show, and potential career damage should the conservative entertainer in question turn against you in private, or else instruct the least thoughtful sycophants in his audience to wage ideological jihad against you. As I know from experience, Mr. Levin has lackey bloggers who’ll willingly launch character attacks against anyone at his slightest urging.
Mr. McCarthy, Ms. Lopez and Mr. Goldberg focused this conversation around tone precisely because there is no substantive rebuttal to what Mr. Manzi wrote. Look at this post. After criticizing Mr. Manzi for most of it, Mr. Goldberg writes, “As for that substance, I’m a bit more in Jim’s camp than Mark’s.” Recall, dear reader, the substance of Jim’s post: that the treatment of climate change in Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny was “awful. It was so bad that it was like the proverbial clock that chimes 13 times — not only is it obviously wrong, but it is so wrong that it leads you to question every other piece of information it has ever provided.”
Mr. Manzi’s piece concludes:
Liberty and Tyranny does not present a reasoned overview of the global warming debate; it doesn’t even present a reasoned argument for a specific point of view, other than that of willful ignorance. This section of the book is an almost perfect example of epistemic closure.
Considering the substance of Mr. Manzi’s argument, how can one be “a bit more” on his side? Does Mr. Levin’s book encourage willful ignorance… but just barely? I don’t understand the code that would allow one to side with Mr. Manzi on the substance of this subject, and to refrain from criticizing the substance of Mr. Levin’s work.
In his post, Mr. Goldberg writes:
Mark Levin’s a big boy who is certainly not afraid to dish it out. And I think it is perfectly fair to point out that sometimes he dishes it out quite harshly himself, and then hits his victims over the head with the dish and the frying pan, and then dunks the victim’s head in the lobster tank. I don’t blame him for being shocked at the tone and tenor of an attack coming from such a friendly and collegial quarter. But here’s the important thing: at the end of the day he responded with substance, and that’s as it should be.
But Mr. Goldberg does not respond with substance (most hilariously when he for some reason brings Andrew Sullivan into this via a blog post Mr. Manzi wrote in 2008), nor does Ms. Lopez.
Everyone at The Corner is aware that Jim Manzi is among the most prolific opponents of the Obama Administration’s agenda on climate change. They know how vital his intellectual contributions on this subject have been. So they can’t help but appreciate the brazen mendacity of Mark Levin taking to Facebook to call Mr. Manzi “a global warming zealot.”
Having seen a colleague attacked in a way that isn’t merely intemperate, but factually wrong in the most obvious and extreme way, do they correct the record, or chide Mr. Levin for spreading an outrageous lie that misleads his audience and disparages National Review’s most knowledgeable writer on the subject of global warming?
They do not.
Arguably, the standard is that Corner contributors can be as intemperate as they like on their own web pages or on facebook, but that some of the Corner contributors would prefer a more civil discourse on the Corner itself. You might not like that standard, but it’s not a double standard, just one that you don’t like.
It’s also worth noting that (1) Jim’s piece got published, strong language and all, and (2) even the strongest critics (other than Levin) aren’t saying that Jim shouldn’t call Levin’s book closeminded and wrong, just that he should do so a little more politely on the Corner itself.
— J Mann · Apr 23, 06:04 PM · #
If I may repeat myself from the bottom of the last post…since I seem to be tracking with Conor exactly:
What I think you’re not getting is that the substance of the disagreement really isn’t the point at all. Manzi (or someone else) could have written very similar articles focusing on very similar books by very similar authors on very similar topics, and it would likely be playing out the same way. The problem is that criticism of an ally is something to be laughed at, ignored, sneered at, or misdirected. They don’t engage on the merits of the issue, being more interested in the style.
That is the mark of the closure of a mind.
I’ll ask another question I asked earlier too: people keep bringing up the Corner’s publication of Manzi’s post as if it clear them from all other responsibility to treat it seriously, but does anyone using this argument know anything about their publication procedures?
— Andrew · Apr 23, 06:10 PM · #
I think it’s useful for conservatives to make a distinction between constructive criticism and no-holds-barred attacks on each other. The former can be productive of a more intelligent movement, the latter will leave only the most aggressive and mindless standing — which is the direction we’re headed in.
— Chris · Apr 23, 06:17 PM · #
that some of the Corner contributors would prefer a more civil discourse on the Corner itself. You might not like that standard, but it’s not a double standard, just one that you don’t like.
Of course, as Conor points out, neither Kathryn-Jean Lopez nor Andy McCarthy engaged with civil discourse on the Corner itself.
— Freddie · Apr 23, 06:21 PM · #
It is my impression that a number of Corner contributors have the privilege of posting immediately without going through an editor. People sometimes post at 2AM; that has to be on their own authority. I’d have thought Jim Manzi would have such access. It certainly seems as if Katherine Lopez et al. were very surprised at the initial post.
The second post didn’t appear until 20+ minutes after it appeared here at American Scene, so perhaps his privilege was revoked and his posts must now pass review, but there are other benign possible explanations.
— Rollins · Apr 23, 06:23 PM · #
“Arguably, the standard is that Corner contributors can be as intemperate as they like on their own web pages or on facebook, but that some of the Corner contributors would prefer a more civil discourse on the Corner itself. You might not like that standard, but it’s not a double standard, just one that you don’t like.”
Do you read The Corner? To suggest that Manzi’s post was any more intemperate than normal (especially what’s normal for folks like Levin, VDH and the Derb) isn’t arguable, it’s laughable.
Mike
— MBunge · Apr 23, 06:24 PM · #
Conservatism is a tribe, not an ideology. GOP/Tea protesters weren’t out there in the streets when a Republican was running up the debt, claiming federal and executive power, and invading a country for no reason. They supported Bush Jr. every bit as much as they did the budget-busting Reagan: http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1698
Manzi attacked one of the higher members of the tribe. The tribe reasserts the pecking order. This was very predictable.
— Elvis Elvisberg · Apr 23, 06:30 PM · #
Andrew:
Their publication procedure are that if you have admin capacity on the Corner, you can post stuff there. I am not sure I understand what you are asking, or why you think it is so important. As for this from Conor:
“conservative entertainers with large audiences must be handled with kid gloves, if criticism is permitted at all”
Not sure why you add “if criticism is permitted at all.” Clearly it is. You have seen the post. So have I. It’s critical. Right? So why are we wondering if it’s permitted.
As for why Levin has to be handled with kid gloves… was he handled with kid gloves? Is that how you analyze Manzi’s post? If Levin can only be addressed in admirable and deferential tones… how do you account for the fact that he didn’t? Was the post removed? As far as I can tell, not only did the Corner leave the post up, they allowed Levin to respond. And then allowed Manzi to respond.
Now, as for whether it’s fair for established people to get a little prickly when a young person takes a shot at them… do you expect the world to work differently? Do you think it would be normal for writers at Harper’s editorial assistants to write editorials on the topic of “Six reasons Lewis Lapham is an idiot”? Or for someone at The New Republic to pen a treatise on “Gosh, Marty Peretz is a gargantuan fraud”? Even if these young writers bring a lot of evidence to the table?
Seriously. You simply can’t IMAGINE why best-selling authors with a gargantuan following media are treated differently than people who aren’t and don’t? I have to say, if that is your standard, every single publication in the world is epistemically closed.
You would have a much better case if Manzi had been fired. Or if the post had been taken down. And maybe that will happen. But to sit around and act like it shocks the sensibilities for a different people to be treated differently… come on.
Manzi has a string, strong dislike for the work of Mark Levin, who, for better or worse, is a conservative superstar. National Review gave manzi a platform from which to launch an attack on Levin. Levin responded. Manzi countered. Now manzi is regarded by even more people as a rising star. I would be shocked if this does not result in even more and better platforms for his work.
Poor, poor Jim. Let’s hope K-Lo didn’t hurt his feel bads.
In the meantime, as we all sit around and lambaste NRO for focusing on Manzi’s tone, I would point out that everything I have seen here in response has been… about NRO’s tone.
— Sam M · Apr 23, 06:31 PM · #
I love how Sam M willfully ignores both essential aspects of this little dust up.
1. Was Manzi’s criticism of Levin correct?
2. Was the tone of his criticism unusual or beyond the norm for what you normally see at The Corner in general and from Levin in particular.
Mike
— MBunge · Apr 23, 06:44 PM · #
I might add that I consider Levin to be almost intolerable as a writer and as a radio host. So much so that I wish that some magazine would give dissenters an opportunity to call him out on his various absurdities.
Wait. NRO did that.
I fail to see the problem, or how that amounts to muzzling Jim Manzi.
As of today, how many people on the right have been exposed to the idea that Levin is a dufus? How many read it here? How many read it at National Review? I think more read it at the Corner.
How does this amount to them cutting off the debate or operating in an echo chamber?
— Sam M · Apr 23, 06:47 PM · #
Jeez Conor…..
“What I think you’re not getting is that the substance of the disagreement really isn’t the point at all.”
BIG lie….mega-lie in fact.
Dr. Manzi is the pre-emminant conservative expert on global warming.
He just SAID global warming is real.
That is anathema to conservative doctrine.
and still it moves….
— matoko_chan · Apr 23, 06:47 PM · #
I think it’s a unfair to lump Goldberg’s response in with McCarthy and K-Lo’s, though I do wish he had gone further.
— Tom Meyer · Apr 23, 06:48 PM · #
Words are only the skin of a living thought, and I thought I would save some. Since the norm is not written, and is evolutionary, any attempt to describe it will be incomplete.
1) I agree with the substance of Jim’s post 100%. But it is harsh in tone. It’s not the tone I would use to someone’s face to tell them that I thought they were wrong, since it would be guaranteed to cause offense and not have any chance of convincing them.
2) Conor was using off-corner posting to establish the “double standard”, so that’s what I focused on. I guess you’re right that Corner posters use similar language about non-conservatives like Michael Moore or that guy who thought that Guam was going to tip over. I guess “disagree civilly with other Corner posters” is something of a double standard, in the same way as “be nice to people’s face” is a double standard, but it’s not one that establishes closed mindedness, just relative courtesy.
— J Mann · Apr 23, 06:50 PM · #
“1. Was Manzi’s criticism of Levin correct?
2. Was the tone of his criticism unusual or beyond the norm for what you normally see at The Corner in general and from Levin in particular.”
1. Yes. I don’t know how to make that more clear. I think Manzi is right.
2. It was beyond the norm for the Corner, yes, especially for inter-conservative strife. But not for Levin. I think he’s far worse. And as mentioned above, I find him intolerable.
Now answer my questions. You seriously can’t imagine any other scenario in which young people who do not write best-sellers and do not have gargantuan multi-media empires are typically addressed differently than other people? Honestly? At the company picnic for CBS News, everybody talks to Katie Couric the same way they talk to everybody? You honetly believe that? And that this is evidence of some kind of closure on the right?
Have you ever worked anywhere, for anybody? Most places I have worked, a diatribe like the one Manzi unleashed, directed at one of the superstars, would have led to Manzi’s immediate dismissal and the immediate dismantling of the offending post.
This is not your experience? It’s not your experience in media? Please, point me to examples of this.
— Sam M · Apr 23, 06:53 PM · #
Sam,
You’re the one who brought up, on the last post, the publication of Manzi’s piece as evidence that NRO is not “closed.” I’m engaging your argument, asking questions about it so that I can now point out that if Manzi had non-reviewed post privileges, then the publication of the piece doesn’t mean anything at all. Yes, they could have removed it, but I suspect they’re too smart to do something that stupid, after it had already been read by many.
“But to sit around and act like it shocks the sensibilities for a different people to be treated differently… come on.”
I don’t see shock from anyone, just disappointment.
“Poor, poor Jim. Let’s hope K-Lo didn’t hurt his feel bads.”
Comments like this lower the level of discourse, especially since no one has expressed such a sentiment. They also make me wonder if you’re really arguing in good faith.
“In the meantime, as we all sit around and lambaste NRO for focusing on Manzi’s tone, I would point out that everything I have seen here in response has been… about NRO’s tone.”
Who is attacking NRO’s tone? Maybe Levin or his facebook fans have been criticized for tone, but who had criticized any of the other commentators? McCarthy has been ridiculed for attacking Manzi’s tone as overly harsh while being very harsh himself in the very same post, but that’s hardly an exclusive focus on tone.
I have a substantive disagreement with the Corner crowd: that they seem unwilling or incapable of engaging Manzi’s argument on its merits, such as they are. Who even (besides matoko) thinks they should just surrender and say declare Levin a buffoon and Manzi a hero?
They refuse to do what any collegian knows how to do: seriously examine an argument, praise its merits and criticize its flaws.
— Andrew · Apr 23, 06:54 PM · #
I think there are two separate questions here.
1) Is it reasonable for the Corner posters Conor calls out to try to establish a civility norm that applies Corner postings about Mark Levin, but not to Corner postings about Nancy Pelosi? (And not to Facebook postings about anybody). IMHO, yes. It’s common and defensible, in the same way that I can hope that people who come to my dinner parties might say cutting things about people in the news, but not about people in the news who are present at the dinner party.
2) The more serious question, IMHO, is: Now that Manzi has raised the issue, do the other Corner posters have an obligation to take sides on the substantive issue? (I.e., whether Levin’s analysis of global warming is wrong.) AFAICT, Goldberg, in the gentlest, quietest possible way short of actual silence, sided with Manzi, and everybody else has stayed out of it.
There is an overlap if you think people are using the calls for civility to avoid the substantive question.
IMHO, (1) the calls for civility are appropriate,[*] and (2) some more posters should stand up in Jim’s side of the substantive debate. IMHO, Levin doesn’t do the cause any good making arguments so far gone to be unsupportable, particularly when there are good arguments to be made.
The other side of it is the “no enemeies to the left of me” side, which is that Levin’s argument, while wrong on the facts, is on the correct side of the policy debate, and that internecine fighting weakens the effort to prevent affirmatively bad things like cap and trade. I don’t agree with this argument, but it’s made on both the left and the right, and I understand it, even if I ultimately reject it.
[*] I’m not saying Jim did anything wrong, just that calls for civility are how a norm gets established.
— J Mann · Apr 23, 07:07 PM · #
Who even (besides matoko) thinks they should just surrender and say declare Levin a buffoon and Manzi a hero?
no, actually I just think they should accept empirical scientific evidence of global warming.
I don’t think Levin is a buffoon…..I know he is a global warming denialist, and coincidentally that is the official position of NRO….that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by liberals, scientists, intellectuals and elites to seize power.
Dr. Manzi IS my hero.
He exemplifies the true conservative ideology of risk and cost viability assessment established in a framework of scientific investigation.
If you have read any of his pieces on gw, he is not saying gw doesn’t exist, but quantifying the risk and asking if we can afford intervention, and what level of intervention would actually ameliorate the risk.
He is doing his conservative job of checking and balancing the extremes of progressivism.
— matoko_chan · Apr 23, 07:08 PM · #
I’m going to coin the term “shock-blogging” if it isn’t taken.
— mike farmer · Apr 23, 07:10 PM · #
J Mann “civility” has nothing to do with epistemic closure.
Rejection of gw as a scientific fact, and looking real hard the other way to ignore empirical data, are examples of epistemic closure.
— matoko_chan · Apr 23, 07:11 PM · #
J Mann,
Thanks for phrasing the issues more succinctly than I have been able to. I see that some people are concerned about the first issue even though it doesn’t worry me much. This is the internet, after all, so I don’t expect civility from any quarter, although when it appears (such as here!) it is to be praised.
The second question is the crux of the matter, even if I will quibble with your phrasing at least a bit. I don’t know that they have an obligation to take sides, but I do believe they have an obligation to engage the substance of the argument.
— Andrew · Apr 23, 07:19 PM · #
matoko_chan,
How do you know what the “official position of NRO” is on global warming? Are the voices inside your head telling you “special information” about NRO again?
— Arminius · Apr 23, 07:27 PM · #
Goldberg and McCarthy are pussies. They looked at the two combatants, figured Levin would kick their asses harder than Manzi (and commands a larger mob), and sided with the bully they fear more. It helps that they know as little about climate science as Mark Levin, but they’d both puss exactly the same way if they weren’t stupider than Mark Steyn and Katharine Lopez combined.
— McLovin' · Apr 23, 07:31 PM · #
Conor says “this kind of exchange causes everyone who writes for The Corner to wonder what they’re ‘allowed’ to say.” How does he know this? Did he ask them? Does he think that Goldberg had that reaction? (He’s included in “everyone”, isn’t he?) What about Ramesh?
The Ponnuru/Derbyshire dust-ups apparently haven’t convinced people that they’re allowed to say whatever they want, and neither have the K-Lo/Stuttaford disagreements. No, they’ve been wondering, because Manzi published a heated attack on a famous conservative entertainer, and then his colleagues suggested his tone was overheated, and then Manzi wrote again. Why, if getting a reaction to a heated attack doesn’t teach you, nothing will.
(Conor of course is playing the same game, less successfully. The fact that NRO doesn’t link is an example of how they silence him, and if they do link and disagree, well, that’s more of the same.)
— Thomas · Apr 23, 07:51 PM · #
Arminus, lauding Levin is an official position.
I can link dozens of posts “questioning” the scientific authority of global warming…..there was a whole mock site called Planet Gore.
Link me someone besides Manzi that acknowledges gw as a fact.
Once again….knowing how Dr. Manzi operates….I hypothesize that this is a clever field experiment in quantizing the epistemic closure of the consensus conservative mind.
And K-Lo, Goldberg, McCarthy and NRO en banc are simply validating Sanchez’s meme.
All NRO has to do to disprove Sanchez is address Dr. Manzi on substance.
I don’t think they can.
:)
— matoko_chan · Apr 23, 07:53 PM · #
/sigh
Thomas, again, the issue Dr. Manzi is testing for epistemic closure is NOT who can disagree at NRO…..it is can conservatives disagree from official conservative consensus memetics on global warming?
From empirical data avaiable, it would appear the answer is no.
— matoko_chan · Apr 23, 07:57 PM · #
“You seriously can’t imagine any other scenario in which young people who do not write best-sellers and do not have gargantuan multi-media empires are typically addressed differently than other people? Honestly? At the company picnic for CBS News, everybody talks to Katie Couric the same way they talk to everybody? You honetly believe that? And that this is evidence of some kind of closure on the right?”
1. You claim to find Levin intolerable. You then claim it’s entirely appropriate and right for him to be insulated from the precise sort of attention and rhetoric that might make others recognize his intolerability. There’s something in your thinking that does not compute.
2. If Katie Couris were at the CBS News picnic, making a complete ass of herself and spreading lies, I would certainly hope someone would make an issue of it, even if the only one with the guts to do so was a lowly intern.
I have to say, I don’t think I’ve ever encountered anyone who argued so strongly in favor of boot-licking sycophancy. You really do see something new every day.
Mike
— MBunge · Apr 23, 08:00 PM · #
matoko, Manzi is the conservative consensus on climate change. He embodies it. Can Levin disagree? Yes, he did and appears to have survived.
— Thomas · Apr 23, 08:29 PM · #
Taking a step back, pretending for a moment that we haven’t seen this before from NR, considering Manzi’s prominent role in justifying opposition to Democratic policy proposals on climate change, and the fact that knowledgeable conservatives are well aware of the fact that Levin’s book is … more red meat for the base than an intellectually rigorous endeavor … and the whole thing is astonishing.
I mean, one could imagine a behind-the-scenes conversation where the NR gang & other movement figures say to Jim “look, we know you’re right, but Levin serves his purpose and you’re doing the movement no favors.” But publicly trashing Manzi and defending Levin is … astonishing.
But I don’t think it’s so much evidence of epistemic closure. It’s evidence that certain popular/powerful media personalities on the right are beyond criticism. And in the long run that is damaging both for movement conservatism and the nation as a whole.
— LarrryM · Apr 23, 09:04 PM · #
Moreover, consider for a moment which is worse:
(1) The scenario where the “official position” of the NR is global warning denial, and dissent from the orthodoxy is met with vicious attacks (we’ll call it the matoko_chan position), or
(2) The scenario where the writers from the NR know well that Levin is full of shit, on this issue at least (certainly the smart ones do, and even dim bulb Goldberg seems to), but where they feel compelled to attack Manzi (and defend Levin) anyway based upon Levin’s powerful media position, the perceived need to pander to the base, end general conservative tribalism.
The latter it seems to me is both a more accurate description of reality & at the same time an even more worrisome state of affairs.
— LarrryM · Apr 23, 09:12 PM · #
“dissent from the orthodoxy is met with vicious attacks”
let me fix that for you Larry.
dissent from the orthodoxy is met with fevered misdirection, throwing tone chaff, or studiously pretending Dr. Manzi didn’t say anything.
the only thing that dissent from the orthodoxy IS NOT met with is substance and intellectual debate.
— matoko_chan · Apr 23, 11:47 PM · #
No Thomas….the conservative consensus on climate change is that the science is suspect, embodied by Mr. Levin’s chapter.
Have you considered ….what a horrific event this is for NRO and conservatism in general?
Manzi just pulled the lichpin on the core conservative belief system of the fallibility of scientists, and the fallibilty of science.
— matoko_chan · Apr 23, 11:54 PM · #
“if Manzi had non-reviewed post privileges, then the publication of the piece doesn’t mean anything at all.”
What are you talking about? manzi’s views on GW are quite well known. He made his reputation on it. His attack on Levin did not offer a departure from his previous work. And yet… NRO gave him posting privilieges.
As for this: “Who is attacking NRO’s tone?”
Did you actually read the post you are commenting on?
“This kind of double-standard is what allows Mr. McCarthy to criticize intemperance one minute, and in his very next post on the subject to call Mr. Manzi’s post “appalling” and “pompous,” and imply that it is characterized by “illogic, nastiness and outright dishonesty” — apparently that doesn’t bother Mr. McCarthy, or upset Ms. Lopez or Mr. Goldberg enough to chide the former prosecutor for his rhetoric. “
The whole crux of the case against NRO in this debate is that K-Lo and McCarthy swwoped in and lambasted Manzi’s tone.
— Sam M · Apr 24, 02:17 AM · #
“1. You claim to find Levin intolerable. You then claim it’s entirely appropriate and right for him to be insulated from the precise sort of attention and rhetoric that might make others recognize his intolerability.”
No I don’t. Please pay close attention. I find it neither right nor appropriate. I find it to be the way of the world, and the way things work at all publications. And therefore, it does not serve as any evidence whatsoever that the right is uniquely closed, epistemically or otherwise.
NRO is currently hosting a much needed debate about global warming, between manzi and Levin. Levin is getting stomped. And this is terrible… why? And it proves that NRO is unwilling to host important debates… how? And that upstarts cannot attack established pundits… how?
All these things are happening at NRO. And all you can do is complain about it because K-Lo swooned a bit.
Talk about closure. Maybe next time they WILL screen comments before posting them. Allowing people like Manzi to attack people like Levin does not seem to satisfy ths crew.
— Sam M · Apr 24, 02:24 AM · #
Sam, respectfully, I’d say this is a prime example of the cognitive dissonance we’re dealing with here. Levin is NOT, in any meaningful way, shape, or form, getting “stomped”, at least insofar as The Corner is concerned. The vast majority of the posts we’ve been seeing have been highly critical of Manzi, with only Goldberg making a glancing remark on Manzi being right on the merits of the issue.
Maybe K-Lo and company have a point w/r/t Manzi’s tone – I thought it was an entirely appropriate to Levin’s work, but tastes differ – but it’s utterly nuts (and yes, a sign of “epistemic closure”) that nobody says a word against Levin describing Manzi as a “global warming zealot,” even though Manzi was National Review‘s go to guy half a year ago when it came time to attack Cap and Trade.
I mean, seriously – it’s hard to imagine a better example of a “we have always been at war with Eastasia” moment than this. National Review cannot lay claim to any kind of serious intellectual rigor or honesty when they’re willing to, at best, stand by and say nothing while one of their smartest guys is baselessly smeared by one of their big earners.
All that said, I’d REALLY like to see Reihan’s take on this, either here or at The Agenda. Perhaps he can come up with some sort of intellectual framework to smooth over the differences between his National Review colleagues and his American Scene brethren, but this looks like a pretty clear-cut case of having to choose his side to me.
— Chris · Apr 24, 06:54 AM · #
Thank you for your post, I like it.
— NFL jerseys · Apr 24, 09:20 AM · #
Oh yeah.
I simply cannot wait for Reihan to train the big guns of his “playful intellectualism” on Manzigate.
Incase you haven’t noticed posting privs at NRO (for Reihan at least) came with an obligatory intellectual castrastion.
By all means, bring that on.
/flexes engineer motie tool arms
— matoko_chan · Apr 24, 11:14 AM · #
“The vast majority of the posts we’ve been seeing have been highly critical of Manz”
All two of them? From K-Lo and McCarthy? So the editor who pays the guy and his buddy have objected to someone attacking the Levin in a tone that even manzi admits is harsh.
In the meantime, all of the other 200 people who post at the Corner did the unthinkable and allowed Levin and Manzi to hash it out on their own. Which the Corner gave them the space to do however they saw fit. Sumbitches! The gall! I just cannot believe that they did not erect a brinze statue of manzi, rename the magazine “The Journal of Thinking Conservatives Who Agree with manzi about Global Warming,” commission a famous portrait artist to paint a picture of Levin with doo-doo in his pants, and toilet paper his house.
Seriously. manzi sat down one day and said, “Levin’s book is a terrible piece of garbage. I want to say that it’s a terrible piece of garbage, I want to say it to conservatives, and I want to do it in really harsh fashion.”
He did so at National Review. Which then allowed Levin to respond and Manzi to counter.
And the conclusion we draw from that is that National Review is not willing to allow any criticism of prominent conservative pundits.
Amazing.
I don’t disagree that there is an echo chamber. But I have a very hard time seeing that in this instance. So much so that it makes me ownder about the people making that charge. Three days ago, when nobody was chalenging people like levin at the Corner, we said, “Epistemic closure!” Now that someone is doing it, we see that as evidence of… what? You guessed it.
This horse is well past dead, so this is my last on it. But this is pretty clear evidence to me that a lot of people are defining closure to mean “has the temerity to disagree with me.”
— Sam M · Apr 24, 12:20 PM · #
2. If Katie Couris were at the CBS News picnic, making a complete ass of herself and spreading lies, I would certainly hope someone would make an issue of it, even if the only one with the guts to do so was a lowly intern.
You could hope that, but it wouldn’t happen, and there is no historical basis for expecting it to happen. Not from someone on her side of the ideological aisle.
— The Reticulator · Apr 24, 03:52 PM · #
Sam-
You seem to have retreated from your earlier claim that Levin was getting “stomped” – I’d surely like to see evidence of such on NRO, if you can point to it.
Think of this in terms of “The Emperor’s New Clothes” – Manzi pointed out that Levin was, figuratively speaking, naked, and the response was, essentially, “How rude of you to say so like that!”
You’re saying that it’s a sign of open-mindedness that Manzi was allowed to post at all, rather than being, I don’t know, taken out back and shot. But speaking a truth and having it ignored is essentially the same as not speaking a truth at all. You mock the idea that other writers on the Corner should have rushed to celebrate Manzi for his genius, but the whole point of rational debate and consideration – which is what the Corner at least pretends to be – is to come to a better understanding of what actually is true.
If they’re not going to do that, then the Corner is basically a long-form version of conservative Twitter, where everybody can post whatever they want but it’s all essentially meaningless, because there’s no effort to agree on what posts are true or not, what posts are important or not, and how those ideas can and should influence conservatism as a whole.
Which is fine if that’s what it is. But if so, we should recognize that truth, and agree that, at The Corner at least, there is no conservative intellectualism, because the truth-value of various statements won’t be judged. Maybe Levin’s naked, maybe not, it’s not up to the denizens of Corner to decide or comment on.
And if you’re pushing that line of argument, Sam, then you’re basically saying that The Corner can’t be close-minded because it has no mind to speak of – it doesn’t think, it just speaks. That’s not exactly a win for conservatism.
— Chris · Apr 24, 04:07 PM · #
Let me take a moment to add that, as someone who thinks AGW is a big problem and Cap and Trade (preferably in a stronger form than what passed the House) is a step in the right direction, I actually consider what’s happening to Manzi as a win for my side.
From my POV, I still think Manzi’s quite wrong about climate change, and far too willing to make statements along the lines of “McIntyre and McKitrick disproved Mann’s Hockey Stick”. (See comments here for discussion and Jim’s ultimate lack of rebuttal.) But he’s still head-and-shoulders above guys like Levin, and insofar as his job is to give conservatives intellectual cover for not wanting to to anything about AGW, he does his job well.
What we’re seeing from The Corner, however, is that they consider even Manzi’s level of acceptance of AGW to be going too far, and are more than willing to stick with Levin’s level of argumentation on why AGW is a complete fraud. (Or at least they don’t feel the need to distinguish between the two.)
And this is great news for the green side because, as Manzi easily and aptly demonstrated, Levin’s level of argumentation is really stupid and trivial to disprove. A sustained argument between AGW scientists on one side and Jim Manzi & company on the other side could, at the very least, add years to the debate on what we should do about AGW, because we’d have to dive deep into the wonky weeds to discuss how accurate the predictions really might be, what the costs of AGW might be, what the right basis for making decisions on how to deal with AGW should be, etc. But Levin’s argument is basically, “Ha, this online petition disproves global warming! What, Scientific American tried to determine the relative expertise of the signers of said petition by contacting a small, randomized sample of respondents? Pfft, what the hell does Scientific American know about science anyway!”
Fortunately, that is not a debate that takes years to decide; for anybody with a half a brain and a modicum of intellectual honesty, that’s not a debate that takes five minutes to decide. Which means it’s that much easier to blow off AGW skeptics as unserious yahoos and have a serious talk about how to actually deal with AGW.
So, I guess what I’m trying to say is, thanks, The Corner! You really helped the good guys out on this one!
— Chris · Apr 24, 04:51 PM · #
The right’s entertainers Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity etc. are considered as infallible as the Pope by NRO. If someone ever had the stones to take on Limbaugh’s many dubious assertions they would have a collective conniption.
— James T · Apr 24, 06:15 PM · #
au contraire, Chris, Dr. Manzi is doing his conservative JOB with meticulous cost/benefit analysis and technical risk assessment.
You don’t understand why NRO has to back Levin, do you?
Levin’s “there is no global warming” is part of the whole NRO belief edifice.
You see…Levin’s position is that scientists are fallible…..see? “ I have some token second tier scientists that i can massage or misquote into looking like they agree with me.”
Thus…if scientists can be fallible…..then Science itself is fallible.
And that gives credibility to NRO’s other anti-scientific positions……that diploid oocytes are human beings…..that sexual orientation is a lifestyle choice….that ToE is just a theory….that believing in the big white primitive anthropomorphic skyfather who apparently mucks around with cell biology and subatomic spin doesn’t make you look stupid……etc, etc.
NRO HAS to agree with Levin……the whole conservosphere has to….because if the scientists are right, their whole belief system is crap.
;)
— matoko_chan · Apr 24, 08:54 PM · #
I use to visit the corner, but gave up because the level of discourse was shrill and the arguments poorly thought out. The works were Levin who is a mean spirited bully. Lopez, McCarthy and Styne are only skilled at ad hominem attacks. Goldberg and Manzi are worth reading, but you have work through too much crap to get to the few pearls.
— robert hurley · Apr 24, 09:12 PM · #
Damn, that’ll leave a mark. Devastating last line. Well played.
— Miranda Meyer · Apr 25, 09:16 AM · #
Sam M – “I find it neither right nor appropriate. I find it to be the way of the world, and the way things work at all publications. And therefore, it does not serve as any evidence whatsoever that the right is uniquely closed, epistemically or otherwise.”
Please provide a contemporary liberal example of what’s going on with Levin and Manzi. You’re asserting that both left and right engage in this behavior without offering up any evidence of it happening on the left.
Mike
— MBunge · Apr 25, 03:43 PM · #
Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any major liberal magazines at which an upstart guy like Manzi called an established, best-selling rain-maker like Levin either dishonest or lazy.
This clearly means that the Corner is a place where the rainmakers are coddled. Because it’s the place where upstarts can kick rainmakers in the shins. Wait… huh?
But that doesn’t matter much. I didn’t say it was the way of magazines. I said it was the way of the world. And you still don’t see it much. Like the production assistant at CBS News calling Couric an idiot. You don’t see it happen, do you? Know. Do you see a lot of privates in the Army publicly trouncing the generals? No. Do you see a lot of cashiers at McDonalds talking about their managers being shabby? No?
I wonder why.
Seems like one of the few places this does happen publicly is at the Corner.
Which is obviously a sign of epistemic closure.
But if you really need me to offer evidence of the claim that in organizations with really rich and famous people and some not really rich and famous people, you don’t very often see the not very rich and famous people saying that the rich and famous people are idiots… I really am at a loss for words. And you don’t strike me as very worldy.
But maybe you are right. Now that you brought it up… please show me a liberal magazine at which someone of Levin’s earning potential got publicly blasted as lazy and/or dishonest by someone of Manzi’s stature. You should be able to come up with LOTS of these xamples, as the left if really, really epistemically open.
Right?
— Sam M · Apr 25, 11:26 PM · #
Sam listening to you is pushing my head around in a bowl of oatmeal.
lissen up, nubsauce.
MANZI SAID the right is epistemically closed ON GLOBAL WARMING.
There has been NO SUBSTANTIVE REBUTTAL of Manzi’s argument.
Therefore, both Julian Sanchez’s hypothesis—- the right is epistemically closed….and Jim Manzi’s postulate— the right is epistemically closed on the issue of global warming……are PROVEN!!
— matoko_chan · Apr 26, 12:36 AM · #
Manzi doesn’t work for Levin, Sam.
— Chet · Apr 26, 12:48 AM · #
No. Manzi does not work for Levin. I am aware of that. But thanks!
Now that we got that really important point out of the way… so? Levin is a hugely influential guy with a ton of money and a huge following. Guess what? That matters. And still, NRO let Manzi kick him in the shins. PLEASE tell me you understand this. Do you see the waterboy for the Indianapolis Colts calling Peyton Manning a dufus? Well why not? The waterboy doesn’t work for Peyton Manning. Right?
Oh yeah. It turns out that people who make a lot of money and have a lot of fans end up calling a lot of the shots. Seriously. Look it up. It’s true. And the boss usually doesn’t allow the peons to take shots at them.
As for: “lissen up, nubsauce.
MANZI SAID the right is epistemically closed ON GLOBAL WARMING.
There has been NO SUBSTANTIVE REBUTTAL of Manzi’s argument.”
Which was proven because NRO gave Manzi a platform from which to launch a tirade against Levin’s take on global warming and call him a hack. And then Levin responded. And then Manzi responded.
You seem to think the left is far, far more open in this regard. You must. So please show me the GW skeptic at Mother Jones.
You won’t. Because you can’t.
— Sam M · Apr 26, 02:19 AM · #
Sam M…there is no response on substance.
Because Levin can’t respond on substance, because global warming is a FACT.
So there can be no GW skeptics at MJ on the FACT of global warming.
Because we aren’t heartless carny barkers scamming a low-information base for power.
— matoko_chan · Apr 26, 02:50 AM · #
“<i>So please show me the GW skeptic at Mother Jones.</i>”
Please show me the moon landing skeptic at First Things.
(They have one, don’t they?)
Listen, everyone knows that global warming is real; the grown-ups are talking about what we should do about it.
— Elvis Elvisberg · Apr 26, 03:26 AM · #
So, privates work for generals, cashiers work for their managers, and production assistants work for Couric.
But Manzi doesn’t work for Levin.
In what sense, “let”? Manzi doesn’t need anybody’s permission to post there. It’s obvious at this point that, if he did, NRO would not have put up his post.
Yet, Manzi does not work for Levin.
Of course I can’t, because they don’t have one. Similarly, they don’t have a flat-Earth advocate at Mother Jones, or someone who believes that witchcraft is more effective than science. What you don’t seem to understand is that the reason Mother Jones lacks a global warming denier or a flat-Earther isn’t because of epistemic closure, it’s because of epistemic openness. That’s what it looks like when organizations are open, not closed, to the evidence – they become convinced by it, and therefore do not hold positions predicated on dismissing evidence based on conspiracy theories.
— Chet · Apr 26, 03:26 AM · #
Oh, moon landing denial, that’s a good one, too. Epistemic openmindedness, Sam, doesn’t mean being so open your brains fall out.
— Chet · Apr 26, 03:30 AM · #
Sam M – “Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any major liberal magazines at which an upstart guy like Manzi called an established, best-selling rain-maker like Levin either dishonest or lazy.”
Sam, you ignorant slut.
1. This didn’t happen in the pages of a magazine. It happened online. You can find liberals trashing other liberals online in terms far worse than “dishonest” or “lazy” and yes, you’ll even find prominent liberals being disparaged by other prominent liberals in that way. For example, the folks at firedoglake wish the only things they’d been called during the health care debate were “dishonest” and “lazy”.
2. Levin is not a rainmaker. Limbaugh and Hannity are rainmakers. Levin is a guy who’s written three books in the last 4 years and is battling it out with Laura Ingraham for the 5th or 6th highest rated conservative radio show. He is not some titan of conservatism. He’s Ann Coulter with a beard.
and…“But if you really need me to offer evidence of the claim that in organizations with really rich and famous people and some not really rich and famous people, you don’t very often see the not very rich and famous people saying that the rich and famous people are idiots”
3. As Chet has already pointed out to you over and over again, Levin and Manzi are not members of the same organization in the way you keep invoking the dynamic. They are independent entities who both happen to write for the same blog. This is not Katie Couric and some subordinate at CBS news.
Mike
— MBunge · Apr 26, 03:12 PM · #
Sam wtf is this Katie Couric obsession that conservatives have?
Just because she gave your poor darling Palin an EPIC ass-whupping with one frontal lobe tied behind her back is no reason for you to hold a grudge.
You’d think poor Katie was the reincarnation of Rasputin or sumthin’.
lawl.
— matoko_chan · Apr 27, 12:09 AM · #
Sam, your comparisons are truly substandard on this issue.
— Dwight · May 1, 02:40 AM · #