Popping the Talk Radio Bubble, Cont'd
The prospect of my open letter to Mark Levin listeners reaching its intended audience got a huge boost over the weekend when the radio host himself linked my piece on his Facebook page. Mr. Levin’s reaction is characterized by the petulance and lack of substance you’d expect, but there are two arguments he makes that are worth highlighting.
Excerpt one concerns my core argument — that it is laughable to call Jim Manzi of all people a global warming zealot, and that Mr. Levin’s listeners shouldn’t trust a man who has demonstrated a willingness to mislead them so drastically in order to insult a critic.
The talk radio host responds:
His defense of Jim Manzi is an evasion. Manzi is not to be measured by his associations or Obama-related comments but by his post about me, my book, and what I said in my line-by-line response to Manzi.
I just love that he is explicitly acknowledging that his characterization of where Jim Manzi fits into the global warming debate isn’t based on an assessment of his work or beliefs, but is exclusively based on Mr. Manzi’s assessment of the talk radio host and his book. In the talk radio host’s world, we’re all judged according to the single metric of how we treat him — only real world events that somehow touch on Mark Levin matter in assessing reality.
Later in his post, Mr. Levin asks:
…ask yourself: what has Friedersdorf done to help confront today’s growing soft tyranny? Attack talk radio, prowl the blogs looking for fights, sharing emails with Sullivan, etc. When I was his age I was chief of staff to an attorney general, having already served Ronald Reagan at the White House and campaigned for him before that.
I’d direct my answer not only to Mr. Levin, but to his defenders, Kathryn Jean Lopez and Andy McCarthy: unlike you three, I’ve been doing my utmost to write against unchecked presidential authority to assassinate American citizens, a war on drugs that has been ruinous to civil liberties, torture, overzealous laws making sex offenders of normal teens, a military budget that is one factor threatening our fiscal future, the abandonment of Founding era attitudes toward foreign affairs and separation of powers, the knowing imprisonment of innocent men, etc.
You’ve all got bigger platforms than I do, as Mr. Levin is so fond of pointing out, so how about shelving the irrelevant attacks on straw men and the ultimately ineffective critiques of a flawed health care bill that I also opposed, and refocusing your attention on the unprecedented new powers that are being seized by the year in order to fight The War on Terrorism and The War on Drugs, two conflicts that are apparently going to drag on without end. (Actually, Mr. McCarthy doesn’t need to refocus his attention so much as argue on the side of liberty rather than the side of “the president is allowed to seize any power so long as we’re at war with terrorists” position he currently advocates.)
It is incredible that people who are so self-satisfied about holding themselves up as bulwarks against tyranny are complicit in the policies most likely to lead us there, and utterly oblivious to that fact.
My goodness! Such a fine dust up! The “movement’s” reaction to Dr. Manzi is just too perfect!
Somehow this seems related to Charlie Crist, but I can’t put my finger on it. Last year an incombent friend left the GOP and made a successful run as an independant. Any thoughts on Prop 14 in California?
— tony comstock · May 3, 11:35 AM · #
Conor,
Enough already. Just become a Democrat, say “I didn’t leave the Republican party, it left me” and be done with it. What is annoying about your crusade is that at the end of the day, folks like Levin, McCarthy, Goldberg, et. al. just fundamentally disagree with you about philosophy and policy — they would reject your assessment of The War on Terrorism and The War on Drugs (or at least reject your priorities, as “National Review” has long argued for decriminalizing some minor drug offenses). Right now, we all think taking over 1/6 of the nation economy takes priority over any possible abuses that might have occured/be occuring as a result of the War on Terror (e.g. what’s the latest with the Gitmo “murders”?) You obviously have a passionate disagreement with this assessment — but why insist on beating your head against the wall when the rest of the conservative ‘media world’ doesn’t share your assessment?
— Jeff Singer · May 3, 02:05 PM · #
“Right now, we all think taking over 1/6 of the nation economy takes priority over any possible abuses that might have occured/be occuring as a result of the War on Terror”
1. The current HCR effort is in no meaningful way the government “taking over 1/6 of the nation economy”. While there’s plenty to criticize about HCR, anyone who describes it in such hysterical terms only demonstrates how little thought they’ve put into the issue.
2. Folks like Levin, McCarthy and Goldberg contend that the President of the United States has the power to spy on people without warrants, imprison people without trial and torture people just because he feels like it. If you think anything in HCR is a greater threat to freedom, liberty and justice than that, you’re an idiot and there’s no reason why any conservative should let himself be politically exiled by a bunch of idiots.
Mike
— MBunge · May 3, 02:50 PM · #
I have to admit, I never thought I would agree with Mark Levin, but he’s basically right (at least in that Facebook post).
As J.S. said above, “Enough already. Just become a Democrat, say “I didn’t leave the Republican party, it left me” and be done with it.” You’ve said before that you only write about politics for the money, so maybe that explains why you try to pick fights with ‘big names’ in conservative politics? Maybe you calculate everything you write to sound as if it’s emanating from a smug bow-tied 24-year-old grad student just to get a bigger reaction, i.e., more page views? Or you can’t help yourself. Just stop writing about politics, you’re helping no one; try to become a travel writer, or novelist, as that’s what you actually want to do.
— paul h. · May 3, 02:55 PM · #
“we all think taking over 1/6 of the nation (*sic) economy…”
Health care has been nationalized? No wai!
— Gold Star for Robot Boy · May 3, 03:03 PM · #
“If you think anything in HCR is a greater threat to freedom, liberty and justice than that, you’re an idiot…”
This comment is perfect in a lot of ways. First, I agree with it, at least with regard to the ordering of priorities. But it shows that the rift here is not one sided in the making. There really is a fundamental set of disagreements at play. Conor offers a list of things he writes/cares about and seems to think that his analysis is obvious. But it’s not. Lopez and McCarthy and Levin actually disagree that these are more important than healthcare. Is some of that cynicism, or toeing the party line? Maybe. But I also think… they disagree.
And what happens when we disagree? Well, Levin acts like a jerk a lot of the time, especially about an issue like global warming. So Manzi responded in very, very strong language to that chapter of Levin’s book. He admits that it was strong language. I am glad it was. But it didn’t need to be. Lopez and McCarthy circled the wagons and complained about Manzi being jerkish. Levin acted like a jerk again.
So the people at NRO are a bunch of jerks who just won’t listen!
And then here, when someone says that healthcare is ore important than torture? Well, we call them idiots.
Seems to me that what’s really happening is that people usually think they are right. They make some arguments but a lot of people still don’t agree with them. So they decide those people are either stupid or evil. And just won’t LISTEN.
But no. Really. They are listening. They just think you are wrong. I mean, they are accusing you of doing things like focusing on talk radio and the War on Drugs. And your defense is that, come on, people, I’ve been focusing on things like talk radio and the war on drugs.
— Sam M · May 3, 04:01 PM · #
“They are listening. They just think you are wrong.”
The problem, which you continue to deny, is WHY you think someone else is wrong. It is one thing to say that X is more important than Y. It is another thing to say that X is more important than Y, when X does not exist. It is yet another thing to say that X is more important than Y, except when my side says Y is more important than X. It is another thing again to say X is more important than Y, because I don’t like the people who say Y is more important than X.
That people can reasonably disagree does not mean that all disagreements are reasonable. And while everyone is guilty of unreasonable disagreement at some point, that does not mean everyone is always equally guilty of being unreasonable.
Mike
— MBunge · May 3, 04:21 PM · #
“The problem, which you continue to deny, is WHY you think something is wrong.”
But we don’t know why you think the things you do. You have given us two assertions: that ObamaCare does not constitute a government takeover in any “meaningful” way, and that protection of civil liberties is more important than limiting the role of government, but there is no analysis of why these things are true.
— Aaron · May 3, 05:37 PM · #
Paul H.,
I haven’t said that I “only” write about politics for the money — rather, I’ve said that I write about politics more than I otherwise would due to the money/the relative markets for political writing versus other kinds. Especially when it comes to my libertarian writing — that is to say, my advocacy for civil liberties and against the government seizure of power — I am writing about them because I am persuaded that they are very important, and they are, in fact, the subset of my political writing that I’ll continue whatever else I do in life.
Jeff Singer,
I’ve never been a Republican or a Democrat, or claimed to be, so I’m not sure how saying that I am switching parties is relevant to any of this. And yes, obviously there are fundamental disagreements among Mr. Levin, Mr. McCarthy and I. So why continue to argue? Because they are influential writers, and I think that they are wrong, so I offer arguments about why that is so, or point out that it isn’t at all clear that they can rightly claim the mantle of opposing tyranny. What is politics without beating your head against the wall in an effort to change the consensus?
Sam M., I didn’t say that people who care more about health care than torture are idiots. I said that I also opposed health care, that their efforts to oppose it and mine failed, and that when it comes to safeguarding ourselves against tyranny, health care is a lot less important than other matters.
— Conor Friedersdorf · May 3, 07:28 PM · #
Except that that fundamentally hasn’t happened. There’s been no government takeover of health care. None at all! And now HCR is done, for now.
So, thanks for making it clear that the priority of mainstream movement conservative is quivering, cowardly fear of events that cannot possibly transpire.
— Chet · May 3, 07:38 PM · #
Conor,
You say, “What is politics without beating your head against the wall in an effort to change the consensus?” To which I must tip my hat and bow as I admire the sentiment — my single favorite blogger working today is Steve Sailer, so you understand why I would find this honest assessment of your motives compelling. Obviously, I find myself annoyed at your posts because I’m closer to the Goldberg wing of the conservative movement than the quixotic Friedersdorf wing, and so your criticisms fall flat to me. Finally, I’m always amused to read the characters leap to your defense — Mike Bunge is one of my favorites. After taking me to the proverbial woodshed for characterizing Obamacare as taking over 1/6 of the national economy, he goes on to argue that “Levin, McCarthy and Goldberg contend that the President of the United States has the power to…imprison people without trial and torture people just because he feels like it.” Way to go Mike for making careful, reasonable arguments!
— Arminius · May 3, 11:18 PM · #
so good,i think it will be good!
— juicy couture · May 4, 06:56 AM · #
There is statutory authority for the latter proposition, the Court chose to ignore in Hamdi, Hamdan, & Boumedienne, just as with Kelo, for reasons passing understanding. Now the fact that this administration would like apply that authority against tea party goers, and this crew would applaud
is a whole other issue
— ian cormac · May 4, 12:37 PM · #
It’s not entirely about priorities in this case. The list Conor gave was in direct response to Levin asking “what has Friedersdorf done to help confront today’s growing soft tyranny?”
It is hard for me to believe that even Levin’s defenders seriously think that the Democrats’ misguided health care plan is as tyrannical (in the ordinary sense of the word) as at least half of the stuff on Conor’s list —- “unchecked presidential authority to assassinate American citizens,…torture, turning normal teens into sex offenders,…, and the knowing imprisonment of innocent men.” It’s got to be hard to beat that first one.
(The other things he listed seem right to me, but I think anybody would have to agree on these four.)
So the point is that Levin’s question was just a childish insult no matter what your priorities.
Why is it so hard for so many to get that it doesn’t advance your point of view to put in stuff like this —- or to be calling somebody an “idiot” or “smug graduate student”? It just makes it look like there is nothing of substance to say for your side and that you yourself don’t even know why you believe what you do.
— Geoff · May 4, 03:38 PM · #
We have seen the harm that even competently designed national health programs have done to the economy to the society at large. By the ‘assasination of American citizens’ you mean Aulaqi, right, or the aggressive interrogation of terrorists, like KSM, Zubeydah, Al Quahtani,
the sexting is a more dubious proposition, but it does distract from the
main goal of educating students
— ian cormac · May 4, 04:41 PM · #
I call dibs on the spot on the Venn diagram between the people criticizing Conor (and defending – natch – Mark Levin) and Conor himself. I admire your writing a great deal, and your tone, I just don’t agree with you on everything. I just want to make some room in the disagreement circle that doesn’t put me with intemperate nuts like Levin. Thank you.
— Dustin · May 4, 07:20 PM · #
Dustin,
I don’t think that I put anyone inside Mark Levin’s particular circle of intemperance! I’m not sure where this idea comes from that I am condemning everyone who disagrees with me.
— Conor Friedersdorf · May 4, 11:05 PM · #
Most all of the first three functions, fit within the primary obligations of
the constitution, to provide common defense, and promote domestic tranquility, You were wrong about Obama in every respect, Conor
— ian cormac · May 5, 12:11 AM · #
Intemperance? Ha! That’s the name of my boat!
— tony comstock · May 5, 12:58 AM · #
ysl
ysl shoes
ysl boots
manolo blahnik
manolo blahnik shoes
manolo blahnik boots
manolo blahnik pumps
manolo blahnik sandals
manolo blahnik d’Orsays
christian louboutin
— manolo blahnik · May 7, 08:19 AM · #
I’ve been writing against the executive’s plenary power to enforce cockmeat sandwiches. Let’s do lunch!
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · May 10, 03:42 PM · #
1. The current HCR effort is in no meaningful way the government “taking over 1/6 of the nation economy”. While there’s plenty to criticize about HCR, anyone who describes it in such hysterical terms only demonstrates how little thought they’ve put into the issue.
Put me down as one of those who has so demonstrated the quantity of my thought, especially after reading about the latest misunderstanding
2. Folks like Levin, McCarthy and Goldberg contend that the President of the United States has the power to spy on people without warrants, imprison people without trial and torture people just because he feels like it. If you think anything in HCR is a greater threat to freedom, liberty and justice than that, you’re an idiot and there’s no reason why any conservative should let himself be politically exiled by a bunch of idiots.
Bad as all those presidential powers are that this Levin person (whoever he is) is asserting the Prez has (and I think it’s a terrible idea giving a Prez such powers) I would argue that the latest so-called health care reform is a far greater threat.
— The Reticulator · May 11, 03:51 AM · #