RSS Feed MenuUpdate: Since my earlier post went up, a further reply from Mark Levin, this directly to me, has been posted on the Riehl World site. Again, much of it is as expected:
never much of a thinker … rambling screed … truly pathetic
However one part of it does contain another of Levin’s interesting self-revelations:
I have found that it is a complete waste of time to engage Frum in a debate. He is psychologically and emotionally incapable of it. His latest post is a perfect example. He hunts and pecks around the Internet, looking for audio clips and transcripts …
It seems like it was only yesterday that Levin was complaining that it was unfair to criticize him on the basis of one short comment unless one was familiar with the large body of his work. Then when some does undertake the task of familiarizing himself with the large body of Levin’s work, Levin explodes that this too is unacceptable. From Levin’s point of view, apparently, the work others call “research” is some kind of dirty trick. That must explain why he himself so seldom engages in it.
**
Original Post:
Last week Conor Friedersdorf called attention to this amazing eruption on the Mark Levin radio program:
CALLER: I just wanna say, Obama is a lot smarter than you folks give him credit for. You guys were on a roll, I have to admit, with all those tea parties. Everything was rolling along, the Republicans were gaining momentum. And he managed to change your entire conversational focus. And you let those three hundred thousand people —
LEVIN: My God. He’s so smart. His own party voted against him on Guantanamo Bay. How stupid was that, Cindy? His own party refused to fund the closing of Guantanamo Bay.
CALLER. Yeah but you know he can just move those people over here anyway. He’s already doing it with the one guy.
LEVIN: Yeah, sure, he can do whatever he wants. Let me ask you a question. Why do you hate this country?
CALLER: No, I love this country.
LEVIN: (angrily shouting) I SAID WHY DO YOU HATE MY COUNTRY? WHY DO YOU HATE MY CONSTITUTION? WHY DO YOU HATE MY DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE? You just said it. He can blow off Congress. He can do whatever he wants, right?
CALLER: Well, he seems to, he just moved (inaudible).
LEVIN: Answer me this, are you a married woman? Yes or no?
CALLER: Yes.
LEVIN: Well I don’t know why your husband doesn’t put a gun to his temple. Get the hell out of here.
Conor’s post triggered comments across the blogosphere. Here’s Rod Dreher. I added my own 2 cents:
Imagine some commuter – a nonpolitical person, a family man or woman, a taxpayer and billpayer – who happens to flip the dial on the radio on the way home and hears that exchange. What would such a person think? Wouldn’t it be something like, “I dont know what’s wrong with that horrible man, but I do know this: whatever side he’s on, any decent person would have to be on the opposite”?
Over the weekend, Mark Levin replied to us all on the Riehl World blog. It’s worth reading the reply in full, but a few quotations will give the flavor of it.
Every now and then I have to lower myself to deal with the undeveloped minds of kooks . … cheap and pathetic. … ineffective lightweights … contemptible … self-serving hypocrite …
Undaunted by the string of epithets, Conor joined the comments section and pointed out that if Levin was going to answer, he should – you know – answer. Nettled, Levin rejoined the discussion:
You don’t like the way I said it. So what? If you were a dear friend or someone I knew and admired, I might think about it. But you are none of those things. I don’t know who you are and I don’t care if you don’t like it.
What a fascinating remark! And very revealing. I don’t care if a comment is true. I only care who makes the comment.
I’ve spent some time in recent days listening to the Levin radio program, watching him interviewed on television and reading his new book, Liberty and Tyranny. From all these things – shows, interviews, book – there emerges a man who cannot begin to deal in an intellectual way with novel ideas, discrepant information, or unwelcome reality. Levin’s mind is entirely closed upon itself. No wonder he cannot respond to a dissenting caller except by screaming at her.
I’ll have more to say about the book later. For now, see these extracts from Levin’s October 2008 interview with C-Span’s Brian Lamb:
LAMB: Where do you do it, the call-in show?
LEVIN: Where do I do it from?
LAMB: Yes.
LEVIN: A bunker, beyond that, I can’t say, because I don’t want people harassing me while I do the show. I don’t do it from a normal studio, let me put it that way. …
I am by myself when I’m doing the show, my producer, my call screener are not in the same room with me, they’re not even in the same town with me. So I am there listening to the caller, and nobody there to tell me what to say or do, or nod at me, or wink at me, or wave me off ….
I don’t have 10 writers like Jon Stewart, or Steven Colbert or most of these anchormen who do – who do straight news, so-called, I don’t – I don’t have – I have me. I don’t have research assistance….
LAMB: Well, give us the atmosphere though, I mean you – I listen to you erupt all the time, how big a room are you sitting in?
LEVIN: I’m sitting in a room that’s about – it’s not padded, by the way, I’m sitting in a room that’s about – although it does have extra sound insulation, it’s about 20 by 15.
LAMB: So it’s a pretty good-sized room.
LEVIN: Pretty good-sized room.
LAMB: And there’s nobody in there.
LEVIN: Nobody in there but me, maybe my dogs. … Well, I guess I said the dogs come in, so I guess you can figure out I’m doing it from my house.
So the – it allows me to do the show where I do it from through New York to the rest of the world. And I have headphones and a microphone, it’s that simple. …
LAMB: How important is it to you that you not travel in these circles, in the – I mean do you live social Washington at all?
LEVIN: No, I don’t sit around thinking what circles am I going to travel in? I’ve got a family.
LAMB: But I mean how important is it you don’t do that? In other words, how much of this town operates on the other level where they all know each other, and they’re all friends?
LEVIN: Well, I don’t like it. You know I was in the Reagan Administration for eight years, I was Ed Meese’s Chief of Staff, I did work at the White House for a year or so. And you know I went to some inauguration events, I’ve done that, and I went and did things for a president I just truly admired. I guess if I – I’ll do it now and then if it’s – if there’s some friends there that – who I really like, but I don’t do things to be seen.
Here is a man who has literally isolated himself in a little box in his home. No social ties with anyone outside his family and pets. He does not interact even with the producers of his program. He has cut himself out of the feedback loop, and when something unwanted intrudes itself into his carefully sheltered experience, he reacts with rage.
Then, when a bright young guy like Friedersdorf has the temerity to observe that such rage is ugly and off-putting – when a former National Review colleague like Rod Dreher agrees – that prompts an even more naked emotional outburst, an explosion of vanity and boasting.
I have comprehensively set forth my positions on conservatism and non-conservatism in my book. How did you like it? Have you read it? Are you prepared to post comments about it here? How about Men in Black? Have you read it? You want to debate aspects of it? I don’t think you have, Conor, because you’ve not raised them or anything in them. You want to stick with the caller, which is fine, but your opinion in that regard is just that. Did you like any of the monologues over the past few weeks? Did you hear them? You say you want to debate substance but you provide none.
You see, Conor, listening to 15 minutes of my radio show does not give you license to pass judgment on me or what I have done without my doing the same to you. So, I take note of how little you have done or have accomplished in promoting conservatism. I say this not to be arrogant, but to respond to your original point, such as it was, i.e., (and I paraphrase) how do you expect to influence anyone if your efforts are without an audience? Follow me? How do you, Conor? No doubt by critiquing me, albeit unencumbered with years of my efforts.
There’s something poignant in all this chest-thumping. You are left to wonder: Is it really Conor Friedersdorf with whom Mark Levin is arguing? Is there some part of him that maybe feels a little pang of embarrassment about his persona on the airwaves? Is that why he feels the need to reassure himself with self-flattery when called on an ugly remark: I have a big radio audience! Almost as big as Michael Savage’s! I must be a big man.
But the man in that interchange quoted by Conor is not a big man. He’s a loud man. It’s not the same thing.
BADROTO // May 27, 2009 at 5:56 pm
SFTorIronic isn’t it? Before it was you who wanted to stay on subject concerning Limbaugh and Levin and the viability of the helpfulness of their message to the GOP. It was my contention that regardless of anything that they say, you and yours would call them all sorts of names in an effort to turn people away from what they had to say, thereby ending the debate without having to participate in it.Now that I have proven it, the subject isn’t so gripping anymore. Perhaps you could tell me why that is?
SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 6:00 pm
BADROTO: And when the original investment from shareholders is depleted, and a new investor comes in, and that investor lets the original shareholders keep some of their position in the company, that’s a pretty good deal for the original shareholders, right? Considering that they were already wiped out?
SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 6:03 pm
I guess I just had to answer you on this stock business. I hope you see by now that the stockholders were wiped out already, before the government bailed the companies out.I still think the original issue is important, and I am saddened that you do not believe that commentators on both sides should maintain minimum standards of civility.
SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 6:09 pm
I’m having some issues getting this page to reload to show new comments. Any suggestions?
BADROTO // May 27, 2009 at 6:17 pm
SFTorBut I am not the one that dismissed your argument by insulting your motives, am I? Did I insult your personality? Nope. Once I called you delusional, that was as far as I dared to go. But if you believe that these mainstream news divisions behave in the manner of a commercial endeavor, then you are either delusional or inexperienced in matters of commerce. Especially customer service, as they openly despise half of their customers.This is exactly the same thing that the left has done to people like Limbaugh, Ashcroft, etc. etc. ad nauseum for decades. I for one am happy that Levin and Limbaugh and many others lampoon the left for their hypocrisy and call them out on their blatant hatred. No one in the mainstream press dares apply any sort of scrutiny towards them. And they ALL deserve it, Dem and GOP. The function of the free press is to protect the people from the trespasses of government. All any of them seem to approve of anymore is the constant expansion of the feds no matter what the problem, be it toilet capacity, how much gas our cars use, whether we decide to use tobacco, and how much salt we eat to name just a few areas of our lives that they interfere with while having absolutely NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to do so.Limbaugh and Levin speak up for people concerning these trespasses, while people like you continue to attack simply because you cannot form a rational endorsement of your own policies. It is a disgusting practice that exists exclusively on the left. Sorry, but that’s just how it is.
SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 6:18 pm
BADROTO: I found this definition of democracy for you on Wikipedia: “Even though there is no universally accepted definition of ‘democracy’,[3] there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes. The first principle is that all members of the society (citizens) have equal access to power and the second that all members (citizens) enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties.” The United States is considered a capitalist republic, which is considered one of many forms of democracy.I hope this clears up any confusion on this matter.
SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 6:24 pm
BADROTO: I have not attacked Limbaugh’s and Savage’s opinions. I have criticized them for their form and their methods.Mainstream media in the United States are commercial enterprises. The fact that they don’t seem to know how to make money is a different issue.I agree that the mainstream media have lost some of their ability to provide fair and complete information to American citizens.I agree that American politics have become overly contentious. I do not agree that the Democrats have a monopoly on spewing blatant hatred.I believe Rush Limbaugh and others like him are hurting the Republican Party. I do not see anyone on the left who are hurting the Democratic Party in a similar fashion. If you have examples, I would be happy to consider what I think about them.
SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 6:26 pm
BADROTO: You can call me delusional if that makes you happy. We probably all have a few delusions.
SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 6:39 pm
still having problems with refresh.
SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 7:02 pm
BADROTO: Why do you think media outlets despise half their customers?
SFTor // May 27, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Do the media outlets despise half their customers?
jojabliss // May 27, 2009 at 8:22 pm
To paraphrase ‘Rick’ from Casablana:”I would not bring up [Rod Dreher]; it is bad salesmanship.”Dreher is not a conservative. He is mildly to the right of McCain {btw, that is not a compliment}. Mr. Crunchy Con is an also-ran. And before anyone waves “National Review” this way; yeah, Chris Buckley’s tenure was super-splendid.Personally prefer to be at home with family and pets, but to each his own.MODERATE ALERT!Friedersdorf, Dreher & Frum: the new MOD Squad ?
ChristianMiller // May 28, 2009 at 8:04 am
From last night’s show. This is not at all out of character for Levin.ML: Rachel, New York City, WABC ,a Democrat, Go!: Caller: How do you do Mr. Levin, I just wanted to tell you that you and I grew up in the same city so I have a certain affinity for you. Personally I disagree with everything that you believe in but I’m very glad you are on the radio because every so often I listen to you and I learn things that I think I should know. (ML: really?) and that’s all I called to say.ML: Well aren’t you a sweet lady. Now you grew up in Philadelphia? Caller: Yes, you grew up in Elkins Park and I grew up in Wynnefield. My sister went to the same University that you did .ML: Temple University Caller: AbsolutelyML: And she survived.Caller: Well, not as long as I would have liked ML: Oh really, I’m sorry…Caller: Me tooML: Oh my gosh…well, you sound like a lovely lady and I appreciate your kind words even though you disagree with me Caller: Absolutely 100 percent, but I’m glad you’re there… ML: I’ll tell you what…Caller: I’m glad you’re there because that’s what democracy is all about…ML: I want to send you a book will you read it if I send it to you?Caller: You’re going to send me Liberty and Tyranny?ML: Yes, can I send you that?Caller: Yes you can. I have to tell you I wouldn’t pay for it. I was going to get it out of the library but if you want to send it to me I’ll take it.ML: I want you to read it and then I want you to call meCaller: OK, you got it.ML: Fair Enough?Caller: Fair..ML: Alright…and I’m sorry about your sister. Now don’t hang up, we’ll get your address. Send her a signed copy..Now a lot of you conservatives out there, (raises voice) Why are you giving her a freebie?!… Ladies and Gentlemen, we are going to see if we can’t have a decent discussion with Rachel after she reads the book, she sounds like a very lovely lady, we’ll be right back.
ChristianMiller // May 28, 2009 at 8:47 am
(continued) ML: Where the Federal constitution speaks those differences will not exist, or are not supposed to exist, but where it is silent – of course they are going to exist. And if somebody doesn’t like the vote that just took place in California and they want to marry somebody of the same sex, they can go into an airplane and travel to Massachusetts and get married and live there. That’s the great thing about federalism. If you don’t like the death penalty, then move to New Jersey. If you support the death penalty then live in Texas. If you like to be taxed at a confiscatory rate then live in Michigan, if you don’t want to pay State income tax then live in Florida The diversity among and between the states is what makes this nation harmonious. So people with fundamentally different viewpoints can still live in a civil society. It’s not a straitjacket. To say that your issue, you being the generic you, is so important that it must be recognized by the Federal Constitution doesn’t make it so. So States have historically been free to define marriage, and we have 5000 years of human history that has defined it as marriage between a man and a woman. And so, no, a court should not be able to twist the 14th Amendment, which was meant after the Civil War to once and for all treat blacks as human beings. To take that out of context and twist it to accomplish a quote/unquote right that does not exist in the 14th amendment. Have I helped you?Caller: I’m not speaking of the 14th Amendment I guess I’m thinking, does it affect certain citizens freedom of movement from state to state and if that does…ML: Hold on now, does what affect their movement? Does what?Caller: A difference in equal treatment under the law…ML: There isn’t a different treatment , hold on now. There isn’t a different treatment under the law . In California a man and a woman who choose to get married are treated one way, and a man and a man are not free to get married. Ah, so, what you’re asking, you’re asking about whether two different circumstances being recognized by the State legislature and now by the court there, is fair or unfair. Well if you think it’s unfair – if it really bothers you to the point where you want to leave, then you get up and leave.
ChristianMiller // May 28, 2009 at 8:50 am
Another Democrat caller from last night’s show:ML:James in NJ, a Democrat, Go!Caller :Hi Mark, thank you very much for taking my callML: Yes sirCaller: I have a question, even though I don’t agree with you about a lot of things I feel like if I have to ask an expert on Federalism something I feel that you are as close to an expert on Federalism as I can find (ML: alright).. And I, I guess I’m wondering if you have these States in the country that have, you know, different, providing benefits to certain citizens with regards to taxation or inheritance and things like that, like say, Maine and Vermont, they have same-sex marriage and other states don’t provide those benefits, isn’t there an inequality of treatment under the law, and does it become and issue of Federalism, is it incumbent upon the Federal Government to provide a basis for equality?ML:You know, some states have different criminal statutes that punish things differently than other States. Some States allow marriage at younger ages than other States. Some States allow you to marry distant relatives, some States don’t. There are all kinds of differences between the States because the States were at one point actually colonies and the colonies came together and they decided to create a Federal government – not a national government, a Federal government, where they would confer some authority on it as a, you know, a collective, but not enough authority to trump the States in all respects. So they set out a federal government with specific enumerated powers, and they tried to divide up that federal government so it wouldn’t become too powerful. Federalism, the 10th Amendment, is a recognition that the States as a collective would be more powerful and have more authority in those areas where there is not specific delineated authority with the Federal Government. So of course there’s going to be differences in the States.
ChristianMiller // May 28, 2009 at 8:53 am
(This goes at the end, I didn’t catch it all when I cut the selection) James from NJ continuedCaller: So its not a Federalism issue it doesn’t impede their movement..ML: It is a Federalism issue in the sense that Federalism means that the States have certain broad authority. It is not a Federal Constitutional issue.Caller: OK (crosstalk) Thanks for answering my questionML: Alright, take careML” Because ladies and gentlemen, if we live in a central government that can make all these decisions, then you are not going to have harmony in this country. We have diverse backgrounds, diverse experiences, diverse interests. We are a big country with a lot of people who come from a lot of different places with different ancestries, different religions -or no religion, so if you’re going to impose…the one thing, the glue that holds us together is the rule of law and the Declaration of Independence and the transcendent moral order. But there are certain governing decisions that cannot be made by the Federal Government, and to simply say “I want equal rights and the federal government is going to make those decisions”, means that ALL decisions are going to be made by the Federal government because what people are really talking about are equal outcomes, not equal rights. Make sense? If it doesn’t, it doesn’t, but that’s my position.
Why Moderates/RINOS are flaming dorks « Blog de KingShamus // Jul 30, 2009 at 11:07 am
[...] by KingShamus on July 30, 2009 The Mark Levin/David Frum Dust-Up of 2009 (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here) has made for some theater over the past few [...]