RSS Feed MenuMark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny is too “deep” and “sophisticated” for me. Or, at least, that’s what Levin says, in his reply to my criticisms of where he is guiding the conservative movement:
The book is much more sophisticated than Knepper’s ability to comprehend. Or maybe he just didn’t read it, which is more damning. Apparently he finds it un-conservative to explore conservatism on a philosophical and principled level and then apply conservatism to a political agenda in current times. Moronic.
In an astounding attempt to be as literal as possible, he says that I’m wrong that he begins his self-proclaimed classic book with a bullet-point agenda. I would simply ask him to turn to page seven. But wait, says Levin: that’s not the beginning-beginning! Before the agenda begins, he notes that conservatism cannot be deduced by a scientific or mathematical formula, after all. Fine. But his half-hearted disclaimer can’t mask the fact that there actually is a bullet-point agenda that begins on page seven and ends on page thirteen. I’m not going to ignore the entire remainder of the book because of some maxim uttered on page six. I actually don’t have anything against bullet-point agendas in themselves — it’s the insistence upon his own as the One True Path that’s so jarring to me. Levin doesn’t say that his agenda is one that he personally recommends, or that it’s what his prudence has led him to, or that we can argue around the edges. No, to the contrary: this agenda is something that “the Conservative will have to do if the nation is to improve.” The Conservative, with a capital-c, has to enact what Levin recommends, or else the nation will degenerate.
So, it would appear that Levin thinks that he has stumbled upon, at least to some degree, a workable formula — one that actually produces some very radical measures, such as eliminating lifetime tenure for judges. Am I less of a conservative for thinking that efforts to democratize our courts are as dangerous as lifetime tenure? Levin also lambastes secularism — a cardinal principle of our own Constitution — as a destroyer of civil society and insists that only faith can justify our moral order. Now, according to Paul Johnson’s History of the American People, many religious leaders at the time of its writing decried the Constitution as an irreligious document. It never mentions the Bible, God, or Jesus, and it mentions religion only once: to note that the federal government should not be sponsoring it. Levin’s insistence on pure faith in preserving our republic is, I think, disturbing: it seems to be saying that there is no rational, evidence-based justification that can be given for our style of government.
Levin notes that dispositions must inevitably be applied to policy, as if I were actually implying that conservatives should simply sit around like Epicurus in his garden and ignore the world around us. My point, of course, is that reasonable conservatives should be able to disagree on policy prescriptions without the fear of being accused of “hating the Constitution,” as Levin has yelled at dissenting callers to his shows. Might one, for instance, advocate a pathway to citizenship as the most prudent measure in dealing with illegal immigrants? Can we at least consider this in good faith? The answer is No: that’ll earn you the nickname “Juan McCain” — which totally isn’t race-baiting — or “Lindsey Grahamnesty.” They are RINOs and must be purged.
Finally, the melodramatic shrieking about “tyranny” has got to go. Liberals aren’t tyrants. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant. Pol Pot was a tyrant. President Obama and Speaker Pelosi are misguided politicians. Edmund Burke, in his Reflections On the Revolution In France, counseled us to remember that it’s inevitable that governments will misbehave: it’s simply in the nature of man to do so. Instead of being quick to anger about it, Burke recommends that we nurse its wounds like a child would to a father. In this respect, at least, Levin and the Tea Party movement are channeling Tom Paine’s overreaching Rights of Man far more so than Burke’s Reflections. Anyone who accuses intellectual critics of “hating the Constitution” definitely ain’t a conservative in my book.
Alz // Jul 15, 2010 at 9:38 am
The reason why the Constitution doesn’t mention God is because religion is up to the States.
At the time of the Declaration of Independence, something like 9 of the 13 colonies had OFFICIAL religions – all Christian (obviously).
The colonies went along with the Declaration and the subsequent Constitution (Bill of Rights, etc.) on the grounds that the FEDERAL government would not ESTABLISH an official religion that undermined their own. This is the meaning of the Establishment clause.
This is why the Constitution doesn’t mention God, BUT EVERY State Constitution DOES mention God (or Creator, etc.) It was up to the States. When “State” is mentioned, what is meant are the states, not “The State”.
(Liberals leave out these little details.)
Therefore, the notion of “Separation of Church and State” DOES NOT EXIST anywhere in the Constitution.
As John Adams said “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.”
A lot of what people have been taught since an early age is wrong.
nj07727 // Jul 15, 2010 at 11:10 am
The fact is, no you are not a true Conservative with a Capital ‘C’ if you believe in a ‘pathway to citizenship’ for illegal immigrants already in this country that DOES NOT INVOLVE THEM LEAVING FIRST. If you do, get in line with Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Lyndsay Graham, John McCain and the rest of the go-along to get-along RINO’s in the Senate who have no business in the Republican party. I have more respect for Arlen Specter than I do for them. At least he had the decency to finally admit the obvious and leave. Believe whatever you choose to believe. It is your God given right. But don’t be ashamed of it by trying to couch yourself as a Conservative. Margaret Thatcher, a TRUE Conservative was fond of saying ‘consensus is the absence of leadership’. That’s what all of you ‘let’s find common ground’ types don’t seem to get.
Sinan // Jul 15, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Alz is correct in saying that the states did in effect have state religions. In fact, many of them had mandatory tithing to support the chosen religion. That is because many of our first states were founded by religious leaders and were fairly uniform in faith. When we became a Union and people started moving around, it became very difficult for a state to force someone to pay a tithe to support a religion they did not support. Soon, it was apparent to everyone that state religions were a thing of the past and they did away with them in terms of forced participation and financial support. Now that we have agreed that this is our history, can Alz explain why it matters today? Have we not changed completely in the last 200 years? Are you advocating a return to state religions?
ScottinAL // Jul 15, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Curtis,
You quote from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. So you should , you know, check your facts before you spout.
Did you know that just 9 years after the signing of the Constitution we signed a treaty that stated:
“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
Thats right Curtis, when our country was just 10 years old, the U.S. senate unanimously ratified a treaty that explicitly stated we are not a Christian nation. There was no dissent or debate.
Not that I expect your firmly-held opinions to be swayed by facts or anything.
nj07727 // Jul 17, 2010 at 9:08 am
ScottinAL,
You are correct that Curtis is not exactly a Constitutional scholar. But Googling Wikipedia does not a scholar make either. While Curtis wrongly sourced his quotes, you miss the larger and more important point. The fact that those words DO come from the Declaration of Independence. Let’s see if you can follow me here (without having to run back to Wikipedia). The Declaration is the FOUNDING document of our Country. The Constitution is the GOVERNING document of our Country (at least for some of us). It is clear from our FOUNDING document that this Nation was brought forth on a foundation of Judeo-Christian values with an absolute affirmation and submission to a ‘Creator’. Having been founded upon that premise, the GOVERNING document is therefore relatively secular as it needs only to deal with the technicalities of the functions of GOVERNING which is an inherently secular function. The Establishment clause has long been distorted into ’separation of Church and State’ although those words appear NOWHERE in the Constitution (you may need to run back to Wikipedia for that). Instead of Google and Wikipedia, might I suggest the Federalist Papers if you really want to know the original intent of the Framers. Feel free to come back for a free lesson on our founding anytime.