RSS Feed MenuWhy does Mark Levin keep taking the bait?
Watching the exchanges between Conor Friedersdorf and Mark Levin is like watching a boy toss stones at a caged rhinoceros in the zoo.
Plink, plink, plink: the first two, three, four stones bounce off the grazing brute’s leathery head. But at last the beast can endure it no longer. He charges at his tormenter – and crashes right into the zoo fencing.
It happened again yesterday.
FrumForum blogger Alex Knepper cited Levin as a negative example in a critique of what Knepper called “talking point conservatism.” Conor quoted and linked to Knepper on the Atlantic site.
That afternoon, Levin erupted on his Facebook page against “malcontents,” “mental contortionists” and “pseudo-intellectuals” who did not sufficiently appreciate his book Liberty and Tyranny, a book he unironically describes as a “classic.”
Now the question again: Why? Why doesn’t – why can’t – Levin control himself? Surely he must recognize he would do better to preserve a dignified silence? As Levin will be the first to point out, his book sold many hundreds of thousands of copies. Maybe not so many as Jonathan Livingston Seagull, but still … a lot. Why not cash the checks and enjoy the proceeds? Why explode just because a handful of “malcontents” think your book is dumb?
It’s a fascinating question, and the answer does Levin some credit. Whatever you may think of his radio persona, Mark Levin is not a stupid person, and he is not a cynical person. He can’t laugh his way to the bank. He wants more than the money. He wants to be regarded as the author not just of a commercially successful book, but of an intellectually important book. Unfortunately for Levin, people like Conor have disproportionate sway over the accolades Levin covets. A Sean Hannity would not understand. A Glenn Beck would not care. But Levin does understand, and does care.
So he reacts. Unfortunately for him, Levin is not a very nimble debater. He’s a monologuist. But when he tries to make a point in an environment where he does not monopolize the microphone, he is awkward and unsure. Shouting “Hey Friedersdork – you’re a jerk” does not wound Conor’s feelings. It does not impress the audience Levin so desperately wants to impress.
Yet Levin cannot help himself. It’s all too provoking! Levin tells his critics they are “eviscerated.” But they don’t look or act eviscerated. Levin insists that his book is “sophisticated.” But he notices that the people who read the books generally regarded as sophisticated do not agree with his self-assessment. And so he paws the ground, lowers his tusk – and charges, thud, against a blank wall.
The bellowing stops. The dust settles. The stunned rhinoceros regains its food. And then the sound resumes: plink, plink, plink.
Cross-posted at AndrewSullivan.com
jakester // Jul 15, 2010 at 12:18 am
vidoqo
yes the founding fathers were not some monolith of virtue, some colonial Apostles most of the hard righties make them out to be. But they had good leaders and were able to finally create a pretty enduring document, but after years of wrangling. At least they were able to compromise and reason, unlike most of the pop cons these days who can only bark and growl like some braindead pitbulls. AS far as limited government & European absolutism, the colonials never experienced it. The English treated the colonies pretty decently & had a very limited presence here till the shooting broke out. The colonies learned a lot of governing skills and rudimentary tolerance from the English, unlike say the Russian Czars treated the Poles and the Jews back then or even recently
jakester // Jul 15, 2010 at 1:04 am
CentristNYer
Most of those other hosts are just clowns. Savage is even a bigger bully but he is more interesting in his original psychopathic ways. I simply can’t stomach Levin for more than 2 minutes
Joel // Jul 15, 2010 at 8:31 am
“The conclusion someone who thinks about this normally is that Mark Levin doesn’t give a shit what Conor thinks of him.”
Given the response that the Great Intellect put on his facebook page on this matter, one might suspect that someone who thought about this normally would conclude that he most certainly did care a great deal about what still-an-undergraduate-Alex Kneppler thought of him.
msmilack // Jul 15, 2010 at 10:04 am
Joel // Jul 14, 2010 at 9:34 pm
You wrote: “Clearly you are not in favor of what the country stands for. If the voters want it, the voters get it. Don’t like it? Move somewhere else where you can impress on the voters what is in their own best interests.”
I’m not sure who your remark is aimed at. Do you mean that because the voters overwhelmingly voted for Obama, that people who don’t like him should move elsewhere?
msmilack // Jul 15, 2010 at 10:09 am
DeepSouthPopulist // Jul 14, 2010 at 9:50 pm
Thanks for answering my question about the public quality of these debates and estrangements in the conservative party. I’m sure you’re right, that the 24 news and media have much to do with it. I have this hunch there is yet another element to explain it and if it floats to the top of my consciousness like a revelation I will share it. For now, I will just say that I’m struck by the fact that it is only playing out in the GOP. Granted they are out of power so it makes sense they should be regrouping and thinking strategy but there was no similar purge or conglomeration (to a group like the tea party) when the Democrats were out of power; I cannot picture a similar public airing of grievances and have assumed it is because there are simply too many writers of that persuasion to distill such an argument to a single stage but I have a feeling it is also not in the Democratic personality. I end my thoughts on the fact that these fights are between writers, not elected officials; writers, not television anchors; and wonder if the writers in the Conservative movement have served a different function than those in the Democratic Party. That’s the area that has me curious.
LFC // Jul 15, 2010 at 10:10 am
WillyP ironically said… If Conservatives lose and our numbers genuinely dwindle, then we end up like Europe – bankrupt and teetering on a currency implosion.
As compared to, say, the situation that Conservatives have handed us today? </snark>
Joel // Jul 15, 2010 at 10:19 am
msmilack
No. I was talking to Willy, who doesn’t like any program that he sees as “redistributivist” in nature and sees it as “tyranny”. What I said was that the people vote for the people who then vote for those programs, which can then be rejected if they are inconsistent with the Constitution. Given these facts, such programs are hardly tyranny. What I said was if he doesn’t like the way our system works, he can go live somewhere else.