Levin on the “frat boy” conservatives
Andrea C. writes:
Mark Levin on his March 3 show called out Jonah Goldberg, John Derbyshire, David Frum, and David Brooks for their attacks on conservatives in their writing and media appearances. (He had been threatening to do this for quite a while.) He called them “frat boys” and said that they were only after attention and self-promotion by “knee-capping the movement.”
You can find it at www.marklevinshow.com, click audio and then select March 3. It’s the first 10 minutes of the show.
LA replies:
What is the common thread that he sees among Goldberg, Derbyshire, Frum, and Brooks?
Andrea replies:
He thinks they are trying to sell themselves—their books, speech gigs, etc.—rather than put forward conservative principles. In the case of Brooks, I would definitely agree with that because he seems to contradict himself in each article. ML also said Derbyshire was incoherent.
LA replies:
Brooks’s op-ed in the March 3 Times is one of the most offensive pieces, and probably the most incoherent and nonsensical piece, he’s ever done. He is such a shameless whore it’s hard for him to out-do himself. But he did it this time.
Rick Darby writes:
I happened to catch Mark Levin’s comments during my evening commute yesterday.
Levin seemed to be going all in to confirm the criticisms of talk radio. I have no money on any of the contestants, but Levin’s contribution to the discussion was a semi-coherent, rambling, defensive diatribe against “bloggers” (a term which hardly applies to any of them, unless you call National Review Online a blog).
What seemed to exercise Levin the most was that the writers on his enemies list didn’t give talk radio hosts enough respect and were condescending. He let us know several times that he would put his credentials and intellect up against any of the bookish gang. They are all insignificant compared with him and his colleagues, because hardly anyone’s heard of them, whereas he’s famous. Got that? He’s big time!
A sub-theme was that the writers in question were not real conservatives, or didn’t support real conservatives like S. Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh.
He made a few good points, actually, but in poor style. That pretty much sums him up, based on the handful of times I’ve listened to him. He’s not quite as grating on the nerves as Michael Savage, but has the same tendency to emphasis through repetition ad nauseam. Levin also uses a bad actor’s gimmick of raising his voice and bellowing to make what he’s saying sound overwhelming and important.
Maybe he’ll read this and blow off steam about you tonight. Levin is famous, so he’ll bring you new traffic.
Spencer Warren writes:
I listened to this through Levin’s website. It was a typical near-hysterical, hateful, insult-filled rant of the kind that seems to comprise most of his show every evening. I don’t wish to defend Frum et al, but as usual Levin did not analyze or even cite specifics, rather, he merely ranted and screamed at them. This guy is filled with hate for anyone who disagrees with him. He is extremely abusive toward the few who phone in to disagree, the worst on talk radio so far as I know.
Note that Levin joins Limbaugh, Hannity, and Ingraham as one of the abettors of Busheron because, like them, he only reluctantly and softly commented on B.’s liberal policies; nor did I ever hear him state B. was destroying conservatism.
LA writes:
I haven’t listened to the linked program yet, but the last time I linked a program of his, about the financial crisis last fall, after my enthusiasm about his opening monologue, I and others had a strong negative reaction to his treatment of callers. The discussion begins here, and then in this follow-up entry Spencer Warren and I both say that we find Levin’s bullying, abusive manner utterly appalling.
James W. writes:
Levin is easily the host most tied to enduring conservative values. He understands the great damage the RINO and neo-conservative does to the party. He knew McCain was a disaster but supported him, with great difficulty, for the reasons often batted about here. Now the gloves are off, and this week he began naming names. Frum, Derbyshire, and Goldberg are people he associates with at National Review, so this was a serious break. He has been on them like white on rice, and he swore yesterday for the first and only time—about Goldberg, if I recall—and called him an _______.
I don’t believe that will ever happen again, but he knows we are losing the country. He had Frum on today, and it was difficult to listen to. Frum is so vile in his false conceit, opinion, and manner, that I cannot bring myself to recount it. Levin is a wonderful thinker and debater, but he failed to get to the heart of this because he was so revolted. You got to the heart of it in a response you sent to me a year or two ago—a direct quote from Irving Kristol concerning the true nature and purpose of neo-conservatism. That was so bracing it did not require further education.
LA replies:
You probably mean this:
“[O]ne can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.”
That’s from Irving Kristol’s 2003 article, “The Neoconservative Persuasion,” discussed by me here. Along with G.W. Bush’s August 2000 call for the Hispanicization of the U.S., the Kristol quotation is probably the one I’ve linked most often at VFR.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 04, 2009 08:32 AM | Send