My congratulations to Nathan P. Origer for making popular radio talk-show host Mark Levin’s list of “most deranged bloggers.” Nathan joins other conservative bloggers who have criticized Levin from positions outside the boundaries of Levin’s brand of conservative orthodoxy, thereby making themselves enemies of the Great One, as he calls himself.
Levin made news among these conservatives a little while back when he told a caller, “I don’t know why your husband doesn’t put a gun to his temple. Get the hell out of here.” Yes, he said this, and said this after asking her if she was married and, for no logical reason, why she hates his country, his Constitution, and his Declaration of Independence. Conor Friedersdorf called Levin out on the indecency. I think Levin started his list shortly thereafter.
The indecent incident mention above isn’t out of character for Mark Levin. Insulting people with whom he disagrees is a constant feature of his show. His delivery is loud and mean. He calls Hilary Clinton “Her Thighness,” for example. His language isn’t directed toward persuading others to embrace his political philosophy. Levin uses language violently to demean and destroy. His rhetoric has the opposite effect of persuasion: it alienates.
It therefore does a disservice to conservatism, which is one reason why Conor, Nathan, David Frum and other conservatives have constantly criticized the talk-show host. Conservatism, as the name indicates, is about conserving, preserving, maintaining. Levin’s verbal violence does none of these things. He gives conservatism a bad name, associating it with violence towards and hatred of others.
Nathan and the other “deranged bloggers” have my thanks. Both conservatives and liberals have much good to offer one another and society. For us to benefit, though, we need to be open to the other and dance what E.D. Kain calls “the civilizational tango.” Otherwise, we lose our balance, step on one another’s toes, and fall to the floor.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
The Most Deranged Bloggers
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 profound comments:
I don't agree with Levin's violent words, or his encouraging violence against another. But, this person could have been a left-wing nut with not much chance of conversion to either conservatism or the Republican Party. I believe that Levin was probably just pandering to his base. He may not have any intent to convert others' to conservatism.
As for Levin's statement calling Hillary Clinton "Her Thighness", I believe that that was done in harmless good fun. From what I have heard from Liberal commentators, that doesn't come close to the hateful(if you consider Levin's comment hateful-I don't)commentary they spew at conservatives.
The transcript of the exchange, available at Conor’s site linked to in my post, didn’t give the impression that the caller was a left-wing nut, or right-wing nut for that matter. Not that her being a nut would have excused Levin’s venomous comments to her.
If Levin was pandering to his base by telling a caller that he doesn’t know why her husband doesn’t put a gun to his head, what does that say about how Levin sees his base? If his base really does delight in such violent and ugly speech, what does that say about them?
I think that up until the question about marriage, Levin was completely within his rights(not out of line) to question the woman in the manner that he did. The fact that she still loves Obama and his policies pretty much says it all. She may not be a nut but she does have extreme left-wing views. The left do create the perception of questioning their love of country. But, I do think that Levin crossed the line after those statements. People like the outrageous, though. That's why Howard Stern's still on the air. But, taking his words and putting them on a piece of paper does not put his words in context. I believe that the only way Levin's words can be heard in context, is if the video or audio was played. By Conor, only showing the words on a website that could be considered misleading and construed as him pandering to his base.
I have never listened to Levin. I have never run across his show. I don't think there is anything that can contextualize Levin's despicable words and make them ok. They could soften the impact, but that is merely because spoken words only last as long as they are being spoken in terms of being perceived, and after that they are remembered. It goes by in an ugly flash. The written word, however, stays on the paper or browser window and keeps saying it and saying it and saying it, for as long as you look at it, as many times as you want to read it.
I don't think we need to subject our ears to this before we can judge it.
Teresa, my precious dear, you have no trouble pigeon-holing the President when you read something he said with which you disagree. When you search for video clips of what he said, it isn't in the stoic calm of someone detached, withholding judgement until more evidence is seen. It's more like "I want to see how much worse this is in context."
I think the comparison between Levin and Howard Stern is apt. An even closer parallel is Michael Savage. I have listened to Michael Savage and I find that to me he is only slightly more tolerable than fingernails across a chalkboard. Recently I saw a youtube video by a guy offering his own poll question to his loyal watchers - who is more "real", Savage or Levin? To some people, the incivility, the coarseness, the snarling hate, the spittle-showering invective, blaring into a radio microphone and out the speakers to their ears, is a refreshing dose of the Unfiltered Real. Those who don't want to hear it can turn the little dial, and I do. Those who do form a shock jock's core audience, which I think Teresa very appropriately calls a "base". They ARE base.
For my part, I think there is something good to be said for the filters. I get enough of my own Unfiltered Real, I don't need anyone else's "psychological nudity".
Kevin,
Honey, I will have to disagree with you when you say that I have no trouble pigeon-holing the President and go looking for a video after I read something I disagree with. I do not go looking for video to bolster my position. I read articles and may happenstance upon a video but do not go out of my way to find a video that bolsters my stance on a particular position. But, if either a video bolstering my position or a video that explained the opposite point-of-view came my way, then I would be more than willing to watch either video. I am more than willing to listen to the opposite point-of-view and give the person/article a chance to convey their position, so I can understand where they are coming from. I don't go out of my way to look for something that makes the context worse than it already is. I don't do as you claim I do,: "I want to see how much worse this is in context." If something is bad in context, then its bad, period. Is it wrong for me to want to understand something in context? Or would you rather me see the words out of context, or when a person uses spin?
Yes, I disagree with Obama probably 95 percent of the time since I have come to embrace the conservative point-of-view and philosophy. I have never claimed to be objective, but merely giving my own opinion based on the evidence brought before me. I don't see you going out of your way to find videos defending Obama's positions. Since you share most of my conservative beliefs, don't you bring judgements to the table also, when reading an article, or watching a video? Or is yours an objective view?
Kyle, could you erase the message I wrote and accidentally posted as Teresa (because I forgot to sign out of her account before arguing back)?
Here is posting under MY OWN NAME!:
Teresa,
The hell with objectivity, and to purgatory with Obama! If you don't bother looking for a video or audio clip after you have seen something he said that's been put in print in order to contextualize it, doesn't that make the point even better? Point: some text cannot be redeemed or justified by context. Why should Levin merit more consideration in that regard than the President of the United States?
You know what would happen if you called into Levin's show and asked him to provide context that would justify that remark. He would say, "Hey, I said what I said, and I'm not sorry! You don't have to listen to my show if you don't like it!" Then he'd play the famous 'Get Off The Phone Ya Big Dope!' clip that Hannity likes to play on his show when he's in the same situation. Or he'd just say it. Or something worse.
Kevin,
Personally I think that Obama has more of an obligation to explain himself to the public than Levin does.
I have a problem with what Levin said but its his show and he can do whatever he wants, within reason. Actaully, the left-wing caller knew that she was calling into Levin's show, and may have had some knowledge of Levin's type of commentary, so I believe that she was calling at her own risk. I don't think that justified Levin acting like a jerk, but it almost was like she enabled him to act like a jerk. It was like she wanted to be portrayed as the victim and Levin played right into that.
At the risk of sounding insincere and coming off like a henpecked husband, I can honestly say I agree with every word of your most recent post.
Teresa and Kevin,
Do you think Mark Levin represents conservatism or the conservative movement with which you associate?
Kyle,
I have never listened to him so I cannot answer that question with full knowledge of his conservative beliefs. But, I will say that I listen to Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck and agree with most of their conservative beliefs. There are times I disagree with them also.
Kyle,
There is a trivial sense in which any individual who expresses his views publically, and whose views fit in with a familiar political category or movement can be said to represent it. I don't know if you are asking about that, or whether you are asking if Levin represents conservatism in some further, more meaningful way. There are figureheads who are often associated with conservatism, both by conservatives themselves, and by those who do not consider themselves conservative. Rush Limbaugh immediately comes to mind as a de facto popular representative of conservatism as a political philosophy. George Will is often considered to represent a more cerebral conservatism. William Buckley is dead, so he doesn't count as a living representative. There aren't too many other icons I know of who are credited with being living symbols of conservatism. I would not put Mark Levin in that category. I don't know of any conservative who would (unless Levin himself would. I don't know). That doesn't take away from your point, however, that cretins like him can hurt the public image of conservatism. There are those who are inclined to think the worst of those with whom they disagree. For liberals who are like that, having the face and name of an obnoxious person to associate with conservatism is a convenience.
Thanks for the responses.
I haven’t paid much attention to Beck, but I’ve listened to Hannity and Limbaugh here and there. Those two (and Levin) strike me more as ideologues than conservatives. At least, they don’t seem to be part of the tradition that has developed from the thought of Edmund Burke. Whereas Russell Kirk, one of the key thinkers in that tradition, defines conservatism with reference to principles and to the permanent things (and in opposition to ideology), Hannity and Limbaugh define conservatism as adherence to a particular interpretation of historical documents and to a specific economic and political system. I once heard Limbaugh define a conservative as one who supports the Iraq War! That’s quite the perversion of conservatism, not because a conservative could not have supported the war, but because a conservative could have supported it or opposed it on conservative grounds. Hannity’s world is a simplistic one where the conservatives are the patriotic freedom-loving good guys and the liberals, if not the bad guys, are at best ignorant and contemptuous dangers to our country that conservatives must defeat. I personally find it unfortunate and regrettable that these men are the popular spokesmen for conservatism. They are far removed from the conservative minds that I so love. Of course, who am I to decide what qualifies as authentic conservatism and who falls into that camp? I don’t even call myself a conservative anymore.
Kyle,
I like listening to Beck because he is not about conservatives or liberals,not about Democrats or Republicans, he is about what's good for America. He started a movement called the 9-12 Project which has Both 9 Principles and 12Values, which he put together himself. Here is the website
http://www.the912project.com/
I don't think being against a war is necessarily unpatriotic, but I think there is a certain way of showing that you disagree with the war, without disrespecting the troops at the same time. I think Hannity and Limbaugh part of the time just point out when a Democrat comes after or makes accusations about our troops that could be considered unpatriotic. I am not referring to the EIT's. While I agree with the use of these techniqes in life saving instances, I also believe that they were probably used more often than necessary.
Most of Beck’s project seems harmless enough, but I take issue with the following “principles:”
1. “America is Good” – This is a judgment, not a principle, and Beck’s raising it to the level of a principle bespeaks a frightening nationalism on his part. I’d have no problem with him judging America to be good (Beck’s capitalization is also problematic), but in calling “America is Good” a principle, Beck has made the statement into something that he supposedly will not violate. In Beck’s view, it seems America is not good or bad based on what it does; it is Good regardless of what it does. America is Good. Indeed, the actions of America should, in Beck’s line of thought, be interpreted in light of the principle “America is Good.”
2. “If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.” – I can think of a number of instances in which someone who breaks the law shouldn’t pay the penalty. Part of the job of judges is to make these judgments. Sometimes people ought to pay the penalty, sometimes they ought to receive mercy, and sometimes the penalty isn’t really just.
3. “I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.” – It’s true that no one can force another to be charitable. Virtue cannot be forced. However, the idea that I should share what I have only with whom I want ignores my obligation to use what I have for the common good. It ignores the universal destination of goods, the obligation to use what I have for the benefit of all people.
Kyle,
Before Teresa responds, I wanted to engage you on those issues. As a preliminary note, as someone with a philosophical disposition, I, in common with you, become critical when I see principles being enunciated, because I want to see know how they will be implemented - whether there are, or should be, any exceptions, and if so, what they would be.
But I also react to particular issues beign taken with proposed principles just as readily.
So, while I am not a dedicated "9-12"-er, my hueristic is a hermeneutic of charity for Beck, and when I apply it, combined with what I know from when I have seen his show or heard it on the radio, and in discussion with Teresa, w who is even more a fan of Mr. Beck, I come to see those iffy principles as less problematic.
“America is Good” – Good per se could easily degenerate into the kind of nationalism held to by the Nazis. But their brand of nationalism was dangerous and wrong because they identified party, and government power when their party was in power, with Germany. Thus the Nazis could do no wrong because they were germany and Germany was good. So if the Fuhrer wanted to wipe out Jews and gypsies and slavs and create the master race, that must be good because Germany is good.
But I don't think Beck intends this, as a principle, to extend to the actions of the government, which he doe snot trust, no matter who is in power, nor to any party. He criticizes both parties qua parties, as well as individuals who put party above principle.
So in light of that fact, and choosing to see the best of Beck, I think he is saying that Americans should always love America. You can love America and want to change many, many things about it. The key difference is in whether you want the change because you love America or because you hate it. To love it, you have to judge it as always good, always lovable, always worthy of love - something has to be good about it always. American can't ever be all bad.
“If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.”
I want to find a counter-example that Mr. Beck would agree with. I don't know if there is one, but I hope so. In any case, I think the intended emphasis here is not on the absoluteness of a penalty to any violation of positive human law, even unjust ones. The emphasis is on no one being above the law, so that even if you have power, you cannot get away with evil deeds on that score.
“I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.”
I don't think this is intended as a license for a lack of charity, or a denial that there is a real moral obligation to help others and share of your substance to do so. I think the point is that this should not be coerced by government power. It should be up to the person what he will do with his money, and if he chooses to do nothing, while he will be truly guilty of a failure in his social moral obligation, he should not also be held criminally liable. If acts of charity are compelled at the point of a gun, they cease to be charitable. "I will share it with who I want to" need not be read as saying, "therefore I will not share because I don't happen to want to." That is not a necessary interpretation.
P.S. I linked my sign line to my blog. I know you said that it is considered bad form to plug your blog on someone else's blog's comment page, but I know the blogger, and I am sure it is ok. :)
Kyle,
Well, I am regretting allowing Kevin to respond first, as he got about fifty percent of his answers from me.
I believe by Beck saying, "America is good" that he is not talking about the govt., people within govt., or leaders (politicians) within the U.S. He calls all of the aforementioned to task quite frequently, regardless of which party. I think he is talking about America being the land of opportunity for all. America is the land of the free, where people from different countries that are oppressed, communist etc., dream for the opportunity to come and build a new life with freedom attached. America's founding principles are good in nature. I believe that is what Beck is talking about when he refers to America being good.
When Beck says,“If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it,” I believe that he is talking about no person in high power, such as CEO's or Govt. officials, are above the law. Usually people who are rich or are powerful can buy their way out and avoid punishment for crimes committed. I think he is talking more about the aforementioned and not us regular Joes.
“I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.”
I think what Beck means by this is that people work hard for their money and they should be able to choose what charitable organization/s that they want to donate to without the government deciding for them. He probably is referring to the govt. taxing the people more and more. When the govt. increases taxes it takes more of the indiviaduals money, then there is less money left for the person to give to their charitable organizations. I don't think that Beck is saying that we, as people don't have an obligation to help our neighbor but that govt. is increasingly taking that choice away from us.
Kevin and Teresa,
Thanks for the comments. I’m not very familiar with Glenn Beck, so my last comment was pretty much a first impression based on what little I know of him and what is written on the 9/12 project website. I tentatively stand by what I wrote, but I appreciate the alternative and more informed interpretations.
Beck expresses a deep distrust of politicians and government in general, so “America” for him wouldn’t seem to mean those in power or a particular political party. I get that. He does express an idea of America, though, which he associates with “we the people” and what Beck considers our fundamental values.
Do you know whether or not Glenn Beck ever offered his understanding of why 9/11 occurred? If so, why does he think the attack happened? I ask because following the attacks there was some discussion about whether American involvement in the Middle East was “good” or “bad” and whether America itself was a force for good or ill in the world. I seem to recall Limbaugh and Hannity responding to that discussion. If Beck did as well, it might shed light on what he’s getting at with this first “principle.”
P.S. Inputting your web address into your name when you comment isn’t bad form. That’s expected. Most blogs allow those commenting to do so. It’s the acceptable place to do that. I think it’s also generally acceptable to insert a link to your blog in the actual text if the linked to post contributes to the discussion. The improper action, so to speak, is plugging your blog in the body of the text, especially if the point of the comment is solely or primarily to advertise your site. The web is full of attention-seekers. In time, you’ll have people posting just a link to their site on your blog.
Kyle,
I didn't want to leave you hanging for an indefinite period of time, while I'm in the process of looking for answers to your questions. I looked online and couldn't find answers either on glennbeck.com or in a google search.
I have only listened to him on and off for a couple of years. Now, he has a show on Fox which I watch occasionally. So, I didn't really listen to him after 9/11. But, I know he has written some books since 9/11, so I will try and get a hold of one or more of Beck's books, and hopefully I will gain some insight into his insights on 9/11.
Beck did state this on his website:
"Terrorism isn't caused by poverty, poverty is caused by terrorism. Terror is a tool used by those seeking power to keep the masses in need of an answer." This is in his book, The Real America
Please don't spend too much time researching Beck for my sake. I'm not really interested in his thought beyond this conversation.
If you have the opportunity, I'd recommend reading Russell Kirk's "The Politics of Prudence" and "Prospects for Conservatives." Both those works are very accessable. Kirk was very instrumental in helping to develop modern conservatism into a political philosophy. His best known work is "The Conservative Mind" in which he chronicles the history of modern conservatism.
Kyle,
Thanks for the book recommendations. I will definitely read the books in the near future.
If you do not mind a non-profound comment..
That an individual (Nathan Origer, et al.) has offended someone guilty of serial vulgarities does not establish the value of the utterances of that individual Congratulations for that reason are inappropriate. At least three (perhaps four) of the 'bloggers' he mentions are troublesome for reasons that transcend ideology (four others I am not familiar with). Two others are associated with a publication and political tendency which offer (and are begging for) fairly trenchant critiques. (The historian Stephen Tonsor did not use the term 'deranged'; he did use the term 'flaky cranks' to describe some of these characters).
Art Deco,
I happen to agree with many of Levin’s critics and with the importance of critiquing the talk-radio host, particularly from the right, and so I think my congratulating Nathan on his “achievement” is warranted. Secretly, though, I want to be on that silly list myself, and this post was really a small effort to get me there. I still hold out hope. Speaking of the list, congrats to E.D. Jane of the League of Multiple Hemorrhoids!
Post a Comment