Final Thoughts: Levin, Frum, Dreher, Sullivan, Boot, etc...

So, neo-con Max Boot seems to be the latest to jump on the Obama, anti-conservative bandwagon, perhaps looking for a way to be influential, sans a Republican administration. No surprise there. Many neo-cons were just one trick ponies and their dog in the fight never had anything to do with conservatism. For many, though far from all, it served chiefly as a term of art crafted for credibility by disingenuous riders desperately in need of a horse.

Some final words on recent fighting ... for now, hopefully, though it is far from over. If it ends, it will be in preparation for 2012. So, steel yourselves conservatives.

Those alleged conservatives who would criticize Levin, Rush, Coulter and other principled conservatives have betrayed themselves as not conservatives at all. Each of our popular pundits is a capitalist in a free market system. Genuine conservatives respect that, they don't decry it.

Our pundits have every right to talk, promote, or sell themselves however they wish within the confines of existing law. The marketplace is their judge. And only if whatever marketplace in which they choose to function rejects them does any real conservative have a right to suggest they stop, or manage themselves in some other way. This is a battle over principles, not polity.

By definition, Conservatism is an ideology. And true conservatives believe in and abide by its tenets. Liberalism and libertarianism are the same thing of a different stripe. And various adherents have, not just a right, but also a duty to behave as they deeply believe they should because of it, speaking of it boldly and in unafraid and unabashed terms ... no matter which ideology it is to which they might subscribe.

We should celebrate that, not fear, or shun it. It is a  protected freedom within our exquisite political system.

The simple fact of the matter is, the Frums, Douthats, Drehers, Sullivans, and others allegedly of the Right are, demonstrably, liars and frauds. They've proved it so, time and again. They are, at best, moderates, perhaps Republican-leaners. There is no crime in that. And they would be entitled to call themselves that, or whatever, provided they had the courage and the character to be forthright. Unfortunately, as a group, they lack both those things. 

They, like some neo-cons, grabbed onto the conservative moniker because it was popular and led to their self-advancement. I can think of few greater intellectual scoundrels than those who would falsely embrace an important ideology for purely selfish gain, then look to sell it out at every turn.

They deserve to be called out, to be denounced - not because of what they believe in, but for what they clearly don't, while mislabeling themselves that ... purely out of greed, vanity, or for other selfish ends. That's political filth, not punditry. And I have some direct words for them, these feckless, falsehoods of, "I'm pretending to be a conservative, can I get a column, or on your show, please?" types.

We are onto you and we are sick of you because you are liars, intellectual posers, wannabes, headline mongers and charlatans deserving of being exposed and rhetorically beaten down for the political detritus that you are.

We have principle at our back. We will not and can not be beaten and we will never relent. You have felt us nipping at your heels, heard us bark and, on occasion, even felt our bite. But we are far from done.

We are still coming. And we will not stop until we have chewed you up and spit you out in advancing a genuine conservative agenda for America.

So, watch your backs. Because we are watching you. And until you become honest brokers and renounce the false conservative shield you have donned for selfish ends, we aim to strike you repeatedly until you scurry from the rhetorical field of political battle like the cowardly, lying, disgraceful political animals that you truly are.

Chew on that along with the olive, or granola bar, at your next DC cocktail party. The predominantly liberal establishment that pays you to mislead is entitled to do that. But, rest assured, the genuine conservatives are paying attention now. And since you falsely claim to be members of our club, we aim to extract just dues and perhaps even a pound of flesh to boot.

I realize you'll dismiss this as the ineffectual and vituperative rant of a conservative blogger. But time will tell and truth has a way of willing out.

Comments

[El Gordo]

As a defender of Levin, let me say this: there is one good reason for a conservative to try to moderate his tone and not use this kind of invective. But it´s not to impress people like Dreher or Frum, or to be nice to idiot lib callers. It is because the majority of conservatives in this country are Christian and I can´t help thinking that many of them will not identify with personal insults and humiliating people. There aren´t many products you can sell that way.

Winning a shouting match on a blog may feel good, but in the end we must win elections. The problem with the Frums and Drehers is that they are not helping at all. But in the end they are not our target audience. Our target audience are voters who right now don´t even know they are conservative and keeping them in mind when you go public is not the same as "selling out".

[Kat]

Fauxcons are duly warned. The time for deceit and treachery is over as Obama destroys what's left of our country. It's time to stand up, be counted and fight back against what I consider evil Liberalism.

[Philip McDaniel]

Well said, Dan.
I might add, this brings to mind Colin Powell:

"I can think of few greater intellectual scoundrels than those who would falsely embrace an important ideology for purely selfish gain, then look to sell it out at every turn."

[WestWright]

God post on these Vichy Conservatives. They must be identified and called to account.

[Bob]

Why are there no lefties who turn out to be Conservative?
I think there is a purposeful scheme to demoralize/confuse the right by the constant turning of coats. Like you say, most of these are oportunistic squishes, but some(O'Rielly? Fox News as a whole?) want the Right's eyes on their product so then they can push a meme-- demonizing oil producers or condemning the internet or slamming Wall Street as the cause of all grief -- growing worms of doubt that help the Left.

[JSF]

Damn, I've been following these posts over the past week and I gotta say, you hit the target.

I have a saying that just because something is popular, does not mean it's right. For the past 8 years, it was popular in many quarters to attack President Bush (then Palin -- Democrats always need an American Emmanuel Goldstein). Conservatives and republicans who stood up for Bush were disparaged (and still are today).

The Douthat's, the Frum's (Why the hell does NEWSWEEK chastise Rush but not hate filled Olbermann who refuses to debate anyone who disagrees with his views -- that is Fascism) and the Sullivans do not stand for anything, thus they fall for anything this administration puts out.

I would trust anybody who supported Republicans when we are not "cool," then when people come by after we've won (as will out in 2010).

Right now I am doing a series on my Blog called "The republican Encyclicals," and details how to handle re-building and who actually should speak for the GOP and why. Might I ask that you take a look and review?

Keep on fighting the good fight!

[Conor Friedersdorf]

"Those alleged conservatives who would criticize Levin, Rush, Coulter and other principled conservatives have betrayed themselves as not conservatives at all. Each of our popular pundits is a capitalist in a free market system. Genuine conservatives respect that, they don't decry it."

What utter nonsense. One's conservatism is determined by adherence to certain principles and temperamental qualities. It is not determined by one's loyalty to talk radio hosts.

Then there is your assertion that genuine conservatives should refrain from criticizing pundits because they are part of a free market system. That is incoherent. Every pundit is part of a free market system, including every liberal commentator, and Bill O'Reilly, who you criticize yourself in the next post.

You pretend that there is a principled difference between my criticism of Mr. Levin, and your criticism of Mr. O'Reilly, but the actual difference is that you personally agree with the former and disagree with the latter.

Finally, I'd like you to explain how Ross Douthat, an anti-abortion religious conservative, doesn't meet your standard for being a conservative.

[Jamie Lockett]

What garbage. The blind adherence of a certain segment of the conservative coalition to a bunch of radio talk show hosts reminds me of a certain blind adherence some liberals have towards The Golden One.

[Dan Riehl]

Conor, buy the cliff notes. Dreher called for Levin to be shunned. He didn't simply criticize.

I'm increasingly convinced you're a shill with a particular design. I hope it's a lucrative gig for you. But I'm not buying your act, as I don't think you are as stupid as you have portrayed yourself by simply regurgitating the talking points of the Left.

You've been evasive when confronted by many commenters. Looked only for openings to attack, while pretending to be the reasonable voice. You're either a shill, or a self-deluded BS artist who lacks what it takes to remain credible out here.

Good day.

[Jamie Lockett]

Hey Dan,

Are you actually going to answer Conor as to why you pretend theres a substantive difference between your criticism of O'Reilly and his criticism of Levin?

[Dan Riehl]

I responded to Conor as appropriate, Jamie. What are you, repeat to his sneaky Pete?

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Dan,

So your theory is that I've spent countless hours in your comments section because it's lucrative? Nonsense. I care about this discussion.

You write, "Dreher called for Levin to be shunned. He didn't simply criticize." Well, I don't know what that has to do with your last two posts.

In one of them, you say, "Those alleged conservatives who would criticize Levin, Rush, Coulter and other principled conservatives have betrayed themselves as not conservatives at all. Each of our popular pundits is a capitalist in a free market system. Genuine conservatives respect that, they don't decry it."

And yet in the very next one you criticize popular conservative talk radio and television host Bill O'Reilly, who presumably works in the same free market system.

How do you explain this contradiction? By calling me a BS artist? Well, I think your readers will see through that dodge.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

"You've been evasive when confronted by many commenters."

Also nonsense.

Given that I've been commenting on four different threads, each of them with dozens of comments, I may well have missed a question or a challenge, but I've not evaded any.

Pose any question you like.

[davis,br]

Heh. OK. Conor: Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

...perhaps that's too depthy for Your Excellence tho', eh?

[Jamie Lockett]

The saddest part about this whole debate is that it could be been solved thusly:

"In this case Mr. Levin went over the line as is often the case with his particular style, however, most of the time his arguments are cogent, insightful and a good example of conservative philosophy"

You're inability to separate substance from style is mystifying.

[Tom Meyer]

Before this, I'd have imagined that more fellow conservatives would have objected when one of our most popular talk radio hosts screams at a caller, accuses her of hating America, and sarcastically suggests that her husband commit suicide. I'm rather amazed to have been so entirely wrong.

[kathleen]

Conor, you are full of crap. When I educated you on the point that republics take centuries to end after the decay sets in (a point informed people don't need to be explained to them), you mocked me for supposedly claiming I could see far into the future. That, my friend is evasion of the cowardly, snotty and inept variety.

[kathleen]

"How do you explain this contradiction? By calling me a BS artist?"

No one here is calling you a BS artist. BS artists are good at what they do. You, sir, are no BS artist.

[Jim Treacher]

"Before this, I'd have imagined that more fellow conservatives would have objected when one of our most popular talk radio hosts screams at a caller, accuses her of hating America, and sarcastically suggests that her husband commit suicide."

Before this, I wouldn't have cared what you imagine. Or after.

[Philip McDaniel]

"What utter nonsense. One's conservatism is determined...etc, etc"
You really DO have problems understanding written English, don't you, Conor? Go back and read Dan's comments again. Slowly.

[Jamie Lockett]

Kathleen the only example of a historically decaying republic we have is Rome - all other examples are ongoing and thusly set in the future. Unless you mean The French Republic in the late 18th century? That fell to dictatorship in a matter of years, not centuries.

Are you basing your statement on one historic example? If so that is poor argumentation - one point doesn't make a line let alone a pattern.

[Tom Meyer]

"Before this, I wouldn't have cared what you imagine. Or after."

And yet, you wasted your time writing a response...

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Dan: "You're either a shill, or a self-deluded BS artist..."

Kathleen: "No one here is calling you a BS artist."

!

[kathleen]

he's mistaken, Conor.

but keep digging.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Kathleen,

I agree that I'm not a BS artist!

But you're clearly wrong that no one here is calling me one.

This is hardly a point worth belaboring, except that it so clearly demonstrates your rather astonishing ability to never admit that you're mistaken, even when confronted with direct evidence of your mistake.

[kathleen]

ooh, i give Conor. ya got me. you win. uncle!

Meanwhile, I want to hear more from Jamie Lockett about how Rome is the "only example of a historically decaying republic we have". I'm sure historians the world over will be taken aback by this new information.

[kathleen]

Hey Conor and Jamie, you're right. It's so much less edifying to listen to Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin than spend time on this board questing for an answer to whether someone said Conor was a BS artist -- or pondering the fact that "one point doesn't make a line, let alone a pattern." You guys clearly have so much to offer. The world doesn't know what it's missing.

[Jim Treacher]

"And yet, you wasted your time writing a response..."

Unlike you.

[Jamie Lockett]

"Unlike you."

You're the one who claimed he didn't care. Stop caring. Stop responding.

[davis,br]

...thought it'd be too depthy Conor. Score.

[kathleen]

Conor (and Jamie), reread this thread sometime down the road and ponder how little you offer to the discussion beyond inane and meaningless attempts at point-scoring for the sake of it. Then ask yourself why we would even care what you think of us.

[kathleen]

?

[seekeronos]

I don't much care about what Rush, Coulter, et al. say on account I really do not go out of my way to listen to them. When I did chance upon their radio programmes or blog entries or other media productions, they seemed to largely support the policies and actions of the Bush '43 regime.

Most of those same policies were crafted in the neo-conservative mold - Wolfowitz, Podhoretz, (Irving) Kristol, and many others who were once products of a post-Trostkyite/Schachtmanite school of socialism and nanny-statism.

At the very least, they brought to the helm of the Ship of our State - the nanny-statism, corporate socialism, and cronyism endemic to that other great bulwark of modern socialism, Red China, not to say the many other lesser communist/democratic socialist states.

While it might not be just to say that Rush, Coulter, et al. are "neoconservatives" (which, in my opinion, should become as dirty and poisonous a word to TRUE conservatives as "liberal" became to ... heh... liberals) and certainly these talk show hosts are no band of Trotskyites (reformed or otherwise), they should also be evaluated and perhaps brought to account for why they spoke so ardently on the neoconservatives' behalf.

Perhaps there was ignorance involved (as had been the case for myself, having been duped by the mass media over the better part of my life). I'm willing to admit that even these wiser souls may have even had the wool pulled over their eyes by those wily internationalists who traded with much guile under the patriotic-coloured masks, and under such noble sounding organizations such as the "Project for a New American Century".

Which, funny enough, seems to be becoming more and more of a Chinese century.

But why don't we look at what -in a nutshell- it means to be conservative:

Conservatives *conserve* things. Which is a similar, although not necessarily synonymous with preserving things.

We conserve values. Traditions. Lifestyles, such as the conventional definitions of marriage. We conserve our laws, changing them only when they fail to serve the public good, and not at the caprice of some overly-loud special interest group or activist judge.

We do not rush headlong into things based upon the prevailing Zeitgeists, or the variable winds of what some call "a need for change"; we deliberately and carefully make our decisions based upon facts and reason, and seek that wisdom that comes from our Creator to confirm it, especially in matters that touch the spiritual sphere.

That is not to say that we bind ourselves into a "theocracy", lest anyone mistake my meaning; but rather, that we do take care not to stray far from our faith when considering the effects our decisions have for our children. And that we also take care not to fall neither into the morass of godless, socialistic atheism nor the vain and egotistic secular humanism that preaches Man is a god unto himself.

We conserve our natural resources, and we save our money (hopefully, one that is a true store of value based upon a finite resource, such as gold) rather than spending ourselves into debts that we cannot hope to repay, or worse, debts that we cannot refuse by turning the printing presses of our increasingly worthless fiat currency over to foreign (and often hostile) powers.

We conserve our interests to our communities, and regionally to our representatives in the many statehouses across our Republic, and finally, to the Republic itself.

We conserve our manpower by not engaging in futile wars of empire for the benefit of a few major conglomerates that are the recipients of corporate socialism; we conserve our economic power by encouraging a culture of saving and judicious cash-based expenditures - harnessing credit only as a tool when capital expenditure on interest shall have a benefit abundantly exceeding the interest.

We further conserve our spending power by decreasing burdensome and crippling taxes against the most productive members of our society - the middle classes and the lower tier of the upper class (in terms of our modern economy, people with annual incomes of USD $10M or less)... and by refusing to support failing business models with taxpayer dollars.

We conserve our national sovereignty by removing ourselves from the influence of transnationalist and supranationalist entities such as NAFTA, FTAA, the United Nations, and the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.

There is much more we could talk about conserving, but these vile serpents who call themselves "neo-conservatives", who are verily wolves among the sheepfold, reveal themselves by compromising the very idea of conserving the things which made the United States a bulwark of freedom, shining the light of liberty high for the nations to see.

They are no less enemies of our Republic than the most rock-ribbed Red Marxist.

[Bob]

How can Riehl's call for a purge of moderate conservatives from the party do anything but further diminish the party's influence and send more people packing for the other side of the aisle? Substantial majorities of regular voters already think that the Republicans are too extremist and too partisan. Becoming angrier and more radicalized can only exacerbate these perceptions.

I love it. It's like watching Wile E. Coyote smugly sawing off a tree branch, and it turns out to be the branch he's standing on.

[seekeronos]

As for Mr. Levin's positions - while I admit I find his radio styling a bit abrasive (if not slightly humorous) I'll have to take a read of his book now to find out what he is about. On the surface, as an admirer of the Ron Paul/Murray Rothbard schools of political thought... a title like "Liberty and Tyranny: a Conservative Manifesto" sounds like it might be the straight goods.

We... that is, my tapeworm and I... (heh) will have to see about it.

[Jim Treacher]

"You're the one who claimed he didn't care. Stop caring. Stop responding."

My goodness, somebody's grouchy.

[Jim Treacher]

"I love it."

You should probably make up your mind, Bob.

[seekeronos]

I have to wonder if this Bob is a cleaned up, "kinder, gentler" BobinStamford.

[Dan Riehl]

"How can Riehl's call for a purge of moderate conservatives from the party"

Clue, moron - conservatism is not a "party." It's an ideology. I didn't call for a purging of the GOP. Evidently you aren't intelligent enough to know the difference.

[Jamie Lockett]

Dan,

The GOP is the political face of the conservative movement and by pushing people away from conservatism who don't lock step with you, you are in fact pushing them away from the GOP (even if you don't intend to, which I also question).

Furthermore, who is to say that there is only one kind of conservatism? You? Levin? Why? Burke was not Hayek. Reagan was not Goldwater. Paul is not Gingrich. Yet all are conservative and the efforts of all people who believe in liberty and responsibility should be harnessed for the greater good.

Invectives about stealth liberals, RINOs (huh, back the the GOP again I see), and hating our country because we aren't all Ditto Heads is about as self destructive as it comes.

[kathleen]

I'm sorry, use of the term Ditto Head isn't invective? You guys are allowed to use invective but we aren't?

You argue here the definition of "conservatism" is broader than we make it out, yet when I used the term republic, you attempted to make me look like an idiot by deploying the narrowest possible definition thereof (and I'm being generous -- the argument that Rome is the "only example" of a "historically decaying republic" is laughable)

You and your comrades have nothing to offer in terms of elucidating and empowering conservative principles . you just snipe and attempt to score points for their own sake. You're wasting our time, and for that reason alone we will crush you, since we don't have time to waste.

[Jamie Lockett]

Kathleen,

Ditto Head is a term coined and used by Rush and his fans. I am simply using their language - nice try. I use the term Republic as its dictionary definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Republic

I notice that you have neither responded to this charge nor given me examples of other Republic's that have decayed and destroyed themselves. My knowledge of history is pretty good, but by no means perfect so I'm very much open to some education on this matter. By all means, show me.

How sad that you are unwilling to listen to any other opinions outside of those you share. If great conservatives like Reagan or Thatcher thought like you do they would have been very poor leaders.

I am depressed at the lack of open debate tolerated within the conservative movement. For every wacky pseudo-conservative like Andrew Sullivan (how any man could so fully support Obama and call himself a conerservative is beyond me) there are those of us who truly want an open and vigorous debate about how to take the movement forward. We are supposed to be the intellectual movement. We are the movement of greats like Hayek, Burke and Reagan. What the hell happened to make you want to stifle all dissent? What made you so undemocratic?

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Kathleen,

When you say you'll crush us what exactly do you mean?

[Kat]

Coner, look up the word 'troll' and you will see your picture. Go walk a plank and take your playmates from the federalistpaupers with you.

[Bob]

Jim, I meant I didn't care about YOU and your aggressively stupid comments. What's it to you anyway?

[kathleen]

so now we're linking to dictionary definitions of "republic"?! -- not interested in going down that road, thanks Jamie (not with you anyway). how does this help your overall point, exactly? are you attempting to prove to me that you are not out to score points for their own sake? laughable.

Conor, you're an utterly predictable bore. I"m going to call you out on it. that's what i mean, sucka

[Jim Treacher]

"When you say you'll crush us what exactly do you mean?"

Your feelings. It's alright to cry, Conor. Crying gets the mad out of you.

[kathleen]

i'm done Jamie. I suggest you go take several years to write a dissertation about use of the term "republic" and get back to us after completion. Have at it buddy.

Conor, you're a bore and I won't refrain from telling you so. That's what I mean.

[thirteen28]

"I don't much care about what Rush, Coulter, et al. say on account I really do not go out of my way to listen to them."

If you did go a little more out of your way to listen to them, you would have never written this statement:

"When I did chance upon their radio programmes or blog entries or other media productions, they seemed to largely support the policies and actions of the Bush '43 regime."

Rush/Coulter/Ingraham/Levin opposed Bush on:

- Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit
- No Child Left Behind
- his caving on on Campaign Finance Reform
- His attempts at "immigration reform" (read amnesty for illegals with no border enforcement ... and the REALLY went after him on this)
- Steel Tarriffs
- the ill advised Harriet Miers nomination
- the bailouts
- last year's "stimulus"
- the ridiculous spending and his complete unwillingness to use the veto pen
- and a host of other non-conservative actions.

Furthermore, even as far back as 2000, Rush was warning us about the term "compassionate conservatism", arguing frequently that conservatism didn't need a modifier such as "compassionate" and that it would water down the "conservative" part.

If you listened, you'd never make the claim that they supported Bush as you suggest. They were with him when he did conservative things (like cut taxes), but were more than willing to stand against him when he went against conservatism. That's one reason they have so many admirers among the conservative base, because they have shown a willingness to stand up for conservative principles over party, and therefore have done far more to advance the conservative cause than the pathetic wannabes that whine about their tone or temperament and claim that it makes them a net negative to the conservative cause.

[Bob]

"That's one reason they have so many admirers among the conservative base, because they have shown a willingness to stand up for conservative principles over party, and therefore have done far more to advance the conservative cause than the pathetic wannabes that whine about their tone or temperament and claim that it makes them a net negative to the conservative cause."

And yet, thirteen28, "conservatism" seems to be at an all-time low in popularity according to every opinion poll. A majority of Americans believe that the Republicans want to take the country in the WRONG direction. It's true. So how do you square those facts with your claim that these radio personalities are advancing the conservative cause? What statistic can you point to to support your claim?