Mark Levin On Dreher, Frum And Friedersdorf

Friend and radio host Mark Levin and I had an opportunity to discuss Rod Dreher's criticism of him a bit over the weekend. The latest chapter in that debate between Conor Friedersdorf and myself is here. The commentary below from Mark was unsolicited and he requested that I post it when he sent it along. I've not had a guest blogger in five years. I can think of few people I'd be more happy to oblige with a first guest post, of sorts.

_______

Every now and then I have to lower myself to deal with the undeveloped minds of kooks like Rod Dreher.  I don't know Dreher and as best I can tell, most nobody does.  He has a column for a Dallas newspaper and created his own blog site, from where he writes love letters to himself and wonders why his brilliance is lost on the multitudes (while, of course, claiming to represent them and speak for them).

 

Rod learned of me, he says, from his friend Conor Friedersdorf.  Honestly, who is Conor Friedersdorf?  Well, after about 90 seconds of googling, I found out that Conor is (or was) a journalist and is (or was) a student and he blogs too.  So, it appears that Rod and Connor are cyberspace pen pals of a sort.

   

Now, apparently Rod learned from Conor, who just happened upon 15 minutes of my radio show, that I said something that was so disgusting and controversial that it merited their immediate commentary.  As Rod put it:

Conor Friedersdorf listened to a Levin bit the other day, in which the radio talker had the following exchange:

MARK LEVIN: Answer me this, are you a married woman? Yes or no?

CALLER: Yes.

MARK LEVIN: Well I don't know why your husband doesn't put a gun to his temple. Get the hell out of here.

This is the same Mark Levin whose book is a huge bestseller. A cretin who would say something like this on his radio show is a big deal among a lot of conservatives. Good grief. Having spent about 15 unpleasant minutes listening to this creep, I cannot imagine why anybody pays attention to him. Seriously, where is the pleasure in listening to this kind of trashmouth? If I were on the left, I would make sure that people thought that Mark Levin was the face of the Republican Party and the conservative movement.

Oh my.  How brutish of me. 

You would have thought I had spent the last 25 years befriending the likes of Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, or had driven the car that ended Mary Jo Kopechne's life.  But no, those are the leaders of the Democratic Party. 

Anyway, back to Rod.  I did a little more googling and found this on wikipedia (I know, wikipedia is unreliable, but then again, so is Rod, consider):

In 2002, Dreher wrote an essay in National Review that explored a subcategory of American conservatism he defined as "granola conservatism", whose adherents he described as "crunchy cons". He defined these individuals as traditionalist conservatives who believed in environmental conservation, frugal living, and the preservation of traditional family values. They also express skepticism about aspects of free market capitalism and they are usually religious (typically traditionalist Roman Catholics or conservative Protestants). Four years later, Dreher published a book that expanded upon the themes of this manifesto. This book was Crunchy Cons: How Birkenstocked Burkeans, Gun-Loving Organic Gardeners, Evangelical Free-Range Farmers, Hip Home schooling Mamas, Right-Wing Nature Lovers, and Their Diverse Tribe of Countercultural Conservatives Plan to Save America (or At Least the Republican Party).^[4]

Dreher is working on another book with a new theme. He has said on his blog that it will center on "the Benedict Option", the idea that those who want to live with traditional morality should separate themselves to some degree from mainstream society and try to live in intentional communities or other subcultures.

I think "the Benedict Option" would be good for Rod.  Will he be blogging from Drehertown?  Will Drehertown segregate itself from the Internet and talk radio, so as not to be polluted by the rest of us?  Now, this will have broad appeal with the American people, don't you think?  This is the way back for the GOP and conservatism -- "the Benedict Option."  Rod is a self-deluded kook.  He is also thin-skinned, like so many of the kooks with God-complexes and a keyboard. 

As I study the genius that is Rod and the wisdom of his words in his post about me, I am stunned that a leader of our party and our movement such as Rod would lower himself to use such shock-jock language as "shrill crackpot," a "cretin," and a "creep."  Come now, Rod, we need to raise the level of debate if we are to take back power.  

In his second post on this huge subject, Rod wonders, among other things, "Think about what WFB would say about Levin's rhetoric. I bet he'd be embarrassed by the low-class schlock of it all."  Well, Rod, WFB is a hero to all sound-thinking conservatives.  But I do recall an exchange between Gore Vidal and Bill Buckley in which Buckley called Vidal a "queer."  Maybe Rod missed it while doing his vast research for his post about me.  Well, here it is.  http://www.kronykronicle.com/1968/BV4.html  Buckley was a brilliant and complex man, unlike Rod.  He was also a fighter who knew his adversaries, unlike Rod. It was certainly wrong and offensive for Buckley to say what he did; yet Rod intones Buckley to admonish me.  He wants readers to think Buckley would stand with him and against me.  How cheap and pathetic.         

After Rod wrote his post about me on his website, he solicited comments from the common man (who he represents, of course) asking whether they agreed with his take on me.  Well, apparently they did not.  But Rod wasn't about to tolerate that.  So, he applied his "Benedict Option" and began selectively editing them.  Eventually he cut them off altogether.  Something tells me Drehertown won't be a very open and democratic place.  Ah, if only Rod were a host of his own radio show.  Then he could give these people what for.  

And while Rod represents the future of conservatism (just ask him), he doesn't understand my appeal.  I mean, he listened to 15 minutes of my radio show and he just doesn't get it.  No, Rod doesn't get it and he never will.  He's just not that smart or interesting.  Rod says he knows I have a "huge best selling book" but he doesn't know why.  Of course, he gives no indication of ever having read it.  Rod is supposedly unaware that for many years we posted articles and comments on the same website (nationalreview.com).  So, a geek who spends most of his days and nights on the Internet doesn't know I am a contributing editor to National Review?  Oh the pain of it all.    

Now, if I might, on to David Frum.  What does Frum have to do with any of this, you ask?  David has never recovered from my drubbing him on my radio show, or should I say the drubbing he gave himself.  He immediately went crying to Newsweek, MSNBC, various broadcast networks, etc., to complain about the low state of conservatism.  If only the rest of us would embrace the "true reformers" (you know, in addition to Frum, David Brooks and Ross Douthat, among others), we would be so much the better.  Dare I say if they were intellectually coherent and consistent, not to mention principled, it might be easier to understand them.  But they are, with a few exceptions, ineffective lightweights who shoot spitballs at conservatives from the backbenches.  This is precisely why the media promote them during their little hissy fits.

Well, David happened upon Rod's post about me and, of course, he was deeply disturbed by my exchange with the caller.  Now, this would be the same David Frum who hawks himself and his irrelevant books (yes, another unsuccessful author by another of our leader wanna-bes) on Bill Maher's show and the Daily Show.  Somehow David has a high tolerance level for the endless vulgarity and ridicule these hosts viciously and personally unleash against prominent conservatives and Republicans.  So, too, do liberals and Democrats.  With Maher's and Stewart's "f" bombs falling all around him, David enjoys the attention he so craves but does not get from conservatives.  And this character flaw is only part of the reason why David is so contemptible.  He is a self-serving hypocrite who seeks not the advancement of conservatism but himself.  Always concerned about the tone of the debate, here, in part, is what he wrote about Rush Limbaugh:   

With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence.

How Bill Maher of David. 

I may have more to say.  If I do, at least for now I will save it for the radio.

-- Mark Levin

Comments

[Chris]

Conor, if you had listened for more than 15 minutes you would probably already know the answers to your questions.

[Bob]

Mr. Levin, I'd like to ask you again if you'd respond to my question above. Again, commenter Peg claims (I'm paraphrasing) that she learned from you how to fight "the enemy," and that said enemies included "filthy, lying Democrats," "Vichy Republicans" and "Islamofascists." I honestly don't know because I've never listened to your show: has Peg picked up an accurate impression of your message? Do you really believe that Democrats are "the enemy?"

[Robert Wilson]

I think Levin should hang up on and tell more callers off. He's not exactly manning a suicide hot line. A certain element calls just to be annoying. I don't want to listen to them. They have nothing intelligent to say and they add nothing to the show. Levin is courteous to people who are courteous to him and his fellow conservatives. Maybe, Frum, Dreher, and others should try it? I'm sick of these people who do nothing but bash conservatives.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"The enemy?" You're talking about your fellow Americans on Memorial Day, dear. Even "filthy, lying Democrats" have given and will continue to give their lives for this country. You dishonor their sacrifices with your "vitriol."

Righto, Bob, which is why your Obama Party not only pushes for government resolutions to have our troops declared as "uninvited and unwelcome intruders", it gladly counts as its members the people who vandalize military property and verbally assault our troops as murderers and baby-killers.

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2008/02/371741.shtml

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/12/jodie-davis-code-pink-founder-obama-bundler-osama-apologist/

[Jesse]

Please do not misread my inability to respond to your subsequent comments as anything but boredom with your circular arguments and a busy and active life.

Do you expect anyone to believe this? You wrote a rambling 1400-word essay about Friedersdorf and Dreher's criticisms, and you keep plunging into this conversation to chatter some more.

Whatever people think about the remark on your show that set off this debate, I doubt your performance in this thread is earning you any new fans. You're coming across as a chest-thumping, self-infatuated prima donna.

[Jesse]

"Please do not misread my inability to respond to your subsequent comments as anything but boredom with your circular arguments and a busy and active life."

Do you expect anyone to believe this? You wrote a rambling 1400-word essay about Friedersdorf and Dreher's criticisms, and you keep plunging into this conversation to chatter some more.

Whatever people think about the remark on your show that set off this debate, I doubt your performance in this thread is earning you any new fans. You're coming across as a chest-thumping, self-infatuated prima donna.

[Robert Wilson]

I sincerely doubt that the democrats that have sacrificed or will sacrifice their lives for this country are filthy or lying. However, there are a hell of a lot of filthy lying democrats who do everything possible to harm our troops and country and they should be fought.

[Priscilla]

Listen, Dreher said that Levin was "disgusting" after listening to 15 minutes of his show, during which Mark made a rude joke at a caller's expense. I am sure that Dreher knows that Levin is a rising star in the conservative world, and that picking a fight with him would draw attention to Dreher himself, a relative non- entity in conservatism.

It really seems just as simple as that - a cheap bid for attention. Well, now I know what a crunchy con is. And I don't care.

[john]

is this the mark levin your talking about?

http://pssht.com/fauxnews/biolevin.html

[ynot4tony2]

Conor, you are pathetic. You name-call Levin, then complain when he does the same for you. You complain that Mark won't debate you on issues of substance, yet you go on and on (and on and on and on) about an alleged "15 minutes" yet comment on nothing but a one-minute exchange.

Levin has millions of listeners. You probably have dozens of readers. Mark Levin did you a favor by calling you out. At least now someone besides your parents have read your columns.

And Mark, Oh Great One, please stop giving this hack the attention he doesn't deserve. Please instead promote your fellow great up-and-coming conservatives, like Alfonzo Rachel. And me.

[Silk]

"All,

I am leaving right now to catch a flight, but I'll return to this threat tomorrow at the latest and do my utmost to address every substantive point. Meanwhile, thanks for the conversation.

Posted by: Conor Friedersdorf"

Of course you'll be back. This is more attention than you've received (or deserve to receive) in a long time. Stick with it. Colbert or one of the others will recognize your brilliance soon and before you know it you'll be sitting next to Meggie Mac telling us how we can become better Republicans by embracing more liberal ideas.

Has anyone checked the time? Is it 15 minutes yet?

[Jeremy]

Being on the radio for 3 hours a day, 5 days a week, you're bound to say things to upset one person...as a fan of talk radio that I'm sure would make some who even agree with what I'm about to say shiver (Opie, Anthony, and the cavalcade of "retard" jokes at the expense of callers, it's like mothers milk to a cubicle jockey).

I think what Levin had to say was funny...but, again, I have a dark sense of humor.

I'm assuming Conor Friedersdorf is also not a fan of South Park, Nick DiPaolo, Jim Norton, or people like Greg Gutfeld or TV's Andy Levy that are rightward leaning but have a certain kind of gallows humor. I suppose that's not the brand of humor that Mr. Friedersdorf appreciates, and it's within his right to attempt to regulate what the right should and should not listen to or find funny via his criticism...

...I'm just not buying into that argument. Sometimes dark is funny...and if you don't get it, you don't get it. I like to think that I get it.

[Cara C]

Mark Levin is an extremely intelligent and knowledgeable man. I don't normally like talk show hosts who abuse their guests, but I love Mark Levin. He is funny and he reserves his vitriol for those who deserve it.

He has no patience for those who are trying to rob, silence, and enslave us to the state and destroy our great nation.

Mark is the one of the few people in the media with the right sense of urgency about what is happening in America today. We are losing our nation and our liberty, and he is one of the only people shouting about it.

[CBK]

Wow, this is hysterical.

Having read Dreher's Crunchy-Cons and having read Men in Black before I knew who Mark Levin was, and then seeing this fella Conor get into the mix via Dreher, I have no problems stating that when it comes to Levin, these fellas are way out of their depth. Conor, apologies, but I'm not familiar with your work, and after reading your retorts in this thread, I don't think I really need to be.

I listen to Mark a couple times a week because I love hearing coherent explanations about why the Constitution is structured/worded the way it is, and larger explanations of the philosophy that girds this construction. You can hate him for his abrasiveness with annoying callers (I cringe at it), but he is who he is: one of the few, well-known conservatives who do not apologize for conservatism, and do not try to shape it into their own worldview. I notice that those who critique him follow the same pattern of those who critique Coulter - they find an out-of-context clip of something either has said that they find offensive and then begin with the lambasting.

He's not above critique, nor is Coulter, nor are other "abrasive" conservatives. However, if you're going to throw darts, at least spend a couple of hours reading what they write - you know, the books, the efforts where they actually explain what they believe, why they believe it, and where they're coming from.

Mark, maybe you should start publishing your books in Twitter format, so those who avoid your books can keep up.

[Max]

Let's just nominate a Crist/Huntsman ticket in 2012 and when it gets destroyed in the general election we can get back to REAL conservatives by 2016.

I have always found it amusing that a 'moderate' like Frum attacks guys like Rush. Frum is the author of the 'Axis of Evil', and yet he says OUR discourse needs changing.

Guys like Frum and Conor had their chance, now it's time for a conservative party in America.

[lu-ee]

Mr. Braunlich, do you agree with Conor or Mark? I am curious???? it would help if you would address their specific constitutional questions that have been a point of disagreement and not what kind of humor you do and do not like.

Personally, if you are turned off by Mark or Anne's dark humor, and also voted for Obama because of it, then you are not the kind of pro-life or conservative leader the USA needs. You are basically the reason Republicans have been losing ground since the 90s. You want to play nice with Libs while they runs circles around conservative family values. And anyone who gets offended or uses dark humor to counter the Left, you seem to despise. In the end, you work against those same conservative family values you supposedly have fought for. It seems you would rather go along with, or be "friends" with, or even vote for, a friendly socialistic baby-killer provider.

If the dark humor of conservative talk-show hosts has made you a apologist hit-man for moderate and left-leaning Republicans, why have you not gotten your shorts in a twist over the dark humor of the Left? ...or would that be too "uncivil" for anyone to ask you for fear of you offending the Left?

cheers sweetie. wink wink

[Mike2Cents]

Mark Levin is a Jabberin' Jackass.
Really, he is.
It is a fact only a fool could argue against.
Start arguing posters!

[winemkr]

Here is a shout out to Mark.

SEMPER FI!

War fighters can't afford to suffer fools (despite what murtha says).

Hey Levin. I don't need to read your book, your thoughts are courtesy of the blood and guts of those whom you speak for.

Semper Fi

winemkr
out

[john]

mark levin is a half pint piece of crap

[SMSgt Mac]

Not that it is necccessary, but if only for FYI purposes, I think I can second Mr Levin's reference to Mr Dreher 'disappearing' some comments down the memory hole. I just checked, and a comment I made appears to no longer exist. In the comment, all I did was note that there must have been some reason, some behavior beyond the pale, that would have stimulated Mr Levin to give the lady in question the liberal bum's rush.

I also asked as a BTW question: "Who is Rod Dreher?" -- A question that seems to still needs answering. That is of course, beyond the apparent insecure Beta male thing.

[jenkuznicki]

I defend Mark Levin because he defends me.

I believe, by listening to him, he realizes the peril the Democrat Party has hoisted on the American people, but especially the blue-collar country folk who will suffer the most because of the ignorance of the common Democrat and the manipulation of the elite of the Democrat Party.

It is fool's logic that begs Republicans to cringe when a brain-washed victim or an out-and-out socialist hag like the caller gets verbally lambasted.

Mark did not wish the woman's husband to die by the way.

I too have friends whose wives are totally in love with Obama and the big idea (lie) that he portends. It is extremely aggravating to try to counter some of the incoherence that they spew.

Am I to assume I would be a "crunchy con?"

I'm a Catholic, wife of a union boilermaker, country, blue-collar.

I tell any so-called conservative that if the movement is going to moderate, y'all better understand that we will take it over and you will be begging for placement.

[Mike2Cents]

I'm not allowed to call Mark Levin a Jabberin' Jackass?

[Mike2Cents]

Mark Levin is so great.
Everything he says is so smart.

[YoungAmerican]

I've been a listener (at length) of Mark Levin's radio show ever since I became involved in politics. I found it fairly obvious that the things he says are useful for injecting humor into a more serious discussion. I mean, after detailing what is wrong with the woman's opinion, I don't think he is going to win any brownie points by saying "Have a nice day miss." or using any other phony words. After the intelligent discussion of why she is incorrect, he makes a humorous statement, as if to say "I bet dealing with this woman is a nightmare" - and who would deal with the woman the most? Her husband. But none of this seems to matter anyway, it looks as if Friedersdorf is another Democrat in disguise (RINO), trying only to undermine conservatives and their principles in hopes of moving the party more towards the center until all that exists is the left. What is the point of conservatism, if at the end of the day, there is little difference between a Democrat and a Republican? No, supporting the environuts, same sex marriage and the abandonment of enhanced interrogation is not something "everyone" should agree on.

[Joe the Attorney]

Three words: Mark . . . Levin . . . ROCKS!

'nuff said. Moving on.

[djt0707]

This Conor guy is an annoying, whiny little wimp doing his best to justify his existence. I believe the kids these days would say the following of Conor's efforts to do that- FAIL. Conor- you might want to start practicing the following phrase, "Would you like fries with that?"

[Ryan]

Why can't we first defeat the Socialists who have taken over our country before we attack each other? It doesn't matter if your point is valid or not, let's do that first, OK?

Conor and Rod, your criticism isn't helping. We need to focus every effort on defeating our political enemies.

Mark Levin is doing it. Why don't you join him and help out a bit, eh?

[Bob]

Republicans should drive EVERYONE from the party who isn't sufficiently pure and fervent. A strict and rigid code of conservatism MUST be upheld, and the only way to do that is by demonizing, bad-mouthing, shunning, eschewing, and otherwise giving the stink-eye to ANYONE who is found to harbor one iota of uncertainty about their core values. This will GUARANTEE the CONTINUED DOMINANCE of the Republican Party henceforth. The ONLY way to rebound from recent electoral setbacks is through even more stringent alienation of all non-right-thinking people.

[KendraWilder]

Conor wrote:

"I am not asking Mr. Levin to give up his principles. I am asking him to stop berating callers with hateful rhetoric, employing flawed arguments, and resorting to ad hominem attacks against those who criticize him for the first two sins.

Posted by: Conor Friedersdorf | Monday, May 25, 2009 at 10:45 PM"

Excuse me, but I wasn't aware that God had died and left you Commander of the Thought Police Brigade, Conor. Since when, in a free market system, did it become the realm of over-inflated egomaniacs to set the parameters for what a talk radio show's host may or may not comment upon and in which manner?

The facts are that talk radio shows are driven by numbers: Numbers of listeners, and numbers of advertising dollars generated. If a talk radio show does not generate sufficient listenership, then the ad revenue falls off, and eventually the show gets canceled and/or the show's host retires after seeing the handwriting on the wall.

What your opinion is, Conor, of Mark Levin's modus operandi when responding to people who clearly are ignorant and/or just plain morons and idiots who refuse to open their minds and engage in meaningful debates about the facts of issues and/or events...... is irrelevant. Only Mr. Levin's radio show listeners' opinions matter, and they will express their opinions most importantly via the show's ratings.

If people are sufficiently upset over Mr. Levin's method of responding to close-minded and ill-informed callers, the ratings will drop off, and his show will start tanking. You, Conor, assuming the role as some pseudo-spokesman for the general Mark Levin listenership is presumptious at best, and frankly irritating and unnecessary. It's as if you've decided that Mr. Levin's listeners are insufficiently intelligent enough to be discerning when it comes to determining what is satire, or what may just be a "bad hair day" for the host, who, after all, is only human himself.

We have too many self-appointed "public watchdogs" in the Mainstream Media who are so ideologically driven that they have forgotten that their role is to simply and objectively report the facts, and let the public make up their own minds about the issues. We certainly don't need you jumping onto that particular bandwagon by attempting to establish Rules for Radio Talk Show Hosts because your opinion of the listenership does not allow for independent discernment.

My opinion of the reasons why you are acting out this charade is that you are attempting to make a name for yourself and grab a place at the head of the line in the current Conservative Renaissance Movement, by trampling on the established leaders already there who have given much and sacrificed more to earn that slot.

You, Frum, and so many others are merely opportunistic parasites in this realm, as far as I'm concerned, Conor. It's so obvious.....well, perhaps except to you?

[Joe]

And while I'm at it, one more thing . . . a year ago, I would've laid down my life to protect the right of even idiot leftists to have their say, because we're all "Americans." We're all on the same page, or so I thought, when it comes to understanding the greatness of the constitution, and the sacrifices that have been made by others who have come before us. Sacrifices that made our lives much saner, more free . . . sacrifices that give us all the right to say what we want when we want to say it, and to have a chance at achieving what our hearts and minds ask us to.

And that's what Americans have always done . . . "I regret that I have but one life to give for my country" . . . "give me liberty, or give me death." When push comes to shove, we fight for each other, even to the point of death.

Well, no more. The "change" brought by Obama is NOT the silly lefty dreams of "cap and trade," "income redistribution," "social justice," and "peace through appeasement." No, the change is that people like me have finally realized that we're NOT all on the same page - that we all do not "get" what being an American is all about. And let me be the first to say it (ok, write it) - I DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN THE SAME "COUNTRY" WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO SUPPORT OBAMA.

I'm "out" - and y'know what? It feels great! I'm taking care of myself, and my family - and that's it. The 53% of you who voted for "change"? Well, you got it. You're on your own now, and I (along with millions upon millions of people like me) are circling the wagons to protect ourselves, and not YOU. So when the barbarians come knocking at the gate, which they most surely will, and when you realize (too late) that you actually had it pretty damn good, and that the "system" that you so despise and that you helped destroy was actually your best, last chance at freedom . . . YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN!!! And you won't have us to rely upon, as you have smugly assumed throughout your lives, to fight your battles for you.

[mockmook]

I like Mark's show, but sometimes find his "rudeness" to be tedious.

But, it's his show, and he can do whatever he wants. He's a conservative entertainer and educator, responsible to no one but himself.

Conor, why do you care what approach Mark uses? You aren't your brother's keeper.

On your blog, you said:

"Doesn’t it remain the case that he was wrong to speak as he did to that female caller, that he should stop employing unsound arguments and hateful rhetoric, and that he should be criticized insofar as he fails?"

Should we all be monitoring Mark for "hateful" rhetoric, lest any go un-criticized?

To me, he was wrong ("ungentlemanly") to use that rhetoric. But, he should be criticized when he fails, no more nor no less than the Left. Are you balanced in criticizing both Left and Right "hateful" rhetoric?

I just searched your blog for "garofalo", and came up empty.

I know that means you didn't hear about her saying that Tea Party participants were racists, right?

Cuz, you would have criticized that, right?

[Stephen Braunlich]

As to the other Steve B in this thread, I feel it necessary to redeem the name of the martyr. My doppelganger writes:
"Conor Freidersdorf (NB: Correct spelling! A sure sign of a similar intelligence!) is unable to understand Mark's Shtic. Marks rhetorical comment to the women wasnt literal and it wasnt nice either. Mark understands the only way to beat these people is to get in the trenches with them and defeat them not accomodate them."

So the message here is, in the colloquial, that two wrongs make a right.

"Liberals like you Conor think accommodation and appeasement is the way to handle people who want to destroy society and warp the culture of this country. Mark cares about the future of the country and his children and he sees whats at stake."

Interesting that Mr. Levin then feels compelled to justify violations of basic rules of decency we learn from birth (like two wrongs not making a right) and broader Christian principles like charity.

More generally, the broader argument seems to be missed here: namely, that decency matters.

In defending against the charge that he is being indecent, Mr. Levin cites the fact that William F. Buckley called someone a queer once on television. However, we can easily distinguish that case from Mr. Levin's conduct. Mr. Buckley had just been the target of horrible vitriol by Vidal, culminating in Vidal calling Mr. Buckley a crypto-Nazi. As one who had actually fought in WWII, Mr. Buckley had good justification to be upset by these personal attacks, and responded in an understandable (but uncharacteristically uncharitable) way. In contrast, Mr. Levin is not subjected to personal attacks by those for whose spouses he advocates suicide. Even his defenders (like dantes) admit that he "seems to launch on people before they get any words out of their mouth." It is also worth noting that WFB was very good friend with many men and women on the left, something it is hard to see Mr. Levin being (since he considers them an enemy, not a friend). Therefore, to rely on Mr. Buckley to defend Mr. Levin is intellectually dishonest and only does damage to the former's good name.

For someone purportedly interested in preserving values, as noted above he is apparently willing to throw out that most Christian of virtues: Charity. Even the great polemicist St. Augustine, who tore down heresies, told his priests to hate the ideas not the heretics. (see "Saints for Sinners - The Lives of St. Augustine and St. Margaret" by Fr. Alban Goodier).

[Philip]

This is an interesting discussion, so I'll add my two bits. First, I have to admit that I do not listen to Mark Levin's show anymore. About a year ago I realized that, fundamentally, my beliefs were at odds with his. I don't trash him or have anything against him really, but I no longer waste precious minutes of my day listening to him. In substance, I agree with Dreher concerning his criticism of Levin. I don't care for the way Levin treats people who are not in complete agreement with him. He does not allow dissent on his show, cuts people off, insults them, and attacks them in a very ugly manner. As my inner lawyer would say, I am perfectly happy to stipulate that all of Dreher's facts and arguments are true.

Here's my problem - as distasteful as Levin's schtick may be to some, who does Dreher think he is to tell Levin what he should and should not say on his own show? Levin is a radio host - no more and no less. He is not speaking for the Republican party, nor does he have a monopoly on the conservative movement, though his views, for the most part, are in the conservative mainstream. If Levin's speech is too distasteful, he will lose listeners, which will eventually lead to a loss in revenue and affiliates. On the other hand, if his show attracts more listeners due to his abrasive nature, then good for him.

The first amendment was not written to protect speech that people agree with. Levin has a perfect right to say what he wants. If you don't like it, Mr. Dreher, start up your own show in opposition to his and defeat him.

[z9z99]

One of the more annoying aspects of the current political climate is the attempted "mini-purges" by the self-appointed guardians of Republican or conservative prospects. There is apparently some bolshevik-type need to denounce people for ideological impurity, lack of fervor, and now bad manners. True believers, it would seem, must not be content with debating ideas, or of advancing a particular interest among a mosaic of competing conservative causes. No, we seem to have convinced ourselves that we need a revolution, complete with heretics, counter-revolutionaries, double agents, and splinter groups. We can't be bothered to debate the bad policies until we first dispatch the bad characters.

Most conservatives noticed that Obama won the presidency, in part because circumstances which favored style over substance. The more nervous conservatives panicked, thinking that some measure of emulation was the path to recovery. Mark Levin's style can be off-putting, but he has the audience that he does, and the book sales that he does because he is consistent about substance. Say what you want about his unnecessary rudeness, shrillness or boorishness, if you listen to his monologue from 5/19/09, you will see that he is a man of immense feeling and insight.

I have been listening to Mr. Levin for about two months, always the replays that I download from the internet. I heard the comment about a caller's husband putting a gun to his temple. My wife was aghast, and I would have preferred that he didn't say it, but I recognized it as a poorly thought out extension of a remark he made a couple of weeks earlier, in which he remarked, after hanging up on another liberal female caller "You see, that's why there are so many single men." I suspect that Mr. Levin's interactions with callers is not scripted, and occasionally he will make a remark that he wishes he hadn't or in retrospect wishes that he said something that he didn't. I am going to guess that it is much much harder than it looks to talk into a radio microphone for fifteen hours a week. I couldn't do it. And Mr. Levin, as he often reminds the audience, has a responsibility to maintain listenership, to make his show entertaining, informative and useful. At times he more successful at this than at others, but I can't imagine how poorly he would fare if he gave fifteen hours of Republican policy lectures every week.

If you listen to Mr. Levin's show from last friday, you will notice that he seems to contradict himself. He advises a caller to engage liberals "politely" in order to be more persuasive. My first thought on hearing this was "take your own advice, man," but it highlighted the difficulty between maintaining a viable radio persona and getting out a message that he cares about. I personally would prefer that he not use the term "Re-pubic-an" but I put up with it because I believe that Mr. Levin's knowledge, analysis, and love of country make him too valuable a mind to discard over questionable taste. Because here's the thing: in my opinion Mr. Levin is a much better philosopher, legal analyst and conservative thinker than he is a radio host, and I'd rather not sacrifice that on the altar of form over substance.

[Rich K]

Sorry Dan but I just wanted to be included in this thread because it was so much fun to read.Mark is an aquired taste and Im one who enjoys his broadcasts on a regular basis. If these pantywaist bloggers cant take the heat Mark dishes out on his show then they should get a fresh pair of panties as thiers are obviously wound too tight.

[Benson]

"You would have thought I had spent the last 25 years befriending the likes of Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, or had driven the car that ended Mary Jo Kopechne's life. But no, those are the leaders of the Democratic Party."

So Levin's defense of his condemnable words amounts to, "But there are Democrats who've done worse!" Yeah huh.

I'm with John J.Vecchone on this one. Levin is bright and articulate. Yet he results to wondering why people aren't committing suicide because they're married to someone he disagrees with? And then, rather than trying to convince them of his view, tells them to "get the hell out of here"? It's off-putting even to fellow conservatives who don't need to be convinced to believe his views.

[DonovanTaylor@mac.com]

I wonder if this annoying woman was Coner's wife? And if so, could she lend him one of her testicle?

[Dblade]

Well, Mark Levin isn't coming across very well in these replies. If it's just shtick, there's little reason to continue it outside the show. His reply is ridiculous, with pure ad hominem attack and very little actual defense. if you are going to channel Michael Savage in your announcing style, of course people are going to overreact like that and treat you like savage.

That's the whole argument against in a nutshell. Being fashionably angry makes it very easy to discount what you say, and Levin is a lightweight anyways and can't risk that. Bork did men in black much better much earlier with Coercing Virtue. If Levin had actual substance, he wouldn't need the angry shtick. Even rush and hannity, who are lightweights too, don't bother with that. They just bring out the issues and comment on them.

But no, being angry gets all the conservatives who have little idea about what conservatism actually means and just defines it as a lifestyle choice against some mythical liberals in the far east somewhere left of shangri-la. It's much easier to play to the crowd even though in the long run it damages the conservative cause.

I don't agree with dreher either-I don't see crunchy cons being any form of force, and its much too class and lifestyle based. But conor at least seems to be coming off a heck of a lot better in this, and levin is just playing into his hands.

[Michael Huffman]

Some people might not like his humor. I like his humor. When a caller is being dense and not responding to his logical arguments, Mark will usually get impatient and yell at him/her saying something similar to what started this discussion. I find that FUNNY and ENTERTAINING. It happens almost every day on his show.

Of course his comment to the caller is taken out of context because the context is his entire show and his entire personality. You have to hear how he builds his case, like a lawyer, and lays out his reasoning. And then when he takes a caller, how he reacts. You cannot just listen to his reaction without listening to his entire show and understand the meaning and purpose. If you listen to the show, you know that. If you don't listen to his show, I suggest you give up because you don't know what you are talking about.

[Stephen Braunlich]

Lu-ee

My apologies for having failed to respond to your questions before now. I had missed your earlier comment in the large number of comments. I usually do not wade into combox discussions, but I felt compelled to on this one. Let me try to address your questions, before I hit the hay and fade out of this conversation.

"Mr. Braunlich, do you agree with Conor or Mark? I am curious????"

The answer is that on the specific issue of torture, I side with Conor, while on other issues such as SSM I side with Mark. However, one of the best homilies I ever heard preached was on the idea that it's not just what we do in our lives, but how we do it. I'm a Christian, and I believe the greatest virtue is Charity (aka Caritas or Love). I do not see a conservatism that addresses its opponents outside of this spirit of charity as one that I can support. I left one job in the movement because of it, and I've found myself estranged from the movement altogether because of it.

"[I]t would help if you would address their specific constitutional questions that have been a point of disagreement and not what kind of humor you do and do not like."

My concern is not so much with humor as respect, and not so much the constitutional questions as the means of engaging the opposition. I didn't see Mr. Levin giving the caller the basic human dignity that everyone deserves, as annoying as it may be to give it to them. The Golden Rule remains, and I would no sooner have someone tell me that a loved one should kill themselves as I would tell someone else the same.

"Personally, if you are turned off by Mark or Anne's dark humor, and also voted for Obama because of it, then you are not the kind of pro-life or conservative leader the USA needs."

That's a massive leap to make. I am indeed turned off and away from conservatism by Levin's means of conveying it, at least on the air. However, that doesn't mean that I'm about to go vote for a baby killer. Ron Paul is to limited government as I am to the right to life. No compromise (with either party).

"You are basically the reason Republicans have been losing ground since the 90s. You want to play nice with Libs while they runs circles around conservative family values. And anyone who gets offended or uses dark humor to counter the Left, you seem to despise."

I want to play honest with the left and those I oppose because 1) they deserve it as human beings, and 2) I don't want to use bad means for good ends. I don't despise Mr. Levin, in fact I think my parents actually knows Mr. Levin from their days in YR/YAF and I know they respect him. That matters. I do despise rhetorical styles that extend disrespect for an idea (which is not a bad thing) to disrespect for the person. The effect isn't to make me despise the speaker, but his style. More than anything I'm sad to see debate degrade like this, because I would love to be able to get involved in the movement again without feeling like my soul was rolling in mud.

"In the end, you work against those same conservative family values you supposedly have fought for. It seems you would rather go along with, or be "friends" with, or even vote for, a friendly socialistic baby-killer provider."

Again, a big and unsubstantiated jump. Just to be clear, I did not vote for Obama, or any other candidate that supports abortion or embryonic stem cell research.

"If the dark humor of conservative talk-show hosts has made you a apologist hit-man for moderate and left-leaning Republicans, why have you not gotten your shorts in a twist over the dark humor of the Left? ...or would that be too "uncivil" for anyone to ask you for fear of you offending the Left?"

As I noted at the start, I tend not to wage into these combox debates. Neither do I count myself as a hit-man for moderate or left-leaning Republicans. While in college I actively campaigned against them for staunch pro-lifers. That said, I care more about correcting the style of those on the right than those on the left because I find myself more ideologically aligned with the former than the latter. But you are right, I should care equally about each side's disrespect of the dignity of those they oppose. To the extent that I fail to do so, I deserve correction. So far in this discussion, though, I do not think that I have approved of the left. Rather, I have disapproved of both left and right. Since the conversation focuses on the Right, though, it is natural that my comments would likewise focus on them.

Sweet dreams, and God bless! May Thomas More pray for all of us interested in politics.

[Jim Treacher]

Rod Dreher must grow faint at the torrents of abuse Groucho heaps on Margaret Dumont.

[jeaneeinabottle]

I LOVE it when Mark lets them have it. It's everything we are thinking and want to say to these crazy people. He always makes me laugh and cry and that's every time I listen to him. You can always know a true conservative, you can see and hear their core. Their heart is raw and open, it gives me goose bumps just thinking about it. Rush, Glenn, and Gov Palin does it to me too. Their beliefs just don't change. That is why they are successful.

[Greg]

All-wise Braunlich stated: "Is that to much to ask of presumably intelligent people who are presumably thinking about what they are writing?)"

I think you need to take your own advice as it should have read "Is that TOO much to ask of presumably intelligent people..."

but I guess I am a fan of Mark's, Rush's, Ann's, etc and we are all just mean and condescending...when actually we just do not like weak-kneed liberal conservatives as they have destroyed our party over the last 15-20 years. I am proud to stand with Mark, Sean, Rush, Ann, Michelle Malkin, etc as they are the Jefferson's, Madison's, Franklin's of our day.

[Kensington]

"Rod Dreher must grow faint at the torrents of abuse Groucho heaps on Margaret Dumont."

Dumont's characters were probably Republican so I'd guess not.

[MUSEUM CURATOR]

Hey "Mike No cents",

I had no idea what a Jabberin Jackass was until I saw your comments. In your case, Jackass will work just fine. You've gone and removed all doubt.

I have to say, this Goner Friedersdork guy is quite the bore. I just read some of his blog and I realized that I'd just found the cure for insomnia. Can I patent his blog?

I'm still trying to wake up, so bear with me folks. I've seen this type of guy before and it's all the same thing. Nothing new here. He'd spend months replying to Mark Levin the same tired " You still haven't addressed the substantive criticisms that I make" line. It's his only way of making it appear to readers here that he didn't just get his ass kicked.

Goner Friedersdork is the classic moderate/liberal who claims to be conservative, who thinks that he is smarter than everyone else in the room. We are just a bunch of knuckle dragging neanderthals roaming the countryside in need of his enlightening wisdom to set us down the proper path.

If we conservatives would just listen to him, and follow his non principled advice, we'd all live in a happy world where everybody would just get along and play nice. We'd be shoulder to shoulder working in the rice fields, but hey, we'd all be good little worker bees getting along working for the state instead of having our say.

Guys like Goner think that we need to play pattycake with liberals and even the terrorists. Heaven forbid we offend them with our ideas or our dreaded principles. We'll just make them madder and that will lead to discourse and conflict. Goner prefers pattycake, and we'd better toe the line. It's when we speak our minds or say how we feel, that's when Goner gets on his high horse and puts us back in our place. How dare we!

To guys like Goner Friedersdork, it's not the terrorists that we should fear. It's not the liberals or the socialists that should concern us the most. Nope, instead what we need to fear the most is conservatives who actually mean what they say and believe in what they preach. "Damn those guys!" he thinks.

In his mind it is guys like Mark Levin, El Rushbo, and Sean Hannity who are embarrassing guys like Goner who REALLY WANT liberals to like him! That's the core here.

Phony conservatives like Goner Friedersdork want adulation and respect from liberals. He craves their attention. He wants them to say, "Hey, I don't agree with that Goner Friedersdork, but he seems like a smart guy. A real intellectual. He's not bad, for a Republican."

But again, it's those darn guys like Mark Levin that ruin this for him, and therefore become his number 1 targets. They are the enemy. They must be taken on.

A classic moderate/liberal posing as a conservative. End of story.

Gosh, I can't believe I just wasted my time on this guy....

Oh, "Hey Mike no cents,"

Are you married? ;)

[Pinandpuller]

If the aforementioned caller wanted Mark to play nice she should have asked him about his Sprite book. He's a totally different guy on that topic.

To all of you complaining about the suicide comment-I'm guessing the toilet seat stays down 24/7-yes?

[epobirs]

Some talkshow host like to engage fools and attempt to make them see their own folly or use it to demonstrate to the other listeners the flaws of the liberals' arguments.

Some talkshow host do not suffer fools gladly and quickly drop them in the shredder, then move on.

Guess which group best categorizes Mark Levin?

Frankly, I like the show better when there are few or no callers. He's far better in lecture mode than interactive mode. For instance, a while before the the 2008 election, he focused the first half of a show entirely on the subject of Saul Alinsky, his book 'Rules for Radicals,' and how Obama's campaign was guided by it. It appears that Obama hasn't found any good book on what to do one you win, which is why he acts like he's still campaigning.

I strongly believe that if a major portion of the voting public had listened to that one show it would have altered the outcome of the election. You couldn't process that information without realizing that while the wouldbe Emperor isn't buck naked, what he is wearing is awfully threadbare.

Until his supposedly conservative critics can produce something comparable to that Mark Levin broadcast, they need to tend to their own house before worrying Levin might have offended somebody.

[Rob]

Mark Levin expresses the anger many of us feel at what Obama and the Dems are doing to this country. If you don't get this, you're not serious about the principles upon which this country was founded, and the damage our children are going to suffer due to this regime. He also has the ability to be able to pick apart arguments using logic in a clear manner that anyone can understand. From my own experience in law school, this is a gift few professors have. Lastly, the guy is just freaking hilarious, and when you're frustrated about the direction this country is headed, humor goes a long way toward taking the edge off.

[Reagan Punk]

@ Conor? Conny? Cornhole? whatever your name is...

Lighten up you little nerd. He's making you famous...now shut your mouth and take your fat girlfriend Megan McCankles and leave our party. WE'RE DONE WITH YOUR ILK.

America, please resist these types that are soo easy to spit venom at someone like Mr. Levin who truly has a great heart and is concerned for our country, yet these same types pander and look the other way at Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Saul Alinsky, and Jerry Wright. When do you ever hear flakes like Frum, or this Conor nobody, attack the left and their preposterous agenda the same way they go after their own (Levin)? Something is off here.

PLEASE be mindful that the talk of Rush, Great One, and Laura, being minimized as "just entertainers" couldn't be further from the truth. The real "Entertainment" is CNN who focuses on whether our president has "Swagga" or not...(true story). The real entertainment is CNN, MSNBC, O'reilly, ABC, and CBS.

Rush, and Mark are the REAL Reporters, Truth tellers...Bottom Line...but let me guess, I'm in the racist corner of the tent, right?

Can you believe these guys Great One? What is it like to be such an ass kicker? We love you, truly. You ARE reaching the youth- I just graduated and the fact that our own are attacking you and ignoring the REAL threat (statists) exposes themselves, and they don't even realize it. It's a good thing though, all of this is necessary, here's to standing for something and putting the backbone back into our party.

Please just give Mr. Levin a chance America, there is nobody more rich in substance and facts than him- I know this because I myself am brilliant. Be an adult and stop being swayed by emotion more than logic and reason. God Bless our veterans and our heroes on this day.

[JeffOH]

Whenever I hear Levin talk I honestly feel embarrassed for him. It makes me cringe. It's like watching someone who engages in porn.

Rush Limbaugh is actually enjoyable to listen to. On the other hand, I wish Levin would just go away. Put on some elevator music instead.