Are Some Being Too Hard On Conor?

I realize there is far too much discussion going on over Conor, Frum, etc. I won't go on after this. I promise. 

In Conor's case I think he questions why some people are saying he, or Frum, or whomever aren't conservative, or why they simply won't listen and accept his ideas. Please keep in mind, this all started when Conor and co began calling for a purge of Mark Levin. No one went after them here first. That's a fact.

But without saying too much more, if Conor wants to know why he is experiencng a hard time from many in the grassroots and will continue to, it is increasingly less about ideology and more and more about him and his style. I'll leave you with a few snips from his latest unbearable piece from today that will not, I suspect, make Conor many friends amid the grassroots Right. A veteran out here couldn't survive this post. That he is unknown to many among the grassroots blogging and commenting Right, only makes this that much worse.

I've spent some time listening to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin. It is verboten to criticize any of these men if you consider yourself to be on the right side of the political spectrum, as I do. I'll press on anyway, not only because I enjoy a lively argument, but because these men, though their talent as broadcasters varies widely in the order I've listed them, do similar violence to a healthy public discourse -- and do a particular disservice to the conservatives and libertarians most loyal to them.

Can you imagine engaging someone's fans like that and expecting to be heard, let alone taken seriously? I can't.

Above, Conor demonstrates that he has no real knowledge of many out here who have a wide variety of opinions on them all - from adoration, to disdain. They do not attack them like a typical liberal, though. And for God's sake, they would never presume to tell their fans that do enjoy them what a disservice is being done to them. I mean, really, who does this pup think he is? Anyone seeing why there might be animosity toward Conor here? I mean, ... jaysus. If there was a market for bottled pretension, I'd have a plentiful source.

In fact, I want to address this post to their listeners, for having grown up in Orange County, California, the admiring grandson of grandparents who are Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin fans respectively, I've met enough talk radio aficionados to know that many are intelligent, devoted citizens with kindly dispositions, and a far cry from the negative stereotypes that prevail in some quarters. (We aren't all dumbasses, thank God Conor gives us THAT) Those folks should note that this isn't a thoughtless, knee-jerk condemnation of the programs that they enjoy, nor is it a call to kick Messieurs Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin off the radio. This is a carefully considered, honestly held, and pointed argument: though I maybe unable to persuade these men to take stock of specific shortcomings that do you a disservice, perhaps I can convince you to demand better. The quality of our political ideas are at stake.

Okay, I mean ... WTF?? Readers, you think you're about ready to hurl? I'm actually reading through this crap to pick out these gems. Conor wants to be our Mommy, let's all sing. Because only Conor can see the light. It must be that halo over his head some of us are possibly ready to wrap around his throat for that last pathetic bit. Between O'Reilly and Conor, hell, we don't even need to look out for ourselves! It's all gud!

That's why I want to move beyond a critique of Mr. Levin's tone and temper: the balance of this post and a couple follow-ups will show that specific flaws in the substance of what Mr. Levin says hurt public discourse, his most dedicated listeners, and the right's cause generally.

Conor invokes the wisdom of David Frum before the above in a bit I didn't snip. As I recently pointed out, Mark's book has over a million copies in print and has been on the NYT's Bestseller List for 11 of 12 weeks. Yet, Conor concludes that the wisdom of David Frum, who couldn't sell 5,000 books is the path forward for conservatives to save it from the evil of Mark Levin. Do we really have to debate the sheer stupidity here of this our new patron saint, Conor Friedersdorf, come to lead us from the wood? Or, can't we simply just move along?

I thought so, thanks.

For my purposes, his(Levin's) motives are beside the point -- the effect of his words, insofar as they persuaded listeners who hadn't time for a close reading, is to misinform them about reality. And not just any reality. The average Mark Levin listener is powerfully invested in opposing President Obama's domestic agenda, and persuading fellow citizens to do the same. Effective opposition requires a clear-eyed, unsentimental assessment of reality, not paranoid, uncharitable rants. The right understood this very well when they talked about The Angry Left, and how its visceral hatred for George W. Bush distorted its judgment. Too many seem to have forgotten this lesson, and aren't the least bit skeptical at analysis offered by a man assuming of his opponent the most awful motivations imaginable. This is merely one small example from a radio show that traffics in rhetoric of this very kind five days each week. Listeners who object--politely and rationally, I hope--will be doing us all a favor.

Shorter Conor - Look you hayseeds, remember to wipe your chins before you call to complain. For God's sake, don't make it worse. You embarass me enough already. You rubes aren't sophisticated enough to get "infotainment" (actually, I fear Conor is too dense and full of himself to get it) but Levin is poisoning your minds, rendering you incapable of distinguishing between some silly yuks on the radio and the fine level of discourse you'll need to gain entry to some of the finest Inside the Beltway salons. But, not to worry, ... Conor, who has accomplished literally nothing in life, or done anything for the conservative movement relative to Mark Levin, has graciously decided to take some of his precious time and set us all straight.

So why should those who never listen to talk radio care about any of this? As I noted above, many who tune in to hosts like Mark Levin are engaged in a good faith effort to stay informed, to participate in their democracy, and to better their country. Insofar as these folks offer constructive, clear-eyed critiques of President Obama, they enrich public discourse. And if their host instead traffics in simplistic bombast, utterly ungrounded in fact, those listeners who are influenced by him inevitably degrade public discourse.

Alas, the flawed rhetoric above is not the only kind that makes regular appearances on the Mark Levin show. But further analysis must await a future post.

Alas, ( I have the back of my hand to my forehead, such is the drama I am compelled to feel at Conor's somber close, really I do ...) how long must we wait, Conor? Please tell us! Please, where and when might we all queue up?

So, anyway ... why is Conor experiencing a hard time playing nice with some bloggers and commenters from the grassroots out here? Alas and alack, hell if I know. Someone please tell me, as the noble Conor is woefully absent, not here to help me out. And without Conor to guide us, whatever is it that we dumbassed conservative yokels and hicks are to do?

Boo hoo

Boo hoo

Boo hoo

Comments

[mark l.]

"And if their host instead traffics in simplistic bombast, utterly ungrounded in fact, those listeners who are influenced by him inevitably degrade public discourse."

but kieth olbermann is ok. mark levin? corruptor of the people.

"Effective opposition requires a clear-eyed, unsentimental assessment of reality, not paranoid, uncharitable rants."
it seems to have worked very well for dems(...snicker.)

[Rich K]

Funny but most shows Mark airs usually begin with a plea to hear the facts about the issue hes going to tear a new butthole on. Yet this Conor dude must never actually tune in cept somewhere in the middle.And Dan, If I promise to never mention Conor here again can you agree to the same??? Just askin.

[Dan Riehl]

Trust me, Rich, I do understand. I ignored it all day, saw it in the AM. I'm torn between ignoring it and not letting people simply get away with BS, especially when it's directed at us, or a player on our side. The sad thing is, assuming Conor is honest about who he is, he would have no problem getting along if he didn't feel a need to lecture so much. I bet he's never asked a fan of some talker what THEY thought.

It might also help if he showed a little more concern for what the Left is doing. But I guess he wants some friends. Hopefully this is it for a good long while. I don't exactly go looking for his posts.

[Dawnsblood]

He is an heir to the British (poor excuse for a) conservative party. They surrendered to the left... I will not. I miss Maggie and Ronnie!

[syn]

Prior to my 9/11 conversion Conservatism(sorry I was a narcissist who missed out on Reagan's Revolution), I use to aped what my NYC theater peers aped (group think is the survival tool for the cool people), that being, "Rush Limbaugh is rightwing nutcase out to destroy America"; it was quite easy for me to say that since I never took the time to listen to his show, all I knew is that it was cool to hate the 'uptight right-wing puritans who weren't having sex'. Mark Levin wasn't even on radar(my apology to Mr Levin for my myopic and provincial approach to life.

9/11/2001 CHANGED all of this; sometime around 2003 I tuned into Rush and have listened since then and was only last year I began listening to Mark Levin.

From my experienced perspective, Conor sounds like I used to sound back when I was stuck inside the myopic and provincial groupthink; the desperation to be popular among one's peers is an overwhelming pressure particularly for those who need to be accepted by their peers.

I don't think Conor is malicious, I don't think he actually listens to himself or what he hears.

When my conversion began one of the most difficult experiences I had was facing myself and what I thought I believed; whenever I questioned myself and my peers the pressure to conform to the groupthink was troubling. IT was that pressured which inevitably encouraged me to seek out Conservatism, or rather The Other.

I understand why Mark Levin yells, if I knew what he knew for decades I too would yell louder than he does (actually sometimes I do especially when speaking to groupthinkers-it like I want to snap them out of their myopic provincialism!)

I feel sorry for Conor because one day there will come a hard place which will force him to finally listen; for me, it was watching from my rooftop the Twin Towers crumble to ash at the age of 40, for others it may be a High Misery Index but that 'rock and a hard place' will come to him and his peers if they want to survive into adulthood.

[Ran]

Blah blah ..."clear-eyed critiques of President Obama, they enrich public discourse"... blah blah

It isn't about criticism of Obama: It's about his big-eyed megalomaniacal policies and how they will destroy initiative and freedom and impoverish this nation. It isn't about "enriching" public discourse; This isn't a G-d damned remedial English class. It's about coming to grips with the very real evil of Obama's ambition and how we must thwart it. Nay, how we must return government to servitude. How we must roll it back.

This is why my vitriol against the likes of Frum (with one N), who would have us appease EnviroNazis as a way to "appeal to the middle."

Damn it, it is not my anger that "distorts" my "judgment." When an administration fires private sector CEO's, threatens them with ACORN "pitchforks", loots private equity wholesale to redistribute assets to Union supporters, pillages auto dealerships according to Party-line donations, prints and looses hundreds of billions of dollars distributed to only G-d knows where and saddles my children to debt they can never repay... Well excuse me if I get angry at being patronized by a fool (with only one N) who appears to be "utterly" nonchalant with the facts.

There are very real consequences of the the actions being taken against our Constitution and our way of life that need vigorous opposition. Remind our one-N'd "conservative" that passion and even anger are not the enemies of reason, they are Nature's appropriate response to evil.

Anything more civilized or more genteel will get him shackles. Nice, comfy shackles, and removal of that one remaining N - but not to worry, the new Gov't plan will guarantee that my grandkids will pay for his procedure.

[JSF]

Here's why I don't trust Conor (or Sullivan or Frum) when it comes regarding Conservatism: They never walked for a candidate (or called).

And I love rule 31 of The leadership Institutes's Rules of the Public Policy process:

Don't fully trust someone until he stuck with a good cause he/she saw was losing.

In otehr words, when it's popular to slam Republicans and Conservatives, Conor will be the first (actually, he's not a trendsetter -- so maybe fifth or sixth).

I've walked for candidates, I've called. I've even done some Blog posts suggesting how to fix the CA and LA GOP after spending my time helping them out.

Conor is the person riding the popular (not Populist) bandwagon. That's why I think he is shallow and has nothing to ad to the conversation.

[Jamie Lockett]

Dan,

I notice you didn't address any of the specific points Conor made against Levin. Why?

[Rob Crawford]

Jeebus. Someone writes like that and doesn't intend it to be parody?

I'm curious as to whether Conor's read Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny", and particularly if he read it with an eye towards understanding rather than a hostile eye. I get the feeling he hasn't. That, perhaps, he's just not capable.

[Rob Crawford]

"I notice you didn't address any of the specific points Conor made against Levin. Why?"

Because they're not worth the effort?

Borrow a copy of "Liberty and Tyranny" if you cannot bring yourself to pay for one. Read it. Compare the content -- writing and the thought processes behind it -- to those created by Conor.

[Dan Riehl]

Jamie, I'm not going to respond to anything in a ridiculous posting like that. Evidently you missed the entire point of the response. And you're questions are now getting well beyond the worthy of response line, too. You have an agenda. Good for you. Go blog about it somewhere instead of playing, or being, too dense to appreciate what is being said here.

Some of you folks seem to believe that just because you ask a question, the world is compelled to respond as you would like. That isn't the way the world works. And it certainly doesn't work with me. It's sort of a, if a tree falls in the woods and asks a question and there's no one around to hear it, does it draw a response? The answer is ....

[DrummingAncient]

A lot of writers want to aspire to the level of C.S. Lewis or Chesterton. Unfortunately, I can stumble into the same habit when trying to communicate. I don't want to be a snob - I just don't read my words the way that other folks may interpret them.

I don't think he's trying to be snobbish. I just think he's a newB to modern communications. Give him time, and good examples. Thanks, Dan, for being one of those.

Hang in there.

[Mike2Cents]

Jamie -
I may be able to help here...as to why Dan et al don't feel the need to offer substantive responses to substantive questions.
It's because Levin sold lot and lots of books and Conor didn't.
And because Conor 'has accomplished literally nothing in life'.
Litterally.
And because you are 'dense'.
You are no match for the superior intellect and wit present here.

[Dan Riehl]

Drumming Ancient, I might not disagree with your basic point. However, having read The Atlantic for years before they dropped fiction, if one is publishing under that banner, the last thing I should have to be concerned about is their writing.

Nor should they not be able to take their lumps. In fact, that should have happened long before they signed on. That is not to say Conor doesn't possess the ability to be a fine writer one day. But when you couple that with The Atlantic's obviously plucking someone up from some inner circle, while passing over so many fine writing conservatives who have been out here hacking away for nothing for years, any genuine courtesy extended toward The Atlantic, or one of their writers, would be undeserved.

The Atlantic was once known for the exceptional quality of its written words. Look at its founders, for heaven's sake. But none of the writers I ever had the pleasure of reading in it let you know all that so forcefully in their prose.

But then, many things are not what they were.

[Rob Crawford]

"I don't think he's trying to be snobbish. I just think he's a newB to modern communications."

I don't buy it. That's not an archaic style, it's a stilted style.

[E.D. Kain]

But Dan, your entire post operates under the assumption that you and yours are, in fact, the true heirs to conservatism, and that your definition of conservatism is the only one that has any validity. Don't you risk destroying any possibility of a meaningful coalition under these rules? Wasn't that, beyond anything else, the genius of Reagan - that he was able to build such a strong conservative coalition?

[Mrs. Peperium]

Per:

"I've spent some time listening to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin. It is verboten to criticize any of these men if you consider yourself to be on the right side of the political spectrum, as I do. I'll press on anyway, not only because I enjoy a lively argument, but because these men, though their talent as broadcasters varies widely in the order I've listed them, do similar violence to a healthy public discourse -- and do a particular disservice to the conservatives and libertarians most loyal to them."

To be able to write this, one has to be incredibly ignorant as to how our country actually works - constitutionally. Which doesn't bode well if you claim, as Conor fervently does, to be a serious conservative. Liberals are the ones usually most (willfully) ignorant of the constitution, not conservatives but I digress.

No violence has been done to healthy public discourse by Rush, Mark, Sean et al. They have merely (though no small feat) varied which has strengthened our public discourse. But they've done more than that. To quote Obama, they've actually created robust political debate, Even the Iranian students who are being beaten to death in Iran know how strongly Obama feels about the need for robust political debate.

There has been real violence done to the public discourse - by President Obama Thankfully because Rush, Mark, Sean et al are men - they've stood up to Obama's attempts to silence them. It didn't work with them so now Obama has moved on to FOX news. In his recent interview with John Harwood, he said, "First of all, I've got one television station entirely devoted to attacking my administration."

This would be Fox news, of course.

Entirely devoted to attacking his administration? That's sounds a little self-centered and paranoid there Mr. President. Indeed psychologists would say theuse of strong language like "devoted", "attack" and like Conor's use of 'violence' indicate hostility, if not all out anger. Especially when one has the reputation David Brooks gave him as the reassuring mountain.

In America we enjoy a free press. A free press means fair and balanced. (Hmmn, where have we heard that phrase before?) This means the press can be both critical and approving. And to be this concerned about one cable news network says makes me think the President either cannot handle criticism or has too much free time on his hands.

To be blind to the chilling effect President Obama's personal attacks on radio commentators and a cable news station could have had if Rush. Mark, et al had actually been ignorant of the freedoms granted to us in our constitution, or worse, if they were afraid of Obama, or even far, far worse, if they wanted Obama to like them diminishes greatly Conor's claims of being a serious conservative.

[Dan Riehl]

"But Dan, your entire post operates under the assumption that you and yours are, in fact, the true heirs to conservatism"

Then you've missed important parts of the debate, as that is not what I claim. Some individuals are, perhaps deliberately, mixing political positions with an ideology known as conservatism. The larger umbrella of some theoretical concept of conservatism allows for many points of view. But what is happening is that places like the Atlantic, the NYT's etc are only mostly employing indivduals from the fringe who have no large number of conservatives behind their positions. That misrepresents the political face of conservatism today in what can only be an effort to subvert the actual thing. And many of us will continue to call them on it, as is our right. The ones that go along and take the spots are only doing a disservice to the very thing they claim to represent. For that, they deserve little respect.

[ThomasD]

Dan, I'd like to thank you for doing serious yeomanry against the Conor's of the world.

When these useful idiots - tools of the progressives really - finally start to address their 'concerns' towards those who stand in opposition to true liberty and conservative principles maybe we can welcome their contributions. Until then they remain, to borrow from Orwell, objectively pro-left.

[Rich K]

I think its safe to say most conservative thinkers reach their position for many different roads traveled. I was 21 and saw an interview with a wierd looking lady on Phil Donahue in 1978. After that I bought an obscure book called " The Objectivist Epistomology" which required me digging out a dictionary to get through frankly. From there I watched every episode of "Free to Choose" on PBS.From there it was Heyak, Kant,Hume,Adam Smith,Shumpeter,Mises. Aristotle Etc. I cant even remeber all the time I spent at the library checking out books on these ideas.All the while living my life as an auto mechanic and car nut. But somehow it all fits and I dont regret a minute of the journey