Conor: Useful Idiot

Nah, Conor isn't the least bit interested in undermining the conservative movement and helping out the Left. Yes, Conor will get his house lap dog and faux-conservative slot at some liberal organ in no time, what with him sucking and sucking up so much.

From The New Republic's The Plank:

Conor Friedersdorf Listens to Mark Levin ... so that you don't have to.

Comments

[Rich K]

Dan, Im beginning to think this guy is getting under your skin a bit. But think of it this way. When and if the real conservative movement gets back in a position to actually influence the debate in the political arena guys like conor will be ignored with a silent fury of his own making. And then we can all sit back and laugh and laugh and, Well ,you get my point.

[Dan Riehl]

Thanks, Rich - but, honestly, no - he isn't "under my skin" in that sense. The link above is absolutely necessary to prove precisely what I have been saying and telling Conor and others all along.

He did his bit and said "tone it down." That isn't what TNR made of it. As their own headline says, CF listens to Mark Levin SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO.

And another pundit who is upset that the grassroots is upset with him and whines because we say he isn't one of us does his part to marginalize one of our own, currently on the NYT's best seller list.

It's poetic justice to post it at the end of al this. But Conor can't say he wasn't warned. He has now curried favor with the Left who will embrace him, use him up - and is fast making sure he never finds a home within the conservative grassroots.

Too bad. But I'm not going to lose sleep over it. He's the one who should do that, assuming he really did want the Right to listen to him and take him seriously. It's posts like that at TNR that will do far more to ostracize Conor than anything I have ever said.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Dan,

This post is honestly written, and I think it's a fair disagreement we have. Chris Orr who wrote that post is an intellectually honest guy who criticizes liberals when he thinks they are wrong, and conservatives when he thinks they are wrong. The New Republic as a whole is that kind of magazine. During the 1990s, and the welfare reform debate, you had folks at TNR making the case for reforming that entitlement program. After 9/11, you had Peter Beinart writing as editor, and urging liberals to recapture the fighting faith that they had during the Cold War under Harry Truman.

So though the folks at TNR and I often disagree, I think of them as debating partners who have some mistaken positions but ultimately want what's best for the party -- not as "the Left," an enemy force to be fought with all my might.

I don't know Chris, but I like to think that by reading one another, I am disabused of certain false beliefs that I hold, and the same is true for him.

But perhaps I am wrong. It is difficult to be certain -- but still imperative to act on what you believe to be right.

Good night, and best of luck.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Sorry, that should have read "but ultimately want what's best for the COUNTRY".

[Dan Riehl]

That's fine, Conor. And I'm aware of TNR and their differences with the far Left. But that's also the problem. You say tone it down, TNR says you don'thave to listen and by the time the Lefists pickit up, it'll be - even some conservatives think Levin is a so and so.

If you can live with providing that kind of fodder, certainly I can. But keep it in mind with many conservatives won't be interested in anything you have to say. And they're within their rights to say it. Why ebrace that which you cannot trust to not provide the opposition with their talking points?

I can't argue with that. And you'll only tie yourself in knots to the extent you try.

[Dan Riehl]

By the way, Conor. You claim that you must say what you think. I understand that. But it doesn't explain how wrong your thinking is and why it's impossible to excuse your arrogance. And any logical mind can reason it out.

You specifically addressed your criticism to his "most loyal fans". That's what you wrote. Logic can not explain why his most loyal fans, out of everyone, would be open to your pleading. If they didn't approve of his show, they wouldn't be his "most loyal fans".

Consequently, though you might not like to face it, only arrogance can explain the entire rationale for your posts. One would have to first assume that they can not hear, or think for themselves. And then that, you, Conor, are somehow gifted with some unique intellect that permits you to tell others that the choices they make are bad for them. And that's basically, if not precisely what your argument is.

They have every right to see you as some arrogant ass who thinks he and he alone knows better than the millions of people who are loyal to his show. If you can't understand your own moral failing in that, than, indeed, it is only your ego that could explain that.

I would submit that when people see someone as arrogant, who in certain ways thinks he is better than them, they tend to not like that person very much, let alone take their unsolicited advice. And given that, seriously, only an outsized ego would prevent someone from simply accepting that most people are quite intelligent enough to make their own choices without said persons advice they never asked for, it's all the more reason why some wouldn't like them very much.

I'm not trying to insult you. And you're perfectly free to say, well, no, that's not me. I only want to help. Unfortunately, when analyzed by logic, your actions betray you on that score.

[syn]

If The New Republic is about 'what's best for the country' then how do they explain Scott Beauchamp.

It is one thing to talk about what is best for the country however fabrication is not in America's best interest; it wasn't in America's best interest when NY Times did it with Jason Blair, when Dan Rather did it with forged documents used to attack a sitting President or when winter soldiers hired by The New Republic made up crap stories about American warriors.

If Conor wishes to believe in fabrications that is his choice however do not lecture me about logic, about superior intellect or about 'what's good for the country' when most everything Conor knows is built upon fabrication.

This point is most striking to me, Conor is thoroughly unaware that all he knows is built upon fabrication; how on earth is being under Big Brother's thumb in the country's best interest?

I like Mark Levin because he abhors Big Brother misery as much as I abhor the tyrants; plus, he isn't actively engaged in stealing Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness like the current Smooth-Talking-Bad-Boy-in Chief is doing.

What's the famous Malcolm X quote "If you're not careful the newspapers (including The New Republic) will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing."

[Rob Crawford]

Yep. That's what he does -- gives the left their list of excuses to ignore a multi-week best-selling book. No need to address the arguments, folks, because The Atlantic's token "conservative" has fed you all the ad hominem you'll need to feel smug about ignoring them!

[Jamie Lockett]

Dan,

The entire point of blogging, commentary, punditry is to give ones opinion. If that is the case then everyone, including you, is an arrogant ass. I'm sure you criticize people who have millions of followers every day. You criticized Letterman - are you saying that the millions who find his show funny are wrong? You criticize Andrew Sullivan (rightly so) and he has millions of readers in his various formats. The only difference I can see between your criticism and Conor's is that you think Mark Levin is right and the others you criticize wrong, and for the most part you're right in your criticism. However, by your own metric, this makes you just as much an offender as Conor.

Please stop using "arrogance" as a mask for disagreement over personal preferences.

[Ran]

Heh. My first subscription here in the US was to TNR. Sully was at the helm then. Used to like his ideas. I drifted from TNR as I found that I was becoming less enamored of the idea of Government as the solution to the majority of the problems of the human condition. TNR was reasoned, though it was anything but libertarian in bias.

Here's my problem with Conor's position, and Frums, and the majority of quasi-conservatives: I don't give a damn what people thing is best "for the country." I care only for what is best for the individual's freedom and the maintenance of the Constitution that protects it. The "country" will take care of itself if people are unshackled to take care of themselves, for the most part. His original mention of "party" was an illustrative Freudian slip, and the recovery even more so. There are a lot of "conservatives" stuck in macro group-identity politics. They, to a man, devolve into elitists and statists, unless they make the quantum leap to an understanding of the absolute primacy of individualism. [It becomes total rot if they're in the D.C area.]

Examine the notion of Mark's "loyal fans." CR^P! "Loyal." Heh. Mark is a rude jerk whom I do not personally like in the least nor whom I'd want to befriend. Some "fan." That said, I tolerate his style for the message. Mark delivers clear notes on freedom, the rights and responsibilities of the individual, the separation of powers, the nature of the corrupting influence of centralized power - his understanding of the Constitution is second to none. Mark has unrivaled clarity of the situation. He's made the quantum leap.

"This post is honestly written, [Grasshopper.]" F^ck?! How to win friends and influence people.

[Tom Meyer]

So Dan:

What I'm gathering from this is that Mark Levin can't be criticized by anyone on the right because he's -- you know -- REALLY popular and, therefore, important and correct. And even if he COULD be criticized by a (faux) conservative, he shouldn't be, because that might provide fodder to liberals.

That's a damn healthy attitude you've got there. It's too bad Eric Hoffer is dead, because you and your fanboys would make for some great interviews.

[Dan Riehl]

Oh, I see, Jamie, blogging "is to give ones opinion".

Just not mine, if Jamie disagrees with it. Do you even think about what you write, or does it roll-off a teletype machine from the DNC?

Epic fail with that one, dude. Try again. But don't think too hard, you might make a mess in your pants. You do wear those, yes?

[Dan Riehl]

"What I'm gathering"

Maybe therein lies the problem, Tom. You're a gatherer and I'm a hunter and the two just don't seem to get along.

Eat meat, we'll all be better off.

[Jamie Lockett]

Did I ever, at any point, say that you shouldn't give your opinion? Way to actually read what I wrote.

[Jamie Lockett]

Dan,

What the hell does your response to Tom even mean? Its not even an answer its some sort of opaque glib pun.

[templar knight]

Uh, no, Tom, it's when you become the useful idiot to the "liberals". My interpretation of Dan's criticism of Conor can be summed up by Conor allowing himself to be used by liberals to bash conservatives as he(Conor)plays the faux game of conservative spokesperson. Conor is not a conservative, at least not in the historical sense, i.e. limited government, low levels of taxation, individual rights, etc.

Perhaps Conor is a libertarian in some sense of the word, although I think most libertarians would disagree with his position on government, but nonetheless he would at least be more honest by depicting himself that way, rather than claiming to be a conservative. Of course, that conservative claim will allow him to make some money, which is probably what Conor was trying to do in the first place.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Dan,

I too am puzzled by your point about arrogance -- as Jaime wrote, you criticize public figures just like I do, and presumably you hope through your arguments to convince people to change their opinions about those figures. You assert that I have a low opinion of Mr. Levin's listeners, but that's not true -- I simply think they haven't realized the ways in which particular aspects of his show are damaging to public discourse and conservatism. By advancing arguments they've never seen before I hope to convince them.

It is also rather strange to be accused of arrogance for criticizing a talk radio host for whom extreme arrogance is an ongoing schtick -- the whole "thank me" routine, the constant references to "back benchers," etc.

[Jamie Lockett]

Templar,

It is quite obvious you have never read a single thing Conor has posted on this site let alone anything he's ever written. Everything you listed is something he champions regularily - even Dan admits that.

[Tom Meyer]

"Conor is not a conservative, at least not in the historical sense, i.e. limited government, low levels of taxation, individual rights, etc. Perhaps Conor is a libertarian in some sense of the word, although I think most libertarians would disagree with his position on government, but nonetheless he would at least be more honest by depicting himself that way, rather than claiming to be a conservative."

I'd be deeply curious to know how you come to those conclusions. Could you point me to something Conor's written that backs them up?

[Mike2Cents]

"But don't think too hard, you might make a mess in your pants. You do wear those, yes?"

Jaysus, are you serious??
Try taking a breath and re-reading before you post.
or count backwards from 10 or something.

And try and retire the "Levin is popular" line...it's tired and pointless to the argument some are trying to have.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Templar Knight writes: "My interpretation of Dan's criticism of Conor can be summed up by Conor allowing himself to be used by liberals to bash conservatives as he(Conor)plays the faux game of conservative spokesperson."

I am not a movement spokesman, nor do I cast myself as one, or ever desire to be one. I am a writer whose primary goal is to produce good work. And I happen to be conservative. This does not mean I have a burden to calculate my every utterance according to whether or not it helps or harms the cause. That is the job of political operatives and propagandists. I understand there is a desire among some conservatives for every writer on the right to effectively be those things. But I reject that.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"This does not mean I have a burden to calculate my every utterance according to whether or not it helps or harms the cause."

But you insist that Mark Levin, Dan Riehl, and everyone else calculate theirs because otherwise it "harms the cause".

Meanwhile, Conor, your "truth to power" claim was shot the minute you tied yourself into a pale imitation of the Gordian knot trying to support your friend Andrew Sullivan and his hate campaign against Sarah Palin. If you had an ounce of spine or principles, you would condemn Sullivan. But you don't. Instead you attack Mark Levin like a good little lapdog because that pleases your masters at the Atlantic.

[Tom Meyer]

"Meanwhile, Conor, your "truth to power" claim was shot the minute you tied yourself into a pale imitation of the Gordian knot trying to support your friend Andrew Sullivan and his hate campaign against Sarah Palin. If you had an ounce of spine or principles, you would condemn Sullivan."

For the record, I think this is a very fair point against Conor. I'm not a particular fan of Palin, but Sullivan's fixation on her pregnancy has been repulsive and should be condemned. And while I'm generally forgiving to Obamacons (though I think they were gravely mistaken), it's impossible to square Sullivan's unrestrained enthusiasm for Obama with his claims of being a conservative.

[Jamie Lockett]

Agreed, Tom.

[mike farmer]

Since everyone is potentially wrong, and no one coordinates their attire to perfection, it's obviously true that conservative qua BigBallism is not consistent with Conor's anti-love that Levin castes aside with astronomical sales, then Big Dopes him, but Dan's thin wall, barely holding back a barrage of real stupid, is no match for an elitism not entirely evident although properly marketed.

I hope this clears things up.(all in name of Coreyism and fun)

[Conor Friedersdorf]

"For the record, I think this is a very fair point against Conor."

That's nonsense. I've said repeatedly that I think Andrew was wrong about Sarah Palin's pregnancy, just as I've said that Mark Levin is wrong about the various excerpts I've talked about. The difference is that criticism of Mr. Levin leads to cries of heretic and being attacked for days on end. Whereas Andrew printed numerous dissents of the day criticizing his handling of the Palin case on his own blog, and encouraged his assistant, Patrick Appel, to write an entry on his blog taking issue with how Andrew handled that matter.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

North Dallas Thirty: "Meanwhile, Conor, your "truth to power" claim was shot the minute you tied yourself into a pale imitation of the Gordian knot trying to support your friend Andrew Sullivan and his hate campaign against Sarah Palin."

Could you please site the place where I supposedly tied myself into that knot? To what piece of writing do you refer?

[templar knight]

I'm totally confused now, Conor, as you painted yourself as a conservolibertarian(which is hardly a mainstream conservative) in other articles. As for you being a spokeman for conservatives, I reject your answer, as you are now a de-facto conservative spokesman for the Left. That may or may not be your intention, I don't know your particular reasons for doing what you do, other than money. You have to make a living, I don't blame you for that at all. And I don't mean to be harsh in any way, form or fashion, it's just difficult listening to you criticize conservatives for a liberal audience.

I have seen where you depict yourself as a worldly, non-religious, pro-environmental conservative, which leads me to wonder whether you have spent way too much time on the East and West Coasts.

Oh, well, I have been guilty in my life of painting with too broad a brush, Tom and Jaimy, so let's just leave it at that.

[Rich K]

You must have one big bowl of candy here attracting Conor and Friends Dan. And I would think he would and should spend more time writing all those great articles at the Atlantic and less time whining about you here.But Im just offering an opinion so what do I know?

[Scott]

Congratulations Conor! You've made Mark's "The World's Most Deranged Bloggers" page. BWAHAHAHAHA!

http://marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=33180

[Conor Friedersdorf]

"I'm totally confused now, Conor, as you painted yourself as a conservo-libertarian(which is hardly a mainstream conservative) in other articles."

I'm not sure how you're defining "mainstream conservative."

"As for you being a spokesman for conservatives, I reject your answer, as you are now a de-facto conservative spokesman for the Left."

Actually, the Left, insofar as a whole side of the political spectrum can be said to have a political strategy, has been trying its damndest to make Rush Limbaugh the right's spokesperson, and conservatives have been cooperating.

"That may or may not be your intention, I don't know your particular reasons for doing what you do, other than money."

It would be far easier, were I writing for money, to shut up whenever I disagreed with the movement and get on its gravy train.

"I have seen where you depict yourself as a worldly, non-religious, pro-environmental conservative, which leads me to wonder whether you have spent way too much time on the East and West Coasts."

The worldly line has been taken out of context. I offered it as a contrast with Rod Dreher, to make the point that while he wonders if conservatives should cloister themselves in monasteries, I think they ought to be engaged with the world. And yes, I'm not particularly religious, though I was raised Catholic in parochial schools, and I am for conserving the environment.

And that has what do to with living on the Coasts? Are you anti-environment?

[North Dallas Thirty]

"I've said repeatedly that I think Andrew was wrong about Sarah Palin's pregnancy, just as I've said that Mark Levin is wrong about the various excerpts I've talked about."

Good. Then you should have no trouble citing and linking to specific examples on your blogs, including on the Atlantic, where you call out Andrew specifically in exactly the same way you have Mark Levin.

"Could you please site the place where I supposedly tied myself into that knot? To what piece of writing do you refer?"

With pleasure.

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/06/dumb-dishonest-or-disturbed.html?cid=6a00d83451c1db69e20115703ff50b970c#comment-6a00d83451c1db69e20115703ff50b970c

What was really funny was the claim that Andrew's having his own assistant write a blog post tepidly disagreeing with him was intellectually honest. By that logic, if a boss can get a secretary whose job is dependent on said boss to write a letter exonerating said boss of any crimes, that is complete and truthful.

What seals it is your desperate attempt to support Andrew Sullivan's incoherent rants about Jews causing the unrest in Iran that follows.

The reason you do it is understandable, puppet; you need Andrew's approval, and more importantly, if Andrew doesn't like you, you're out of a job. So out go your conservative principles and in comes spin-boy Conor, making sure that Andrew has a "fellow conservative" always there to mop up his messes and blame everyone else for Andrew's problems.

[Jamie Lockett]

ND30,

You sometimes make valid points that then devolve into the worst kind of conspiracy theorizing. Why would Conor's job be dependent on another employee's approval? That's like saying my job is dependent on a co-worker liking me. Andrew isn't Conor's boss.

[Mrs. Peperium]

Dan, maybe a regular column at RW called, "Reading Conor Friedersdorf So You Don't Have To" is in order?

[Conor Friedersdorf]

North Dallas Thirty,

Unfortunately, the owners of Culture11 stopped paying for the server space, and the blog is no longer online, but I was writing there at the time of the Sarah Palin events, and although I generally opposed her candidacy -- I though McCain should have chosen someone with more (and by that I mean any) foreign policy experience -- I noted at the time that I thought her pregnancy was legit, and that Andrew was wrong to think otherwise.

Also, in the link you provide, I say (again) that Andrew was wrong about the Palin pregnancy, but that I generally respect his practice of allowing dissent on his blog, and I believe it helps mitigate the mistakes he sometimes makes.

[Dan Riehl]

"all those great articles at the Atlantic"

You mean like asking Glenn Reynolds a few questions in email and then breaking it into two parts to generate two links to get noticed? Gawd, it was so obvious, even Glenn had to note his puzzlement.

Conor will do for himself what he has helped the Left try to do with Mark's show - he will continue to reveal himself until most simply dismiss him as a pompous, egomaniacal, light-weight.

It's a shame, really - particularly as it has a socio-pathic quality to it. It's so glaringly obvious to others, but he just can't see it. This one will be fun to watch. In no time at all, he'll be mapping the menstrual cycles of Sarah Palin and documenting some non-pregancy pregnancy for all to see.

They should alter his blog banner. All the lunacy of of Andrew Sullivan without the intellectual meat - the diet for the emerging post-modernist conservative movement that wasn't.

Shame, really, in a way.

[Dan Riehl]

"maybe a regular column at RW"

God forbid, I'd end up hacking my eyes out with a Sharpie. Though I'm sure to come across his writing if someone I read takes notice and blogs on it.

[templar knight]

"Are you anti-environmental?"

Uh, no, but I am against the pro-environmental excesses that exist on the coasts, such as no drilling for oil. All the conservatives I know wish for both coasts, and the Alaskan coast for that matter, to be opened up for drilling. Do you support drilling for oil on the East and West coasts?

"Actually, the Left...has been doing its damndest to make Rush Limbaugh the Right's spokesman...."

And your point is? My objection was based on the fact that you have been used by the Left. Your criticism of fellow conservatives is the story here, not Rush's rhetoric. You said in another post that you didn't want Rush silenced only because it would allow someone even worse to step into his place. Didn't you say that, or am I mistaken? Again, you have become a tool of the Left, and as a conservative, you ought to reject opportunities to criticize your fellow conservatives for a liberal audience. I use the Huffington Post as an example.

But, of course, the bottom line here is that I do this for a hobby and for fun, and you propose to be a journalist. Once upon a time I was the managing editor of a small daily, and what passes as journalism today would give my publisher a heart attack if he were still alive, so I suppose you are somewhat a product of your education, which is soaked with liberal indoctrination these days, so for you to even consider yourself a conservative is somewhat of a win for our side. Lol. Good day.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

"This one will be fun to watch."

So let's say that I were a sociopath -- you'd find that "fun" to watch?

[Dan Riehl]

For the record, any comments appearing late but ultimately in place in the order are not being held up by me. The spam filter has been catching things up it shouldn't including my own. I click in and liberate them from time to time. Not much I can do really. If the spam was let through we'd all be wearing Nikes and taking percocet and codeine until we passed out.

[Scott]

Um, Conor, you seem like an obsessed stalker, to me.

[syn]

"non-religious, pro-environmental"

Since Environmentalism is a man-made religion then by default an Environmentalist is religious; deeply and faithfully so.

[Rob Crawford]

What a pity that Conor's not taking the time to write something like "behind the shtick, Levin has much to say..." and following that with a capsule summary of "Liberty and Tyrrany". That'd be a heck of a way to get the ideas out to an audience that would otherwise ignore them.

Of course, with Conor claiming it's not his goal to promote conservative ideas, that makes his "I'm just trying to point out how Levin's tone damages the spread of conservative ideas" line smell a heck of a lot like bullshit.

(I'm also bemused by the idea that conservative ideas are harmed by being spoken by irritating characters, yet the frauds, thugs, and bald-faced liars on the left never seem to do damage to THEIR ideas. In fact, we rarely get the barest glimpse of who pushes their ideas. Weird.

That's another area a conservative writer could, I think, get some traction with: "where did liberal ideas and language come from". Of course, I doubt there'd be a market for that at The Atlantic...)

[Scott]

Excellent point, Rob!

[North Dallas Thirty]

"Why would Conor's job be dependent on another employee's approval?"

Because Andrew Sullivan is far more useful to the Atlantic than Conor is.

Conor is little more than a yes-man that the Atlantic has hired to provide an acceptably-malleable and controllable "conservative" viewpoint. However, if he were to actually criticize the behavior of liberals and moonbats like Sully, that would turn off their readership, and he'd be out on his ear in a heartbeat, replaced by another pseudo like Meghan McCain.

What people forget is that Culture11 and the other leftist sites for which Conor has written were based on a flawed premise: namely, that conservatives will be better served by changing their principles in line with a "culture" whose principles are antithetical to conservativism.

The irony is that Conor points to Tom Wolfe as an example of what he wants to be. If Tom Wolfe were writing today, Conor would be shrieking about how "mean" Wolfe was and how his rhetoric was "damaging the conservative movement".

http://nymag.com/news/features/46170/

[Conor Friedersdorf]

"If Tom Wolfe were writing today, Conor would be shrieking about how "mean" Wolfe was and how his rhetoric was "damaging the conservative movement"."

Tom Wolfe IS writing today.

[templar knight]

Conor, I really wish you would address Rob's points. He has encapsulated many on the right's thoughts in his comment, and I would really appreciate it if you would respond to them.

[seekeronos]

Coner = false flag conservative paper tiger, a lightweight, a piece of flotsam to help liberal coast-dwellers to feel good about themselves for having "open minds" to engage "conervative" opinions like his and Frum and Dreher and MilkyLoads Sullivan.

Mark Levin = a very rude jerk who makes some very good points in defense of liberty and small government. I'll not likely have him over for tea and crumpets, but he does make sense (in between suggesting that the spouses of his callers with whom he disagrees with ought to shoot themselves).

Damage to the Movement? Well, we'll hear what we want to hear, and to the degree that we can separate rhetoric from bombast from genuine good exposition of what liberty is and how we can keep it in the face of rulers who are ever increasingly evil, statist, and socialist ... we shall also know the works of those who write fluff and those who pontificate their concept of "conservatism" from their vaulted ivory towers.

[Jamie Lockett]

Culture11 that leftist site founded by that unrepentant Marxist Bill Bennett?

[North Dallas Thirty]

Oh, and one other thing; did anyone else notice how Andrew Sullivan was gushing over his "Dish alum", Conor?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/young-conservat.html

Now what exactly was puppet boy Conor doing for Andrew Sullivan, pray tell?